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.

 

US committee says gay blood ban will stay in place

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

US committee says gay blood ban will stay in place


www.pinknews.co.uk

The US Food and Drug Administration has decided to retain current rules on gay and bisexual men donating blood.

They said there was still a tiny but "unacceptable" increased risk of HIV transmission to blood recipients.

The UK has similarly restrictive laws for gay and bisexual men who want to donate blood, although they are not barred from donating their organs.

However, heterosexual men and women who have had sex with a person at risk of HIV must only defer from donating for 12 months
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com
wellness.blogs.time.com




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Also same in Canada


A group of university students from Halifax are taking to the streets to protest a long-standing ban by the Canadian Blood Services.

The ban, referred to as MSM by the service, states that gay men are not permitted to donate blood if they have had sex with another man, even once, since 1977.

www.globalregina.com...


What are your thoughts on this ATS?
Okay, before we all of our socks in a bunch let's maturely discuss the issue.

Is there a higher chance of HIV in gay people?
I know doctors who say yes.

Of course the fact that in the U.S. people who have intercourse with HIV infected partners can donate after 12months is absolutely ridiculous, no argument there.

Let's see



Around 48% of all people diagnosed with AIDS in America were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 17% total AIDS cases.

Since the beginning of the epidemic, the number of heterosexual infections has increased dramatically. According to CDC estimates, heterosexual contact led to about one third of new AIDS diagnoses and one third of new HIV diagnoses in 2006.

www.avert.org...




Let's be civil and discuss maturely

If you will just decide to get offended by this thread and posts in here then please do not post.

I would like a civil and mature discussion, if you are not capable of this please do not post here.

Thank You in advance.

www.pinknews.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Whatever became of proper examination and health screening of donors ? Theres also things like anemia, having had malaria, hepatitis among other things that would make someone ineligable to donate blood. Sounds like stupidity running rampant there..



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Donor blood, should be screened for everything, just like donated organs.
There would be a huge shortage, though!

I know I'd take blood, no matter what, if it was a life or death situation.

Who wouldn't?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   


Is there a higher chance of HIV in gay people?
I know doctors who say yes.

Of course the fact that in the U.S. people who have intercourse with HIV infected partners can donate after 12 months is absolutely ridiculous, no argument there.


What about African-Americans, who are also at a high risk with homosexuals?

You can't single one out and try to say it's for human health reasons when you don't do the same with each high factor group.

Nice try though.

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Uniceft17]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
The statistics may show that gays have higher probability of HIV, but the testing is there now.

There's really no point in upholding the ban now that we have adequate testing to prevent any "dirty" blood from getting through.

This measure would just encourage people to lie about it on the forms, further endangering the supply.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The statistics may show that gays have higher probability of HIV, but the testing is there now.

There's really no point in upholding the ban now that we have adequate testing to prevent any "dirty" blood from getting through.

This measure would just encourage people to lie about it on the forms, further endangering the supply.

~Keeper


The problem is gay and bisexual men do much more risky sexual behavior then heterosexual men and women.

Gay men tend to have much more promiscious sexual lives.

60% of all gay relationships are non-monogamous.

There is even gay clubs with large bowls of condoms for free.

Until this is adressed i say ban gay blood.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I get tested, every year.

I am negative, and will most likely stay that way.

Do I have a higher chance of contracting it? Sure.

Can my blood be tested before being put to use? Yes.

Why is my blood not welcome? Will my perfectly clean blood affect someone else's blood, and give them a higher chance of contracting disease?

So, if a family member needed my blood, because of blood type, I am forced to lie about who I am in order to help them.


Congrats on equal society. I'll keep my gay blood, and if it would have saved someone else's life, thats just too bad.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by empireofpain
 


And where do these stats come from?
You're telling me that heterosexual people don't have crazy lives? Please...
I'm straight, and I've seen way more crazy stuff from heterosexual people than gays.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I don't see a problem with baring homosexual men from donating blood, it just makes good sense. it has nothing to do with them being gay... it is just the life style they lead.
can be very dangerous.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bvproductions
reply to post by empireofpain
 


And where do these stats come from?
You're telling me that heterosexual people don't have crazy lives? Please...
I'm straight, and I've seen way more crazy stuff from heterosexual people than gays.

it has nothing to do with crazy... The HIV virus is more suited for easy transfer with gay men..I don't want to get in to detail... but it's the fluid transfer..
the odds of a heterosexual couple getting infected is much smaller, then a homosexual couple. HIV is transmitted perfectly trough blood... but with other fluids it takes a lot of the virus to get you sick.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

The problem is gay and bisexual men do much more risky sexual behavior then heterosexual men and women.


Stats? Sure in their youth I could see that happening from the sexual repression etc..



Gay men tend to have much more promiscious sexual lives.


Stats? Same as above.



60% of all gay relationships are non-monogamous.


Again, stats?



There is even gay clubs with large bowls of condoms for free.


So you think that promoting safe sex among the gay population is a bad thing?

Interesting..

~Keeper



[edit on 6/15/2010 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth

Originally posted by bvproductions
reply to post by empireofpain
 


And where do these stats come from?
You're telling me that heterosexual people don't have crazy lives? Please...
I'm straight, and I've seen way more crazy stuff from heterosexual people than gays.


it has nothing to do with crazy... The HIV virus is more suited for easy transfer with gay men..I don't want to get in to detail... but it's the fluid transfer..
the odds of a heterosexual couple getting infected is much smaller, then a homosexual couple. HIV is transmitted perfectly trough blood... but with other fluids it takes a lot of the virus to get you sick.


Here's a scenario. Heterosexual couple has sex, no protection, one is HIV positive.

Homosexual couple have sex, no protection, one is HIV positive.

Are you saying there is a bigger chance that in the same situation the gay couple are more likely to transmit? That just doesn't make any sense.

~Keeper


la2

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
OK, well as a gay man I can talk with a little bit of knowlege on this matter, and the first think i have to put right is the false belief that homosexuals are at a higher risk of HIV infection, its plain and simply just not true, my biological make up is the same as a straight man, we are equally suseptable to HIV/AIDS.

I personally have a rare blood group, i'm healthy and yet cannot give blood, it isnt right, and i refuse to lie, why hide my identity to perform a civic duty?

The final thing i'd like to set straight is the fact that HIV infections occur more in straight people than homosexuals, and do you know why...... anyone who had attended a gay pride, or a gay club will know, that the gay community actively educates people on safe sex, every chance people get, free condoms in toilets, available information to everyone, thats the key to reducing the infection rate.

The blood thing is just the straight elitists that we have in our governments, its getting better, but not fast enough.

sorry if any of that seemed like a rant, I am just very passionate about the wrong information about homosexual infection risks and rates.


la2

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Those figures are ridiculous, and 3 years out of date, and maybe all it does say is that sex education in the US isnt what it should be, also, might it just be the fact that gay people are more likely to get tested than straight people?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by la2
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Those figures are ridiculous, and 3 years out of date, and maybe all it does say is that sex education in the US isnt what it should be, also, might it just be the fact that gay people are more likely to get tested than straight people?


Doesn't matter if they are outdated, the stats are stats.

Look I'm gay and I understand where your coming from, but the fact remains that YES, new confirmed cases of HIV primarily come from Gays.

It's sad but it's true.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

well without getting to graphic yes, unless the heterosexual couple has let us say.... a kind of sex that that involves more tissue tearing and blood transfer. It is much harder to spread HIV through traditional intercourse. you need a certain amount of the virus and sea monkeys and veggie secretions don't transfer it as well... sorry about the lame word change...I'm sure you get it.


la2

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Yeah, they are US statistics, they have no impact on the global figures, they are the opposite to the European figures.

Too much time is spent thinking the United States is the model for the world, in the US the vast majority of crack users are black, but thats not the same here in the UK, its mainly white people aged 16 to 30.

I dont mind figures being used to explain something aslong as wide generalising doesnt result.

The US figures show whats going on in the US, all i am saying is that this is not representative of the world as a whole.


la2

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Target Earth
 


How is it?

the vaginal walls are made up of blood vessels, enough blood vessels to sustain the creation of life, anal sex carries exactly the same risk as vaginal sex.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

well without getting to graphic yes, unless the heterosexual couple has let us say.... a kind of sex that that involves more tissue tearing and blood transfer. It is much harder to spread HIV through traditional intercourse. you need a certain amount of the virus and sea monkeys and veggie secretions don't transfer it as well... sorry about the lame word change...I'm sure you get it.


Wrong.

The vagina is a self lubricating organ, blood is the easiest but vaginal secretions also are.

The anus is not self lubrication.

So unless your getting raped or for some reason end up bleeding profusely from your anus after intercourse, then the Vagina actually carries more risk....

As well as semen in general.

I'm confused as to why straight people think that homosexual sex involves tearing of any tissue. It's not like we come out of the whole ordeal bloody and injured..

Silly misinformed folk..

~Keeper

[edit on 6/15/2010 by tothetenthpower]




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join