HeadingNorth Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 That's like saying no one should be allowed to fly because they're all terrorists That's exactly what it is like, and yet for someone reason when we're discussing homosexuals people think it is a valid argument. As soon as you extend the same argument to heterosexuals those very same people will tell you how ridiculous it is; but they still won't see any inconsistency in their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 No test is ever completely accurate. 99.9999%, maybe... I would settle for that and sleep soundly if I was a recipient from a blood donor just as I would feel as safe boarding a plane with the same safety factor percentage. I still say that a gay person should be flagged if he voluntarily chooses to reveal his sexual orientation. He may well be responsible in his sexual activity but we cant all assume that with blinkers on just for the sake of not appearing to be biased against a certain group, This kind of often ridiculous outlook is why 70 year old grandmothers have to be X-rayed and patted down when going through airport safety checks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I still say that a gay person should be flagged if he voluntarily chooses to reveal his sexual orientation. He may well be responsible in his sexual activity but we cant all assume that with blinkers on just for the sake of not appearing to be biased against a certain group. We don't. In fact we don't assume anything. Medical evidence now shows that with modern testing methods, blood from homosexuals who have not been active for 12 months is no more or less risky than blood from heterosexuals. If you're trying to argue that people who tell the truth on the declaration form should be barred because they might also lie on it, but people who lie on it to begin with are okay, then we're beyond the realms of logical debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 We don't. In fact we don't assume anything. Medical evidence now shows that with modern testing methods, blood from homosexuals who have not been active for 12 months is no more or less risky than blood from heterosexuals.If you're trying to argue that people who tell the truth on the declaration form should be barred because they might also lie on it, but people who lie on it to begin with are okay, then we're beyond the realms of logical debate. If that's true I'm glad to hear it. There's a shortage of blood donors. If ever I need to have surgery I'll donate my own blood to myself first though knowing that it's 100 percent safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 If that's true I'm glad to hear it. There's a shortage of blood donors. If ever I need to have surgery I'll donate my own blood to myself first though knowing that it's 100 percent safe It doesn't matter if it's not 100% safe you would only be giving yourself the disease(s) that you already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 No they don't, but at least they have the courage of their convections which is probably more than can be said about you. I suppose a certain level of courage is needed to continuously ascend to the ceiling before descending to the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Interesting How so? It can take months for blood infected with HIV to show antibodies, so in theory it's possible for the blood of someone who is recently infected with HIV to test negative for HIV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 It can take months for blood infected with HIV to show antibodies, so in theory it's possible for the blood of someone who is recently infected with HIV to test negative for HIV. Which is why the ban on homosexual men donating blood should remain in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Which is why the ban on homosexual men donating blood should remain in place. No, the 12 month rule manages this risk perfectly. Do you think that there should be a similar rule for heterosexual donors, as theoretically there is also a risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 This decision is going to end up killing someone,those who have allowed this have blood on their hands,this should be reversed. Given the shortage of blood supplies to the NHS at the moment, surely that criticism should be levelled at those whose predjudice would try to stop extra donations. John X P.S. How are you getting on with reporting me to the mods for being someone else? Had any news yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.