Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Madness:

    "Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure."

    What are the bounds of this right? Can young people living with HIV have sex with children, or commit rape?

    Presumably, the answer is no, because doing so would be causing harm. What greater harm can be caused than infecting an unknowing party with a deadly, incurable disease?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Madness:

    "Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure."

    What are the bounds of this right? Can young people living with HIV have sex with children, or commit rape?
    The same bounds that would apply to any other person, so the answer is no they can't have sex with chidlren or commit rape (well they can, but should be punished accordingly if they do)

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Madness:
    What greater harm can be caused than infecting an unknowing party with a deadly, incurable disease?
    I don't think that the answer to that question would resolve anything. If an unknowing party (presuming it is a consenting adult) has sex with another party and choses not to ask or care about the other party's status (whether it be HIV or any other STD), then he/she should partly assume the responsibility for the consequences of such choice should an infection occur.
    We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

    Henry Louis Mencken

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    What are the bounds of this right? Can young people living with HIV have sex with children, or commit rape?
    No one can have sex with children or commit rape, infected or not. I can't think of a single country where such things are legal. The question is can they have sex with consenting adults. Well, I don't see why they can't have sex with other infected adults. The only issue is whether they can have sex with non-infected consenting adults without disclosing that they have HIV. The slide show says they shouldn't have to disclose anything:

    Quote Originally Posted by link
    Some countries have laws that say people
    living with HIV must tell their sexual
    partner(s) about their status before having
    sex, even if they use condoms or only
    engage in sexual activity with a low risk
    of giving HIV to someone else. These laws
    violate the rights of people living with HIV
    by forcing them to disclose or face the
    possibility of criminal charges.
    ...and I vehemently disagree. The victim's right to health is much greater than the infected person's right to privacy or sexual pleasure. Not having sex or privacy won't kill you, but being unknowingly expose to HIV will. This is basically saying that any HIV patient can have sex with someone without telling them they have HIV and not get sued over it. That's crazy!

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    The same bounds that would apply to any other person, so the answer is no they can't have sex with chidlren or commit rape (well they can, but should be punished accordingly if they do)
    I think you're missing my point. The entire reason why those bounds exist for other people is because of the harm involved. If it's wrong for HIV positive people, and for the same reason, then it doesn't make sense to allow HIV positive people to deliberately conceal their HIV status from their partners.

    I don't think that the answer to that question would resolve anything. If an unknowing party (presuming it is a consenting adult) has sex with another party and choses not to ask or care about the other party's status (whether it be HIV or any other STD), then he/she should partly assume the responsibility for the consequences of such choice should an infection occur.
    Choosing not to ask is not the same as choosing not to care.

    If I sell you a car with a bomb in it that will explode if you drive over 50 mph, are you choosing not to care about this risk if you buy the car without asking me if I've installed any bombs in it?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    The law says you have to disclose mold if you are selling your house, because of the potential physical and financial harm it could cause the buyer... but you don't have to disclose to someone that you may be giving them a fatal and incurable disease if you sleep with them?

    Whoever wrote that pamphlet is either incredibly stupid, or infected and incredibly selfish. Getting HIV is a death sentence, unless you are stupid rich. Knowingly exposing someone to it is akin to manslaughter in my book. That's probably why hospitals and schools have strict rules on disclosure and are so very, very careful with any possible bio-contamination.

    Besides, if HIV-infected people have the *right* to "sexual pleasure and reproduction," what is stopping them from getting those "rights" exclusively from other previously infected people? The main intent behind the pamphlet seems to be saying "Make more infected people."
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I think you're missing my point. The entire reason why those bounds exist for other people is because of the harm involved. If it's wrong for HIV positive people, and for the same reason, then it doesn't make sense to allow HIV positive people to deliberately conceal their HIV status from their partners.
    The reason that those bounds exist is to prevent people intently abusing from other people who do not or cannot consent to such acts, I do not see how two consenting adults having sex would apply to this. Note: I am assuming that the non infected person is aware of the existence of HIV.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Choosing not to ask is not the same as choosing not to care.
    Really, how so?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    If I sell you a car with a bomb in it that will explode if you drive over 50 mph, are you choosing not to care about this risk if you buy the car without asking me if I've installed any bombs in it?
    If I knew that there is a real risk of cars exploding from bombs when driving over 50 mph and I still chose to ignore such risk and do not even attempt to ask the seller whether this car is prone to it, then yes Im chosing not to care.
    Last edited by ians25; April 11th, 2010 at 12:15 PM.
    We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

    Henry Louis Mencken

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    The reason that those bounds exist is to prevent people intently abusing from other people who do not or cannot consent to such acts, I do not see how two consenting adults having sex would apply to this.
    It's about informed consent. I can't consent to risks that I don't know exist.

    If I knew that there is a real risk of cars exploding from bombs when driving over 50 mph and I still chose to ignore such risk and do not even attempt to ask the seller whether this car is prone to it, then yes Im chosing not to care.
    We all know that such a risk exists; someone could have placed a bomb inside any vehicle we ride in or drive.

    Does the fact that we don't check to see whether a bomb has been installed in our vehicle mean that we consent to someone installing such a bomb?

    You can choose not to care; you can choose to disregard risks. This is absolutely true.

    And if you disregard the risk, then perhaps you won't even bother to ask whether the risk exists at all.

    But that's different than saying anyone who fails to ask consents to the risk.

    The question at issue, I think, is whether it is reasonable for a person to assume that his sex partner does not have HIV. Do reasonable people act in such a fashion? Do most people ask their sex partners whether they have HIV? Is it commonly understood that if someone doesn't ask, then they don't care?

    It seems reasonable for me to place the burden of discovery on the person who has all the necessary information; it makes more sense for the small population of people that have HIV to disclose this to their sex partners than for every person to question each of their sex partners about their HIV status.

    If the population of HIV positive people were large relative to the general population, then the reasonableness of the requirement might change.


    But note what right the pamphlet asserts: Not only that HIV positive people not be required to disclose their status, but that they can deliberately conceal it. That is, if someone asks if they have HIV, they have no obligation to be truthful in their response.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    It's about informed consent. I can't consent to risks that I don't know exist.
    Then your anaolgy is incorrect, rape and child abuse have nothing to do with informed consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    We all know that such a risk exists; someone could have placed a bomb inside any vehicle we ride in or drive.

    Does the fact that we don't check to see whether a bomb has been installed in our vehicle mean that we consent to someone installing such a bomb?.
    Again, your "car" analogy does not hold, every single time we have sex, and specially if it is with a stranger, we know there is a very patent and present risk of getting an STD, that of course doesn't apply to the car industry and bombs.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You can choose not to care; you can choose to disregard risks. This is absolutely true.

    And if you disregard the risk, then perhaps you won't even bother to ask whether the risk exists at all
    On that we agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    But that's different than saying anyone who fails to ask consents to the risk.
    Well of course, maybe I wasn't explicit enough as to the context of who I am referring to and my argument applies to: Consenting adults who are aware of the existence of HIV and its occurrence.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    The question at issue, I think, is whether it is reasonable for a person to assume that his sex partner does not have HIV. Do reasonable people act in such a fashion? Do most people ask their sex partners whether they have HIV? Is it commonly understood that if someone doesn't ask, then they don't care?
    If you ask me, it is not reasonable to assume by default that your sex partner is HIV free, that is, if you have any concerns about your health and of course you live in the US in the 21 st century. Is it reasonable to assume that a stranger asking to enter your house is harmless, will you vehemtly open your home to him without any further questions?, or will you (at least) interrogate him first to make sure he is safe?


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    It seems reasonable for me to place the burden of discovery on the person who has all the necessary information; it makes more sense for the small population of people that have HIV to disclose this to their sex partners than for every person to question each of their sex partners about their HIV status.

    See above.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    But note what right the pamphlet asserts: Not only that HIV positive people not be required to disclose their status, but that they can deliberately conceal it. That is, if someone asks if they have HIV, they have no obligation to be truthful in their response
    Well I must confess I did not read the pamphlet and chose to rather debate your OP, but I certainly not support deliberately misrepresenting HIV status when asked about it, that is an entirely different issue than mandating disclosure. In fact, I beleive that there are legal consequences for deliberately misrepresenting HIV status (Im not an expert in this area though). Could you please quote the portion of the pamphlet that encourages deliberate misrepresentation.
    We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

    Henry Louis Mencken

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    If you're having sex with someone who you just met or who would conceivably not care about giving you an STD then you (or your partner) should be using a condom. You stop using condoms when your relationship gets serious enough that you trust that the other person doesn't want to screw you over, you are both monogamous, etc, and vice versa.


    this isn't very complicated.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    Then your anaolgy is incorrect, rape and child abuse have nothing to do with informed consent.
    Why is having sex with a child wrong? Because the child cannot give informed consent.

    Why is rape wrong? Because it involves doing harm to someone who did not consent to the harm.

    Again, your "car" analogy does not hold, every single time we have sex, and specially if it is with a stranger, we know there is a very patent and present risk of getting an STD, that of course doesn't apply to the car industry and bombs.
    There is no risk of infection if there is no disease present.

    Well of course, maybe I wasn't explicit enough as to the context of who I am referring to and my argument applies to: Consenting adults who are aware of the existence of HIV and its occurrence.
    I am aware of the existence of ebola. If I enter a room without first asking if everyone has ebola, am I consenting to being infected with the virus if someone does have it?

    If you ask me, it is not reasonable to assume by default that your sex partner is HIV free, that is, if you have any concerns about your health and of course you live in the US in the twentieth century. Is it reasonable to assume that a stranger asking to enter your house is harmless, will you vehemtly open your home to him without further questions?, or will you interrogate him first to make sure he is safe?
    Do you know what the likelihood is of having HIV?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Why is having sex with a child wrong? Because the child cannot give informed consent.
    And he cannot give informed consent because he is not aware of the risks and implications of this act. As I explained before, I am arguing in the context of consenting adults who are fully aware of the existence and risks of STDS

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Why is rape wrong? Because it involves doing harm to someone who did not consent to the harm
    Again, consenting adults.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    There is no risk of infection if there is no disease present.
    Correct, that is why it is your responsability as a consenting adult having sex with a stranger to find out whether he/she has it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I am aware of the existence of ebola. If I enter a room without first asking if everyone has ebola, am I consenting to being infected with the virus if someone does have it?
    If you entered a room full of people from an Ebola infected village in Ghana, and of course you were aware of these facts, and you still chose to enter that room without first making sure no one in there is infected then yes I would say you are at least being wreckless.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Do you know what the likelihood is of having HIV
    Not really, but again if a stranger wants to enter my house I will make sure he is safe, no matter what the likelihood of psychosis/kidnapping/(you name it) is. I would however be more interested in the likelihood of getting an STD from unrestrained (and by this I mean careless in some form, including failure to inquire about each others' STD status) sexual intercourse with a stranger.
    Last edited by ians25; April 11th, 2010 at 01:09 PM.
    We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

    Henry Louis Mencken

  12. #12
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    And he cannot give informed consent because he is not aware of the risks and implications of this act. As I explained before, I am arguing in the context of consenting adults who are fully aware of the existence and risks of STDS
    What happens if the person infected with HIV lies to the potential partner about their HIV status? If they have a "right to sexual pleasure" and they have no obligation to tell the other person that they have HIV, then they are also under no obligation to answer questions about their HIV status truthfully. Would you say this changes the situation at all?

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Madness:

    "Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure."

    What are the bounds of this right? Can young people living with HIV have sex with children, or commit rape?

    Presumably, the answer is no, because doing so would be causing harm. What greater harm can be caused than infecting an unknowing party with a deadly, incurable disease?
    That pamphlet is very troubling. It claims people with HIV have the right NOT to disclose their condition to their partners.

    I wonder what your local District Attorney would say about that, as people have been prosecuted for having HIV and knowingly infecting others. Might as well state people with HIV have the right to infect others without the partners being made aware of the danger.

    Might as well say I have the right to kill someone -- oh but that's right. It's Planned Parenthood. They are responsible for the deaths tens of millions of humans since Roe. V. Wade...so the philosophy is consistent: "Don't let little things like human life interfere with your "right" to an orgasm".

    When will people finally recognize that "getting off" is not a human right when other humans can be hurt or killed as a result?
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  14. #14
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    From the period between roughly 1986 to 2001, there have been 316 known HIV-related prosecutions [in the United States]. However, the conviction rate on those prosecutions has been pretty high, around 80 percent, which is certainly considerably higher than prosecutions in other categories
    The behavior that most people accept as wrong, and perhaps even appropriate for criminal law penalties -- someone deliberately using HIV, or trying to use HIV status, as a tool to harm or terrorize somebody else -- is in fact extraordinarily rare, and is certainly not a significant factor in HIV transmission rates.
    Because I know that I am infected. The focus is on people who have gotten tested. If you are extraordinarily sexually active and engage in every imaginable kind of risk, but do not get tested, you are not likely to be liable, because you do not know that you are infected. So most of these statutes actually reward ignorance. They penalize getting tested. You are generally only going to be subject to prosecution if you have been tested and know that you are positive.
    "If you are extraordinarily sexually active and engage in every imaginable kind of risk, but do not get tested, you are not likely to be liable, because you do not know that you are infected. So most of these statutes actually reward ignorance."
    http://www.thebody.com/content/art53797.html

    So what this is saying is that if you lead a lifestyle that is totally reckless and decide not to get a physical then when asked if you have ANY STD, (or pregnancy) a woman can reply "No, I don't have anything that I know about." A man could answer the same save for the pregnancy part.

    But if you do go get a physical and discover you have AIDS it is illegal to have unprotected sex without disclosing it. However, for it to be considered a crime it must be proven that you intended to infect a person without their knowledge.

    That is changing, however it should be stated that even the person not infected should not be taking measures to both protect themselves as well as to get past the awkwardness of "Do you have any STD's?" Same with pregnancy. I don't believe a man should have sex with a woman who is not using birth control. Or for that matter should have sex without a condom until they get to know the person well enough to be aware of any STD's.

    I'm saying this though I in my youth led a totally hedonistic style of life. I remain unscathed. But most of the really bad stuff I did was in the early 70's. I recall a time when what an unmarried couple worried about was getting pregnant.

    Times have changed, but many people have not.
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Just to be fair...

    That pamphlet offers a guide on how to work up the courage to tell your partners you have HIV and dedicates another page to the wisdom of disclosure and trying to soften the impact when being rejected as a result of disclosure. After all that it mentions that its your right to choose disclosure or not.

    When you write a message to a population, it doesn't really help the message if you condemn and berate the group you are speaking to. It tends to work better if you identify with them and seem to be "on their side."

    As to what I think about disclosure....

    While I understand their point that your privacy matters and that sexuality is a pretty basic human right, I think that they overplay that and underplay the responsibility of harboring a potentially fatal disease.

    You can be liable in civil court for not taking precautions to prevent the spread of your illness, and you can be criminally liable if you intentionally try to infect others.

    Trying to make it a crime to tell people you have AIDS when having interpersonal relationships, I think, expands beyond the good and proper scope of government influence. Sex is a very private matter in our society and who we sleep with and what we say to them in the bedroom is not really a matter for the state. If however you do someone harm in this, then the law should hold you responsible for that harm.

    Now if commerce is involved (say the moldy roof or more to the point, prostitution) then the state can regulate in the name of ensuring fair and equitable commerce.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    And he cannot give informed consent because he is not aware of the risks and implications of this act. As I explained before, I am arguing in the context of consenting adults who are fully aware of the existence and risks of STDS
    And people purchasing houses are fully aware of the existence of mold. Nevertheless, the seller has an obligation to reveal the information.
    Last edited by Dionysus; April 13th, 2010 at 11:50 AM. Reason: Cited quote
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  17. #17
    FELIX LAETVS
    Guest

    Angry Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    May I just point out that in any logical thought, to knowingly infect someone with HIV is immoral and is or should be criminal (depending on the country in question).

    If they have consensual intercourse with another HIV+ individual, well it is highly unlikely the parties would not have disclosed their individual status.

    The simple fact is that to have intercourse knowing you are positive with someone who is negative, is putting their lives at risk. To do this to someone without their consent to take that risk is in no way justifiable.

    My thoughts on the issue is: Planned Parenthood was completely negligible in stating that. To say that to the youth who we should be urging to be safe in every way is placing the new generation's lives at risk. We have had enough dealing with the Pope denouncing the use of condoms, we do not need this to add to the mix.

    Where are the leaders who use logic and impartial beliefs in their statements so as to better the lives of the people?

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hong Kong SAR, China
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    [QUOTE=ians25;431160]And he cannot give informed consent because he is not aware of the risks and implications of this act. As I explained before, I am arguing in the context of consenting adults who are fully aware of the existence and risks of STDS

    The problem with this is the word 'consenting'; in this case I would consider consent to mean fully informed consent. If a person had agreed to have sex with another person knowing that his/her partner had HIV, then he/she would have given consent. But the term 'consenting adults' does not apply to couples in which one partner only knows part of what is true. If a witness for a police case had given a testimony of how to bust the crack den (or whatever) without telling them about the bomb he knew was inside, then the blood of the policemen killed by the bomb would be on his hands because they went in without the knowledge of the trap that the witness could have given them.

  19. #19
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Madness:

    "Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure."
    Aside from the fact that I think people's concept of rights are inflated to the point of being completely meaningless...

    Can you show me where the booklet says that it's ok to have sex with random people and not tell them you're HIV positive? I'm having a hard time finding that in there (admittedly, I'm only able to read little bits at a time in my cube at work). Absent that, I don't see how this can really be classified as "madness," unless you decry all "rights" as madness.

    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  20. #20
    MSizer
    Guest

    Re: Planned Parenthood: No obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Madness:

    What greater harm can be caused than infecting an unknowing party with a deadly, incurable disease?
    Arguably none, but it is our own responsibility to ensure we practice safe sex, not the responsibility of those with whom we engage.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Yet ANOTHER abortion angle: Father's Rights
    By Dr Gonzo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: June 9th, 2009, 10:41 AM
  2. Every Action is a Selfish One
    By Castle in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: August 5th, 2007, 08:40 PM
  3. Truly Planned Parenthood
    By PallidaMors in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 02:50 AM
  4. Planned Parenthood cartoon
    By nanderson in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 10th, 2005, 06:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •