Federal ban on gay men's blood donation to be reconsidered

I am for vampire rights !!!

They're not evil, just ......... misunderstood.
 
Jiro said:
I seriously doubt that a person would lie when donating his/her blood. It's a serious responsibility and it's 100% voluntary. Why would you want to lie when donating blood? Do you want to put someone's life at risk?


Did you read the article carefully?
Click to expand...

No, I don't and some people in the world are dishonest.

Yes, I did read carefully and it does happen to all gay men? Not really, if they had sex before with condom so their risk chance would lower, however condom isn't 100% effective.
 
Ok....answer this question. Your perfectly healthy child is in an accident while traveling. She needs immediate surgery. The Dr calls and tells you the must order blood. There is no time to wait for family to come and donate. There are 3 different storage areas for blood. Her blood type is available in all three areas. Area A has only blood donated by 50-60 yos of various races. Area B has blood from only 20-40 yos of various races. Area c has blood from 20-60 yos of various races but 10% of the blood in area C was donated by homosexual men. Which area do you want the Dr. to pull the blood from? Or would you say ah doesn't matter you pick.
 
Foxrac said:
No, I don't and some people in the world are dishonest.

Yes, I did read carefully and it does happen to all gay men? Not really, if they had sex before with condom so their risk chance would lower, however condom isn't 100% effective.
Click to expand...

don't worry about the word "ALL". Point is - ALL blood donors are asked same set of questions. I doubt a lot of them would lie. Maybe a very few donors lie but the point is - I seriously doubt many donors including gay people would lie.
 
Foxrac said:
No, I don't and some people in the world are dishonest.

Yes, I did read carefully and it does happen to all gay men? Not really, if they had sex before with condom so their risk chance would lower, however condom isn't 100% effective.
Click to expand...

It is still an increased risk. Why would want to increase risk even .01%
 
Jiro said:
don't worry about the word "ALL". Point is - ALL blood donors are asked same set of questions. I doubt a lot of them would lie. Maybe a very few donors lie but the point is - I seriously doubt many donors including gay people would lie.
Click to expand...

If gay couples have sex before with condom and take HIV test to prove that is negative (aka no HIV/AIDS) so how does they will donate the blood? Only solution is cover it up.
 
TXgolfer said:
It is still an increased risk. Why would want to increase risk even .01%
Click to expand...

so it should applies to heterosexual couples too.

Federal ban on gay men's blood donation = unfair.
 
Foxrac said:
If gay couples have sex before with condom and take HIV test to prove that is negative (aka no HIV/AIDS) so how does they will donate the blood? Only solution is cover it up.
Click to expand...

No there is another solution. Just say no. Don't donate blood. Instead use that time for advocacy of another cause. Get the goo juju of helping others without putting others at risk.

You could even help locate people to donate blood with that time.
 
TXgolfer said:
No there is another solution. Just say no. Don't donate blood. Instead use that time for advocacy of another cause. Get the goo juju of helping others without putting others at risk.
Click to expand...

No, bad solution and unfair.

It should applies to heterosexual couples too, they are same as homosexual couples.

All unprotected sex does increase of risk, regardless on sex orientation.
 
Foxrac said:
If gay couples have sex before with condom and take HIV test to prove that is negative (aka no HIV/AIDS) so how does they will donate the blood? Only solution is cover it up.
Click to expand...

Foxrac said:
so it should applies to heterosexual couples too.

Federal ban on gay men's blood donation = unfair.
Click to expand...

you are not understanding something. Red Cross is not being homophobic. It's using empirical result to make decision. You do realize that Red Cross will be held liable if the person received a tainted blood? It's a very costly lawsuit.
 
Foxrac said:
so it should applies to heterosexual couples too.

Federal ban on gay men's blood donation = unfair.
Click to expand...

Strange use of unfair. People who are denied the opportunity to give blood are not missing out on anything......There are many other ways to help.
 
TXgolfer said:
Ok....answer this question. Your perfectly healthy child is in an accident while traveling. She needs immediate surgery. The Dr calls and tells you the must order blood. There is no time to wait for family to come and donate. There are 3 different storage areas for blood. Her blood type is available in all three areas. Area A has only blood donated by 50-60 yos of various races. Area B has blood from only 20-40 yos of various races. Area c has blood from 20-60 yos of various races but 10% of the blood in area C was donated by homosexual men. Which area do you want the Dr. to pull the blood from? Or would you say ah doesn't matter you pick.
Click to expand...

well - your example sounds rather homophobic. I don't care if I'm receiving blood from racist/homophobic/Arabic/etc. As long as blood is untainted... fine with me.
 
Jiro said:
you are not understanding something. Red Cross is not being homophobic. It's using empirical result to make decision. You do realize that Red Cross will be held liable if the person received a tainted blood? It's a very costly lawsuit.
Click to expand...

then how does make fair for homosexual couples?
 
One would think that Red Cross would test the blood before allowing it to be donated :hmm:
 
Jiro said:
you are not understanding something. Red Cross is not being homophobic. It's using empirical result to make decision. You do realize that Red Cross will be held liable if the person received a tainted blood? It's a very costly lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Not only that. A person who lies in order to give blood can be held accountable as well
 
TXgolfer said:
Ok....answer this question. Your perfectly healthy child is in an accident while traveling. She needs immediate surgery. The Dr calls and tells you the must order blood. There is no time to wait for family to come and donate. There are 3 different storage areas for blood. Her blood type is available in all three areas. Area A has only blood donated by 50-60 yos of various races. Area B has blood from only 20-40 yos of various races. Area c has blood from 20-60 yos of various races but 10% of the blood in area C was donated by homosexual men. Which area do you want the Dr. to pull the blood from? Or would you say ah doesn't matter you pick.
Click to expand...

:hmm: Pretty obvious.
 
TXgolfer said:
Strange use of unfair. People who are denied the opportunity to give blood are not missing out on anything......There are many other ways to help.
Click to expand...

It means I cannot donate my blood because of this situation.

I don't give a fuck anymore.
 
Jiro said:
well - your example sounds rather homophobic. I don't care if I'm receiving blood from racist/homophobic/Arabic/etc. As long as blood is untainted... fine with me.
Click to expand...

You can see it that way if you want. For me I would go with the least perceived risk. It's all about risk to me.
 
Back
Top