Gay blood donor ban to be lifted

[hard2miss]

http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm

 

Right the 3 high risk groups are,

men who have sex with other men (down to the nature of the sex)

Drug takers who inject (down to sharing of needles)

People who have received contaminated blood products ( blood that had been contaminated or got through the screening procedures)

 

Now we have identified the 3 main high risk groups, and what people are actually suggesting is we dismiss this information because someone feeling may be hurt and so should take the added risk ?

 

Is anyone suggesting that we should let drug takers be able to give blood, just out of curiosity ?

[HeadingNorth]

Another person who cannot grasp the basic concept of percentages ?

 

Percentages have nothing to do with the contradiction in your thinking. You insist on excluding one group because they are at a higher risk of carrying HIV than people not in that group; and yet you insist on including another group, which is also at a higher risk of carrying HIV than people not in that group.

 

 

All I'm asking is that you be consistent.

[hard2miss]

Percentages have nothing to do with the contradiction in your thinking. You insist on excluding one group because they are at a higher risk of carrying HIV than people not in that group; and yet you insist on including another group, which is also at a higher risk of carrying HIV than people not in that group.

 

 

All I'm asking is that you be consistent.

Which other group is a higher risk ?

 

I am confused because I have not said anything about any other high risk group being able to give blood. I hope you are talking about heterosexuals because you are making the fundamental mistake of adding up only one side of the statistics to make a point.

 

For every x amount of heterosexuals with aids there is more x amount not with it, you have taken this all into account haven't you ? because in that respect they are not a high risk group as you are mistaken to believe, and you are just using the numbers wrongly.

 

Please tell me where you think I am conflicting and I will try and tidy up my argument in a way that's easy to understand.

[HeadingNorth]

Please tell me where you think I am conflicting and I will try and tidy up my argument in a way that's easy to understand.

 

 

I refer you to my previous post. Statement; persons in group X are at a higher risk of carrying HIV than persons not in group X.

 

Question; should persons in group X be allowed to give blood?

[BritPat]

Tatchell seeing the door slightly ajar seeks to remove it from its hinges.if

 

According to Tatchell a ban of 12 months is excessive if a gay/bisexual man claims to use a condom.

 

Tatchell has form for zealously promoting 'gay rights' regardless of the effects on society as a whole.

 

He once called for buggery of 14 year olds to be legalized, concern for anguished 14 year olds yearning to be buggered? or an attempt to 'normalize' approaches by ageing queens ?

[hard2miss]

I refer you to my previous post. Statement; persons in group X are at a higher risk of carrying HIV than persons not in group X.

 

Question; should persons in group X be allowed to give blood?

Never mind the ethical side of it, its the practical side of things that you should be taking into account when it comes to peoples health.

 

Just re phrase the question replacing the x and Ill answer if we are moving onto a different angle on the topic.

[BritPat]

In which case - as he just posted - you should be arguing to exclude all people who have ever had sexual intercourse. The whole of that group has a higher percentage of people with HIV than the group that has never had sex.

 

The group that has never had sex has a very small chance of being HIV positive, however, the relevant group is very small and you would probably have to drain them within a cc of blood every 2 weeks and you still wouldn't have enough reserves.

[HeadingNorth]

Never mind the ethical side of it, its the practical side of things that you should be taking into account when it comes to peoples health.

 

Just re phrase the question replacing the x and Ill answer if we are moving onto a different angle on the topic.

 

 

The question remains exactly the same regardless of which group is represented by X. Either you want groups banned which are at higher risk than other groups, or else you do not. Which is it?

[Big time]

Tatchell seeing the door slightly ajar seeks to remove it from its hinges.if

 

According to Tatchell a ban of 12 months is excessive if a gay/bisexual man claims to use a condom.

 

Tatchell has form for zealously promoting 'gay rights' regardless of the effects on society as a whole.

 

He once called for buggery of 14 year olds to be legalized, concern for anguished 14 year olds yearning to be buggered? or an attempt to 'normalize' approaches by ageing queens ?

 

Tatchel's an idiot, we're meant to just take people's word that they've used a condom??

[BritPat]

Not in Africa it aint.

 

True, but tailgating is very popular there. In one poll in S Africa 25% of men admitted rape of men women and children.

 

In the US The Black Male population has a high incidence of HIV positives.

 

Drug use and what they refer to as the 'Down Low' lifestyle is to blame.

 

US Blacks are in general vociferously anti-gay and yet large numbers of 'heterosexual???' Black males get to grips with their demons on the 'down low' before going back to the hood and spreading their newly acquired HIV infections to the Black female population who often pass it on in turn to their children during pregnancy.

 

 

Last time I referred to this subject the post was deleted and I was banned.

The gay lobby here has even more clout than the race/feminist lobbies.

 

Guardian 25% South Africans admit rape

 

I'll get my coat