HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Levels of risk have to be accepted the question is what risk level makes blood donation worse than not collecting the blood. That would be a sensible position to take - apropos of which, a board of scientists has now concluded that when it comes to homosexuals the risk level is not high enough to reach that mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 There is no confusion on my part. You are the one whose position is contradictory.Quote my post and highlight what is contradictory. I will answer the confusion head on if that's ok because Im lost here with what your saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Do you get told that your getting gay blood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Do you get told that your getting gay blood? There is no such thing as "gay blood." You don't get told from which donors the blood originated, because nobody knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Another question, are you daft enough to suggest that we should ban all heterosexuals and just have none sexually active people give blood, given that people become sexually active now in their teens ? That what he's driving at. Its amazing how far people will go counter "homophobia". People like HN dont view a ban on gays giving blood as a precautionary measure, they view it as discrimination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 That what he's driving at. Actually it's exactly the opposite of what I'm driving at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 That would be a sensible position to take - apropos of which, a board of scientists has now concluded that when it comes to homosexuals the risk level is not high enough to reach that mark. If that is true all is well, however, the original article cited mentioned concerns re equality. There should be absolutely no concerns re equality especially if such concerns temper the real risk analysis. There is no equality issue worth considering. Gays are not being refused donated blood, anyone barred from donating as distinct from receiving donations suffers no disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 at least your dress sense would improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 There is no such thing as "gay blood." You don't get told from which donors the blood originated, because nobody knows. But if we did have gay men give blood and someone was to contract aids through a transplant, then there will be cried of it being down to 'gay blood' so the argument that letting them give blood will somehow quell discrimination is a false one because it will in effect cause more discrimination. You may jest about gay blood but that's exactly the argument that will get thrown up once the percentage of people becoming infected goes on the rise. Think things through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Actually it's exactly the opposite of what I'm driving at. OK then, in a sentence, what exactly are you driving at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.