Political Crossfire Forums

[ToonArmyIsComing]

eXploiTeD wrote: Absolutely not. I wouldn't want to catch gay :lol:

It's very contagious ... you can catch it through the air!!! :lol:

[Valdimar]

Can I catch straight? ;-)

[George W Bush]

:lol:

You can be gay and donate.

You are differentiated if you are a man who has had sex with another man.

[George W Bush]

Valdimar wrote: Hmm, that's odd. I have donated blood many times, I am gay, but I guess it doesn't matter because my blood is in high demand. Type O

Then, you probably fibbed when they asked if youve had sex with another man since 1977?

[Æ]

Kumar wrote: I'm sure it wouldn't be fine for the additional victims of HIV infection.
We've already heard this sort of s**t enough. The argument is no different than "if it makes us safer, we should do it."

[Plodder]

so many gays suffer from stds that its necessary

[Æ]

Plodder wrote: so many gays suffer from stds that its necessary
It's not necessary by default if the person donating blood doesn't have STDs.

[Kumar]

aLienaTeD wrote: Kumar wrote: I'm sure it wouldn't be fine for the additional victims of HIV infection.
We've already heard this sort of s**t enough. The argument is no different than "if it makes us safer, we should do it."
Yeah, what a great attitude when dealing with medical procedures. Why deny someone who has taken part in an activity that places them at high risk for a disease unable to be detected in the early stages of infection, right?

[Æ]

Kumar wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Kumar wrote: I'm sure it wouldn't be fine for the additional victims of HIV infection.
We've already heard this sort of s**t enough. The argument is no different than "if it makes us safer, we should do it."
Yeah, what a great attitude when dealing with medical procedures. Why deny someone who has taken part in an activity that places them at high risk for a disease unable to be detected in the early stages of infection, right?
Not 'high' risk, but above average risk.

At any rate, if there is a 'governmental prohibition' against something, it ought to be applied equally. I say we keep track of everyone's sex life and prohibit those who have sex more than once a month from donating. No, that wouldn't work, either. You might 'catch' inferior genes.

[Kumar]

aLienaTeD wrote: Kumar wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Kumar wrote: I'm sure it wouldn't be fine for the additional victims of HIV infection.
We've already heard this sort of s**t enough. The argument is no different than "if it makes us safer, we should do it."
Yeah, what a great attitude when dealing with medical procedures. Why deny someone who has taken part in an activity that places them at high risk for a disease unable to be detected in the early stages of infection, right?
Not 'high' risk, but above average risk.

At any rate, if there is a 'governmental prohibition' against something, it ought to be applied equally. I say we keep track of everyone's sex life and prohibit those who have sex more than once a month from donating. No, that wouldn't work, either. You might 'catch' inferior genes.
It's not general sex they're concerned about; it has to do with anal intercourse. And just like you cannot donate if you have lived in certain African countries, you cannot donate if you have had sex with a man. Perhaps it's politically incorrect, but that's unimportant when dealing with something that affects the national blood supply. The doctors seem to want to limit HIV-tainted blood in that supply, hence these restrictions.

[Enoch]

Plodder wrote: so many gays suffer from stds that its necessary Straight people suffer from STDs as well...so, what is your point? The blood is tested before it's ever used. And while HIV can't be detected often when a person is in his or her earliest stages of infection, the same can't be said for other STDs.

But, on to the whole issue, I really don't care if the Red Cross bans me from donating. I won't donate to them anyway; for two reasons. First, I find their practice of banning homosexual men to be discriminatory (whether you feel it is or not, I don't care. I feel that it is). Second, I am AB+. My blood is the "universal reciever." There is no real demand for my blood type because it can only be given to the small percentage of others who are AB+, and those people can take blood of any type. I know several phlobotomists who have told me that most AB+ is never used due to the rarity of finding AB+ people....my blood is just not needed an nearly the rate as other types.

[Winchester]

I don't have a problem with screening blood donors for risk factors. However, the current method seems way too broad by excluding all sexually active gay males, yet does nothing to screen sexually promiscuous hetros. What is wrong with asking the question:

"If you have been sexually active have you been in a monogomous relationship with your partner for X number of years/months?" Where X equals a reasonable time for HIV antibodies to develop and be tested for.

The bottom line is screening questions are not going to stop someone from lying if they are intent on donating blood. The questions should be used to educate and inform the donor of the risk factors and why it is reasonable for the Red Cross to refuse blood that has a higher than acceptable risk. I would assume that almost all donors are doing so to help other people and truely wouldn't want to donate blood if there was a reasonable risk they could infect the blood pool and a potential receipient.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: so many gays suffer from stds that its necessary

Actually, they screen all the blood that is donated before it is used. Hospitals know better than to rely solely on the questionairre that donors have to fill out before giving blood.

I say let everyone donate, but continue to screen donated blood, use any that is "clean", and notify the donor is anything comes up where the blood could not be used.

I've got type O+ blood, so I get calls all the time from donation agencies wanting me to come in and donate again, but I only have so much blood/time to give, and hospitals need all the blood they can get.

[George W Bush]

heres what I know about the blood screening.

the interview before donation is used to both screen for contaminated blood, and to screen for potentially health problems from the donation process to the donor (low weight, low iron, high blood pressure, etc)

the lab process on blood is used to test for infected blood. They know nothing besides the number on the bag. If a units infected, another party steps in to begin the notification process and flag the donor.

Currently, about 1 to 2 people per year are infected with HIV under this process.

According to the article, there are about 64,000 homosexual men who want to give blood but have been deferred due to their status.

The statistics related to gay men having aids of 64,000 is about 2%. That is about 64,000 Times 2 percent = those infected with HIV.

Of those infected, theres even smaller percentage considered where lab tests will not pick the infected blood.

The estimates indicate an increase of about 5 to 7 people per year would be infected if Red Cross allowed sexually active gay men blood donation.

They prefer the 1 to 2 instead of the 5 to 7 hiv from infected, donated blood.

It all depends on what value you put into a blood donation. From a personal perspective, its really (as many have said) their loss. Its not as if its a civil rights violation, so you could almost understand their position.

[Lissou]

I can't donate blood anymore because of my low iron. I resent this, and I understand that not being allowed to because you had sex with a man, even only once, seems unfair.
I said earlier that they should ask women if they'd had anal sex. Why? Because the problem is not with having sex with a man when you're a man. The problem is with anal sex. When having anal sex, you have the chance to catch aids x10. I'm talking only about aids, but other std are about he same. Because it's more likely to bleed, mostly.
So, if th problem is with anal sex, my stance is that they should ask people if they've had or given anal sex, not if they've slept with a man when they're a man.
I'm a woman, and I've had anal sex. Not often, but if sleeping with a man once is enough, then, I'm as much as risk as any gay man.

As for the tests, yes, they do test the blood. that's how the noticed I didn't have enough iron, I think. But they can't keep blood for so long. In the 3 months following the sexual act, if you're infected it won't be noticed.

So, yes, maybe they should ask "in the last 3 months", this way they'll be able to see what blood is infected. But the tests cost money, and they probably want to use the money to take blood and give it to people, not to tzest blood that will be infected. So even if they do test, it's also a matter of money.
A homosexual friend of mines made me realise something else. he wanted to give blood, only to see if he was positive or negative. Maybe they want to prevent people from doing that, too, and giving blood when it will have more chances to be infected, which means they'd spend money on the test and have no blood to give in the end.

Theorically, I'm not for it, but I said "others" because I don't think it's homophobic. I think they do have economical reasons and health resons.

[spearsy23]

Lissou wrote: I can't donate blood anymore because of my low iron. I resent this, and I understand that not being allowed to because you had sex with a man, even only once, seems unfair.
I said earlier that they should ask women if they'd had anal sex. Why? Because the problem is not with having sex with a man when you're a man. The problem is with anal sex. When having anal sex, you have the chance to catch aids x10. I'm talking only about aids, but other std are about he same. Because it's more likely to bleed, mostly.
So, if th problem is with anal sex, my stance is that they should ask people if they've had or given anal sex, not if they've slept with a man when they're a man.
I'm a woman, and I've had anal sex. Not often, but if sleeping with a man once is enough, then, I'm as much as risk as any gay man.

As for the tests, yes, they do test the blood. that's how the noticed I didn't have enough iron, I think. But they can't keep blood for so long. In the 3 months following the sexual act, if you're infected it won't be noticed.

So, yes, maybe they should ask "in the last 3 months", this way they'll be able to see what blood is infected. But the tests cost money, and they probably want to use the money to take blood and give it to people, not to tzest blood that will be infected. So even if they do test, it's also a matter of money.
A homosexual friend of mines made me realise something else. he wanted to give blood, only to see if he was positive or negative. Maybe they want to prevent people from doing that, too, and giving blood when it will have more chances to be infected, which means they'd spend money on the test and have no blood to give in the end.

Theorically, I'm not for it, but I said "others" because I don't think it's homophobic. I think they do have economical reasons and health resons.

Who cares about their cost, you know how much they charge when you need blood? If i give my blood to them for free shouldn't they be obligated to give it away free?

[George W Bush]

Whats even worse is that some insurance doesnt cover the cost of blood. They wont pay for it.
Its like, I believe, a hundred bucks per bag. It might have gone up since I last checked.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Kumar wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Kumar wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Kumar wrote: I'm sure it wouldn't be fine for the additional victims of HIV infection.
We've already heard this sort of s**t enough. The argument is no different than "if it makes us safer, we should do it."
Yeah, what a great attitude when dealing with medical procedures. Why deny someone who has taken part in an activity that places them at high risk for a disease unable to be detected in the early stages of infection, right?
Not 'high' risk, but above average risk.

At any rate, if there is a 'governmental prohibition' against something, it ought to be applied equally. I say we keep track of everyone's sex life and prohibit those who have sex more than once a month from donating. No, that wouldn't work, either. You might 'catch' inferior genes.
It's not general sex they're concerned about; it has to do with anal intercourse. And just like you cannot donate if you have lived in certain African countries, you cannot donate if you have had sex with a man. Perhaps it's politically incorrect, but that's unimportant when dealing with something that affects the national blood supply. The doctors seem to want to limit HIV-tainted blood in that supply, hence these restrictions.

Then why don't they make the criteria if you've had anal sex and not if you are a homosexual?

[John Galt]

Lissou wrote: I can't donate blood anymore because of my low iron. I resent this, and I understand that not being allowed to because you had sex with a man, even only once, seems unfair.
I said earlier that they should ask women if they'd had anal sex. Why? Because the problem is not with having sex with a man when you're a man. The problem is with anal sex. When having anal sex, you have the chance to catch aids x10. I'm talking only about aids, but other std are about he same. Because it's more likely to bleed, mostly.
So, if th problem is with anal sex, my stance is that they should ask people if they've had or given anal sex, not if they've slept with a man when they're a man.
I'm a woman, and I've had anal sex. Not often, but if sleeping with a man once is enough, then, I'm as much as risk as any gay man.

As for the tests, yes, they do test the blood. that's how the noticed I didn't have enough iron, I think. But they can't keep blood for so long. In the 3 months following the sexual act, if you're infected it won't be noticed.

So, yes, maybe they should ask "in the last 3 months", this way they'll be able to see what blood is infected. But the tests cost money, and they probably want to use the money to take blood and give it to people, not to tzest blood that will be infected. So even if they do test, it's also a matter of money.
A homosexual friend of mines made me realise something else. he wanted to give blood, only to see if he was positive or negative. Maybe they want to prevent people from doing that, too, and giving blood when it will have more chances to be infected, which means they'd spend money on the test and have no blood to give in the end.

Theorically, I'm not for it, but I said "others" because I don't think it's homophobic. I think they do have economical reasons and health resons.

If you have anal sex with a heterosexual male, that is one thing. If you have anal sex with a man who has played for the other team, well... that's quite another in regards to statistics and who is far more probabbly to be passing around the AIDS. And they do ask you that. If I recall they ask if to your knowledge if you have had sex with a man who has had sex with another man even once since 1976 or something like that. Can't remember very well though; I only did it for a lousy T-Shirt once.

[GenderQueer]

John Galt wrote: Alot of people are uncomfortable with it because of the ridiculously high percentage of homosexual men that have AIDS in comparison with the rest of the population. While in other countries this may be different, most people with AIDS in this country are homosexual males. Yes, you can get AIDS other ways than homosexual sex, mostly from needles. And so if someone has had homosexual sex they are far more likely to have AIDS than a person that has not, and since people are more likely to get AIDS from needles than anything else other than homosexual sex, the Red Cross is trying to save lives. What's the problem? This isn't discrimination against "a people" or anytthing. This is discriminating agianst people that have done certian actions... such as visted Africa in the past X years or had homosexual sex, all in the intrest of helping people.

I agree with the fact that the Red Cross is honestly tyring to help people, no debate there. But a blanket condemnation of people who have had homosexual sex puts the idea forward that gay sex = sickness. This question that disqualifies you from donating blood continues that idea. There are tests for HIV/AIDs and other STDs that blood has to be scanned for, so still why are we not allowing these potential donors to give blood? Yes there is a higher risk with homosexual sex, but with sex comes risk period. So if the Red Cross is trying to help people by avoiding a high risk group, why do the still get blood from who are still involved in sexual activity if there still is a risk of getting STDs. The numbers are growing of people who are not getting HIV/AIDS from homosexual sex, and even as far back as 1993 the #3 way that men were getting HIV/AIDS was from prostitutes.