Posted on 03/20/2011 8:42:35 PM PDT by wac3rd
I’d want the testing done in the hospital’s pre-op center before either of us was carted off to the OR.
Obviously, my post hit a nerve. Too bad.
To others who I suspect will take me on, I am exiting now and won’t engage further. In my absence, please refer to Occams Razor, explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The more expedient explanation for this tragic outcome is that the perpertrator has a wreckless disregard for the lives of others. Anyone is welcome to assert instead that the tragic outcome is that a homosexual perpetrator has such a wreckless disregard.
But, as it turns out, on an objective and common sense level my reasoning trumps yours.
For a variety of other CONSERVATIVE reasons, as well, mine is the better explanation. My approach puts accountability where it belongs, on the wreckless behavior rather than the homosexuality. Taking the latter approach provides the perpetrator with an excuse.
Have a great day, folks.
“It’s just about love.”
And I’m not defending (or attacking) the donor being gay. To me it’s simply irrelevant.
I doubt many of us would feel much differently. However, among the many groups considered high risk for donating blood and organs(previous prostitution, IV drug use, men who have sex with men) It’s this single group that seems to be the ones having the problem with accepting the priority of public health when it comes to acting as organ/blood donors, at least they’re the ones making such a fuss about the standards. I personally have problems with being allowed to donate blood for reasons of my own, but some people just can’t seem to shut up and care that rights have limits, which are when you infringe upon others’ rights by putting them in serious danger.
HIV is the one disease for which they WILL NOT STOP until they find a cure.
The Gay Lobby knows that unless and until HIV is cured, they will be second class citizens, and never equal in the eyes of the law, or the perceptions of most voting idiots.
In NC it can be done, BUT it requires preplanning and your doctor must send a request to the Red Cross designating that the patient will be doing dedicated donations.
The donors must go to the main Red Cross location and be sure to tell them that this blood is for patient X.
A transplant patient contracted AIDS from the kidney of a living donor,
Charge the health officials with aiding and abetting manslaughter. How many other organsblod has the AIDS patient donated to murder others?
OK, just kidding about not staying engaged. Yours was an excellent post, and I agree. And I think I agree 100%, though I have not parsed your words carefully enough to stand by them to that extent.
The distinction you make may seem subtle but I think of overriding significance. A subset of gays, likely quite small, engages in wreckless behavior. If we have no other way to guard against that wrecklessness, then perhaps the public health risk is so great that we need to restrict the prerogatives of all gays, even when this is ultimately a truly selfless act.
HOWEVER, that is an infringement that none of us should take lightly, because we could extend it perhaps in other settings to smokers, philanderers, and ... well, almost anyone.
And if we do take that action, we should not find it necessary to focus on the gayness of organ donors, even if all of their rights to donate are being infringed. Whatever we think of homosexuality, this seems gratuitous to me. We should instead seek to emphasize that the reason we must do this is because some gay donors — again, likely a very small fraction — are behaving irresponsibly, and it is regrettable but necessary to restrict the prerogatives of all gay organ donors.
And this action should only be taken as a last resort, as a response to a very significant problem (e.g., that outweighs the many, many, many lives that gay organ donors are saving every year), and so forth.
Why would this level of prudence strike any poster here as “drinking the PC koolaid?”
OK, now I really do have to go.
Truly, thanks to all for reading this.
Homosexual conduct is the very substance of this incident. Please try to read the article again, without the PC glasses on and without deflection.
The solution is very simple.
engage in homosexual sex and no blood donation allows (already the rule)
so
engage in homosexual sex and no organ donation allowed.
Bigot!!! /sarc
my understanding is just the opposit. It must just depend on the hospital.
Of course, being on the honor system, the donor could just lie, as they are encouraged to do by some ivy league college homo-activist groups. Unless I missed it, this article doesn't say that the donor was identified as an MSM before donating, so he could have just violated the honor system - which should be a criminal act, in my opinion.
Hmmmm ... possibly.
But two caveats. FIRST, by your reasoning why should a potential organ (or blood!) donation be foreclosed if the only person with whom the donor is having sex is the recipient? So ... I would for sure make that exception.
The larger idea must be that we restrict rights no more than absolutely necessary; that we have a compelling public interest that can not be addressed in any other reasonable fashion; that we adopt the narrowest possible reasoning; that we mitigate the consequences to the affected groups as much as possible; and so forth.
SECOND, I’m not trying to be difficult, but your rule would cause a lot of deaths, just as a simple empirical matter. Many gays are responsible organ donors, and their donations are life saving. This is not true of blood donation.
I think your rule is too blunt.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I do not understand this. The red cross will refuse a Man’s blood if he has ever had one sexual experience with another man.
They do not want my blood either, because I lived in switzerland (all of Europe) during Thr British mad cow scare. Even though I was nowhere near england and Switzerland does not import British beef. Insane. As if no one in Europe can donate blood??
This was an emergency admission. I live in Massachusetts, and they were vehement about it being impossible, which wouldn’t surprise me. I was at the hospital twelve and a half hours a day, and at least once an hour someone would come in and ominously announce my husband’s hematocrit numbers to me. I refused to allow them to transfuse him. This was in the early 90’s.
homosexuals should not be giving blood or transplants.
They are high risk of disease regardless of how the lunatics keep saying they’re not.
We are now seeing the homosexual community and the far left try and give rights like a normal healthy person .
Forget the PC crap. They like getting off sexually and because of that they demand rights.
Sorry but that is plain idiotic.
If we base that theory and law then all people who like getting off in one way or another or think their kind of marriage is OK should be getting the same rights
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.