If not for your benefit, then for everyone else's; here are the DOJ's recommendations for modernization[1], from a sub-link of the above:
> Generally, the best practice would be for states to reform these laws to eliminate HIV-
specific criminal penalties except in two distinct circumstances. First, states may wish to retain
criminal liability when a person who knows he/she is HIV positive commits a (non-HIV specific)
sex crime where there is a risk of transmission (e.g., rape or other sexual assault). The second
circumstance is where the individual knows he/she is HIV positive and the evidence clearly
demonstrates that individual’s intent was to transmit the virus and that the behavior engaged in
had a significant risk of transmission, whether or not transmission actually occurred.
> For states that choose to retain HIV-specific criminal laws or penalty enhancements beyond these two limited circumstances, the best practice would be to reform and modernize them so that they accurately reflect the current science of risk and modes of transmission, the quality of life and life span of individuals who are living with HIV, account for circumstances where the failure to disclose is directly related to intimate partner violence, and ensure they are the desired vehicle to achieve the states’ intended purpose in enacting them initially or retaining them in modernized form.
[The document continues with specific, scientifically backed advice that would help inform HIV-specific statutes.]
As for you in particular, I'm not sure who's culture warring here. Maybe this discussion would be more interesting if you provided a tangible argument based in health or science rather than vague political gesturing.
I think the parent may have been referring to actual laws that exist today, rather than DOJ recommendations. Like in California where it is perfectly legal for an HIV positive person to have unprotected sex with somebody else, without disclosing it, so long as it wasn’t specifically their intention to infect the other person. If it was specifically their intention to infect the other person (good luck proving that btw), then it’s a misdemeanour.
So, still a crime, even if a misdemeanor? Pretty sure it's still negligence if you actually infect someone, as per your link:
> A defendant might be negligent for infecting a partner with HIV if:
The defendant knew he or she had AIDS or was HIV-positive;
The defendant was negligent in not disclosing his/her status and/or not using a condom or dental dam; and
As a result of that negligence, the plaintiff acquired the disease through the transmission of HIV and suffered damages (such as medical bills and/or pain and suffering).
