Would you Punish, or Pray?

Personally, I grow weary of the constant debating over religion and politics. I feel its time for a moral debate. I fear that politics and religion will infest the debate yet again, but I will chance it.

The moral debate this time is "What should be done with/to people who knowingly pass on a sexually transmitted disease?"

Many people do this daily. They keep the knowledge that they have Herpes, or Aids, or any plethora of contagious diseases to themselves.

What should be done when the are caught?

If you like, you can broaden this to any disease as long as its passed on knowingly.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

you ole' s**tstarter you.... jk....

i had to vote other....depending on the circumstances, let the punishment fit the crime....to be continued when i have a bit to ponder it...

Doc... :dodgy:

How do you prove that they were knowingly doing it? I mean, some STDs are less...advertising of their presence than others after all, and ignorance, while often a fairly lame/token excuse, is a legitimate one in some cases. I also don't think that this is a one size fits all scenario - having unprotected sex knowing you have AIDS is far worse than, say, having unprotected sex knowing you have crabs (perhaps a bad example, given that protection isn't exactly much help there!). I vote other for this reason.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

I deliberately phrased the question "knowingly" for a reason. To pass on something unknowingly is not nearly the same. There are some instances even I can envision where you could have something and not be aware of it. Lets try to discount ALL unknowing scenarios please. I would be willing to continue this with the unknowingly scenario "IF" it doesn't retract from the polls intention. This poll is an opinion based question on what should be done to the Typhoid Mary's out there. SHE KNEW what she was doing I might add.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I voted other for the same reasons as Doc and ReNo.

Obviously, its morally wrong to spread STDs (or STI's as they are now
known), but as for punishment, it'd have to be done on a case by case
basis, and proving the person knowingly passed on an STI would be
pretty hard.

Trees.

I chose "other" because my choice isn't up there.

Here's the thing: They should make STD-having ppl register like sex offenders. If sex is going to become such a commonplace thing, i.e. "booty-calls," "hooking up" for one night and all that, why not take it a step further and just have a card that you have to show before you have sex. I mean, most people nowadays would say that sex is not something confined to marriage, and it doesn't have to be with someone you know and all that garbage, so why not flash a card before you get it on? that way if he or she sees that you have chlamydia, they don't have to risk getting it.

If the government is going to start putting chips in everyone and keeping track of everything anyway, why not make a nightly pathogen check that would update your chip with your disease information. That way, you don't have to go to the doctor, and it will update to a satelite, so you don't have to hook up to any messy wires.

This takes away the problem of whether they KNOW or not. AND most ppl would not risk AIDS or anything just so they can have one night of enjoyment that a few minutes ago seemed consequence-free.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

You guys do realize that with only 6 options that a controversial topic of this type cannot have but 6.. Right?

I do not mind you voting other, as long as you say why.

My personally belief is, if you knowingly doing it, you should be punished. Period.

The punishment should fit the crime however. Obviously, a death dealing disease deserves a life sentence and something that can be gotten rid of with a shot in the ol' butt a milder sentence.

Now, if you are hung on the "knowingly" part, well, I cannot seriously come up with a solution to your dilemma. IMO, there has to be some history to a disease. Take my brother for instance. He now knows for certain that he has a communicable STD. He claims he didn't before, but now he knows for certain. Yet, he tells none of his partners.

Another for instance. There has got to be some sort of a record keeping system at the doctor of choice. From the point of "confirmed' onward, THATS knowingly.

We could stretch this out all day into "unknowingly" but thats not the goal here.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I don't understand why "Pray for them" is an option, please explain.

TwoKnives said:
I don't understand why "Pray for them" is an option, please explain.

That pretty much means "Do what they do now." pretty much NOTHING in the eyes of the world. To Christians like myself, Prayer can be a powerful tool, but to most ppl I think it's wasted breath.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

TwoKnives said:
I don't understand why "Pray for them" is an option, please explain.

Dave, you know me. I only added it out of respect to my friends who believe that might be an option. I couldn't very well have 6 options of castration after all.

I may not believe in God, but I have many friends who do so I added it for them.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

ok.....ive pondered a bit...

heres the deal....for me, its pretty cut and dried...knowingly giving someone an std should be a crime....now, having said that, proof might be hard to come by, especially if it is boiled down to "he said, she said"....so....once proven, punishment should ensue....

problem ... should a person who knowingly passes on the clap get the same sentence as a person passing the aids virus, or some such similarly deadly strain of sheite....? i think not....claps curable, aids is an eventual death sentence, even with all the c**ktails available these days....i have a brother who has been hiv positive for nearly 18 years, has aids, and is actually pretty damn healthy, all things considered....

my first 2 cents...

Doc B... :dodgy:

This is a really interesting topic. I voted "Imprison for a time" on the basis of a process of elimination. Firstly, I believe there has to be some form of punishment, so unfortunately praying and forgiveness aren't appropriate (IMHO, of course). If it was knowingly, then they acted with some form of malice or at the very least selfishness.

Hanging is capital punishment, which I'm afraid I disagree with on the basis it is the one punishment which cannot be undone - Whilst a prison sentence can be ended if some contradictory evidence is found etc, you can't bring someone back to life. Of course there are situations where people are obviously guilty or plead guilty, but if you work on that basis then someone just has to plead not guilty to avoid the death penalty.

Finally, if there is to be some reformation of their character, then their must be some faith that the person will eventually be responsible enough to not repeat the offence - demonstrated by not imprisoning them for the rest of their life. Whilst prison acts as both retribution and prevention (revenge for the victim and preventing the criminal from having contact with society), there must be a reformative element as well - a long term prevention without over-crowding prisons if you like.

Of course, this is all my own theories and opinions. Feel free to completely disagree with them! :smile:

One final note. For comparison, try this slightly absurd example as a comparison:-
X has a knife permanently attached to his forearm, and knows this. He then hugs Y, stabs him in the back as a result (having known that this would happen), and Y dies. What should be done? How does this compare with Orph's main question?

---

My site

Proof is the key here.

I mean think about it. For them to be guilty they have to know they had the disease and were passing it on ... how will you prove they knew besides a physician file saying so, with a note that the patient was notified ... or them admitting it, which isn't the bulk of people who pass these things on (unless you're in Africa, no offense or anything).

How can you prove something like that? It isn't like a crime of passion or something where evidence can be left behind.

Are you going to have a witness? "I saw the std travel through the vaginal walls and up his urethra" Or vice versa.

You can't use lie detectors, since they are reliable in some cases, but not in most (which is why they don't use them for official evidence).

You can't probe people's minds.

You can't really restrict a person from doing things if the other person consents ... You're not even considering if the person that contracts it knew as well.

Too many factors. We couldn't pin an obvious murder on O.J., but, we'll be damned as hell if we can't catch individuals who spread STDs. :razz:

Now, if someone admits to this, yes, there should be a punishment. But, like most criminals ... I doubt they'd admit it.

I mean, I agree it'd be nice to be able to do something, but it'd also be nice to punish people for emotional abuse ... but we really can't unless it results in some physical harm in the other person. (Seeing how many women you can sleep with and kick to the curb, for example, in my opinion should be punishable by law ... regardless if you're a minor or not. You "know better" past the age of 10 - 13)

The only other option is to treat it the same way they treat a minor and adult sleeping together. Which isn't always the best idea, because no one was hurt and it was completely consenting on both ends ... but ... "the law is the law", right?
In that case it wouldn't matter if you knew or not. You'd be busted ... but someone would still have to come forward and complain. And I gotta tell you, as I've learned, it's mostly people who have nothing to do with the situation that do that. It might turn out a little differently when dealing with something such as AIDs, but it'd still be along those lines.

But, I think, if you can prove it, in this highly unlikely hypothetical situation, the person who was "responsible" (which would be both parties, you should realize), would have to pay the other's medical treatments. But, that's a bad idea anyway, because then it costs everyone money. (Same situation as suing somebody).

It's a complicated, convoluted, but nice thought, situation. It's not something that you should really even waste your time thinking about.

A) I hope you never have to deal with anything like this in your life or your families.

B) Capital punishment of any kind will always cost everyone else money. Please, keep that in mind.

C) HOW YOU GONNA PROVE IT, SUCKA!?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

If a girl told me "sorry, did I mention I have AIDS?" right after a
night of wild sex, i'd definitely hang her from the nearest tree.
It seems fitting. :evilgrin:

Nickelplate said:
so why not flash a card before you get it on? that way if he or she sees that you have chlamydia, they don't have to risk getting it.

Not quite that simple... Most people are drunk or on drugs during these situations, and even then rape can occur (and I predict in that situation it would be high) and people won't flash a card revealing information about themselves. People are against identity cards, even though it does really have that much info on them- DON'T GO INTO POLITICS!

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

People often don't bother to fumble for a condom, let alone a card.

positive test = pubic tattoo.... problem solved. :biggrin:

It might also be a good idea to make testing mandatory, like renewing your drivers license or something.

Really though, this is just one more reason to hold yourself to loving long term relationships only. The whole idea of "casual sex" is hopelessly flawed.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

Knowingly passing on a disease that will eventually kill someone should involve life punishment imo (having said that I wouldnt wanna share a cell with that person, ahem... so maybe hanging them from a tree would be more suitable). I dont really see it as different to murdering them outright. In fact its probably worse.

---

Hello there.

People are against identity cards, even though it does really have that much info on them- DON'T GO INTO POLITICS!

Biometrics encompasses a lot - DNA, retinal scan, fingerprints etc

But hey, that's politics, so forget it.

Interesting comparison with murder from Spikers. Murder often infers malice though, and a more direct action, whilst this is more of "murder via a disease" sort of thing. I wonder if you could argue that it is murder in court, assuming that the victim dies fairly quickly...

---

My site

What about someone injecting someone with a needle hot with AIDS?

Would that be assault with a deadly weapon? Would that be murder if the person died?

Morph's example must be murder, right? Sadly, that's not unheard of, courtesy of some very sick and twisted individuals.

Interestingly, for the British version of assault (I'm not sure about America), it is divided into assault and battery. Assault is fear of being hit/attacked e.g. nearly punching someone or raising your fist at them, whilst battery is actually hitting them. Anyway, that was off-topic.

---

My site

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Tracer Bullet</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Really though, this is just one more reason to hold yourself to loving long term relationships only. The whole idea of "casual sex" is hopelessly flawed.</DIV></DIV>

Easy now! Mixing morality with epedemiology is misguided. Viruses do not possess agency, so let's not invoke them to support monogamy.

The connection between casual sex and infections is not a moral one; it's an unfortunate causal connection. You're just one step away from saying, "God made Aids to punish sinners".

Of course, widespread casual sex has the deplorable consequence of greatly increasing the incidence of STIs. But that doesn't ipso facto make it morally repugnant. Widespread intercontinental travel, a modern development, has greatly enhanced the ability of new diseases to spread; but that doesn't make travel a bad thing in itself.

Clearly, however, it is irresponsible to have casual sex without due care for safeguarding each other's sexual health (i.e., wear a condom or get yourselves both checked first).

Right you are, Gollum, but I'm not talking about morality here, and I think that makes a difference. Despite the fact that my opinion is one that is typically associated with traditional morality and religion, my statement is a logical conclusion based on experience and observation. It's far safer, both physically and emotionally to stick to a monogamous lifestyle. You're asking to get hurt in one way or another if you behave promiscuously, and I have little sympathy for those who do and then moan about it.

Tracer Bullet said:
Right you are, Gollum, but I'm not talking about morality here, and I think that makes a difference. Despite the fact that my opinion is one that is typically associated with traditional morality and religion, my statement is a logical conclusion based on experience and observation. It's far safer, both physically and emotionally to stick to a monogamous lifestyle. You're asking to get hurt in one way or another if you behave promiscuously, and I have little sympathy for those who do and then moan about it.

Well, that would definitely open another chapter in the moral debate. I find myself getting tireder and tireder of hearing all the woes people have that they have brought upon themselves. Me, being a self centered asshole quit smoking on 10/10/96. This year will mark my tenth anniversary. I have less will than your average Joe, and yet, I managed to quite after nearly 3 decades of puffing.

I get so tired of the crying people do about how cigarettes did this and that to them and how they would like to sue someone. Well guess what? It clearly states that you'll f**king die if you smoke them long enough. How freaking more clear does the warning need to be on the packages?

Same goes for all of life's choices. If you know before you get that ear ring in your nose that someone straight is going to be prejudiced and you do it anyway, don't cry about fair treatment. If you know that renting a hooker for the night is going to give you crabs (or worse) don't piss and whine.

I find myself wishing every single day that the rumors of cancer and constant cell phone use are link is true. I hope it starts soon so we can cut down on the over population. Natural selection and all that. It will weed out the truly stupid and leave us with normal stupid.

/rant

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

On the topic of morality v. safe/sensible living

As a Christian, my morality talls me to follow the laws of the bible that God gave us. Most of the moral choices I make in the name of my religion are made by atheists who are good people. The just don't do it because God told them to, they do it because it's safe and sensible. Like not sleeping with 5 different women in Uganda. I don't do it because I don't fornicate. and Mr. Atheist doesn't do it because he knows there is a REALLY good chance that they will have AIDS.

This is where you have to think: "Why did God GIVE us these moral guidelines in the first place." In the bible, God warns us against fornication, Gay sex parties, beastiality, and incest. For thousands of years I bet people thought. "Why would he just give us rules that take away our right to have a Beastiality party?" Because they didn't know about GERMS back then. They didn't know about Viruses and STD's and all that crap. So they followed thier guidelines. God put those things in the law to protect the people, becase they were not advanced enough at the time to even KNOW about germs.

Now, we know about germs and we see that the biblical laws are correct in telling us not to engage in these high-risk behaviors. We know because we can see with our technology that Sex with animals makes you sick, we see that there is a HUGE amount of AIDS infections in the Gay communities, and we see that Incest can cause the expression of regressive genes like Down's Syndrome, and Sickle-cell Anaemia.

It doesn't matter WHAT source you base your decisions from, Tracer Bullet is right: The idea of "Casual Sex" is hopelessly flawed. And, i might add that it is warned against by both the religious community ANd the medical community.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I think I agree mostly with what's being said here, although perhaps for a slightly different reason - namely moral and ethical reasons. Orph points to the "woes people have that they have brought upon themselves", and in a very basic and simplistic sense, woes should be avoided. Thus it is a bad thing. :smile:

Told you it was simplistic.

---

My site

Hang'em :razz:

No, really, people with such diseases should not run rampant and have sex with anyone they see! (a bit overreacted but still...)

---

HL2 tutorials 'n' stuff: http://madedog.pri.ee
217.159.236.34:27050 - CSS Server - Clean | koffer.ee

Orpheus said:
Dave, you know me. I only added it out of respect to my friends who believe that might be an option. I couldn't very well have 6 options of castration after all.
I may not believe in God, but I have many friends who do so I added it for them.

I respect peoples religion and beliefs too, wether they contradict mine or not. I was only asking because I've never heard of any religious folk completely substituting punishment for prayer.

My first impulse was to say "If they're engaging in high-risk activities, why are they whining when the risk turns against them?" and really, if you're gonna sleep around or whatever, you need to be prepared for more consequences than just adding another girl/guy on your list. Lots of people have these diseases, so you need to be careful. and get tested even if you dont think you have anything.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

My first impulse was to say "If they're engaging in high-risk activities, why are they whining when the risk turns against them?" and really, if you're gonna sleep around or whatever, you need to be prepared for more consequences than just adding another girl/guy on your list. Lots of people have these diseases, so you need to be careful. and get tested even if you dont think you have anything.

I don't know if you missed it but this topic is about people knowingly passing on diseases, not people being sexully irresponsible in other ways. Having casual sex does not invalidate your right to "whine" when someone knowingly gives you AIDS.

Engaging in high-risk activities? That's not very sexy, I think your title may not be true.

As a college student I'm pretty sure I've heard that the United States
national average is 1 in 10 college students has a sexually
transmittable infection.

Pretty messed up.

TwoKnives: the only way someone can knowingly give you an STD is to knowingly have sex with you... that is what I'm saying. It might not matter if they knew. Lets just say that the STD is AIDS: a death sentence.

Having multiple partners is like playing russian roulette only the other player pulls the trigger. If when one time they pull the trigger, there happens to be a bullet in the chamber, it's still YOUR fault that you got shot because YOU chose to play russian roulette. but YEAH the other person should get in trouble too.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Many people here have made the point that having sex with lots of people is more risky than having sex with only a few. Obviously this is true.

Some, however, seem over-enthusiastic in their expression of this truth, viz: "People who have lots of casual sex deserve to get STIs".

Could this, perhaps, indicate envy? "Serve them right for having a more exciting sex life than I do! I'm so glad I've only slept with a couple of partners, in long-term relationships, because it kept me safe."

It's far safer, both physically and emotionally to stick to a monogamous lifestyle. You're asking to get hurt in one way or another if you behave promiscuously

i have a great & steady relationship now, and i had one 4 years ago, but in between, i had one-night stands and i'm not sorry i had them. the girls were girls i trusted and no-one was hurt emotionally. we mostly used condoms, with a few exceptions where i trusted the girls - they didnt have one-night stands before, or very few. Ofcourse there's always a risk, but think of this: when you first go to bed with your girlfriend, did you both have a hiv-test before ? it's in both cases, a matter of trust. Well i did a hiv test after and during the one-night stands to be absolutely sure ofcourse.

i'm glad i had those "wild" years now, so it won't be something i will be curious about later (when married with kids etc). That's a complementary cause of many divorces.

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

what really chaps my ass about this topic, is that casual overall attitude im seeing....they have s**t out there that eats penicillin for breakfast, so why would you even consider a "heated rendezvous" with a stranger....there is no way in hell that you could convince me that this would be wise behavior.......especially since most of you gents strike me as quite intelligent....whats the old saying?...."a stiff pud has no concience"...should be..."stiff pud makes ya lose yer f**kin mind, and possibly yer life....."

....although my brother tells me that "you can get used to taking a 20 pill coctail 3 times a day for the rest of your life, whatever that is left of it...."

Doc....

Vaguely associated with this topic, there's a good podcast on "File on 4" about consent.

But that's fairly irrelevant. Carry on... :smile:

Blister's point about divorce is an interesting one. I wonder what the statistics are. I would have thought that it removes certain "special" elements (probably bad phrasing there, but you know what I mean) from a marriage, possibly weakening it, so I suppose it can be seen from both sides.

---

My site

Gollum said:
Many people here have made the point that having sex with lots of people is more risky than having sex with only a few. Obviously this is true.

Some, however, seem over-enthusiastic in their expression of this truth, viz: "People who have lots of casual sex deserve to get STIs".

Could this, perhaps, indicate envy? "Serve them right for having a more exciting sex life than I do! I'm so glad I've only slept with a couple of partners, in long-term relationships, because it kept me safe."

Some people think so, Gollum. It may be hard for many people in today's world to beleive, but sex just is not important to some people. It is a HUGE part of our society today, so it's hard for some people to comprehend that. I've been dissed and made fun of plenty of times because I am religiously opposed to fornication. To me it's just like any other thing that people do that is risky. Any time you do something illegal, you run the risk of getting caught. Any time you have sex with a stranger or some slutty cheerleader who's slept with all the seniors, (or whoever) you run the risk of your actions catching up to you, id est, STDs. So, yes, it IS your fault, and you DO deserve it if you get it because you made a conscious choice to engage in the behavior of which contracting and STD is a risk.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

What about situations where you trust a girl (and have known her for a
long time) and she says she's clean, but she gives you HIV because
she's psychotic/too embarrassed to mention she's got HIV?

I personally wouldn't put the blame on the guy in that situation.
I don't think you can say that anyone has sex deserves to get HIV.

I understand where you're coming from with your point that anyone who
is promiscuous deserves it (since they should count infection as a real
risk), but
where can we draw the line between promiscuity and acceptable
behavior? Do we draw the line at marriage? When should we have
sympathy for the one getting infected?

So, by carrying out an activity in which you know there are risks, you deserve to have those risks occur? By bungee jumping, do you deserve to have the cord snap and fall to your doom? By crossing the road, do you deserve to be hit by a truck? By walking home from school on your own do you deserve to be kidnapped, raped, murdered? Everything has risks associated with it Nickel - I think it is ridiculous to suggest that people deserve those risks to befall them just because they did the activity anyway. Unless we are talking about absolutely ridiculous scenarions of course; like jumping out of a plane without a parachute sort of thing :biggrin:

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

AtM: "acceptable behavior" is different for different people. For me, it's waiting until I'm married. For other people, it's up to them to decide, because it's their body.

ReNo: okay, you guys are reading it kinda wrong. A kid walking across the street is a PERFECT metaphor.

A child is playing near a bend in the road and could just as easily stay on his side, but he decides that it's an acceptable risk to cross and have more fun or look cool on the other side. If he runs across without looking, and he gets hit, yeah, he deserved to get hit because he recklessly ran across. This is like bangin' some random hooker or girl from your college that you dont know.

If he looks both ways and then crosses, he shouldn't think he is completly safe because a car can come around that bend at any time. This is like "safe sex" and with people you know.

If he get's hit EITHER time, he deserved it because he took a stupid risk when staying on his side was a perfectly plausible option and he never would have HAD the risk if it were not for his simple desire to have fun and look cool.

Do you think people who smoke deserve to get cancer when they do? not everyone who smokes DESERVES to get cancer indefinitely, they just deserve it when they get it.

makin' any sense here?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>makin' any sense here?</DIV></DIV>

No.

You appear to be saying that someone deserves to suffer the consequences of taking a risk if and only if the outcome of his taking the risk is bad.

In other words, you're saying that:

• Those who take risks and get away with it don't deserve any bad consequences.
• Those who take risks and suffer bad consequences deserve those consequences.

So your theory of deserving is based entirely on someone's luck. Surely whatever you think people deserve, it should not be based on chance?

Sounds like negligence to me.

well, okay. I guess I never thought about it that way. So they DO deserve the consequences of thier actions. The price for irresponsibility can be dire. The more dire the consequences the first time, the less risks will be taken later.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

...if you survive the first encounter, value well being, and are able to learn.....wanna bet yer life on it?

Doc

I say we bring back public executions.

---

Better to be in denial than to be human.

Bill Gates understands binary: his company is number one, and his customers are all zeros.

Do people deserve the consequences of risky behavior? No, but they should accept the risks in a conscious responsible way. I read somewhere that you can do anything you want, so long as your are willing to pay the price, and that is basically how I live my life. I'm perfectly willing to risk my life climbing because I think it's worth it. The worst that can happen is that I will die a slow painful death alone in the wilderness, and that's how I want to go (maybe not the slow and painful part though). If you think an exciting sex life is worth the risk of emotional trauma and disease, I have no problem with that. It is no different form my perspective. Just don't cry about it if you loose your game, and I won't complain when I loose mine.

A frequent question I ask myself is "would I be happy dying that way?" If the answer is yes, I do it. You are never quite alive except on the brink of death, but in my experience sex does not generate that type of elation... it's a totally different sort. And really, if I had to choose between sex and mountaineering, I'd take the mountains... but I'm very glad I don't have to make the choice!

Okay, so if they don't deserve it, can it at least "serve them right" when it happens to them?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Isn't that just the same thing?

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Okay... Well then they don't not deserve it when it happens to them.

Tracer said it quite well, I think. "If i take a risk and it comes back to bite me in the butt, I'm not gonna complain about it. So if the same happens to you, don't bother me with it."

I agree. If someone takes the risk of unprotected sex or sex with somoene they don't even know, then I think they should not be able to sue or press charges against the other person no matter WHAT they got from them, be it a baby or a disease.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com