Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Sexual Partner Protection Act

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 10:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Imagine that, in this fictional scenario, the legislative branch of the state of, say, Oregon is set to vote on a bill called the Sexual Partner Protection Act.
According to this bill, all clinics/charities in the state of Oregon that offer HIV testing, free or not, are required to send a transcript of the diagnosis to the state government everytime someone undergoes said test and comes up HIV-positive. This also applies whenever any other form of checkup or medical examination results in such a diagnosis occurring.
The state government, therefore, would be knowledgeable of people's HIV-positive status, and it could legally prosecute such a person for having sex with anyone who was not made aware of the diagnosis (and thus the risks of being infected with a venereal disease).
Would you be in support of such a bill, or not? Explain your answer.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 6,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 10:29:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If it's in Ohio, maybe.
Stooge the Worst

#StandWithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

"SeventhProfessor is actually a surprisingly good poster."
~Devilry

https://docs.google.com...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 10:32:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 10:29:47 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
If it's in Ohio, maybe.

Lol, when I was writing this up I was initially going to make Ohio the example state.
Anyhow, do you think that requiring privately administered HIV tests to report HIV+ diagnoses to the government is a good idea?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 11:00:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 10:02:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Imagine that, in this fictional scenario, the legislative branch of the state of, say, Oregon is set to vote on a bill called the Sexual Partner Protection Act.
According to this bill, all clinics/charities in the state of Oregon that offer HIV testing, free or not, are required to send a transcript of the diagnosis to the state government everytime someone undergoes said test and comes up HIV-positive. This also applies whenever any other form of checkup or medical examination results in such a diagnosis occurring.
The state government, therefore, would be knowledgeable of people's HIV-positive status, and it could legally prosecute such a person for having sex with anyone who was not made aware of the diagnosis (and thus the risks of being infected with a venereal disease).
Would you be in support of such a bill, or not? Explain your answer.

Umm, well that's awkward. I like the idea of putting it on their license or something. I think you could put all sorts of statuses on ID if it came to that and that could always be requested. Sex isn't really an enforceable area because it rarely has sufficient proof. I like the idea of informing the party. Wondering how the practical side of things would go.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 12:21:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 10:02:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Imagine that, in this fictional scenario, the legislative branch of the state of, say, Oregon is set to vote on a bill called the Sexual Partner Protection Act.
According to this bill, all clinics/charities in the state of Oregon that offer HIV testing, free or not, are required to send a transcript of the diagnosis to the state government everytime someone undergoes said test and comes up HIV-positive. This also applies whenever any other form of checkup or medical examination results in such a diagnosis occurring.
The state government, therefore, would be knowledgeable of people's HIV-positive status, and it could legally prosecute such a person for having sex with anyone who was not made aware of the diagnosis (and thus the risks of being infected with a venereal disease).
Would you be in support of such a bill, or not? Explain your answer.

I think we have already tried people for this, no such law required.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Philocat
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 1:27:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think this is, in principle, a justified act. Having sex with someone while the partner is unaware of the other's HIV is immoral and could cause lasting damage.
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 1:45:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 10:02:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Imagine that, in this fictional scenario, the legislative branch of the state of, say, Oregon is set to vote on a bill called the Sexual Partner Protection Act.
According to this bill, all clinics/charities in the state of Oregon that offer HIV testing, free or not, are required to send a transcript of the diagnosis to the state government everytime someone undergoes said test and comes up HIV-positive. This also applies whenever any other form of checkup or medical examination results in such a diagnosis occurring.
The state government, therefore, would be knowledgeable of people's HIV-positive status, and it could legally prosecute such a person for having sex with anyone who was not made aware of the diagnosis (and thus the risks of being infected with a venereal disease).
Would you be in support of such a bill, or not? Explain your answer.

it's really not needed, first you treat everyone as if they have HIV, if you want unprotected sex with that person either take the chance or you both go for testing and share the results. if stds are a concern then you need to find someone who is also concerned and can be monogamous. I think it's already a crime to have unprotected sex with someone if you know you are hiv positive without informing the other person.
I think a bill like this would be shifting the responsibility and allowing the government too much into our private lives.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 1:55:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/10/2017 12:21:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:02:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Imagine that, in this fictional scenario, the legislative branch of the state of, say, Oregon is set to vote on a bill called the Sexual Partner Protection Act.
According to this bill, all clinics/charities in the state of Oregon that offer HIV testing, free or not, are required to send a transcript of the diagnosis to the state government everytime someone undergoes said test and comes up HIV-positive. This also applies whenever any other form of checkup or medical examination results in such a diagnosis occurring.
The state government, therefore, would be knowledgeable of people's HIV-positive status, and it could legally prosecute such a person for having sex with anyone who was not made aware of the diagnosis (and thus the risks of being infected with a venereal disease).
Would you be in support of such a bill, or not? Explain your answer.


I think we have already tried people for this, no such law required.

At this time, though, the government isn't permitted to know ahead of time that someone has HIV, meaning that it's difficult to enforce the rule.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 2:00:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/10/2017 1:55:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/10/2017 12:21:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:02:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Imagine that, in this fictional scenario, the legislative branch of the state of, say, Oregon is set to vote on a bill called the Sexual Partner Protection Act.
According to this bill, all clinics/charities in the state of Oregon that offer HIV testing, free or not, are required to send a transcript of the diagnosis to the state government everytime someone undergoes said test and comes up HIV-positive. This also applies whenever any other form of checkup or medical examination results in such a diagnosis occurring.
The state government, therefore, would be knowledgeable of people's HIV-positive status, and it could legally prosecute such a person for having sex with anyone who was not made aware of the diagnosis (and thus the risks of being infected with a venereal disease).
Would you be in support of such a bill, or not? Explain your answer.


I think we have already tried people for this, no such law required.

At this time, though, the government isn't permitted to know ahead of time that someone has HIV, meaning that it's difficult to enforce the rule.

all stds are reported/reportable to the state health department.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 2:03:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Imagine that, in this fictional scenario, the legislative branch of the state of, say, Oregon is set to vote on a bill called the Sexual Partner Protection Act.
According to this bill, all clinics/charities in the state of Oregon that offer HIV testing, free or not, are required to send a transcript of the diagnosis to the state government everytime someone undergoes said test and comes up HIV-positive. This also applies whenever any other form of checkup or medical examination results in such a diagnosis occurring.
The state government, therefore, would be knowledgeable of people's HIV-positive status, and it could legally prosecute such a person for having sex with anyone who was not made aware of the diagnosis (and thus the risks of being infected with a venereal disease).
Would you be in support of such a bill, or not? Explain your answer.


I think we have already tried people for this, no such law required.

At this time, though, the government isn't permitted to know ahead of time that someone has HIV, meaning that it's difficult to enforce the rule.

Ah.... gotcha. Hm.

I am not sure this would work well with doctor/patient confidentiality laws.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chaos88
Posts: 4,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 6:12:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 10:02:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Imagine that, in this fictional scenario, the legislative branch of the state of, say, Oregon is set to vote on a bill called the Sexual Partner Protection Act.
According to this bill, all clinics/charities in the state of Oregon that offer HIV testing, free or not, are required to send a transcript of the diagnosis to the state government everytime someone undergoes said test and comes up HIV-positive. This also applies whenever any other form of checkup or medical examination results in such a diagnosis occurring.
The state government, therefore, would be knowledgeable of people's HIV-positive status, and it could legally prosecute such a person for having sex with anyone who was not made aware of the diagnosis (and thus the risks of being infected with a venereal disease).
Would you be in support of such a bill, or not? Explain your answer.

No.
Not only does this violate other laws, which would need to be worked out, such as HIPAA, but it is largely unenforceable.

1. The accused would have to have had a test. Without it, it opens the system to flaw.
2. There must be safeguards in place to protect against misuse of information and false positives (i.e. wrong Robert Anderson).
3. The concept that there is a crime if I have sex is, on its face, unknown and open to many flaws in the system. You would have to prove that:
i. Sex occurred
ii. The "victim" was not informed
iii. Protection was not used

This is more difficult to prove than a rape case, so given the cost/benefit analysis, I'd have to say no.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.