It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal ban on gay men's blood donation to be reconsidered

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Federal ban on gay men's blood donation to be reconsidered


www.cnn.com

Under Food and Drug Administration rules, men who have had sex -- even once -- with another man since 1977 are not permitted to give blood. The rule was implemented in 1983, sparked by concerns that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was tainting the blood supply. Screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood had not been developed. The policy was seen as a safety measure.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

But today, with the availability of more accurate testing, activists, blood organizations and several U.S. senators say the lifetime ban is "medically and scientifically unwarranted" and are calling for change.



The Human Rights Campaign, the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and AABB, formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks, support easing the lifetime ban to allow gay blood donors. In a joint statement, the blood organizations said that safety was the first priority and that potential donors should be screened more fairly, regardless of sexual orientation.


This law or rule or whatever you want to call it has the ignorance from the 80's written all over it, to assume all gay men are whores and potentially have HIV or Aids is wrong and shouldn't exclude them from the procedure, especially when they are screening the blood anyways, i just don't see the point to not allow it at all if they screen everyone elses anyways.

Anyways, It's about damn time a discussion started taking place. I've said it once and i'll say it again, STD's, Aid's Hiv isn't just a gay issue, sleeping around or without protection isn't either, and to make it out as if it is is just wrong and embracing ignorance.

Deny Ignorance.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Uniceft17]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Is the tattoo ban and the Africa travel ban for the same reason? If so will they be lifted in kind?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Yeah, a very ridiculous rule.

Can you imagine how many homosexual men who had rare blood types that would LOVE to give but yet get turned away because of misplaced fear?

I'm happy they are going to reconsider the rule, although to me it seems like common sense.

All blood collected is screened anyway.

~Keeper



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   


Can you imagine how many homosexual men....


Men are supoosed to want/be with/mate with a woman, not another man. Stop being being so ignorant and supportive of those who are deviants and get your mind straight people!



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
oh nooo! i dont want to catch "The Gay" if I ever need blood


+5 more 
posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee



Can you imagine how many homosexual men....


Men are supoosed to want/be with/mate with a woman, not another man. Stop being being so ignorant and supportive of those who are deviants and get your mind straight people!


Excuse you?

I'm not gonna have this conversation with you as you obviously think you are somehow better than the rest of the world and have the ability to judge people.

People who in glass houses should not thrown stones.

You seem to be the deviant in this world Sir.

~Keeper



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

Men are supoosed to want/be with/mate with a woman, not another man. Stop being being so ignorant and supportive of those who are deviants and get your mind straight people!


Tsk, Tsk ... who or what says?

No really, I'm curious - who or what says they are *supposed* to be?


+1 more 
posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Let's not get into this BS about gays being deviants thing. It's not the topic.

I don't see why anyone can't give blood today with the screening that is available today. As to this rule you have to realize this was during the Aids scare of the early 80's. I think if any of us were adults at the time, I was, one would have supported this rule. I did and I still believe it was right. We didn't have the screening process we do today. Now there's no need for this.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MR BOB
oh nooo! i dont want to catch "The Gay" if I ever need blood




Good news, we've saved your life.

Bad news, we're afraid you may have contracted "The Gay."



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Nature, thats who. And if any of you really have to inquire about that, then I feel more than disappointed be it coming from the ATS society.

When was the last time you saw two male deer getting it on?

Or how baout two male otters?

Perhaps two male bears? Get the point people!? In nature it ain't right!

Its only right in the minds of those who are wrong.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by MR BOB
oh nooo! i dont want to catch "The Gay" if I ever need blood




Good news, we've saved your life.

Bad news, we're afraid you may have contracted "The Gay."


OMG, that reminds me of the episode of All in the Family where Archie needed a blood transfusion and later learns the donor was a black nurse.
What a scream.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Yeah, yeah, we get your point, it's clear. Now can we get back to the topic?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
People can give blood and most of the members here are correct, testing will weed out most of the problems but there is and always will be the chance that something could slip by in the process and thats what they are trying to prevent. Afterall, if donors were 100% responsible then the only testing that would be required is for compatability.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Yea, Yea, Yea sure OK.....



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Every one has a right to do what ever they want when it comes to Sexual orientation! who cares if your gay straight or bi or even Trisexual! who are you to judge



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Nature, thats who. And if any of you really have to inquire about that, then I feel more than disappointed be it coming from the ATS society.

When was the last time you saw two male deer getting it on?

Or how baout two male otters?

Perhaps two male bears? Get the point people!? In nature it ain't right!

Its only right in the minds of those who are wrong.
let it go, you'll loose, there are many examples of gay animal. MANY. (then you'll say, yes but they're animals, we're humans ect, we've been here before) And how you have the audacity in your first post to follow the first sentance with "Stop being being so ignorant " It's hillarious!!


BACK ON TOPIC.

The blood is tested, so anything anyone has "straight/gay/bi/whatever" will be seen. It's not rockt science, and it's NOT "some gay deviant agenda thing" it's called common sense. They're crying out for blood donations. FFS.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Cradle12003
 


We're beyond that man. Thanks.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
All blood collected is screened anyway.


The issue is that it takes up to 6 months before standard tests will show that a person is infected with HIV.


Ninety seven percent will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV.

www.hivtest.org...


This is a problem because donated blood isn't kept for that long. Most donated red blood cells are used within 42 days. So it's pretty obvious why someone suspected of being at risk for HIV would be banned from donating. A person who was infected with the last 3-6 months may test negative for HIV and their blood donations could infect others.

The real question of course is, are homosexual males more likely to to be HIV positive than other segments of society?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
The real question of course is, are homosexual males more likely to to be HIV positive than other segments of society?


30 years ago yes. Now, no. You've got needle users and trust me, they aren't all dirty junkies. There's businessmen that use as well. Share a needle while getting a tattoo? Whoops, not a good idea. Btw, Hep B kills many more people a year than Aids.

Btw, who are you?




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join