BaronSilasGreenback #moonbat

BaronSilasGreenback #moonbat community.babycenter.com

. Grocery store worker may have infected 300 people with HIV, prosecutor says

I have a hard time thinking it is okay to charge someone for assault/attempted murder because they have a disease and raise your risk of infection due to mutually risky behavior simply because they didn't tell you about it.
The act of contracting HIV is not criminal so why would it be criminal if one of the partners has ill intent?

And what is up with the obsession with HIV? How about hepatitis? Do you think that person on the airplane a few years ago that knowingly exposed and thereby infected people with a rare form of resitent TB should be charged? Do you think the way Typhoid Mary was treated is appropriate? Until the discourse about charging sick people with assault/attempted murder stops centering around HIV I can't believe it is anything but hysteria specific to that disease.

9 comments

The act of contracting HIV is not criminal so why would it be criminal if one of the partners has ill intent?

Uh, I think that last word is the key….intent.

“And what is up with the obsession with HIV?” Uh, because up until recently it was a slow agonizing death sentence, and still can be if you do not or cannot take your cocktail of medication regularly?

“How about hepatitis?” Yes, you should absolutely be required to inform your partner that you have one of the sexually-transmitted variants of hep.

“Do you think that person on the airplane a few years ago that knowingly exposed and thereby infected people with a rare form of resitent TB should be charged?” Do you mean resistant? Also, YES. ‘Knowingly’ is the issue here! Stop getting people sick on purpose, you could cause deaths!

“Do you think the way Typhoid Mary was treated is appropriate?” Yes, and no. Her situation is tragic because at that time there were no available antibiotics to treat the infection, gallbladder removal was frequently a death sentence, and taking jobs that offered less risk of spreading the infection to vulnerable people ALSO meant losing out on a majority of her income, leaving her well below the poverty line. She had no choice but to keep working as a cook, BUT that doesn’t mean that the government was wrong to forcibly isolate her. She caused numerous illnesses and at least 3 but perhaps up to 50 deaths. You cannot go around knowingly acting as a plague vector in the name of personal freedoms. Luckily, modern technology and medical advancements have made it a) much easier to know if someone is ill, b) much easier to treat most illnesses. If we would add a way to ensure that someone who must be isolated for the good of others could still earn a decent living (perhaps via universal basic income???), another Typhoid Mary situation could be avoided.

What century are you living in? The problem is not HIV anymore (which of course still exists), the problem is COVID. The difference is, it’s much easier to transmit that than a STD.

All the same, not disclosing your HIV+ status to a sexual partner, gay or straight, is still a crime and still should be a crime.

It’s like the others said a matter of intent that’s why there is the seperation of manslaughter and murder. Because it’s important if you wanted to do others harm or were even aware of that possibility or not.

Anyone who knowingly attempts to infect someone else with any kind of serious disease should face consequences for it, yes.

The act of contracting HIV is not criminal so why would it be criminal if one of the partners has ill intent?

So basically... things should only be criminal if the act of being victimized in that way is also criminal? Like in the case of rape, it should only be illegal if we can also arrest the victim for being raped?

The act of contracting a disease isn’t criminal for the same reasons that being raped or murdered isn’t. It’s not something the victim has much choice or control over. But when you have a disease and knowingly spread it, at that point you are in control of your actions and you are making the choice to cause harm.

Except transmitting HIV is a bit more... "hands on".

And what is up with the obsession with HIV?

Between the mortality and the absence of any permanent cure: I can understand why criminal HIV transmission statutes have been enacted.

And the same thing occured with other deadly diseases: someone with drug-resistant TB got locked up after he went shopping without any mask.

Do you think the way Typhoid Mary was treated is appropriate?

When you go around spreading deadly diseases then I can udnerstand the state wanting to lock her. And at least, unlike you, she could claim to having to earn her livelihood.

Jesus fucking Christ ,how callous can you be !!?!

BaronSilasGreenback #moonbat community.babycenter.com

9 comments

Confused?