Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
mfrmboy

Gay men cannot donate blood or sperm

117 posts in this topic

every single person that donates blood are being tested for HIV and other infections, every single blood donation has to be perceived as having HIV, so this cost/economic issue people are running with is void..

Every single unit of blood is tested, yes, but if you end up with a higher percentage of unusable, infected blood, they lose money. The economic issue is absolutely not void. You do realize people have to pay for the blood they get in transfusions in hospitals right? The people taking, testing, giving blood get paid... If more blood tests are wasted... meaning they have no blood to sell at the end... then it's wasted money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Every single unit of blood is tested, yes, but if you end up with a higher percentage of unusable, infected blood, they lose money. The economic issue is absolutely not void. You do realize people have to pay for the blood they get in transfusions in hospitals right? The people taking, testing, giving blood get paid... If more blood tests are wasted... meaning they have no blood to sell at the end... then it's wasted money.

Please stop making sense. This isn't about anything but political correctness to these guys. If somebody can't dispute the STD statistics between when this law was written and the stats of today then there really is no argument because me, purplos and everybody else who gets the point have won this argument. It's about economics. If you can't dispute the stats then it's about political correctness and that's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every single unit of blood is tested, yes, but if you end up with a higher percentage of unusable, infected blood, they lose money. The economic issue is absolutely not void. You do realize people have to pay for the blood they get in transfusions in hospitals right? The people taking, testing, giving blood get paid... If more blood tests are wasted... meaning they have no blood to sell at the end... then it's wasted money.

In Australia no one is payed for donating blood.. people do it, because its a good thing to do for others..

recently a good friend of mine had severe bleeding from her "lady parts", and it wasnt that time of the month.. she called an ambulance, they rushed her to hospital, gave her blood transfusions, kept her in hosiptal for two days, she had lost a lot of blood, had the best doctors, and her bill for all that, because she doesnt have health insurance was $0.00 dollars.. so we dont get lumped with huge blood transfusion bills here.. im sorry your healthcare system is for profit and not for the people...

having wasted blood donations is factored into the whole scenario of any blood bank, i would assume.. im not saying they should open up the donations to every high risk person, clearly that would factor into a lot of wasted blood and money,time etc (like what you are saying) im just saying open it up to the low risk people in that group.. so there shouldnt be any more "wasted" donations than there already is at the moment, in any bank.. so the economic issue is void, meaning its would be the same stats, as it already is..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every single unit of blood is tested, yes, but if you end up with a higher percentage of unusable, infected blood, they lose money. The economic issue is absolutely not void. You do realize people have to pay for the blood they get in transfusions in hospitals right? The people taking, testing, giving blood get paid... If more blood tests are wasted... meaning they have no blood to sell at the end... then it's wasted money.

I find the American healthcare system to be rather odd in that it's all about money, not about the people.

A bit of sense is required. I think, because a lot of you aren't getting what I mean, but I'll cover that in a second.

Please stop making sense. This isn't about anything but political correctness to these guys. If somebody can't dispute the STD statistics between when this law was written and the stats of today then there really is no argument because me, purplos and everybody else who gets the point have won this argument. It's about economics. If you can't dispute the stats then it's about political correctness and that's that.

It is NOT about political correctness.

Lets think about this rationally. Most blood comes from straight people regardless of the law, this is fact, by simple virtue of most of the population being straight..Even if the laws was to change you'd still get most of the blood from straight people.

From an economic perspective, it wouldn't change things as much as you make out. The only way it would change things as negatively as you say would be if the ban was full reversed (ie that only gay people's blood was used and not straight people). Since you'd still have most of the blood coming from a 'low risk' source, the economic issue because somewhat moot.

Blood is also wasted regardless. Some is just not used and some is disgarded anyway as waste after testing. However, overall most is not wasted and those that are? Well it's for a good reason.

Now, how about you listen instead of jumping to poitical correctness of issues of getting offended every five seconds. Are gay people a higher risk group than straight people? According to the stats, yes. Note that I have not once disputed that. What I am disputing is that some gay people are careful and do things safely to ensure they dont run the risk of infection. Therefore the law is unfair to those that do things safely.

Now if you look at straight people, they can do unsafe practises too and have sex with multiple partners and all manner of other things and there's nothing held against them. That, to me, is problematic and is what creates a double standard. A gay person that knows their blood is clean can't give blood, with a straight person that sleeps around (and thus has a higher risk of infection) can.

If you want a ban in place, then make it for those that sleep around and don't engage in safe sex.

The only thing that should matter is that the blood is clean, not if it comes from a gay or straight person.

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever man, I have listened. I don't care if there is a ban or not or who blood comes from so long as it's clean. I never even knew anything about this stupid thing before last night. I simply understand the reasoning behind it and have made a good case explaining just that. No wonder we broke away from you guys. You're a pushy bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever man, I have listened. I don't care if there is a ban or not or who blood comes from so long as it's clean. I never even knew anything about this stupid thing before last night. I simply understand the reasoning behind it and have made a good case explaining just that. No wonder we broke away from you guys. You're a pushy bunch.

lmao..

you are saying you dont know anything about this issue, yet you come on and rant and rave, yelling out this political correctness card every chance you get, even when it was not valid to say, nothing you have said makes any sense.. yet you think you made a good case??

and your last line takes the cake.. "No wonder we broke away from you guys. You're a pushy bunch".. so i gather you are talking about gay people with that response?? shadowhive, to my knowledge hasn't disclosed his sexual preference.. so you are assuming he is gay.. most people that have spoken on the opposite side to you on this thread have been straight.. so all your comment shows is that you dont care about the issue or topic we are discussing, its more an "us" and "you bunch".. which i can read many things into that..

bye..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no-one has refuted the statistics. Until a study is shown that gay men do not fail more tests, I agree with the rule in place.

Again, there are NOT unlimited resources for safe blood collection. In my town, you have to make an appointment to get in and give blood. There is a tight schedule. I assume that with a tight schedule that they want to fill it with the people who give them the best odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Australia no one is payed for donating blood.. people do it, because its a good thing to do for others..

No one gets paid to donate blood in the US either. I didn't say that. People who are in hospitals, who get transfusions of blood, pay for the blood they receive, or their insurance companies do.

In socialized medicine countries, the government pays for the blood, which gets its money from taxing the people. Do you really think people donate their phlebotomy skills to take blood, volunteer to test all this blood for free, store blood for free in free buildings with free electricity, transport blood for free to hospitals and do blood transfusions without getting paid ... just because a whole bunch of real estate and utility companies and nurses and phlebotomists and doctors just care more about the patient than the money? Socialized medicine isn't a volunteer organization. Oh my goodness.

No matter who is paying for it, it gets paid for. Anyone who has to pay for something wants to - and should want to - save money.

Edited by Purplos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao..

you are saying you dont know anything about this issue, yet you come on and rant and rave, yelling out this political correctness card every chance you get, even when it was not valid to say, nothing you have said makes any sense.. yet you think you made a good case??

and your last line takes the cake.. "No wonder we broke away from you guys. You're a pushy bunch".. so i gather you are talking about gay people with that response?? shadowhive, to my knowledge hasn't disclosed his sexual preference.. so you are assuming he is gay.. most people that have spoken on the opposite side to you on this thread have been straight.. so all your comment shows is that you dont care about the issue or topic we are discussing, its more an "us" and "you bunch".. which i can read many things into that..

bye..

I was saying I didn't know about it until this thread and then voila, I knew about it. I understood why its in place. I, and others, have made perfect sense explaining that, along with several others.

And my cake line was about breaking away from the British, numbskull. So anything you are reading into is all made up in your head. Now who's making assumptions? When you assume you make an asss out of U and Me but in this case it's just U.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was saying I didn't know about it until this thread and then voila, I knew about it. I understood why its in place. I, and others, have made perfect sense explaining that, along with several others.

And my cake line was about breaking away from the British, numbskull. So anything you are reading into is all made up in your head. Now who's making assumptions? When you assume you make an asss out of U and Me but in this case it's just U.

I see I'm not the only one. Whose words have been twisted. Break away from you bunch. Meaning "gay people." Obviously you didn't mean that. Just wanted to let you know.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see I'm not the only one. Whose words have been twisted. Break away from you bunch. Meaning "gay people." Obviously you didn't mean that. Just wanted to let you know.

Thanks. Maybe it wasn't obvious but I've said similar things before and a lot of people know what I'm like by now. I don't know who he thought "we" were and when "we" "broke away from gays". Seriously, I have no idea what he's talking about and neither does he I bet. Remember 'assumptions'. I warned you of that earlier in this thread. If you enter any thread about gays and don't completely support everything in a positive manner and don't exclaim your undying love for the gay community you absolutely will be labeled and assumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

come one.. the you bunch comment was easily misunderstood..

lets just end it there..

peace and love, Mr Fess..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see I'm not the only one. Whose words have been twisted.

Cassea i caught you out, with you saying it wasnt about gay and straight blood.. fair and square.. you are just being delusional thinking other..

i am placing you on ignore now, as im sure i am on yours too.. i hope Jesus does save you..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you didn't. You twisted what I said. Homosexuals are 44 % more likely to have HIV than Heterosexuals. That is a fact. A sad fact. The ban on blood. Is based on this fact. If it was based on homosexuality. Then lesbians would be banned as well. As someone pointed out earlier. The science community, the medical community. Made the ban. It's based on science. Not bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had posted earlier in this thread that i thought americans could sell their blood - actually it's their plasma that they can sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you didn't. You twisted what I said. Homosexuals are 44 % more likely to have HIV than Heterosexuals. That is a fact. A sad fact. The ban on blood. Is based on this fact. If it was based on homosexuality. Then lesbians would be banned as well. As someone pointed out earlier. The science community, the medical community. Made the ban. It's based on science. Not bias.

darling, i know that. and have stated i agree with that.. haven't you read any of my posts?? i cant understand how you are missing what is being said???

the below posts are what i am referring to..

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

You keep changing it. I didn't ask you if you'd mind handling gay blood. I asked you if you would mind handling blood that had a 44% higher chance. Of having HIV. You keep dodging the directness. And turning it to a gay issue. It isn't.

I am not dodging your question, thank you..

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

If I asked you to test. A batch of blood. Batch A is from the homosexual community. Batch B is from the hetero community. You are saying. Honestly. You wouldn't prefer not to have to handle blood. That had a 44% higher chance of having HIV?

are you forgetting what you are saying??? you are making this about being gay blood and hetro blood.. and then saying you aren't.. make up your mind, Cassea..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes blood. Not gay or straight. Blood from. it has nothing to do with the community. It has to do with the fact. The fact that a gay man in this thread. Acknowledged himself. It is a fact that the blood is 44% more likely to be contaminated with HIV. That's a fact. You are pushing an agenda. That isn't there. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.