Reply With Quote
What the ? I don't care how low the level is, you should be required to tell sexual partners.
http://www.canada.com/need+admit+sta...534/story.html
The Supreme Court of Canada has absolved HIV carriers of the legal obligation to inform sex partners about their condition as long as they have a low level of the virus and wear a condom.
In a major 9-0 ruling Friday, the high court specified those two key conditions, clarifying the rules on whether it is a crime for people with extremely low levels of HIV to withhold their condition from their sex partners.
What the ? I don't care how low the level is, you should be required to tell sexual partners.
Also isn't it too much up to interpretation what is a "low level" ?
sexual intercourse is safe even w/o using a condom, as long as it doesn't involve anal penetration imho
No, if it's rough sex in vaginal intercourse bleeding occurs.. HIV. What about STDs? It's okay if you're monogamous but spurstalk posters don't appear to be that
Why would you have unprotected sex with someone who would not answer the question?
I know of many idiot blokes who have unprotected sex with girls they don't know, don't bother asking, don't seem to care as long as they get sex. I see what you're saying but I think more often than not in the heat of the moment a lot of guys wouldn't care. I dunno, just a thought
pretty re ed ruling, if you give another person hiv and don't tell them it should be considered an assault in my book. i shudder to think what i'd do to the person if they gave me aids, i'd flip and lose it.
hiv is hiv, no such thing as low level bull
Agreed, if you know you have HIV and pass it on (and don't tell the person beforehands that you have HIV) you should be doing jail time
I highly doubt this would affect lefty..
Shut up you fat 50 y/o virgin
Uhhhh you don't worry about STDs anyway? Definitely an intrusion into privacy forcing someone to disclose their personal health information. If they truly "love" you then they will tell you the truth. Sounds more like a judgment against random unprotected sex to me.
unprotected sex isn't that dangerous as some people think it is. yes there're risks in doing it but the chance of getting infected is even smaller than if you wipe your ass with unsanitary paper tbh
I disagree a lot. If you are just having a one night stand with someone you don't know it's a massive risk. No risk at all if you're doing your GF without a dom unless she's cheating
How is that not reckless endangerment?
True, but it still is a risk. Out of a 1000 one might end up getting negatively affected by this..So it is still important unless you dont give a fck about that 1 individual.
as a long celibate as i am, its not at all relevant to my life though. i never had any sex (protected or not) and probably never will so it might be easier for me to speak of the truth in an objective perspective imho. the odd of getting infected with hiv in an unprotected sexual intercourse is, lets say one in 1000 for example, while hiv can be transmitted via many ways with bigger possibilities like mosquito bites
I think their court just confined sex as a risky activity. Don't blame someone else for your irresponsibility of engaging in risky actions. What about the people who have something and are not aware that they do? same risk, isn't it?
You have a point about disclosure, but I think AIDS is unique and can't be judged using the same criteria.
i disagree what you just said, while sex is risky if you know for a fact that you have a deadly disease you have the obligation to ing tell them or be a selfish piece of . i hope anyone who knowingly gives a person aids because they seflishly just want to have sex and aren't going to let that pesky hiv get in the way of their selfish desires gets found out by the victim and murdered in revenge. that's one way to get rid of hiv.
Maybe Magic Johnson could help with litigation interpretation as to what exactly "low level" means.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
