Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!news
From: bob@ozdaltx.UUCP (Bob Culmer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: An AIDS Issue:  Please respond (v.2)
Summary: Why just AIDS?
Message-ID: <1991Feb13.132633.22592@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 11 Feb 91 22:34:10 GMT
References: <1991Feb1.115859.12276@cs.ucla.edu> <1991Feb11.133544.3613@cs.ucla.edu>
Sender: news@cs.ucla.edu (Shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU News Account)
Organization: AIDS INFO EXCG/OZ BBS - Dallas, TX
Lines: 25
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu
Archive-Number: 3015

In article <1991Feb1.115859.12276@cs.ucla.edu>, dsals@vms.macc.wisc.edu (David Sals) writes:
> 
> If a person knows that they have AIDS (or HIV), and engages in
> sexual activities without telling their partner of this disease,
> and if the partner contracts the AIDS virus and dies, should the
> first person be charged with murder?

What I'm suspicious of is why the people who think this should be so
aren't all "jacked up" about other fatal diseases, including some that
transmit easier than AIDS?   And of course, people who get drunk and
kill folks with their automobiles are only charged with manslaughter
or negligent homicide, but for the transmission of a disease that you
could have protected yourself from by your own actions and precautions
(but didn't) someone else should be guilty?   Sounds more like
AIDSphobia and hysteria.

People sometimes like to justify draconian punishments on the basis of
determent.  Even if this works in normal circumstances, what pray tell
does someone with a terminal illness have to lose by this charge that
isn't already in jeopardy? 
-- 
Bob Culmer - Dallas        |  Auntie Em -  
Somewhere over the rainbow |  Hate you. Hate Kansas. Taking the dog.
...in the Land of OZ       |                         - Dorothy
            {mic,void,egsner}!ozdaltx!bob