Thread: Case overturned because of narrow definition of sex

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

I know we're just dscussing a case concerning HIV - but it's not the only disease or condition that can be spread and contracted through bodily fluids. . . would your view affect others that have any and all communicable and infectuous diseases, not just HIV?

If it's any and all - it's logical, however offensive to pry.
But if it's just HIV then it's pointless.

I think it's prudent to require carriers of any serious infectious disease (ie more then a cold) to wear a medical alert, and also require them to disclose this information in any reasonable situation someone else may contract it from them.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

Well... since the word "sex" shows up in the statute, whether or not the legal definition of sex includes non-vaginal non-heterosexual sex is pretty damn relevant. It's also a fairly easy thing to fix legislatively. Clearly the Florida legislature dropped the ball on this one.

If one HIV person smeared blood on someone else, stuck an infected needle in someone or some other method to expose someone to HIV should it matter what method was used or what the legal definition of sex is?

Originally Posted by jamesrage

If one HIV person smeared blood on someone else, stuck an infected needle in someone or some other method to expose someone to HIV should it matter what method was used or what the legal definition of sex is?

Of course not. Just like the legal definition of sex has no bearing on a charge of murder. I'm just pointing out that this statute was obviously written to specifically address sexual transfer of HIV, so obviously the definition of sex is a relevant concern.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is HIV positive and does not disclose that fact to any and all sexual partners should be charged with attempt to do grave bodily harm. There's no excuse for putting others at risk without giving the information necessary for an informed consent. :2mad

Originally Posted by Aderleth

Of course not. Just like the legal definition of sex has no bearing on a charge of murder. I'm just pointing out that this statute was obviously written to specifically address sexual transfer of HIV, so obviously the definition of sex is a relevant concern.

The definition of sex does not account for every other scenario one might contract a blood-born pathogen from another, therefore the definition of sex is not relevant to a viable solution.

Oh, but taking 'sex' out of the equation means it doesn't sell as well, since we're not also talking about violence or money as fall-back angles to market our opinions. This means the general public will continue to obsess about sex with regard to this topic regardless.

Real, viable solutions are often anti-climactic, as they end the controversy, not perpetuate it, which is why so few care about debating quality topics here.

Originally Posted by Jerry

The definition of sex does not account for every other scenario one might contract a blood-born pathogen from another

No it doesn't. Florida, like many places in the country (and the world), has different statutes for different scenarios. This one is about sexual transfer of a disease. Doesn't mean they don't have different statutes to cover other situations involving transfer of diseases. In fact, you can take a look at the other ones yourself on this chart:

State Criminal Statutes on HIV Transmission - The Body

Originally Posted by Jerry

Oh, but taking 'sex' out of the equation means it doesn't sell as well, since we're not also talking about violence or money as fall-back angles to market our opinions. This means the general public will continue to obsess about sex with regard to this topic regardless.

Yes. Human beings are interested in sex. This is not news, and it's not anyone's fault. It will continue to be true unless we spontaneously become asexual, somehow.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Real, viable solutions are often anti-climactic, as they end the controversy, not perpetuate it, which is why so few care about debating quality topics here.

Real viable solutions also frequently involve multiple statutes, not single statute catch-alls. I'm honestly not sure why you're making such an issue of the fact that this one involves sex. There is no controversy here except whatever weird crap is going on in your head. The Florida legislature wrote a bad statute. There are any number of ways they could fix the problem. Pretty straightforward in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jerry

I think it's prudent to require carriers of any serious infectious disease (ie more then a cold) to wear a medical alert, and also require them to disclose this information in any reasonable situation someone else may contract it from them.

So walk around with a blowhorn and announce it to everyone?

Individual should take precautions - all the time - against contact with bodily fluids. Because people might have something and just not know it - and spread it. That happens all the time.

The opposite, however - requiring people tell and announce - might lead to ostracism, harassment and even violent attacks.

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

So walk around with a blowhorn and announce it to everyone?

Individual should take precautions - all the time - against contact with bodily fluids. Because people might have something and just not know it - and spread it. That happens all the time.

The opposite, however - requiring people tell and announce - might lead to ostracism, harassment and even violent attacks.

These are the kinds of posts people make when they aren't educated on blood-born pathogens and think they can contract something like HIV just by walking past someone.