Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All it protects is your desire to discriminate against gay men.
I just checked the US Constitution and I couldn't find anythign about a right to donate blood. Health policies sometimes might make certain people in high risk groups feel bad. So be it. Health concerns are more important than hurt feelings.
I think this proves that the government isn't testing all of the blood. If they were testing it, why would they need to use a ban like this?
Does it make sense that a heterosexual with 1000 sex partners can give blood, but if a guy has just one male sex partner, he's banned from donating blood for life? The government should be banning people according to their behaviors, not by their sexual orientation.
Well, it's a fact that there is a higher than normal incidence of HIV in the homosexual population. It's also a fact that a high percentage of people from certain regions around the world suffer from hepatitis and other deadly deceases. Shouldn't such blood be banned?
It's a fact that I'm HIV-negative and nearly celibate. It's also a fact that there are lots of heterosexuals who have been intimately involved with someone who is HIV-positive, yet those people aren't banned for life. How does that make sense?
And no, I wouldn't ban people based on where they come from. If the blood is being tested for hepatitis and HIV, then why would you ban people based on where they come from?
I just checked the US Constitution and I couldn't find anythign about a right to donate blood. Health policies sometimes might make certain people in high risk groups feel bad. So be it. Health concerns are more important than hurt feelings.
What about black women as the OPer stated? It doesn't have to be part of the constitution, its still discrimination if you choose one group and say you can do this because your different. And why are you ignoring everyone who keeps asking why doesn't the government just test all the blood. What if some straight guy has HIV? What about the gay guys who are clean?
I don't have any blood-borne diseases. Which diseases are you assuming that I might have?
All it protects is your desire to discriminate against gay men.
On the contrary. I am interested in my own preservation, not yours. Am I also discriminating agains anybody (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, etc.) person from one of the banned regions around the world. Am I discriminating against US soldiers who may live, be stationed or travelled to these banned regions?
All you are doing is using "discrimination" to intimidate those who don't agree with you. If blood donations from homosexuals should not be banned, then the blood ban from certain regions around the world show also be lifted.
Statistically? How about if the government did something brilliant and actually tested the blood as they say they do?
Actually, I would get around all of that by just lying. If the government is going to discriminate and make stupid decisions like this, then maybe I'll start donating blood once a week and just lie to them. Why not? My blood is as clean any heterosexual's.
It's not surprising that Republicans would support the ban since they don't believe in science.
Come on, AUM, don't label me. I've never labeled you....
I honestly can't say I support it or not.
I'm just as shocked as you are that, apparently, not all the blood is being tested.
BUUUUUT.............A texting driver is 60 times more likely to wreck, so it has been pushed forward to stop any use of phones while driving.
I just checked the US Constitution and I couldn't find anythign about a right to donate blood. Health policies sometimes might make certain people in high risk groups feel bad. So be it. Health concerns are more important than hurt feelings.
This has nothing to do with the Constitution. Duh. And it has nothing to do with hurt feelings either. It's about being rational and logical, and making intelligent health policy decisions.
Tell me why a celibate gay man's blood is riskier than the blood of a heterosexual who has had 500 sex partners over the past year.
Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 06-11-2010 at 08:22 PM..
BTW, blood centers also ban you (for life) if you've been stationed in England, between 1980 and 1996, for more than 6 months.
Or if you've ever had Molaria.....
BUUUUUT.............A texting driver is 60 times more likely to wreck, so it has been pushed forward to stop any use of phones while driving.
That's not a good argument unless you can also prove that an HIV-positive gay man's blood somehow slips through the testing process and goes undetected.
Again: Are they testing the blood supply or aren't they?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
