undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgruez4y ago0 comments

>The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others.

What about sodomy? Receptive anal intercourse is an order of magnitude more likely to spread HIV/AIDS[1] than vaginal intercourse. Maybe what happens in the bedroom should be "curtailed for the common good"?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission

0 comments

abstract_put4y ago

I think what the parent comment is suggesting is pregnancy (and sodomy) overwhelmingly impact the people directly involved with it. It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party.

I think it's a bit like second hand smoke vs. first hand smoke. I think it's entirely reasonable to object to second hand smoke (refusing vaccinations while insisting on participating in society) in all forms while supporting an individual's right to first hand smoke (pregnancy/sodomy).

gruezOP4y ago

>It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party.

Consider the prevalence of casual hookups, and how long the incubation period is, I say the chance is pretty high. If anything, the aids epidemic is evidence that it can spread despite requiring intimate contact. That said, for the purposes of this argument I'd be okay with limiting the argument to "ban sodomy for non-married couples" to rule out the "third, unrelated party" element.

nkrisc4y ago

When people start contracting HIV from being in the same room as people with it, then maybe we can have that discussion.

Also, just use a condom.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse