HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 If that is true all is well, however, the original article cited mentioned concerns re equality. It does mention that some people have brought up those concerns - I'd lay heavy odds that the previously-mentioned Peter Tatchell would be one of them. But it also does make very clear that the medical committee considering the ban is considering only medical criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty 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. So being given gay blood will not make you gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I guess it just means more tests on the blood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 OK then, in a sentence, what exactly are you driving at? I can manage it in two sentences, if you'll be satisfied with that. The question of whether or not to allow homosexuals to give blood should be decided based on what level of risk they pose, independently of what level of risk any other group poses. If you bar them simply because their level of risk is higher than some other group, you'll end up with a donor pool of exactly one individual, because everybody else in the world will be more at risk than that one individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 So being given gay blood will not make you gay? No more so than being given "tall blood" would make you tall. The concept is a nonsense to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 No more so than being given "tall blood" would make you tall. The concept is a nonsense to begin with. I know, just seeing if anyone would think it was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I can manage it in two sentences, if you'll be satisfied with that. The question of whether or not to allow homosexuals to give blood should be decided based on what level of risk they pose, independently of what level of risk any other group poses. If you bar them simply because their level of risk is higher than some other group, you'll end up with a donor pool of exactly one individual, because everybody else in the world will be more at risk than that one individual. The gay community are a high risk group, lifting the blood donor ban for gay men is folly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I know, just seeing if anyone would think it was the case. If you get HIV from the blood you get the car sickness without the ride ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 If you get HIV from the blood you get the car sickness without the ride ! And millions in compensation:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I can manage it in two sentences, if you'll be satisfied with that. The question of whether or not to allow homosexuals to give blood should be decided based on what level of risk they pose, independently of what level of risk any other group poses. If you bar them simply because their level of risk is higher than some other group, you'll end up with a donor pool of exactly one individual, because everybody else in the world will be more at risk than that one individual. Your having an argument for arguments sake, you cannot be this stupid surely ? Do you know what percentages, risk factors, risk assessments and probability is ? You are arguing that unless we lift the ban it is only fair that thousands of people die and that we only take blood from virgins IE: children. I don't think your comments are even worth reply anymore, you are either doing this to wind people up or you just really are not bright at all. Given that you can type suggests that your just trying to get peoples backs up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.