HAMER%VCUVAX.BITNET@oac.ucla.edu (ROBERT M. HAMER) (10/02/89)
uvm-gen!jay@banzai.PCC.COM (Jay Schuster) writes: >It seems to me that you can't be ``infected'' unless you let yourself >be infected. People who worry about others who go around ``infecting'' >people seem to me to be the ones who aren't changing their sexual >habits because of AIDS. > >These are the people to worry about, to be locked up. > >*Everyone* is a carrier of HIV. Or at least, that's what you should >be thinking when you are having sex with someone. And you shouldn't >change your behavior when they tell you they are negative. I have no reason to assume "Everyone" is a carrier of HIV. I am married, and have been for quite a long while. I trust my wife not to have extramarital sex, and she trusts me. Neither of us has had a blood transfusion. I have no reason to assume she is a potential HIV carrier. > >It's your life. No one is forcing you to have sex with this person. >If you catch AIDS from them, I think it's pretty much your problem, >not theirs. This is pretty offensive, selfish, and harmful. Fortunately, most people these days know better. This is analogous to saying that women who get raped because they were dumb enough to walk down a deserted street deserve it, and the rapist is not guilty of any crime. It's like saying that a mugger is guilty of no crime because the person being mugged placed himself in a situation in which he was available to be mugged. Stupidity is not a capital crime in our society.
Hoffman.es@XEROX.COM (10/05/89)
This message was originally submitted by Hoffman.es@XEROX.COM to the AIDS list at RUTVM1. If you simply forward it back to the list, it will be distributed with the paragraph you are now reading being automatically removed. If you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will need to remove this paragraph before mailing the result to the list. Finally, if you need more information from the author of this message, you should be able to do so by simply replying to this note. ----------------- Message requiring your approval (30 lines) ------------------ Several people have objected to Jay Schuster's answers, wherein he laid the responsibility on EVERYONE, not just someone who is infected. I must strongly agree with Jay Schuster. OK, so he should have inserted the word "new" in this paragraph: >*Everyone* is a carrier of HIV. Or at least, that's what you should >be thinking when you are having sex with someone NEW. And you shouldn't >change your behavior when they tell you they are negative. Then married folks with trustworthy spouses, like Robert Hamer (in article 1288) won't get so offended, I hope. Schuster goes on to say that "No one is forcing you to have sex with this person. If you catch AIDS from them, I think it's pretty much your problem, not theirs." OK, so he should have left off the last two words. It's obviously a terrible problem now for both people. Sure, the infected person ought to be held accountable for his/her behavior. But that does NOT mean that you, if you are UNINFECTED, are blameless if you become infected through risky sexual behavior. The situation is NOT "analogous to [blaming] women who get raped because they were dumb enough to walk down a deserted street ...." (quote from Hamer). Sex is generally more consequential than walking. The better analogy here is to a woman who becomes pregnant when she doesn't want to. Whose fault is it? Both parties, I would say. -- Rodney Hoffman
bradr@bartok.Eng.Sun.COM (Brad Rubenstein) (10/05/89)
In article <27676@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> HAMER%VCUVAX.BITNET@oac.ucla.edu (ROBERT M. HAMER) writes: >>It's your life. No one is forcing you to have sex with this person. >>If you catch AIDS from them, I think it's pretty much your problem, >>not theirs. > >This is pretty offensive, selfish, and harmful. Fortunately, most people >these days know better. This is analogous to saying that women who get >raped because they were dumb enough to walk down a deserted street deserve >it, and the rapist is not guilty of any crime. It's like saying that >a mugger is guilty of no crime because the person being mugged placed >himself in a situation in which he was available to be mugged. > >Stupidity is not a capital crime in our society. By calling stupidity a "capital crime", you imply that there is a criminal who has to be punished by society. People die of stupidity all the time. Let's talk about how consenting to unsafe sex is any different than consenting to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Offhand, I see no difference, and no criminal to be punished (except perhaps the motorcycle crash victim who is using my tax dollars to pay his or her hospital bill, but I don't feel strongly about that, as their injuries are punishment enough). Perhaps you believe that people have a right to engage in unsafe sex, and HIV positive individuals in the population are responsible for violating that right, and should therefore be punished. I don't find that tenable. Had you asked me if a mugger or rapist is violating my right to walk unmolested down a deserted street, I'd tend to say they are, and should be punished for doing so. Brad ---Brad Rubenstein-----Sun Microsystems Inc.-----bradr@sun.com---