|
Posted on 12/06/2004 9:56:49 AM PST by raybbr
MILFORD — Devlin Mannle, 18, simply wanted to donate blood as part of Jonathan Law High School’s holiday blood drive last week.
The American Red Cross worker began asking Mannle a series of questions.
Had he been exposed to hepatitis? Malaria? Had he recently visited certain countries in Africa? Is he an intravenous drug user?
Mannle’s answer to each query was "No."
Then the worker asked another question.
"Have you had sex with a man?"
"Yes," Mannle answered.
(Excerpt) Read more at nhregister.com ...
You should ask anyone of those people supporting this guy whether, in an emergency situation, they would prefer to receive blood from a man who had had sex with another man or from a heterosexual. Interesting to see what the answers would be.
That's because homosexuality is such a rare abnormality in the human population. The rates are much higher among gay men, and this is a terrible (potentially deadly!) misuse of statistics by this no-morals activist.
Of course there are more heterosexual women with it, since there are so many more of them than homosexual men, but it's the rate of infection that's the relevant fact ...since it's only the individual looking to donate being asked this question, not a lottery across the whole state.
This activist is a menace to the public health.
I donate blood at the drive, and in between donate platlets at the center
>> a condom isn't 100% protection. <<
That's an understatement! Condoms are designed for heterosexual contact. Said one AIDS activist in the 1980s: "Wearing a condom during anal intercourse is like using an umbrella in a hurricane."
When it says on a condom that it is 99% effective when used properly, people should know several things:
1. Condoms are only improperly used enough that people having regular sex while using condoms still have 50% as many babies as people who do not use condoms while having regular sex.
2. The effectivess measure refers only to sperm, which are thousands of times larger than an AIDS virus, degrade nearly instantly, and tend to remain in the most viscous part of the semen.
3. Condoms are designed for vaginal intercourse only.
4. Many lubricants, which are commonly used for anal sex, degrade many condoms.
5. Anal sex is vastly more likely to result in abrasins and epidermal tears which allow semen-to-blood contact, making condom failure during anal sex much more catastrophic than condom failure during vaginal sex.
No it would not. I would wager that 9 out of 10 of them would tell you that they didn't care, that either was fine with them.
Of those 9, half would be lying and the other half would be so stupid that they really would not care.
The policy also discriminates against intravenous drug users, people who suffer from hepatitus, and people who have aids.
That is an awesome idea. Have a group of blood that has in big red letters... HIGH RISK BLOOD FOR LIBERALS
Then see how quick these fools and do-gooders use it. Then you can say, we tried to offer the high risk blood but noone wanted it. Case closed!
Me too. They wont take my blood because of intraveinous drug use over 30 years ago.
And I'm being serious.
Make the offer publically (anonymously, if you would like) and let these weasels try to explain how they aren't bigoted against your blood (which wasn't infected by your choice), when they want us to all put ourselves at risk from their activities.
Agreed. But Liberals prefer to be destructive, rather than constructive. They'd never set up something useful like a HISK RISK BLOOD FOR LIBERALS bank.
Muawiyah and Prime Choice are right on the money with this... it's all about the selfishness of these idiots.
Glad these people are at least trying to protect us.
If only there was a way to set aside the blood taken from homosexuals to be given exclusively to the people who protested on behalf of high risk blood.
Then policy hasn't been followed when you donated. They are suppose to review all questions after you fill out the questionaire.
|
|
At the very least, all of the protesters should be willing to accept a sample transfusion of this queer's blood.
Oops! Did I just see a demonstration evaporate?
When they got to the question, "Have you ever exchanged sex for money?" I replied, "Does that count child support?"
Uh, Shawn Lang is described as "she" on the Connecticut AIDS Residential Coalition website.
Though I can understand how the paper could make a mistake... 
Shawn Lang, CARC Assistant Director
"You need to know who is wearing protection and who is not when they are engaging in sex," Lang said.
Why do you care whether a monogamous married couple are wearing protection, perv?
(With apologies to Ms. Lang, if the newspaper distorted her comments.)
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.