Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

Gay men should be able to donate blood, students say College group pressures Red Cross

By STEVEN BODZIN Los Angeles Times July 11. 2005 8:06AM

WASHINGTON - For more than a decade, gay rights advocates have grumbled about a federal policy that forbids blood donation by men who have had sex with men.

They say that the policy, originally intended to keep HIV-positive blood from entering the nation's blood supply, implies gay men are inherently sick and that it prevents healthy people from donating.

Occasional protests and talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which oversees blood banks, have brought no change.

Now, some college students have taken up the cause, and they're taking a new tack. Instead of pressuring the FDA directly, they are going after the American Red Cross - the largest and highest-profile blood collector in the country.

Unlike America's Blood Centers, which represents the non-Red Cross blood banks that collect most of the nation's blood, the Red Cross publicly supports the policy. Activists say that if they can get the Red Cross to change its stance, the FDA will follow.

While many gay rights advocates have treated the blood ban as a low priority, college groups have begun to take on the issue. They argue that, although safe blood supplies are essential, this particular policy is outdated, ineffective and homophobic.

(Excerpt) Read more at concordmonitor.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aids; bioterror; blooddonation; fda; gaydisease; health; hepatitis; homosexualagenda; perverts; redcross
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.


5 posted on 07/13/2005 4:22:03 AM PDT by linkinpunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Easy solution. Set up a private blood bank. By homos for homos.


10 posted on 07/13/2005 4:38:25 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.
11 posted on 07/13/2005 4:38:41 AM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

More evidence of the culture of death folks.


14 posted on 07/13/2005 4:45:03 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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).

17 posted on 07/13/2005 4:52:33 AM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.


19 posted on 07/13/2005 4:55:08 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Soon we'll all go autologous....or maybe I'll go into the blood boutique business to sell "safe" stuff. Franchise anyone?


20 posted on 07/13/2005 4:55:52 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: doc30

"Maybe that is their strategic goal "

Could well be doc30. After all they failed miserably in their attempt to convince us that AID's would sweep through the hetero community.


21 posted on 07/13/2005 4:57:20 AM PDT by commonasdirt (Reading DU so you won't hafta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The inodctrinated marxists are not concerned about keeping the blood supply safe.

Actually, they want to spread AIDS among the population of non-gay men. If cute suburban children are dying from AIDS, then they think that we will drastically mobilize resources to cure this otherwise homosexual disease.

AIDS queers want to infect our children, not just indoctrinate them.

22 posted on 07/13/2005 5:00:00 AM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
Allowing gays to openly donate blood would skew the odds somewhat, but I suspect that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Homosexuals also have much higher incidences of gongherrea and syphilis.

It's just a fact that their "lifestyle"(deathstyle) is much unhealthier and that their blood is going to be filled with many more pathogens, than a heterosexual male or female.

23 posted on 07/13/2005 5:00:14 AM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Stupid idea!

Now, let's get these morons registered on a Federal list

AND have them give blood to each other.

Four or five years and viola the epidemic is under control....'cause the carriers will be room temperature!

24 posted on 07/13/2005 5:01:42 AM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
Allowing gays to openly donate blood would skew the odds somewhat, but I suspect that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Why on Earth would you suspect that? That's about the silliest thing I have ever heard!

If you can screen out a deadly disease, why not screen it out? Blood banks are dependent on donations, so they are always promoting donations, but I don't think anybody is dying from a lack of blood in the blood banks. However, if AIDS is introduced into the blood supply, a lot of people will die.

I don't wish to stigmitize anybody, but public health is important. I think confidential opt outs are the way to go. If somebody with risk factors wants to donate blood, that's fine. But nobody has the right to put their blood into somebody else's body, particularly if it has an increased risk of bearing a deadly disease.

25 posted on 07/13/2005 5:05:30 AM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Many people with Aids have sex without informing their partner . Is there a difference between this and giving blood?

I think the difference between someone who intentionally transmits AIDS through unprotected sex and someone tho donates infected blood is the difference between the person who kills his lover and the Texas University Tower sniper. Sure there are people who kill indiscriminately, but they are rare. It is far more common for people to kill those they know. And it is the extremely rare individual who wants to kill completely randomly and anonymously, without really knowing if he kills or not. I am sure such people exist, but there can not many of them.

Lots of people who are having promiscuous sex have self-hate issues. These people can be dangerous to themselves and those around them. But nobody really gets off on blood donations, at least not in my experience.

26 posted on 07/13/2005 5:14:36 AM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dane

well, next thing you know, all IV drug users who share dirty needles will be demanding that they be able to give blood. Not allowing them to give blood is addictophobic, and that is wrong. And them people with hepatitis C will be demanding to be allowed to donate blood. To do otherwise will be hepatitophobic. And that is just wrong. What the heck, lets just drop all screening and let anyone, regardless of their health give blood. Then we will have all the blood we will need. Because after a few short years, so many will die, that the demand for blood products will go down. Or, more likely, because no one will have faith in the blood supply, no one will allow themselves to be given blood products, and thus we will have an ample supply. Yeah, that's the answer.


27 posted on 07/13/2005 5:34:03 AM PDT by yukong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
I had surgery in 1981. In (IIRC) 1987 or so, the hospital I was in in La Crosse, WI, publicly requested everyone who had received blood there within the past 6-7 years to call in, as they had a rash of infections, mostly HIV, in transfusees.

I will never forget the feeling when I heard that. I called the hospital and gave my date of surgery. There was a longish pause and the RN said:"Yes, you may be at risk". She pulled my records and then told me that the lot I had received was ok. Again, the relief was indescribable.

Infinitesimal risk or not, the blood supply has in the past been compromised by politics (Clinton/prison donations) and probably more often than we know. It isn't always possible to give your own blood. An emergency or an accident, especially one away from home, cannot be planned for.

I have relatives and friends who are med staff and who have been exposed through their work. They go thru testing and live with dread until they are cleared. They comfort themselves with the fact of antiviral drug treatment before they know for sure. How much less of a risk is one small needle prick, or one splash from a patient as opposed to an entire unit or more?

I have given blood and plasma (I am AB+). I think I will make more plasma donations. It takes a relatively long time and is exhausting, but at least I know I am not infected with anything and the plasma is in high demand.
28 posted on 07/13/2005 5:35:05 AM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dane; little jeremiah

PING to you, LJ

"...and they received on themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:27b

If I may be so bold as to ask this important question:

It is obvious that a majority on this thread believe that the sodomites are statistically more likely to be carriers of deadly diseases, correct?

Then why on earth are we not calling for a quarrantine?

Seriously, if this were any other group, the public would be in outrage. Remember the dastardly meningitis scare or e-coli pandemonium of a few years ago? The public was flipping out, tripping over themselves to secure the possible carriers of those diseases. What happens each time there's an outbreak of Mad Cow? Panic. Boycotts. Public health warnings, etc.

Yet, despite the fact that fewer Americans die each year of Mad Cow, Meningitis, or e-coli than homo-infected AIDS (44% of all new cases come from them) - no one is willing to "call a spade a spade" and label these people for the walking bio-hazards that they are. C'mon - a 300% increase in Syphillis since 2001? This is a borderline epidemic.

Most of you have said (on the forum, under a condition of anonymity) how you feel about the tainted blood of the sodomites, how unsafe and dangerous it is. What's stopping us from saying it in public?

The Politically Correct blinders need to come off here, and the Truth needs to start being told as much and as soon as possible.


29 posted on 07/13/2005 5:35:34 AM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow ("Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good." Rom 12v9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

"Now, some college students have taken up the cause, and they're taking a new tack. Instead of pressuring the FDA directly, they are going after the American Red Cross - the largest and highest-profile blood collector in the country."

The Red Cross won't budge on this one. There are billions of dollars on the line in blood related products. When people feel that the blood is 100% unsafe there will be a mass screaming for alternatives to the GaySatan damaged blood system.


30 posted on 07/13/2005 5:41:29 AM PDT by American Vet Repairman (VA Hospitals have killed more vets than the Taliban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Next thing they will say is that intravenous drug users should have a right to donate blood.
31 posted on 07/13/2005 5:47:33 AM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

"More evidence of the culture of death, folks"


When we step off of the 'straight & narrow" (ignore transcendant disciplines aka Ten Commandments) the Law of Consequences kicks in.
If we stubbornly refuse to mend our ways, the Law of Decay sets in....and that includes the decay of reason. Considering that millions of Americans have turned their backs on the 'straight and narrow" it comes as no surprise that insanity flows through America like a river of sludge.


32 posted on 07/13/2005 5:48:29 AM PDT by Lindykim (Courage is the first of all the virtues...if you haven*t courage, you may not have the opportunity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr

And let gay men donate amongst themselves. I have no problem with that.


33 posted on 07/13/2005 5:50:29 AM PDT by Clara Lou (In this order: Read. Post comment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I was talking to someone with inside knowledge of the Canadian blood supply system, which was taken away from the Red Cross by the Candian government after the tainted blood scandal (in which thousands of Canadians, many of them hemophiliacs, were infected with AIDS).

This person told me that one of the main reasons that large amounts of infected blood was allowed to be used in transfusions was an unwillingness, on the part of the Canadian Red Cross, to question a donors sexual preference. My friend described it as a "mind set."

(steely)

34 posted on 07/13/2005 5:50:59 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Fortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn't include the word 'is'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lindykim

So true, LK. We aren't slouching toward Gomorrah....we're in an full-out sprint.


35 posted on 07/13/2005 5:52:10 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Homosexual Health Hazards for the year 2005

Gays faced with new STD strains (Miami Herald), FreeRepublic
'New AIDS' spreading among homosexual men (WorldNetDaily), FreeRepublic
Rare sexually transmitted disease reported in Boston (Boston Herald)
Syphilis on the rise with gays (Greenwich Time), FreeRepublic
The African heterosexual AIDS myth (TownHall), FreeRepublic
Party, Play.And Pay (Newsweek), FreeRepublic
HIV 'supervirus' is a warning to all (Sydney Morning Herald), FreeRepublic
S.D. man could have aggressive HIV strain (San Diego), FreeRepublic
All The Condoms In The World (Christian Undergound), FreeRepublic
Criminalizing The Transmission Of The AIDS Virus (FreeRepublic)
HIV harbinger (Original Source Not Available)
Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex (New York Times), FreeRepublic
2 new patients may hold clues to potent HIV Strains analyzed for possible links to N.Y. man's virus (San Francisco Chronicle), FreeRepublic
Rare and Aggressive H.I.V. Reported in New York (New York Times), FreeRepublic
New resistant strain of HIV diagnosed in New Yorker (Crains), FreeRepublic
Homosexual Males Award Us Again (Christian Underground), FreeRepublic
Rare sex disease strikes in New York (Original Source Not Available)
Some gays yearn for infection (PJ Star), FreeRepublic
Erasure star admits he wanted to be diagnosed with HIV (Female First (UK)), FreeRepublic

36 posted on 07/13/2005 5:54:31 AM PDT by scripter (Let temporal things serve your use, but the eternal be the object of your desire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

I have a brother who had cancer and they wont let him give blood either, although I dont think there is any case or record of anyone having gotten cancer from a transfusion.


37 posted on 07/13/2005 5:55:38 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
You might find this article interesting.

Harvard Homosexual Student Activist Urges Blood Donors to Lie

38 posted on 07/13/2005 5:57:24 AM PDT by N. Theknow (If Social Security is so good - why aren't members of Congress in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dane

one way or another, the pc liberals are going to find a way to destroy America.


39 posted on 07/13/2005 6:00:01 AM PDT by SeaBiscuit (God Bless all who defend America and Friends, the rest can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Yes prior to giving blood you must fill out a pretty detailed and personal questionnaire. Then they interview you to double check.Sure hope everyone is honest with them but in any case they do several tests prior to using the blood.

I had elective surgery some time ago and made my own blood bank in case it was necessary.

40 posted on 07/13/2005 6:00:53 AM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The inodctrinated marxists are not concerned about keeping the blood supply safe.

They want to contaminate it freely. This is really an effort to legalize bioterror. I will bet there are some who purposely attempt to poison the blood supply...

41 posted on 07/13/2005 6:01:31 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

The reason the odds are so low for getting aids from the blood supply now is because queers are not allowed to donate blood, if they are allowed to do this the odds will jump considerably. If you wish to take transfusions from someone who quite possible has aids then, please, go right ahead, just don't ask the rest of us to take the same risk!


42 posted on 07/13/2005 6:03:30 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

Exactly! I hope I never need blood,but if I do I would rather get it from my dog than a gay giver.


43 posted on 07/13/2005 6:05:02 AM PDT by daddyOwe ("a man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to leave alone")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The FDA's expert panel voted 7 to 6 to maintain the ban.

Gee, that's comforting.

44 posted on 07/13/2005 6:06:19 AM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

later pingout.


45 posted on 07/13/2005 6:07:11 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Isn't there a pretty lengthy (6 months?) period of time where a person can be HIV positive but the tests will show up negative?

This is why the ban is necessary.

Also, donating blood is a privilege, not a right.


46 posted on 07/13/2005 6:08:46 AM PDT by proud American in Canada (Please check out my new & improved profile page!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

If they're infected, bygod you will be too.

Typical lib MO - make everyone else as miserable as you are.


47 posted on 07/13/2005 6:12:33 AM PDT by Let's Roll ( "Congressmen who ... undermine the military ... should be arrested, exiled or hanged" - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

Frankly, I just don't get it. There is no reward for having your blood transfused into another person. Some blood banks pay for blood, but you can still get that money and opt out from having the blood transfused, so even the financial incentive doesn't apply.

The only reason I can see for a high-risk person wanting his blood transfused is because he wants the medical authorities to "validate" his decision to engage in high-risk activity. As long as that question is asked of blood donors, it raises the unpleasant fact that certain sexual activity involves increased risk. But that is not the fault of the question. That's just reality.

De' Nile is not just a river in Egypt.


48 posted on 07/13/2005 6:12:35 AM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
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.

I know a gay man who openly stated in a sizable discussion group that he would not want to know if he had HIV!

49 posted on 07/13/2005 6:15:11 AM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
Easy solution. Set up a private blood bank. By homos for homos...and straight handwringers.
Be interesting to see how many of those, mostly liberal, gay-friendly heteros are willing to accept the blood of sodomites.
50 posted on 07/13/2005 6:16:13 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson