"im presuming that OLDER bodies as mine would either have herpes or know better by now, as in wait awhile and/ or use protection

Not always. You could be a 'carrier' with no symptoms.

"Im presuming this 'Law' imposing a fine would protect the generations from here on.

I think if it were possible to rid our society completely of certain diseases (as has happened with a couple) it would warrant more extreme action. Maybe it's possible for AIDS, but herpes may not justifiy it.

"If a law and a fine /record were to be put in place it would be no different to the protection type laws we already feel appropriate to enforce as humans.

One difference: a far more significant invasion of privacy.

freediver
do you really feel/think that humans are going to be that responsible, my understanding of us all is we need limits/boundaries even as we grow up and especially when we are 'grown up' as its in our nature to push our limits.(tangle with death)
i can only imagine that the embarrasment and stigma, the 'dirty' aspect prompts us (humans) to want to keep this type of information to ourselves. My opinion of that would be 'grow-up' because if youve got it youve got it there aint much you can do_and anyway, there's got to be millions with it and there is probably even support groups. Why are we as educated people still so shallow and selfish/ concerned about myths or what 'others' think?

Intentionally~ Having sex with the intention of infecting them for whatever sicko reason.

Knowingly~ Knowing you have an STD but still having sex without informing your partner. They too, can caught up in the "heat of the moment". They may not tell them out of immaturity and/or embarrassment. Possibly they thought they weren't infectious at the time.

Without trying to sound unsympathetic. I get tired of people blaming others for their own misfortunes. The original poster's daughter got infected through immaturity, ignorance, apathy...fricken bad luck, whatever. In the end there is no one to blame but themselves. Infringing on more rights isn't gonna make it better.

Would it be possible for a plaintiff to make the distinction between intentionally and knowlingly in court? To me that sounds like only charging people for speeding if they actually intended to have a crash.

Well, I ain't going round in circles, my friend. This is online opinion isn't it?. You got mine.

If you can't see the difference between my point of intentionally infecting someone with an STD, and knowingly having but unintentionally infecting someone then my input ends here.

Good luck with your campaign.

Thanks Sig
unknowingly is even more clutsy, like leaping into the ocean before you can swim. Even if it is nknowingly there will be a shocking rebound affect on the one who passed the STD. Im sure all could appreciate that an evening call that points out youve just given someone an STD could be one of the most upsetting calls you ever get, and from there on the origional carrier has to accept they are Hep. posative anyway.
Sad you think its OK for any person to have unprotected intimate encounters without making first an effort to make sure they have a clean bill of health.