Gay groups stepping up demands to be allowed to donate blood

[novasteve]

Why do you want to risk lives just so you ca. Think you are progressive?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Btw, I'd be ok with replacing the "have you had sex with a man" question with "have you had unprotected sex in the last 30 days", and just eliminate everyone who says yes. You know, since its not 1977 anymore and we actually know what causes HIV and can detect it in the blood within days on contracting it.

So...if Liz and I have sex without using a condom (we usually do), I can't donate blood? Now THAT'S stupid!

Of course, I can simply do what thousands of donors already do: lie.

 

[AmyNation]

Btw, I'd be ok with replacing the "have you had sex with a man" question with "have you had unprotected sex in the last 30 days", and just eliminate everyone who says yes. You know, since its not 1977 anymore and we actually know what causes HIV and can detect it in the blood within days on contracting it.

So...if Liz and I have sex without using a condom (we usually do), I can't donate blood? Now THAT'S stupid!

Of course, I can simply do what thousands of donors already do: lie.

*shrug*

But it's acceptable for 2 men in a monogamous relationship to be barred from giving blood?

 

[novasteve]

If they are t monogamous then the risk of HIV is higher in the gay couple. Gay couples cheating means higher HIV risk than straight couples. Sorry if reality is offensive to you

 

[Jarlaxle]

Btw, I'd be ok with replacing the "have you had sex with a man" question with "have you had unprotected sex in the last 30 days", and just eliminate everyone who says yes. You know, since its not 1977 anymore and we actually know what causes HIV and can detect it in the blood within days on contracting it.

So...if Liz and I have sex without using a condom (we usually do), I can't donate blood? Now THAT'S stupid!

Of course, I can simply do what thousands of donors already do: lie.

*shrug*

But it's acceptable for 2 men in a monogamous relationship to be barred from giving blood?

I will give you one hundred trillion dollars a day for one trillion days if you can point to where I said that!

 

[novasteve]

Bill to repeal laws that criminalize HIV exposure introduced in U.S. House | Gay Richmond News, Entertainment, Nightlife & LGBT Community Guide :: GayRVA

Asked to deny reality and now to decriminalize infecting people. Liberalism in a nutshell

 

[JoeB131]

A couple of questions for the Homophobes here.

First, the only way that they know to still screen gay blood donors out is if they self-disclose.

Second, and I'm not clear on this point, so someone correct me, but since lesbians have a lower HIV infecton rate than straight women, why are they banned?

Third, as a few people point out- the entire blood supply is screened for HIV and other diseases now. The reason why this rule was put into place was because the blood industry resisted screening because it cut into profits. Until some people sued and they started testing everything.

 

[novasteve]

A couple of questions for the Homophobes here.

First, the only way that they know to still screen gay blood donors out is if they self-disclose.

Second, and I'm not clear on this point, so someone correct me, but since lesbians have a lower HIV infecton rate than straight women, why are they banned?

Third, as a few people point out- the entire blood supply is screened for HIV and other diseases now. The reason why this rule was put into place was because the blood industry resisted screening because it cut into profits. Until some people sued and they started testing everything.

Lesbians aren't banned from donating blood, you idiot. Since you are clueless on this topic, why are you partipating? Hilarious you calling people bigots when you are a virulent antisemite.

 

[Noomi]

^so its discrimination against gay men, eh?

A gay man can donate blood. All he has to do is claim to be straight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow! That policy is still in effect? Talk about being behind the times.

Can you explain how it is behind the times to protect people from diseases?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Last time I checked it wasnt 1977 anymore. We have the ability to screen blood, and we dont have so many people stepping up to donate that we can shove people aside based on who they have sex with.

The last time I checked they don't allow anyone who has been to Africa to donate blood. This policy is in effect even though there tests that screen for malaria because the tests are not perfect, and it simply makes more sense to decrease the possible risk of disease.

This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or civil rights because no one has a right to make other people sick.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All donated blood is already tested for HIV, and a policy of not allowing gay men to donate is not stopping gay men from donating. I know this may shock you, but gay men don't have a tattoo on their forehead that says "I like men" and you also have no proof that getting rid of the policy (which is impossible to enforce) would increase the risk "seven times".

You really don't get it, do you?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THEM BEING GAY, IT IS ABOUT NOT SPREADING DISEASE. THIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE, NOT A LEGAL ONE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Btw, I'd be ok with replacing the "have you had sex with a man" question with "have you had unprotected sex in the last 30 days", and just eliminate everyone who says yes. You know, since its not 1977 anymore and we actually know what causes HIV and can detect it in the blood within days on contracting it.

Which indicates how little you know about the risk factors. If they drop the lifetime ban they will still not accept blood from anyone who has had sex with another man in the past year at a minimum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would also point out, if I , as a female, knowingly have sex with an HIV positive person, I am only banned from giving blood for 1 year. Where as if I were a man, whose only homosexual contact was 20 years ago, I am forever barred from giving blood.

And I will point out that if you, as a female, ever had sex with someone from Chad, you would have a lifetime ban on blood donations.

I will also point out that you have a lifetime ban on donating blood if you lived in the UK between 1908 and 1986.

What, exactly, was your point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Last time I checked it was 1977 anymore. We have the ability to screen blood, and we dot have so many people stepping up to donate that we can shove people aside based on who they have sex with.

The ignorance or are you denying reality?

It takes a MINIMUM of two weeks for HIV to show up in a blood test and up to 6 months. That means you could have been infected a week before you donate, and will test negative, and the person who gets your blood gets infected with HIV.

Is there a way to just wait 6 months to be sure the blood is safe?

You can never be sure that blood is safe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I find it amusing that blood is still needed. You would think with the technology and medical advancements that needing blood would be a thing of the past. There are doctors out there that are more than willing to provide bloodless surgery, there are blood expanders and many new techniques used to make the use of blood as ancient as the practice of blood letting.

Sorry, I have read tons of material on the dangers of blood transfusions and the side effects, I think when need to evolve our thinking in this area.

That is a whole different thread, and one that I would love to delve into just to educate the people who think blood transfusions are the best thing in the universe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A couple of questions for the Homophobes here.

First, the only way that they know to still screen gay blood donors out is if they self-disclose.

Second, and I'm not clear on this point, so someone correct me, but since lesbians have a lower HIV infecton rate than straight women, why are they banned?

Third, as a few people point out- the entire blood supply is screened for HIV and other diseases now. The reason why this rule was put into place was because the blood industry resisted screening because it cut into profits. Until some people sued and they started testing everything.

First, the fact that people lie is a reason to avoid taking blood.

Second, who said lesbians were banned?

Third, it takes time for HIV to reach levels where it can be detected, usually between 6 months and a year. That explains why the Red Cross always asks about different risk factors, and why they have never advocated to completely remove the screening questions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^so its discrimination against gay men, eh?

A gay man can donate blood. All he has to do is claim to be straight.

Gay men can also visit their partners in hospitals, yet you have insisted that the government fix that non existent problem more than once.

 

[Noomi]

All donated blood is already tested for HIV, and a policy of not allowing gay men to donate is not stopping gay men from donating. I know this may shock you, but gay men don't have a tattoo on their forehead that says "I like men" and you also have no proof that getting rid of the policy (which is impossible to enforce) would increase the risk "seven times".

You really don't get it, do you?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THEM BEING GAY, IT IS ABOUT NOT SPREADING DISEASE. THIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE, NOT A LEGAL ONE.

A gay person who has always used protection would be banned from donating blood? Why? When some heterosexual slut can walk in off the street and make a donation?

 

[AmyNation]

Wow! That policy is still in effect? Talk about being behind the times.

Can you explain how it is behind the times to protect people from diseases?

Last time I checked it wasnt 1977 anymore. We have the ability to screen blood, and we dont have so many people stepping up to donate that we can shove people aside based on who they have sex with.

The last time I checked they don't allow anyone who has been to Africa to donate blood. This policy is in effect even though there tests that screen for malaria because the tests are not perfect, and it simply makes more sense to decrease the possible risk of disease.

This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or civil rights because no one has a right to make other people sick.

All donated blood is already tested for HIV, and a policy of not allowing gay men to donate is not stopping gay men from donating. I know this may shock you, but gay men don't have a tattoo on their forehead that says "I like men" and you also have no proof that getting rid of the policy (which is impossible to enforce) would increase the risk "seven times".

You really don't get it, do you?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THEM BEING GAY, IT IS ABOUT NOT SPREADING DISEASE. THIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE, NOT A LEGAL ONE.

Btw, I'd be ok with replacing the "have you had sex with a man" question with "have you had unprotected sex in the last 30 days", and just eliminate everyone who says yes. You know, since its not 1977 anymore and we actually know what causes HIV and can detect it in the blood within days on contracting it.

Which indicates how little you know about the risk factors. If they drop the lifetime ban they will still not accept blood from anyone who has had sex with another man in the past year at a minimum.

I would also point out, if I , as a female, knowingly have sex with an HIV positive person, I am only banned from giving blood for 1 year. Where as if I were a man, whose only homosexual contact was 20 years ago, I am forever barred from giving blood.

And I will point out that if you, as a female, ever had sex with someone from Chad, you would have a lifetime ban on blood donations.

I will also point out that you have a lifetime ban on donating blood if you lived in the UK between 1908 and 1986.

What, exactly, was your point?

The ignorance or are you denying reality?

It takes a MINIMUM of two weeks for HIV to show up in a blood test and up to 6 months. That means you could have been infected a week before you donate, and will test negative, and the person who gets your blood gets infected with HIV.

Is there a way to just wait 6 months to be sure the blood is safe?

You can never be sure that blood is safe.

You sound very passionate about preventing gay men from donating blood.

As to the bolded, youre full of shit

When the ban on gay men was put in place, we knew next to nothing about HIV, so it made sense to be as cautious as possible. As of right now, we can detect the HIV virus within days of infection. D A Y S.

A lifetime ban on specifically gay men, because they have sex with other men, is stupid and unnecessary. As I've already pointed out, I can admit to knowingly having sexual contact with someone with HIV, and not earn a lifetime ban. I can have sex with every trucker who passes the local 7-11 and still not be banned from donating blood.

Science has surpassed this ban, it surpassed it a long time ago, it's an antiquated law that needs to change with the times.