Posted on 09/13/2011 6:07:36 AM PDT by markomalley
Yet another example of how political correctness is lethal. People will die receiving HIV infected blood, to be sure.
Sure! As long as the blood is kept segregated from the rest of the blood supply and is only used for transfusions to other gays.
What a stupid question.
Only when the doctors and nurses involved in the transfusion are willing to inject themselves with the same blood
I see this as becoming a big problem in the military
and our people being sacrificed on the altar of PC
I think cheerful, carefree people should be allowed to donate blood, sure.
As for disease-riddled, sexually-disoriented, sodomizing perverts...fine, let’em donate. Just be sure to dump their poisoned blood in the toilet, lest it infect the rest of us with a terminal illness.
Someone should ask Arthur Ashe how he feels about Homosexual men donating blood. Oh? He’s dead? From HIV contaminated blood? What a shame...
Answer: NO.
FWIW, ROP muzzies in UK and US have started their own blood banks since the common blood supply is donated mostly from pigeating infidels and (gasp) from dem JOOOOOOZ!
“homosexuality sux.”
I wonder if, given a choice, a gay man (who knew that he was HIV negative) would volunteer to accept a transfusion from another gay man (status unknown) or if he would prefer his donor to be a happily married and monogamous Christian woman.
I bet his “gay rights” solidarity button would go out the window so fast it would break the sound barrier.
Anybody who have lifestyles that could put another person at risk, when they give blood, should not be allowed to give blood.
The fact is that, as far as I know, you could have HIV for at least a month without detection. Consequently, that person can put others at and not know it.
Of course not. Only an idiot would accept blood from a homosexual.
Nobody should be allowed to donate blood who is infected with anything. Hell I tested positive for TB years ago. Went though treatment successfully but can no longer donate.
Of course. We wouldn’t want to excluded homosexual’s because that would make them feel bad. /s
Nothing good can come from any of this.
Who determines and how is it determined whether someone is really a homosexual or not?
Should IV drug users be allowed to donate blood? Seems just as valid a question. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people out there who would not see that the obvious answer is the same for both groups.
Their blood is an abomination. It's defiled with all kinds of infections and diseases. It's like donating sewer sludge.
Hell NO
< /choir preaching >
HIV antibody tests fail to identify HIV-infected blood donated by HIV-infected persons who have not yet seroconverted. Exclusion of donors is voluntary. Interviews with HIV antibody-positive donors reveal that most recognize their risk but fail to exclude themselves.(27) As a result, laboratory efforts to eliminate HIV-infected donors have continued and testing has improved. Currently, HIV antibody tests detect both HIV-1 and HIV-2 and detect antibody approximately 22 days (the "window period") after the viremic phase of HIV infection begins. Antigen testing for p24, mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1996, shortened the window period to approximately 16 days. The nucleic acid amplification test (NAT), which detects HIV-1 RNA in minipools (16-24 donation samples/pool), was introduced in the United States in 1999 and further reduces the window period of potential HIV transmission to 11 days.(25,26) As of early 2003, three transfusion recipients are known to have become HIV infected by transfusion of HIV antibody-negative, p24 antigen-negative, and HIV NAT-negative blood from two different blood donors (among 25 million donations)
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.