FDA Keeps Ban On Gay Men As Blood Donors

[Verily]

By the way, this is another reason why more funding for stem cells research is needed. So that in the future we can just grow blood like crops and not rely on donations.

Which would imply you are growing babies like you grow crops.

Let's explain it slowly. You have a zygote. Because humans and other deuterostomes do not have their cell functions determined from the very beginning (undergo indeterminate cleavage), you can remove one cell from, say, an 8-cell zygote without causing it any sort of developmental harm. Then, that cell can be used for research while the rest of the cells go on to form a baby. No babies "grown like crops".

[MODU]

Well Christ-amaighty, man, if there's a blanket ban on homosexual's blood there bloody well aught to be a blanket ban on the blood of sailors!

Like I said, if there were ports we were in, there is a waiting period before we could give blood.

[MODU]

No, if there blood is clean we need more blood.  Just don't tell people that the blood is from a gay person b/c they might freak out

^^^^^

Good we agree on something.

The general public is not informed on the source of the blood in any case, so that's a non-issue.

[opebo]

And anyway doesn't everyone just lie on those forms when they sell their blood?  I remember everyone back in grad school used to get like $10 or $20 for their blood.. and it was also a 'free aids test', so they said.

[Colin]

Well that's really very dumb. I think since about 1985 the link between homosexuality and AIDS was pretty much either debunked or became a much lower corralation. Especially with the HIV and AIDS screening tests that are done now, which seem to keep samples from the non-homosexual population clearn, would be accurate enough to show that these exclusionary practices really aren't helping the overall quality of the blood supply.

Personally I believe that this is driven more by homophobia and scare tactics more than anything.

Some of the other rules are pretty stupid. For example, you can't give blood if you've ever lived in a certain group of African countries since 1977. I know a guy who is banned because he lived for a year in Nigeria as a kid in 1983. Of course he's shown absolutely no signs of AIDS since then so it's pretty clear he didn't get it, but that doesn't matter according to this policy.

Are you sure that this was AIDS related? Most of the time people who have either lived in Africa or who have been infected by a mosquito born parasite, such as Malaria, are not allowed to give blood. The reason this is is because even if you don't develop the symptoms of Malaria, Dengue Fever, Yellow Fever, or other related diseases you most likely, if you've lived in Africa long enough, have the parasite in your blood stream. While this may not affect you when it is transfused into a person who is sick or has a weakened immune system then it could basically give them malaria ontop of their other maladies.

Your friend probably falls under that catagory, as does a teacher at my school who worked in Africa for a few years and contracted malaria while there.

[Bono]

By the way, this is another reason why more funding for stem cells research is needed. So that in the future we can just grow blood like crops and not rely on donations.

Which would imply you are growing babies like you grow crops.

Let's explain it slowly. You have a zygote. Because humans and other deuterostomes do not have their cell functions determined from the very beginning (undergo indeterminate cleavage), you can remove one cell from, say, an 8-cell zygote without causing it any sort of developmental harm. Then, that cell can be used for research while the rest of the cells go on to form a baby. No babies "grown like crops".

Actually, you're cleverly hiding the truth. For embryonic stem cell to work, it is necessary to clone the person who will be receiving the desired end products. So, while that zygote would be unharmed by the harvesting off the cell, there would be the matter of what to do with it after the harvesting. if it is not viable, then I have to question the morality of conceiving, even if artificially, when it is known that the zygote will not be viable. If it is viable, then there is the question of finding someone to implement it on and proceed to giving birth, and the question of whether or not do we want clones of people running around. If not and the zygote will eventually be terminated, then DownWiththeLeft's problem still applies.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No.  Thats what testing is for....

It says in the article itself that the testing isnt' 100% accurate - and I REALLY don't want aids.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just curious - how do they know they don't lie about being gay?

[Joe Republic]

No.  Thats what testing is for....

It says in the article itself that the testing isnt' 100% accurate - and I REALLY don't want aids.

You have at least acknowledged that AIDS is not exclusively a gay disease, yes?

Just curious - how do they know they don't lie about being gay?

They don't, which is why the questionnaires are almost a complete waste of time.

[Ebowed]

It says in the article itself that the testing isnt' 100% accurate - and I REALLY don't want aids.

Then refuse the blood transfusion.

[Verily]

No.  Thats what testing is for....

It says in the article itself that the testing isnt' 100% accurate - and I REALLY don't want aids.

Then you should never get a blood transfusion no matter how much you need it. Restricting homosexuals from donating does very little to reduce the risk of AIDS entering the blood pool.