»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
All's Fair in Love and . . .
| Philosophy 101 |
|
All's Fair in Love and . . . |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
“LOWELL, Mass. -- A Lowell man who allegedly used an AIDS-tainted syringe as a robbery weapon last week was arraigned Thursday morning in Lowell District Court.” http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4056695/detail.html?subid=22100410&qs=1%3Bbp=t Here’s a scenario. A man who knows he has AIDS has unprotected sex with a number of women whom he does not inform of his condition. They contract AIDS as a consequence, and two subsequently die. Is the man guilty of a crime? Should he be? If yes, what crime? |
||
| © Copyright 2005 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Well if he knew about it. yes, because he knows rthat the wemon will most likly get aids and the aides will kill them, therefore he killed them. I think there was a guy in a collage that knew he had aids, but slept around and most of the campus ended up with aids. Give e a second I go find the story and get a link -Juju Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Well I cant find it yet, I will keep on trying here is another simmiliar situation http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/04/1094234078485.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true Darn it wont link stuff uhg. -Juju Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
If a person knows they have AIDS/ARC, and knowlingly and willingly engages in unprotected sex/needle sharing without informing the partner(s) of their medical condition, that is definately wrong, and possibly aggravated assault. If a person with AIDS goes out of their way to purposefully infect as many people as possible, and some consequently die from AIDS, then that is premeditated murder and homicide, or serial murder if the same methodology is employed. If the perpetrator didn't know they had AIDS and someone died from the exposure and another party desired to press the issue, I guess it could be labeled negligent homicide. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat, It then sounds like someone with AIDS deliberately having unprotected sex is a wrong if not crime one way or the other. Would/should someone consciously having unprotected sex with one who has AIDs be considered suicidal and/or too stupid to live anyway? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Huan, you're diverting from your original question. You asked if the person in your scenario would be guilty of a crime, and if so, which one. To this question, I gave an answer. As for your new question, in my very small book with large print and many pictures, I'd say yes. Someone (non-spousal) who purposely has sexual intercourse or needle sharing with someone they know to have AIDS/ARC would have suicidal intent and be far too stupid to live. They are basically playing Russian Roulette with 5 rounds in the revolver instead of one. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Following that logic, Ali, I would say that anyone who has sex is too stupid to live. Since there is no 100 percent protection, and one can never really know their partner isn't infected, the only difference between your stance and mine is a question of odds. Ever drawn to an inside straight? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Granted Ron, but Huan's secondary question dealt with someone who had sex/shared needles with someone they knew to be infected with AIDS, or at least that's how I interpreted his question, which tends to be a bit vague at times. I can't remember if I've ever drawn an inside straight, but I did, once and only that once, draw a Royal Flush in Spades. Still lost that poker round, since my bud saw my raise, then raised the ante which I could not match. Underhanded, but it was only for chips (luckily). |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat/Ron, Yes, in the questions I offer, at least one if not both parties know that an actual case of AIDS is involved. Ron, your response, with that verification? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Actually, I think you just changed it again, John. If only one party knows, as was the suggestion in your original question, then yea, that person is guilty, though of exactly what they're guilty, I wouldn't even pretend to know. If both parties are aware, however, you have an entirely different situation. It is no longer one person taking advantage of another, but two people drawing to an inside straight. Examine the science, and there is a clear suggestion those two people have a better chance of surviving the next several years than you and I do when we crawl into an automobile every day. Unprotected sex and driving on the freeway are both gambles, and I think a case could be made that both are potentially BAD gambles. Such arguments, however, rarely account for the positives. When you jump into your car to go to work, you get something in return for gambling with your life. Do you really want someone else saying that benefit isn't worth your life, so you won't be allowed to take it? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, “Here’s a scenario. A man who knows he has AIDS has unprotected sex with a number of women whom he does not inform of his condition. They contract AIDS as a consequence, and two subsequently die. Is the man guilty of a crime? Should he be? If yes, what crime?” “Would/should someone consciously having unprotected sex with one who has AIDs be considered suicidal and/or too stupid to live anyway?” “Yes, in the questions I offer, at least one if not both parties know that an actual case of AIDS is involved.” “Actually, I think you just changed it again, John” ? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
That's the vagueness I mentioned, Huan. It wasn't until later that you spefified your line of questions, thereby negating prior responses from interpretations of those same questions. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat, In all cases there is conscious knowledge on the part of at least one participant that a case of AIDS exists, which I think is important; that decisions and choices are made in that consciousness. It is those so conscious decisions and choices I’m asking to be considered. John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: Any way I look at it, John, that's two scenarios and two different questions. I tried to answer both. The question you didn't ask, but should, is what constitutes "knowing" one has been infected with the HIV virus? Do we need a notarized copy of the blood work to assign guilt? What if a past partner tells you they have the virus and "may" have passed it on to you? At what point does reasonable suspicion lead to irreversible guilt? And doesn't any such trail beyond those notarized papers lead right back to "any sex makes one culpable for the results of sex?" |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, “Knowing” is someone having been to the doctor and told, or being told by someone having been to the doctor and told. John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Why, John? Let's say, for sake of discussion, that a doctor's report means there is a 95 percent likelihood you are infected with HIV. Let's say, further, that someone you've been with tells you their doctor has diagnosed them as infected, and we're going to assign a 10 percent likelihood that means you're infected. Statistically, that is probably high, but hey, we're just talking here any way. What are the odds you were infected by someone who has never been tested? Five percent? Half a percent? Clearly, it is never going to be zero. So, uh, culpability is just a matter of playing the odds? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, So no one is actually wholly responsible. That’s a comfort. John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Or, everyone is? |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
yes Murder If someone knows they have HIV and intentionally sleeps with someone, without telling them???? I'm sorry, that person is guilty of rearranging someone else's quality of life, let alone, premeditated murder and should be tried. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
isn't small pox a biological weopon? so then is hiv/aids? just a thought juju |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
That depends on motivation, JuJu. Some things smallpox has over HIV is it can be grown in labs, even small ones, and is just as virulent when airborne. Not to mention a whole lot more infectious. Under normal circumstances, HIV/AIDS transmission is one to one. Under normal circumstances, smallpox can transmit 1 to 100, 1000, and higher, depending on population density from a single exposure. Granted, HIV/AIDS can run like an epidemic, but it takes time, one domino tapping another down a long chain. With smallpox, it's not one domino, but someone kicking over the entire table; in short, all at once. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Sure, but it can lie dormant infecting many. Look at Africa. In fact it is said by contraverist (Note I don't agree with them) that it is used by the government to wipe out immoral poeple. (Note I don't agree with this belief) In the end contracting this disease causes death. If some one where to perpusly infect tens of poeple,Then the disease spreads. If they had that intent. juju |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
If a man knows he has Aids and infects others without their knowing, it should be a crime, and he should be convicted of murder, punishable by death, because he himself has sentenced the others to a slow and painful death. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
"If a man  |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Ron does like to show off that strikethrough affect. One thing about crimes is criteria, that they infringe upon our inalienable rights, at least in the United States, to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Having said that, I have a vague suspicion someone will bring up the Patriot Act and draconian measures adopted during FDR's Presidency. Howsoever, that is the criteria for crime, and with crime comes punishments or consequences. Try to take someone's life purposefully and it's attempted murder. Take someone's life purposefully, and it's murder or homicide. Accidentally take someone's life, and it's negligent homicide. Only group that seems to get a free pass isn't enforcement, but medical doctors, though I could be wrong on that. I really don't know if any medical doctors have ever been convicted of negligent homicide, although Kevorkian has been tried multiple times for accessory to suicide. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
