To infect: medical concept versus legal concept --> an important contrast?

Boojatta

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-28-06 09:38 AM
Original message

To infect: medical concept versus legal concept --> an important contrast?

Hypothetical situation: Mike Tyson rapes a woman. Before he rapes her, he is not infected with any sexually transmitted disease. Immediately after he rapes her, he is infected with a sexually transmitted disease.

In the hypothetical situation, is it true or false that the woman medically infected Tyson? In the hypothetical situation, is it true or false that the woman legally infected Tyson?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

enlightenment

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-28-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message

1. Guessing here --

true that she medically infected him.
False that she legally infected him; because there would have to be intent, and since he raped her there was no intent on her part.

Is this distinction a problem, in your view?

Intent could also include simply knowing that you are the carrier of a transmittable disease and failing to inform a sexual partner -- this apparently happens often.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Boojatta

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-28-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. I see a problem if people throw around the word "infect" and then when

somebody requests clarification they mock the request and compare it to asking for a definition of the word "is."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

enlightenment

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-30-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. ???

Obviously I misunderstood your question, since you so disliked my response.

In NO way was I mocking you; my response was sincere, as I understood the question.

My question to you was also sincere; I wanted to know if you felt that the distinction was a problem (presumably in the medical/legal sense). I was attempting to continue the discussion.

Your response to me was rude, and certainly not conducive to continuing a discussion. Dialogue requires clarification. You could have requested it, rather than assuming I would mock you for no reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 08th 2024, 03:05 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.