- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
You're talking about intent which was never my argument. I'm talking about they either don't want to know they spread it to someone which cleanses their conscious if they did, or they did have intent and don't want laws that punish people for KNOWINGLY spreading HIV which is what I stated earlier. Knowing = spread with intent. Not knowing= no intent to spread. You can't not know and have intent to spread. I can't give you a disease I don't have.You don't actually break the law if you don't know you have HIV during consensual sex in any state. In Wisconsin if you rape someone and have HIV it's an extra charge but if you knew you had it or not is taken into consideration during sentencing. Oh the things you can learn in five minutes on the internet.
The whole reason those laws were passed is because of some people as I recall knowing they had HIV and purposely spreading it to as many people as he could. Which still doesn't explain how those laws discriminate against HIV infectees unless there is an epidemic of them purposely spreading said disease. Otherwise why wouldn't they get tested if they can't be held accountable, which again goes back to my point, it's about irresponsibility. They don't want the knowledge of being responsible for a spread or being detested by partners they spread it with without getting tested.
So then why would they avoid getting tested if they can't face legal responsibility? It doesn't make sense.