Skip to comments.
Gay men should be able to donate blood, students say
College group pressures Red Cross
Concord Monitor, LA Times ^
| 7/11/05
| Steve Bodzin
Posted on 07/13/2005 4:05:47 AM PDT by Dane
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 next last
The inodctrinated marxists are not concerned about keeping the blood supply safe.
1
posted on
07/13/2005 4:05:48 AM PDT
by
Dane
To: Dane
Gay men should be allowed to donate blood- to progressive college students.
2
posted on
07/13/2005 4:18:07 AM PDT
by
PzLdr
("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
To: Dane
They say that the policy...implies gay men are inherently sick...Well, they are sick.
Perverted, disgusting, mentally ill and usually physically ill.
No, I don't believe I want their blood.
Sue me for my intolerance, but I'd prefer not to have to worry about all the diseases that soddomites are prone to have as a result of their disgusting life styles.
3
posted on
07/13/2005 4:18:34 AM PDT
by
OldSmaj
(Hey Islam...I flushed a koran today and I let my dog pp on it first. Come get me, moon bats!)
To: Dane
This is about the stupidest thing I can imagine. The ban on blood donations by men who have sex with men does not imply that they are inherently sick. But it is an indisputable fact that AIDS is much more prevalent amongst men who have sex with men. It is also true that blood can be infectious without showing up on the blood screening tests if the donor was exposed withing the two or three months prior to donation.
So, given that men who have sex with men are engaging in a high risk activity and are likely to have had exposures in the period where the screening test is useless, how can one prevent the introduction of HIV into the blood supply without a voluntary ban on using this blood for transfusions?
Only a college student could be so stupid to value ideological purity over simple public hygiene.
Oh, and BTW, men who have sex with men can donate all the blood they want. They can go from blood bank to blood bank and bleed themselves dry, if that is their wish. But at some point they are asked to confidentially indicate whether or not they have risk factors, and thus whether or not their blood should be used for transfusion. Simple human decency requires that they not let their blood be used for transfusion if they know they have risk factors.
I know gay men who are living with AIDS. I have known gay men who have died from AIDS. Not one of them would wish their disease on anyone else. The notion that anybody would want to knowingly donate blood for transfusion that may be tainted is such a ridiculous notion one would have to be an intellectual to believe it.
4
posted on
07/13/2005 4:20:48 AM PDT
by
gridlock
(ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
To: Dane
You are correct.
But keep in mind how easy it is for flaming homosexuals to lie about it and give blood.
"IMA Gay American" McGreevy lied about it when he gave blood as governor. And nobody cared.
To: Dane
"......implies gay men are inherently sick....."
Well, duh. And of course it's a low priority to the groups. In order to argue against the ban they would have to deny studies that show the higher disease rates in the gay community. Sure, lets put everyone at greater risk of receiving tainted blood in order to be PC and not thought of as "homophobic". This little battle will be going nowhere folks.
6
posted on
07/13/2005 4:29:07 AM PDT
by
commonasdirt
(Reading DU so you won't hafta)
To: linkinpunk
I gotta think McGreevy used the confidential opt-out to prevent the use of his blood for transfusions. The New Jersey Blood Center, where I donate, gives you three opportunities to confidentially keep your blood from the blood supply, through the use of an unreadable bar code sticker, through a confidential verbal statement to the interviewer, or through an anonymous phone call after the fact. I am quite confident the Governor used one of these three.
7
posted on
07/13/2005 4:30:57 AM PDT
by
gridlock
(ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
To: Dane
Health and safety issues should not be politicized.
We should do what is necessary (in accordance with generally accepted medical standards) to reduce the spread of an incurable, fatal disease.
This is analogous to the "racial profiling" controversy in airport screening. Maybe in both contexts, we should ask ourselves if we would be using the same safeguards if the subject group were straight, white Christian males. Interesting how the left wants race, etc. to be "plus" factors in school admissions and employment, but not to be considered elsewhere.
8
posted on
07/13/2005 4:35:07 AM PDT
by
cvq3842
To: Dane
More insane rantings from the Left, A.K.A. Death-wish Society.
9
posted on
07/13/2005 4:35:27 AM PDT
by
6SJ7
To: Dane
Easy solution. Set up a private blood bank. By homos for homos.
To: Dane
Isn't blood tested, independent of whatever the donor states?
And what about Hepatitis? Hep C can cause liver cancer eventually. I know people dying today or candidates for a liver transplant because of contracting Hep C thru a transfusion decades ago.
To: reformedliberal
What a great idea. I think I will buy a freezer.
12
posted on
07/13/2005 4:39:53 AM PDT
by
stocksthatgoup
(http://www.busateripens.com)
To: Dane
suer they should. and teach phys ed to little boys, and adopt children, etc. like cats should keep little birdies as pets. or something like that.
aside, I think we should organize and promote a "National Going Back in the Closet Day."
Anyone?
Better yet, make it international.
disclaimer: I don't hate homosexuals. But I think the homosexual agenda, well...sucks.
13
posted on
07/13/2005 4:43:01 AM PDT
by
the invisib1e hand
(In Honor of Terri Schiavo. *check my FReeppage for the link* Let it load and have the sound on.)
To: Lazamataz
More evidence of the culture of death folks.
To: Dane
And since gay men are from the group with highest infection rates and HIV does not test positive for some tiome after infection, these students essentially want the blood supply system in the U.S. destroyed. Either that, or they are looking for a propaganda victory by increasing HIV in the heterosexual population via tainted blood. These college students sicken me.
15
posted on
07/13/2005 4:47:22 AM PDT
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: commonasdirt
In order to argue against the ban they would have to deny studies that show the higher disease rates in the gay community. Maybe that is their strategic goal - eliminate the statistic that shows that the population of gay men has the highest infection rate. It is a homophobic statistic and can be used to justify profiling against homosexuals. That does not fit the PC agenda, or the gay rights agenda, therefore must be done away with.
16
posted on
07/13/2005 4:50:42 AM PDT
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: reformedliberal
The Red Cross screens donations, but cannot detect all HIV tainted blood. For instance, there is a Type O HIV in Africa they don't always detect, so anyone who has received medical treatment from, lived in, or had sex with anyone who lived in a number of African countries are ineligible for blood donation.
The Red Cross says the possibility of getting HIV through a blood transfusion is 1 in 1.5 million. I'm not sure if they're saying 1 in 1.5 million transfused units have HIV, or if some other factor (dirty needle) transmits the HIV.
Allowing gays to openly donate blood would skew the odds somewhat, but I suspect that the benefits would outweigh the costs. I am always receiving unsolicited mail from the Red Cross about urgent shortfalls in our blood supply, but I've never received unsolicited news about HIV in the blood supply (or vCJD, for that matter -- I think the British Beef Ban is bull).
To: Dane
What a bunch of morons. I give blood 4 or 5 times a year. It's thanks to them that the screening process now takes about 3 times as long as it used to. Over the past 40 years I've given probably 8 or 10 gallons of blood. If they let the queers started donating just like normal people they'll get no more from me. That's the one donation I will make to the Red Cross because they sure aren't going to get any of my money.
18
posted on
07/13/2005 4:54:55 AM PDT
by
Past Your Eyes
(Think locally, Act neighborly)
To: gridlock
*****The notion that anybody would want to knowingly donate blood for transfusion that may be tainted is such a ridiculous notion one would have to be an intellectual to believe it.*******
There are several cases on record where men and women who have contracted AIDS have been known to go out and practice unsafe sex as payback for their own having contracted it.
Many people with Aids have sex without informing their partner . Is there a difference between this and giving blood?
I would say these people would knowingly and gladly give blood for the same reason.
I am happy your friends wouldnt , but there are some strange people out there.
To: doc30
Soon we'll all go autologous....or maybe I'll go into the blood boutique business to sell "safe" stuff. Franchise anyone?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson