Yeah you get what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Technologic
Printable View
Yeah you get what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Technologic
personally i think its unfair, anyone can have AIDs!
If it is that case as Technologic stated, that more hetrosexual men as a percentage have HIV/Aids than homosexual men, then I think it should be uplifted then as it would make little difference.
i thought it was providing you had no sexual contact for 6 months?
I think its still fair. Homosexuals contract it far easier than people who are hetero. I know what youre saying about the statistics, but thats new cases. Not current.
In any case, you sue statistics for 2007, but the NHS page im on also uses stats and its the 63% youre on about. So you cant use stats that were used in 2007, and then disregard others made in that time.
To be fair, you could just lie, but why should they? As mentioned in the statistics, and common sense, you'd learn that not all homosexuals are aids/HIV ridden. What should be done is tests on EVERYONE giving blood, to make sure the blood is safe. Infact, the blood is tested anyway post-test in machines which shake the blood around and keep it oxygenated. So arguably, anyone should be allowed to donate if they so choose, and if the machine fails the blood and the blood fails the tests, it shouldn't be used.
What happened to the other 5% of men with HIV? Are they entirely asexual?
Hermaphrodite? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
As far as I'm aware and I'm not entirely an expert on blood donation but aren't donors decreasing (or is that just organ donors?) so surely to disallow the homosexuals just cos they might have HIV sounds ridiculous to me.
They could have recieved it through other methods, e.g. sharing needles etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Actually I do believe it's increasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inseriousity.
To put simple, would you like blood from someone who's giving other males blow-jobs or even having **** sex? No!
So I think its fair.