If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   First they want the right to have mothers-in-laws. Now this. Right-wing outrage to begin in 3....2.....1   (cnn.com) divider line 118
    More: Interesting, blood donations, United States, advisory committee, history of human sexuality, AIDS epidemic, unprotected sex, UCLA School of Law, Mike Quigley  
•       •       •

7326 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jul 2012 at 2:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-07 08:20:25 AM
Damn meddling kids. If they succeed, there goes a perfectly good excuse for not giving blood. You used to be able to say "I can't give blood because a) I have hepatitis A, B and C, and I'm shopping around for D; b) I'm gay or c) I ate British beef during the Mad Cow Crisis. It's just like the draft all over again. The easiest way to get out of military service was by pretending to be gay well enough to convince a recruiting officer. Now even gays in the military can't get arrested in this town without committing a crime.

Oh, well. We'll always have British beef. Thank God for Wimpy's.

If they test all of the blood collected, they can just reject infected blood. They don't even have to know who the sample came from--double blind labelling will do the job. If you have HIV at present, giving blood means you may be notified which would shake up your life pretty thoroughly although it might mean you can start adopting safe sex if you haven't already done so, and get treatment early which is a good thing since an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I don't give blood myself on account of I is chicken. I did once though. It didn't hurt much--no more than a blood sample or needle. How else can you see a pint of your blood without doing something really stupid? However, I am one of the lucky few who may have eaten British beef without knowing it in the Eighties. Like HIV you could have Mad Cow disease for twenty or thirty years and not know it.

Moooooooo!

If they ever lift the bans on giving blood, I might do it again. It's a great excuse for getting an hour off work and I can bring my Kindle.
 
2012-07-07 08:33:13 AM
There is absolutely no good reason for this ban. And gays SHOULD be able to have MILs.
 
2012-07-07 08:44:30 AM
Used to be, when they didn't know why gay people were getting sick, that this ban had a purpose. Now I don't know why it's in place.
 
2012-07-07 08:46:24 AM

Ricardo Klement: Used to be, when they didn't know why gay people were getting sick, that this ban had a purpose. Now I don't know why it's in place.


Ask the FDA.

People shiat on the Red Cross. They get the brunt of the hate.

Until the FDA moves, there is nothing else that can be done, really.
 
2012-07-07 12:01:19 PM
I wonder if we'll see bigots rejecting blood donations if this goes through. Or closeted individuals blaming the "queer blood" they were given. Or parents refusing to allow transfusions for their children for fear it will turn them gay
 
2012-07-07 02:00:42 PM
Mothers-in-laws? What, they want us to make gay marriage double legal now, or something?

How many plurals do you need subby?
 
2012-07-07 02:10:29 PM
If you check off the box that says you have HIV or fuked a Brazilian whore in 1986 they still take your blood. At companies and universities, for instance, there can be a lot of peer pressure to donate. That's why -- regardless of how you answer the survey -- you have the option, in total privacy, to affix a barcode sticker indicating whether they should use your blood or not.

And then they test it anyway.
 
2012-07-07 02:46:23 PM
I didn't realize there was even such a ban. I gaily spray blood on Red Cross buildings all the time.
 
2012-07-07 02:47:22 PM

Chariset: I wonder if we'll see bigots rejecting blood donations if this goes through. Or closeted individuals blaming the "queer blood" they were given. Or parents refusing to allow transfusions for their children for fear it will turn them gay


In order of likelihood:
1-possible, but I doubt it
2-likely, depending on how deeply closeted said evangelical minister was before he got caught with dicks in all of his available orifices
3-possible, but it'll only be one or two extremely high-profile nutjobs.
 
2012-07-07 02:48:33 PM

brantgoose: Damn meddling kids. If they succeed, there goes a perfectly good excuse for not giving blood.


Why would you need or want an excuse not to give blood?
 
2012-07-07 02:53:22 PM
Just allow people the option of not receiving necessary blood donations if there's only gay blood available. Problem solved.
 
2012-07-07 02:56:25 PM
Oh noes!! Did we learn nothing when we tragically stopped segregating Aryan Master Blood from negro blood? Can't you see the country has gone to shiat since then!!??
 
2012-07-07 02:57:07 PM

thamike: Why would you need or want an excuse not to give blood?


If I can circumvent the Red Cross when I give it then I would.

That's my reason for not giving blood. I refuse to associate with the Red Cross.
 
2012-07-07 02:57:22 PM

thamike: brantgoose: Damn meddling kids. If they succeed, there goes a perfectly good excuse for not giving blood.

Why would you need or want an excuse not to give blood?


The mandatory government blood theft that's the inevitable result of socialist health care?
 
2012-07-07 02:58:16 PM
We still have this ban in Canada too, much to my surprise.

I have a universal blood type, and could have helped a lot of people over the past 25 years, but I can't just because I have the gay.
 
2012-07-07 03:00:02 PM
Please donate blood. If you can, consider apheresis donations. Depending on your blood type, the needs of your community and other factors, if you can donate whole blood you can also donate blood components, such as plasma, red blood cells or platelets.

The reason it's better to donate blood components is because when people receive blood products they don't just pump a pint of whole blood from one donor into them. Usually someone will need a specific blood component- say, a patient who has gone through a bone marrow transplant to combat leukemia- they will need platelets. To get a unit of these platelets they will usually mix up platelets from many whole blood donations, which can increase the rsk of transfusion reactions, and can do other things.

I donate platelets every two weeks at my local blood center. Each unit I donate is the approxmate equivalent of 12 units of whole blood in terms of platelets.

You can also take an HLA test that most blood centers will do, which allows your blood to be closely matched to a recipient's needs. In my case, I don't schedule appointments any longer; there are at least 2, maybe 3 people in my local community that need my blood frequently enough that they just call and I go in to sit for an hour on the machine.

I'll never know who these folks are, but I do know I saved their lives; without my blood they would be at serious risk of shock or death because they're senstized to blood that does not match theirs closely enough.

Please- donate blood. It really does save lives. Whole blood donations are awesome, blood component donations on a regular basis are even more so.
 
2012-07-07 03:01:27 PM

Chariset: I wonder if we'll see bigots rejecting blood donations if this goes through. Or closeted individuals blaming the "queer blood" they were given. Or parents refusing to allow transfusions for their children for fear it will turn them gay


Its not like most homophobes aren't filled with gay blood anyway.

/Usually about 6 quarts.
 
2012-07-07 03:02:24 PM
Is there a way to donate blood without needles? Because I hate needles.
 
2012-07-07 03:02:56 PM

Chariset: I wonder if we'll see bigots rejecting blood donations if this goes through.


No, that would require having the stones to live up to convictions.

Chariset: Or closeted individuals blaming the "queer blood" they were given.


Yes, and it will be fabulously hilarious to watch FOX and a bunch of other right-wing propaganda outlets buy into it and scream about how this is a liberal plot to infect real Murikans with teh ghey.

Chariset: Or parents refusing to allow transfusions for their children for fear it will turn them gay


I hope so. Seems like a great way to ensure that fewer people grow up to become bigots. It's like a voluntary removal of your hateful genes from the pool, even though you've already reproduced.
 
2012-07-07 03:03:59 PM

rebelyell2006: Is there a way to donate blood without needles? Because I hate needles.


A lot of folks do. The only thing I can tell you is that the needle stings for a sec going in but then you don't even know it's there. If you can get past the needle phobia, the rest is easy.
 
2012-07-07 03:08:59 PM
For every gay man I know, I can think of at least 5 straight guys who are much more sexually active and whose blood I want to chance having run through my veins a lot less.
 
2012-07-07 03:09:10 PM

thamike: brantgoose: Damn meddling kids. If they succeed, there goes a perfectly good excuse for not giving blood.

Why would you need or want an excuse not to give blood?


Wish I understood this as well. Until recently (had an infection and couldn't), I've given blood the first day I'm able. It takes me less time than browsing the main tab on Fark once in a day. After the first time I gave as an adult, I felt bad I hadn't done it more. They do a really excellent job at the Red Cross, whether you love them or hate them. Oh, and free orange juice and gummy bears! :D

/for those of you worried, after your second or third time giving blood, your body gets used to it, IMO. It didn't interfere with my day in any way, other than it's not wise to drink more than a beer or two after giving. :D
 
2012-07-07 03:09:16 PM
It used to be I couldn't donate blood because I was under the weight limit. Looks like they've changed that at some point because now I'm just barely over. Hm.
 
2012-07-07 03:10:57 PM

rebelyell2006: Is there a way to donate blood without needles? Because I hate needles.


A handgun and a bucket.
 
2012-07-07 03:12:35 PM
I'm banned from giving blood for a year, that's what happens when you go running around the developing world hanging out in areas where you can catch malaria and other nasty stuff.
 
2012-07-07 03:13:26 PM

ginandbacon: There is absolutely no good reason for this ban. And gays SHOULD be able to have MILs.


Here's two:

"Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

"Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population."

Link
 
2012-07-07 03:14:07 PM

randomjsa: That's my reason for not giving blood. I refuse to associate with the Red Cross.


There are other donor centers besides the Red Cross. I donate with Carter BloodCare in Dallas and I donated to Community Blood Center when I lived in Kansas City.
 
2012-07-07 03:14:40 PM
When in-laws are outlawed only outlaws will have in-laws!
 
2012-07-07 03:14:46 PM

ginandbacon: There is absolutely no good reason for this ban. And gays SHOULD be able to have MILs.


Why do you hate gay folks?

I keed I keed.

I'm sure there are some perfectly cool MILs out there.

So shortages on donated blood have the American Red Cross rethinking their no gay blood EVAR policy?

Good luck with that. Up here in Canada gay marriage is cool but there is still an anachronistic law in place that acts as a defacto lifetime ban on gay males who want to donate blood. Given the history here with tainted blood scandals it's not altogether surprising but it's still a little depressing.
 
2012-07-07 03:15:19 PM
Remember, the gay blood is lacking in phosphorus and oxygen - as that is how they can maintain their flames for so long - and will immediately make anyone who has come in contact with it to go see Magic Mike.
 
2012-07-07 03:20:10 PM

rebelyell2006: Is there a way to donate blood without needles? Because I hate needles.


Find someone who has been doing it for fifteen or twenty years, and look away. The people who really know what they're doing make it almost completely painless. When done properly, you feel a little "pinch" -- not any pain at all.

I used to hate needles as well, pretty much got over it once I started donating blood. Can even watch them doing it now. 'tis bizarre.
 
2012-07-07 03:20:11 PM

randomjsa: If I can circumvent the Red Cross when I give it then I would.
That's my reason for not giving blood. I refuse to associate with the Red Cross.


What's wrong with the Red Cross? (The ban on donating "gay blood" is mandated by the FDA, not the Red Cross.)
 
2012-07-07 03:23:56 PM

The Loaf: What's wrong with the Red Cross? (The ban on donating "gay blood" is mandated by the FDA, not the Red Cross.)


Also true.

Although I've never used a for-pay donation center. Do they have similar restrictions?
 
2012-07-07 03:24:38 PM

Cataholic: ginandbacon: There is absolutely no good reason for this ban. And gays SHOULD be able to have MILs.

Here's two:

"Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

"Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population."

Link


That doesn't justify the lifetime ban though. A gay male in a monogamous relationship is going to be less likely to introduce HIV into the blood supply than some straight person who's having unprotected sex with every random one night stand they pick up. There are better ways of screening to actually keep the blood supply safe and if anything the lifetime blood ban for gay men is providing a false sense of security.

Who is more of a risk, a not entirely straight man who is in a monogamous marriage to a woman but fooled around one time with a guy in college or some straight guy who's banging a new chick each weekend? The manslut can donate but the monogamous married man who had a single same-sex sexual experience is banned.
 
2012-07-07 03:25:26 PM

randomjsa: thamike: Why would you need or want an excuse not to give blood?

If I can circumvent the Red Cross when I give it then I would.

That's my reason for not giving blood. I refuse to associate with the Red Cross.


I give blood once a year and I don't believe I'v ever given to the Red Cross. Not because of some irrational hatred of the institution, but because they weren't the ones operating the bloodmobile.
 
2012-07-07 03:33:07 PM

randomjsa: thamike: Why would you need or want an excuse not to give blood?

If I can circumvent the Red Cross when I give it then I would.

That's my reason for not giving blood. I refuse to associate with the Red Cross.


they're not christian!

blood! bluhhhd!
 
2012-07-07 03:33:53 PM

brantgoose: If they test all of the blood collected, they can just reject infected blood


From what I've heard, it is not cost effective to test all the blood. They take a tiny bit from like 10 or 100 vials... put it in a huge batch, and test that. If one of them had HIV, now they have to throw out all 100.

Or something like that. I'm not sure, it was explained to me here... so maybe someone can elaborate.

Still think gays should be able to donate.
 
2012-07-07 03:35:56 PM
brantgoose:

If they test all of the blood collected, they can just reject infected blood. They don't even have to know who the sample came from--double blind labelling will do the job.


The whole reason they reject people with certain high risk activities such as men who have sex with men, IV drug users, prostitutes, etc. is because there is a incubation window where you will TEST NEGATIVE on a HIV test but actually be positive.

If you engage in activities the FDA says are too high of risk you are not allowed.
 
2012-07-07 03:36:30 PM
They have lie-detector tests for donating blood, now?
 
2012-07-07 03:46:31 PM

rynthetyn: Cataholic: ginandbacon: There is absolutely no good reason for this ban. And gays SHOULD be able to have MILs.

Here's two:

"Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

"Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population."

Link

That doesn't justify the lifetime ban though. A gay male in a monogamous relationship is going to be less likely to introduce HIV into the blood supply than some straight person who's having unprotected sex with every random one night stand they pick up. There are better ways of screening to actually keep the blood supply safe and if anything the lifetime blood ban for gay men is providing a false sense of security.

Who is more of a risk, a not entirely straight man who is in a monogamous marriage to a woman but fooled around one time with a guy in college or some straight guy who's banging a new chick each weekend? The manslut can donate but the monogamous married man who had a single same-sex sexual experience is banned.


More answers from the FDA:

"Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence."

"Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?

Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. While statistics indicate a rising infection rate among young heterosexual women, their overall rate of HIV infection remains much lower than in men who have sex with other men. For information on HIV-related statistics and trends, go to CDC's HIV/AIDS Statistics and Surveillance web page."
 
2012-07-07 03:52:12 PM
This is ridiculous. Everyone knows that the gay is transmitted not by blood, but through our reptillian hollow fangs.
 
2012-07-07 03:54:21 PM
Since donated blood is screened anyway this is a pretty pointless prohibition.
 
2012-07-07 03:55:06 PM

Oldiron_79: The whole reason they reject people with certain high risk activities such as men who have sex with men, IV drug users, prostitutes, etc. is because there is a incubation window where you will TEST NEGATIVE on a HIV test but actually be positive.

If you engage in activities the FDA says are too high of risk you are not allowed.


The problem is that they ban male who has had sex with any male even once since 1977. Which is patently absurd. And the highest risk group for new HIV cases are black males.
 
2012-07-07 03:56:29 PM

Brytanica1: This is ridiculous. Everyone knows that the gay is transmitted not by blood, but through our reptillian hollow fangs.


Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
 
2012-07-07 04:01:43 PM
gingerjet: Oldiron_79: The whole reason they reject people with certain high risk activities such as men who have sex with men, IV drug users, prostitutes, etc. is because there is a incubation window where you will TEST NEGATIVE on a HIV test but actually be positive.

If you engage in activities the FDA says are too high of risk you are not allowed.

The problem is that they ban male who has had sex with any male even once since 1977. Which is patently absurd. And the highest risk group for new HIV cases are black males.


The even once since 1977 part is rather over kill. I think it should be more like the using a prostitute for strait men(can't have farked a whore in the last 12 months for strait men, maybe make the gay men have not had more than 1 sexual partner in the last 12 months in order to donate)
 
2012-07-07 04:02:00 PM

Chariset: randomjsa: That's my reason for not giving blood. I refuse to associate with the Red Cross.

There are other donor centers besides the Red Cross. I donate with Carter BloodCare in Dallas and I donated to Community Blood Center when I lived in Kansas City.


It's not about the the Red Cross. He's either a troll or just a massively selfish and stupid person.
 
2012-07-07 04:05:02 PM

gingerjet: Oldiron_79: The whole reason they reject people with certain high risk activities such as men who have sex with men, IV drug users, prostitutes, etc. is because there is a incubation window where you will TEST NEGATIVE on a HIV test but actually be positive.

If you engage in activities the FDA says are too high of risk you are not allowed.

The problem is that they ban male who has had sex with any male even once since 1977. Which is patently absurd. And the highest risk group for new HIV cases are black males.


That's the problem. It should be based on promiscuity and promiscuity alone. I'll take the blood of a gay man who has been monogamous for 20 years over a Khardashian's.
 
2012-07-07 04:06:12 PM

FitzShivering: rebelyell2006: Is there a way to donate blood without needles? Because I hate needles.

Find someone who has been doing it for fifteen or twenty years, and look away. The people who really know what they're doing make it almost completely painless. When done properly, you feel a little "pinch" -- not any pain at all.

I used to hate needles as well, pretty much got over it once I started donating blood. Can even watch them doing it now. 'tis bizarre.


I know someone who often passes out seeing a needle and I know someone who needs Vicodin to calm down enough to get a blood test.
 
2012-07-07 04:09:56 PM

Cyclometh: A lot of folks do. The only thing I can tell you is that the needle stings for a sec going in but then you don't even know it's there. If you can get past the needle phobia, the rest is easy.


Over the years, I've learned something.

It's not the needle that scares me, but the operator.
 
2012-07-07 04:10:11 PM
There's been research in the UK that suggests that the male gay population would over-donate against the non gay population significantly (like the lesbian population does, plus the fact that a ban has ended) to such an extent that the concept of a blood shortage would end, as well as platelet donation shortages (as male A+s are the main donating group, who are also over represented in the gay community).


All blood donation in the UK is non-paid and for the NHS in the UK though (you do get glass tumblers and keychains though) so the same research may not apply to batty countries where there is a profit motive to donate like the US.
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report