Posted on 02/13/2005 6:07:15 PM PST by watchdog_writer
Criminalizing The Transmission Of The AIDS Virus
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 60 percent of men with HIV infections are gay. But don’t look for that statistic in any of the national newspapers, or on the alphabet networks. It is not a popular subject.
The N.Y. Times reported that a new strain of the AIDS virus is more powerful and untreatable saying that an infected man, gay and in his 40's, tested negative for H.I.V. in May 2003, then tested positive last December, health officials said. Investigators believe he may have contracted the virus in October when he engaged in unprotected anal sex with multiple partners while using crystal methamphetamine.
The mindset of some gays is that a pill will solve all their problems if they happen to contract the deadly disease. The result is that they will tend to engage in unprotected anal sex with greater frequency. I would liken this phenomenon to the number of unwanted pregnancies that occur because the mindset of certain women is that any pregnancy can be terminated, so why use condoms that take the “fun” out of having sex.
Oliver Palan, 19, a gay student at Baruch College, said that he had slept with 10 men recently, and that none of them had wanted to use a condom. "So many people are like, 'It is so much more fun without the condom,' so they prefer to take the risk," he said, noting that he insists on using condoms. Often, he said, partners will try to dissuade him by saying, "I trust you, you should trust me."
In the gay subculture, monogamy is not the norm. Although most people are opposed to gay marriage, there is something to be said for civil unions, if it will encourage monogamy among the purposefully gay population.
According to the CDC an estimated 900,000 U.S. residents are the victims of HIV. Of the 40,000 new HIV victims, 70 percent are men and 30 percent are woman. 75 percent of women on the other hand become victims through heterosexual sex; the remaining 25 percent of women victims are drug users. AIDS, transmitted though anal intercourse is infecting and killing men and women alike.
Even the Washington Post, which is pro gay rights, reported that husbands who are hiding their homosexuality are infecting their wives. These men are criminals, but the larger and more dangerous crime is that because of political correctness these offending gay men are not being prosecuted.
In many states recklessly endangering another person is a crime. Anyone who engages in conduct, which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury is guilty of the crime of reckless endangerment. But the apologists for the gay movement oppose HIV-specific criminal offenses. They fear that such laws would stigmatize victims of the disease.
Anyone who intentionally, or knowing that he is infected, engages in anal intercourse without using a condom, and who infects another person should be prosecuted. The issue is not whether the prosecution stigmatizes that person. The issue is whether such prosecutions would have the effect of reducing the number of new infections, and therefore save lives. Obviously we know from experience that criminal laws not only punish the wrongdoer, but they clearly act as a deterrent to others who might otherwise engage in such conduct.
The argument against prosecuting infected individuals who knowingly infect others is that “very few” infections result from “intentional” conduct; first of all, when a person who knows or should have known that he is infected with the AIDS virus engages in anal intercourse with a healthy partner, his act is intentional enough in any court of law to convict; secondly, if the act should not be criminalized because only a few violations are likely to occur, and that argument were applied to other infrequent crimes, there would be lawlessness and chaos. Firing a gun wearing a blindfold in the street at 2A.M. in the morning may only infrequently kill someone, but no reasonable person would argue that such conduct should be legal. In fact in many jurisdictions the mere possession of a firearm in public amounts to criminal conduct. Why should be bearer of a deadly virus like AIDS be treated any differently?
The question of whether to totally ban anal sex by infected individuals is a more difficult one. If the statute were to criminalize the act even if a condom were used, it arguably could have the effect of discouraging the use of condoms. On the other hand if the use of condoms were a defense, the crime would be more difficult to prosecute. Since there is not likely to be any physical evidence of the use or non-use of condoms, the proofs would rely upon the testimony of the victim alone, but this would be no different than the proofs necessary in rape cases. How difficult the case is for the prosecution should not determine whether or not the law should be enacted.
Finally, the social utility of allowing infected individuals to engage anal intercourse should be compared to the danger to be perceived as the result of such conduct. Can it be said that the right to engage in this deadly form of sex should rise above concerns for human life? Should society ignore the enormous cost in human life and economic recourses while sanctioning a few individuals who engage anal intercourse?
Should Americans value anal intercourse above the threat to human life, or even human existence? You decide.
Speaking of the bizarre and dysfunctional aspects of the homosexual lifestyle, does anyone know what has become of the "AIDS Quilt" these days? I haven't seen or heard of it in quite awhile.
Where do they store it?
No idea. Come to think of it, I haven't heard much about it either.
And the fact that these perverts acquired it entirely by choice will not dissuade the federal government from directly spending billions of dollars of our money on subsidized treatment for them - and mandating that insurance companies spend billions more.
AIDS is the first disease in history which instead of being combatted as an epidemic has been given civil rights.
For some reason I thought the transmission and the rear end were the same on those things.
Unless I'm mistaken, on most rear end drive cars there is a long drive shaft between the transmission and the rear.
According to Al Gore they need another 100,000 to die and then they can use the quilt to shade the icebergs in Alaska to solve the global warming problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.