Gay agenda: Gay activists seek to lift ban on blood donations. (percentage, facts)

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

WORLD | FDA stands firm on gay blood donor ban | Mark Russell | Sept. 26, 2013

Common sense is prevailing and they must be firm on this.
You cannot overlook the facts on this.

They are not excluding gay men because they are gay.
That's something people need to understand.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Then why would you want any blood that can't be 100% certain?

Give it up. The facts speak for themselves and the government is standing firm.
The risk factor is too great to take a chance.

A gay woman has a 1% chance of being infected.
A gay man has a 50% chance of being infected.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Then why would you want any blood that can't be 100% certain?

Life is a gamble but you don't take unnecessary risks.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Then why would you want any blood that can't be 100% certain?

Let me ask you this, lets go back to my room full of 50 straight people and one gay man. If we know one person in that room has AIDS and we pick out one straight person and the gay guy who you going to pick for blood?

Are you going to take the 1% chance or the 50% chance?

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Give it up. The facts speak for themselves and the government is standing firm.
The risk factor is too great to take a chance.

A gay woman has a 1% chance of being infected.
A gay man has a 50% chance of being infected.

Unprotected sex increases the chances, it should be a ban on anyone having unprotected sex, gay or straight..

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Let me ask you this, lets go back to my room full of 50 straight people and one gay man. If we know one person in that room has AIDS and we pick out one straight person and the gay guy who you going to pick for blood?

Are you going to take the 1% chance or the 50% chance?

Depends, who in the group is having unprotected sex?

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Give it up. The facts speak for themselves and the government is standing firm.
The risk factor is too great to take a chance.

A gay woman has a 1% chance of being infected.
A gay man has a 50% chance of being infected.

A gay man does not have a 50% change of being infected with HIV.

[rbohm]

here is an idea, lets just let anyone and everyone donate blood shall we? that would include people currently excluded from donating, like cancer patients, diabetics, anemics, those with advanced kidney disease, liver disease, etc. and lets not forget people with other sexually transmitted diseases, like syphilis, herpes, etc. lets do it really right here, and properly taint the blood supply.

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Well that is just false data. Does that include gay men who haven't come out of the closet?

So any data you don't like is false outright? I'll even link a study that is pro gay marriage to prove my point. Same-Sex Marriage Linked to Life Expectancy Boost | LiveScience

[Vejadu]

Liberal logic: it's better to greatly increase the risk of HIV-tainted blood being donated than allow someone's feelings to be hurt. Its common sense and a statistically sound policy to disallow gay men from donating blood, when that small group accounts for half of HIV cases.