Yet another blood feud

Last week, the largest school board in Quebec decided to ban blood donor clinics from all of its schools and offices. The reason? The blood bank agency asks potential donors a list of questions.

One of the many questions posed to men is whether they are gay and have been sexually active. The openly gay vice-chairman of the board protested the "homophobia" of the question.

As a result, the dangerously limited blood supply of this country will be further hit. In other words, the essential surgical and health needs of the people of Canada are considered less important than the chance of a homosexual man being offended by a logical and essential question.

Nor is the scenario confined to Quebec or to Canadian schools. Universities face the same challenge, and at Western Oregon University there is currently a campaign to ban Red Cross blood drives from campus for the same reason.

I wrote about a similar incident some years ago for another newspaper. In that case, the Red Cross had indeed been banned from a university campus in Canada for asking such a question.

After the article appeared the editor of the well-known daily for which I wrote telephoned me and told me I was never to write about gay people ever again.

It doesn't matter, replied the editor, never mention homosexuality "ever again."

It only goes to confirm what many of us have been saying for some time. The tolerance gay people request, and deserve, was achieved long ago. And I applaud that. The debate now is about unquestioning affirmation. This applies to marriage, adoption and so many other areas of the social fabric of our lives.

Let us also please reject the ridiculous charge of homophobia from all this. Of course there are haters out there, but for the most part the accusation of homophobia is merely a clumsy but sometimes successful attempt to stifle contrary opinion. In this case, it is perverse. Lesbians, for example, are more welcome than most as blood donors. They have a lower infection rate than heterosexual women.

Yet the argument goes deeper. There are many questions asked by blood agencies. Which countries have you visited? Have you suffered from various diseases? Have you been an intravenous drug user? Have you been sexually active as a heterosexual in a way that could increase the risk of AIDS infection?

I, for one, cannot give blood because I lived in Britain until 1987, when mad cow disease was to be found in some of the meat supply. The chances of infection are tiny, but the risks are too great to take chances.

Quite right. Nobody's child should receive infected blood simply because someone was upset by what he considered to be a politically incorrect question.

Goodness me, no gay man should face the risk of receiving tainted blood because another gay man's self-esteem was dented by an essential and responsible inquiry.

The essence of all this is that the privileges of the few appear to have become more important than the rights of the many. The comfort level of someone with a particular sexual orientation matters more than life itself.

Of course, all blood is checked and there is hardly any chance of HIV- or AIDS-infected blood reaching the blood banks. But any expert will tell you about the problems of the delayed appearance of infection.

Being gay is not the point. The blood agencies could not care less about a person's sexual orientation. They do care, however, if someone has had anal sex. It is a simple fact that such intercourse makes both partners more open to infection than normal sexual contact.

Only a fool, or perhaps a homophobe, would deny the devastation caused to gay men by AIDS. Condoms are not universally safe, and are not universally used.

Truth, however, is always safe, and should always be used. It could save your life. Even if it does involve answering a question or two.

I think any time a group (which defines itself primarily by some accident of being rather than that human essence we all share) uses accusations of "phobia" to impugn critics, one may safetly assume we're talking about Useful Idiots of the state.

As a result of reduced death rates, there are more people in their non-productive years than ever before. More children and more elderly people unable to participate in the world's work force increase the burden on the productive age group. [...] The National Academy of Sciences has said:

Either the birth rate must go back down or the death rate must go back up.

I'm hopeful these words put into better perspective the candy-coated Pill most "Educated" and "Liberated" sorts swallowed so willingly.

Death tolls have been reduced in every country to negligible rates from epidemics and diseases such as malaria, measles, smallpox, cholera, polio and tuberculosis; major advances have been made against heart disease and cancer, artificial organs can now prolong life.
Since we accept these intrusions into nature's control of population as morally justified, are we not unwise to consider birth control with equal moral justificiation?
If we continue to support government activities to reduce disease and improve health in order to prolong life under the auspices of what is good for society, then should we not consider birth control as a government activity for similar reasons?

Recommendations of the [1970 GOP] Task Force on Earth Resources and Population (George H. Bush, Chairman)
The utter disregard for pursuing the pharmas and recognizing ALL victims -- particularly hemophiliacs -- as opposed to capitalizing on shrieking homosexuals only too stupid as to DEMAND monies for the very pharmas who pumped them full of contaminated Hep-B vaccine in the first place. (Hepatitis being a fairly common occurence among homosexuals.)
My heart aches for you. As it does many who've been affected by the Blood Scandal. And you put me in mind of two brothers (one dead by the time their case came to trial) whose win in court was summarily overturned by the bench.
Unbelievable, really. But one sort of expects that sort of cronyism and protection in a state where Angola Prison bled prisoners like cattle and pumped tainted product through Canada through 1994.

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.