https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/14/orlando-pulse-shooting-gay-blood-ban-lgbt-rights Aight then I get that they have a higher chance to have HIV and whatnot, but everyone is supposed to be tested anyway? I don't even Murica pls
While the law itself is dumb, not immediately repealing it is understandable in the sense that bureaucracy just doesn't work fast enough to change laws in the critical time when blood donations are needed. Also, it's not a flat out ban, but one that prevents donations within a set time frame of last intercourse (I think a year? Not checked recently). But yes, dumb law, should be repealed.
Pretty sure having unprotected sex prevents you from donating for a period of time as well. Its not like they are the only group that is being excluded. Whether or not it is a good reason isn't something I know enough about. I'd venture to guess it has something to do with at a blood drive they dont have time to test everyones blood for deseases so they have it limited for efficiency. During a shortage though there should be some sort of bypass.
There might be a good reason for the law banning gays from donating blood to exist. Studies from the United Nations and other schools like John Hopkins have proven that HIV cases have risen dramatically among gays in 'Murica' at a rate of 8% per year since 2001 until now. http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show Might be that a lot of gay men dislike using condoms? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-alvear/the-real-reason-why-gay-m_b_761819.html Ignore results of scientific studies, because this law has no scientific basis and is hateful? Is it safe to conclude that if HIV rates are rising at 8% a year among gays that the law against donating blood might not need a scientific basis? *SHRUGS* Common sense or are studies hateful?
you're genuinely ******** it's like you can't even read, and if you can, your minimalist brain can't comprehend what the words actually mean
It is the fact that it specifically calls for "12 months" relating to sex is what is boggling about it. Imagine that you are a gay man, and you wanted to donate blood. What determines whether you can donate blood? Is it "do you have HIV?" No, it is "have you had sex recently?" And you can just answer WHATEVER YOU WANT ANYWAY. How is that "common sense" exactly? ~ I am sure no reasonable person would have a problem with people who have HIV not being allowed to donate blood PERMANENTLY (which is already done). But the specifics of this law makes no sense. Keep in mind also that Blood Donors are already being screened out if their blood has problems and tests ALL the blood: FDA's guidelines on Blood Screening. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVa...cts/LicensedProductsBLAs/BloodDonorScreening/ "FDA also requires blood centers to maintain lists of unsuitable donors to prevent further donations from these individuals. After donation, the blood is tested for several infectious agents. All tests must be negative before the blood is suitable for transfusion."
I wouldn't donate my blood if you begged me. If I had to donate to someone I care about like say a son of mine, then I'll deny being ****. I personally do not have unprotected sex. I don't see it justified but at the same time I don't see why gays are crying about it. I'm pretty sure you could just lie + they test your blood. TL DR IDGAF
It is always bizarre to me how conservatives talk about "freedom" and "liberty" when it comes to guns and money, but have no problem with restricting the liberty of others in other areas.
"I don't see why they complain about being at the back of the bus, they still get where they're going at the same time as everyone else." Yes, they could lie. They would then be breaking the law. The point is not how the law could be circumvented without much effort, it's that it exists without legitimate reason. As has been mentioned, blood is already screened to ensure no infections are passed on to the recipients. The law is discriminatory and denies a group the ability to act in the same way as the majority with no logical basis.
I can't donate blood in Orlando either. besides the other factors I would need plane tickets, visa. places to stay, etc.
I was specifically referring to the bit where you said you didn't see why LGBT+'s were protesting the law. They're protesting it because it being illegal is actively discriminatory. Given you agree with that, I'm not exactly sure why you said you didn't understand why there's protest at the law's existence.
That's a horribly childish attitude, but I guess those are in the realm of the tolerated, too. As for the time limit, maybe there is a reasonable explanation someone with the biological knowledge needed could provide.
I am trying to take the opposite side of the coin here in this argument. There must be a good reason why they made this law. Instead all of you are hellbent on demonizing anyone opposing your campaign for liberty.
In short, this law lacks common sense because: All blood is already tested and people who donate "bad" blood are already prevented from donating in the future, and; The restriction doesn't actually prevent people with HIV from donating blood, rather, it specifically prevents gay men who have sex from donating blood, and people with HIV are still free to try and donate blood If we were discussing guns, guns rights proponents would say something similar about gun control laws: There are already background checks and regulations for gun ownership and criminals are already not allowed to have guns, and; Further restrictions doesn't actually prevent criminals from obtaining guns, rather, it specifically makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns For me, this is basically the exact same argument in PRINCIPLE, just in a different context.
