• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

California Lowers the Penalty for Knowingly Exposing Someone to HIV

Recommended Posts

Emn1ty    4,089
19 hours ago, Fulcrum said:

Why is there a gun pointed at you in the first place! Did you walk into a bank robbery, or someone yelled "Shots fired" and you followed the cry into an alley. The gun analogy doesn't work here, because people don't knowingly put themselves in harms way of a firearm (usually), It's nothing like intentionally soliciting a sex worker for sex.


If you engage in sex with a partner of whom you have not personally seen their HIV test results, you have a risk of contracting the HIV virus. You know you are putting yourself in a risky situation. I am simply saying, that most people are not at all affected by this bill. It's primarily promiscuous ones.

People don't knowingly put themselves in a position to get HIV. I have no idea what you are talking about with "knowingly soliciting a sex worker for sex". Prostitution is illegal in pretty much the entirety of the  United States.


Your argument here is no different than abstinence as birth control. If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex! If you don't want HIV, don't have sex! Yeah... great solution. Your argument that most people aren't affected by this bill is moot, because most people aren't who this bill protects. The vast majority of people don't have HIV, so it's not a surprise that most people don't think to check for it. The responsibility should be on the carrier to warn their partner of the issue; just as an Uber driver should warn you that he has a flat tire or a health hazard in the car before you ride with them.


Could you imagine if people didn't disclose health risks in other situations? Restaurants not putting signs up that say they have cancer causing products in their store? Not having to put up food quality signs in windows so people know how clean the restaurant is? Do you realize that when it comes to health it's 99% of the time a disclose before interaction scenario? Why is this somehow different?

19 hours ago, Fulcrum said:

Negligence is a charge that can be levied on either a defendant and/or plaintiff. If you are walking downtown and you see rocks falling from a building, and you still walk underneath, are you really going to sue when a rock hits you? You can't sue a doctor if you didn't take the medication on the advised schedule, or had checkups on the advised schedule.


Reasonable care is expected..

When I go to work in the high-rise I work at and there's people cleaning the windows, they block off the area immediately below them with cones and caution tape. They also put up signs say, "Caution: Workers Above." so that you know they are there and there is the potential for something to fall beneath them. In your scenario which I highlighted, for it to be similarly to the one regarding this bill they'd have had to fail to put up the signage at all to indicate that there was a potential for rocks to fall at all. The idea that people would even expect rocks to fall from a building is already laughable in and of itself (since when do rocks fall from buildings in the first place?) but in any properly kept construction or maintenance site there is warning signage literally everywhere.


You're asking that the caution signage not be a requirement, and that the liability for not properly warning passers by of the dangers should be removed.

19 hours ago, Fulcrum said:

If you want measures to better protect people from having promiscuous sex and risking HIV infection

1) Legalize then regulate sex worker industry to enforce mandatory HIV testing*

2) (Education) Raise awareness about the HIV virus and other potential infections and how to avoid them


* In countries where prostitution is legal, sex work is regulated with mandatory checkups. Here we have a black hole where an unregulated industry is vulnerable to infection and afraid to get tested due to threat of incarceration.

1) No. Prostution doesn't need to be legal to solve this problem. That is taking a sledgehammer to bolt. It's like saying you should legalize pot to cure depression. Instead, we could simply have a disclosure policy which has repercussions for those who don't. Enforce responsibility. The same reason we don't legalize running red lights to solve the running red lights problem. You write tickets.


2) We already do this, but this doesn't prevent people from not telling others they have HIV.


* This doesn't really mean anything, because you haven't demonstrated that there's a significant difference in the amount of HIV transfer simply because of a regulated industry. Also, you won't have to worry about be jailed if you tell your partners beforehand so...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.