Should HIV testing be a private issue?

[Tgump]

Yes, but if you keep it from happening on accident, it will stop it as a whole. I find it for the betterment.
Privacy < Life.

You missed his point. Why violate the privacy and free will of millions of innocents to catch one or two 'criminals'?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Yes, but if you keep it from happening on accident, it will stop it as a whole. I find it for the betterment.
Privacy < Life.

But there is still a proble [FONT=&quot]m[/FONT]: You are still violating the rights of everybody to find a few cri [FONT=&quot]m[/FONT]inals. Can your "greater good" train of thought be followed to all conclusions?

I was being sarcastic to his sarcasm, if his was sarcasm in the first place.

Oh, I see.

 

[WindWallks]

i think only way to know answer to this question, you have to ask yourself:
What if i have HIV and how will other people react if they find it out..

defenately i agree that you should tell it to your parter... or just always use condom!

 

[The Riddler_]

You missed his point. Why violate the privacy and free will of millions of innocents to catch one or two 'criminals'?

The main infectors are involuntary, and aren't knowing they are infected. If you find out who has it, and they in-turn infect someone without them consenting, they can be sued. Which will in the future, lessen the numbers of people with the disease.

But there is still a proble [FONT=&quot]m[/FONT]: You are still violating the rights of everybody to find a few cri [FONT=&quot]m[/FONT]inals. Can your "greater good" train of thought be followed to all conclusions?



Oh, I see.

Mainly, they aren't criminals. And yes, it could be concluded, because with the ending product, a disease free people, is worth it to void people of privacy that will affect many.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Mainly, they aren't criminals. And yes, it could be concluded, because with the ending product, a disease free people, is worth it to void people of privacy that will affect many.

What I am trying to ask you is whether the "greater good" is always the best solution. That is the argument that you are using here.

 

[The Riddler_]

What I am trying to ask you is whether the "greater good" is always the best solution. That is the argument that you are using here.

In most cases, it is the best solution.

But in this particular case, it is.

 

[Shredderbeam]

In most cases, it is the best solution.

But in this particular case, it is.

Ok. We should also force all people to wear masks when outside to prevent airborne infections. We should make it mandatory for everybody to wash their hands with soap and hot water three times a day to help prevent spreading contaminants. Everybody should be fitted with a tracking chip that monitors their every move, just in case. The greater good should be written into the lawbooks.

 

[The Riddler_]

Ok. We should also force all people to wear masks when outside to prevent airborne infections. We should make it mandatory for everybody to wash their hands with soap and hot water three times a day to help prevent spreading contaminants. Everybody should be fitted with a tracking chip that monitors their every move, just in case. The greater good should be written into the lawbooks.

It doesn't mean to be paranoid with viruses. It's to lessen a disease greatly by taking few precautions with very little social uproar(or should). It's nothing to be defensive about. You don't know if you'll infect someone without even knowing.

I also said in many, and not in all.

 

[Al3xandre]

I'm sure alot of people don't even know that they got HIV. Especialy yong people. And people that got HIV usualy never tell others / partner that they got it.

Alex~

 

[The Riddler_]

I think it's a private issue. It's your body, and I feel that no one can force you to be tested on if you don't want to.

So if someone planted a bomb inside of themselves, and walked inside of a building, is it ok for them to detinate it because it's their body?

Using that saying doesn't work in all cases you do know that?

If someone is concerned that someone has HIV, surely they can either:

- Abstain from sex with the person
- Use a condom

Herpes can't be prevented by condoms.

 

[Shredderbeam]

It doesn't mean to be paranoid with viruses. It's to lessen a disease greatly by taking few precautions with very little social uproar(or should). It's nothing to be defensive about. You don't know if you'll infect someone without even knowing.

What I am defensive about is that you are proclaiming some people to have the authority to forcibly test others for a virus. Why do these people have that authority, while others don't?

Little social uproar? You will forcibly test the entire population and there will be little social uproar?

I also said in many, and not in all.

Well what's your method of determining when the end justifies the means?

Herpes can't be prevented by condoms.

Herpes can be prevented by condoms. Skin-to-skin contact is what allows it to spread.

 

[The Riddler_]

Herpes can be prevented by condoms. Skin-to-skin contact is what allows it to spread.

I doubt during sex only the tip touches.

What I am defensive about is that you are proclaiming some people to have the authority to forcibly test others for a virus. Why do these people have that authority, while others don't?

Why do cops have the authority to make arrest?

Little social uproar? You will forcibly test the entire population and there will be little social uproar?

I said it shouldn't.

If the government asked me to take a test for STD's I wouldn't see a reason in not doing it other than being selfish and saying it's my problem, but if you infect someone else, it's their problem too.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

Why do cops have the authority to make arrest?

Generally because the person has committed a crime, or is suspected of doing so.

If the government asked me to take a test for STD's I wouldn't see a reason in not doing it other than being selfish and saying it's my problem

Or because you don't see any reason why they should make you take a test.

, but if you infect someone else, it's their problem too.

Agreed, which is why I say it is no different than assault.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I doubt during sex only the tip touches.

A condom covers the entire penis.

Why do cops have the authority to make arrest?

The police have the authority to apprehend an individual who is harming somebody, or whom they reasonably believe is about to harm somebody. As far as I can tell, those are the only two occasions when they should be allowed to arrest.

I said it shouldn't.

If the government asked me to take a test for STD's I wouldn't see a reason in not doing it other than being selfish and saying it's my problem, but if you infect someone else, it's their problem too.

I have a good reason: I don't want to leave my home and go to a center where they test my blood and make me wait for hours. I haven't done anything wrong, and it is none of their business.

Knowingly infecting somebody else is no different to assaulting them. Unknowingly infecting somebody else is no different to reckless behavior that get somebody critically injured. Why not deal with those two situations as they are normally dealt with?

 

[FreedomFight]

Unknowingly infecting somebody else is no different to reckless behavior that get somebody critically injured. Why not deal with those two situations as they are normally dealt with?

So you would make it a crime to "unknowingly" infect someone? You would distinguish between "knowingly" and "unknowingly"?

 

[The Riddler_]

A condom covers the entire penis.

Herpes can be transferred from pelvic areas too, not always the penis/vagina directly.

The police have the authority to apprehend an individual who is harming somebody, or whom they reasonably believe is about to harm somebody. As far as I can tell, those are the only two occasions when they should be allowed to arrest.

So what's the difference from the government doing preventative actions to save people from something they have no way of knowing?

I have a good reason: I don't want to leave my home and go to a center where they test my blood and make me wait for hours. I haven't done anything wrong, and it is none of their business.

So it's lazyness that will affect you to know something that could change your life?

Knowingly infecting somebody else is no different to assaulting them. Unknowingly infecting somebody else is no different to reckless behavior that get somebody critically injured. Why not deal with those two situations as they are normally dealt with?

But if everyone gets tested, there won't be an uninformed person will there? And I think, if someone knows they have an STD, and the person who received didn't get the response from the host that they had it. Then they can be criminally pursued. Which will, in the future, lessen infections.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So you would make it a crime to "unknowingly" infect someone? You would distinguish between "knowingly" and "unknowingly"?

I was thinking along the lines of reckless behavior that endangers others, but I suppose that in sex, both parties share some of the risk, and given that there isn't a realistic way to gauge whether a person has been behaving recklessly, it would be difficult to convict somebody.

 

[The Riddler_]

We're not discussing herpes though, are we?

Condoms have a 12% fail rate. Is that better for you?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Herpes can be transferred from pelvic areas too, not always the penis/vagina directly.

It can be, but presumably at a much lower rate.

So what's the difference from the government doing preventative actions to save people from something they have no way of knowing?

An individual can not be reasonably expected to harm somebody else.

So it's lazyness that will affect you to know something that could change your life?

If I was at risk for AIDS, and the test was free, I might go along with you - but I'm not at risk for AIDS.

But if everyone gets tested, there won't be an uninformed person will there? And I think, if someone knows they have an STD, and the person who received didn't get the response from the host that they had it. Then they can be criminally pursued. Which will, in the future, lessen infections.

If others want to have sex not knowing whether their partners have STD's, it's really their decision.

 

[The Riddler_]

It can be, but presumably at a much lower rate.

Meh.

An individual can not be reasonably expected to harm somebody else.

It happens too much not to assume it.

If I was at risk for AIDS, and the test was free, I might go along with you - but I'm not at risk for AIDS.

Only if you weren't sexually active.

If others want to have sex not knowing whether their partners have STD's, it's really their decision.

They take a chance. If they lose, it will be more than taking a few prescriptions.