Thread: Donating Blood & Blood Type

I think my blood type is AB or something along those lines. Or maybe my mother's is AB and I'm O something... I do know it's one or the other. Either way I don't donate. The idea of someone having my blood creeps me out in the worst way. The idea of my blood being taken from my body as well (though I don't get squeamish at the sight of myself bleeding. Probably because someone isn't physically removing it from me).

Of course finding out that men who've had sex with other men can't donate is actually true I might be inclined not to out of principle... I can understand doing certain things for the sake of prevention, but how is that any more risky then a straight male? Both can take dangerous risks and both can be safe so shouldn't it be more a promiscuity thing then what gender you have sex with? Or am I missing the point?

Studies still indicate that men who have sex with men are much more likely to have HIV/AIDS compared to the rest of the population, that is the only reason.

Women who have sex with women can donate blood so it's not a homophobia thing.

There was a recent supreme court ruling here that said that since a blood donation was a gift (not a "right"), the recipient could chose to refuse it. I agree 100%, I'll be damned if I or anyone else gets infected with HIV by blood transfusion because of political correctness...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Studies still indicate that men who have sex with men are much more likely to have HIV/AIDS compared to the rest of the population, that is the only reason.

Women who have sex with women can donate blood so it's not a homophobia thing.

There was a recent supreme court ruling here that said that since a blood donation was a gift (not a "right"), the recipient could chose to refuse it. I agree 100%, I'll be damned if I or anyone else gets infected with HIV by blood transfusion because of political correctness...

My question is why is that the case though? Why is a gay couple whom have only ever had sex with each other more at risk then a straight man whose had sex with multiple women? Or even a gay man who took every precaution with his sex life and made sure that both he and his partners get tested? And haven't studies shown that black men and women are at about the same amount of risk, but we don't turn them down because of that risk? I don't know if it's a homophobia issue or not.

I'm not really trying to argue with you so much as understand. As I said I've never given blood, I don't know the ends and outs of it, nor am I very familiar with the statistics but from what knowledge I do have it just seems a little self defeating. Though I'm more then open if there really is valid reasoning behind it.

Originally Posted by Auron

If I'm not mistaken aids was more prevalent in the gay community when it was debuting. This is why there are some conspiracy theories out there saying that the government invented it to destroy gays and whatnot. Anyways, I'm 0+, and I've donated around 6 gallons of blood. 14 more to go and I get a polo tee shirt! I donate because I really like the staff that works there, and it's just a good thing to do.

Now that I will agree is ridiculous. I don't see how people can honestly believe those sorts of things.

Originally Posted by Blackberryfox

My question is why is that the case though? Why is a gay couple whom have only ever had sex with each other more at risk then a straight man whose had sex with multiple women? Or even a gay man who took every precaution with his sex life and made sure that both he and his partners get tested? And haven't studies shown that black men and women are at about the same amount of risk, but we don't turn them down because of that risk? I don't know if it's a homophobia issue or not.

I'm not really trying to argue with you so much as understand. As I said I've never given blood, I don't know the ends and outs of it, nor am I very familiar with the statistics but from what knowledge I do have it just seems a little self defeating. Though I'm more then open if there really is valid reasoning behind it.

Because the blood technician can't know if you've had a safe sex life or relatively few partners, so they just blanket everybody in the high risk group. As for why HIV/AIDS is more common in the gay community I'm not exactly sure, but if I would venture a guess it would be that they have unprotected sex more frequently (since obviously they don't have to worry about pregnancy).

It's not the only peculiar requirement. Here you can't give blood if you've been to the UK recently because of the relatively high incidence of a human form of mad cow disease in that country.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Because the blood technician can't know if you've had a safe sex life or relatively few partners, so they just blanket everybody in the high risk group. As for why HIV/AIDS is more common in the gay community I'm not exactly sure, but if I would venture a guess it would be that they have unprotected sex more frequently (since obviously they don't have to worry about pregnancy).

It's not the only peculiar requirement. Here you can't give blood if you've been to the UK recently because of the relatively high incidence of a human form of mad cow disease in that country.

No offense meant, but I'm still not convinced that they have valid reason to exclude men who have had gay sex. As I said according to the CDC website black men and women have just a high of statistics as gay men do, but as far as I'm aware they don't exclude them for safety reasons.

As Zhaylin said better then I could have it all sounds like a primitive practice based on an outdated idea that gay men are more careless in their sex lives then other groups of people.

And either way what good does a rule like that do anyway? There's proof when a person travels, but as you stated how are they going to prove who slept with who?

It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, just who you've actually had sex with. Even if you consider yourself heterosexual and for some reason have had sex with a man in the past you'll be excluded, a homosexual who has never had sex with another man will not be excluded.

My country has very few black people compared to the US and I haven't heard any statistics of AIDS prevalence in the black community, but if the risks were just as high then I would want them to be excluded as well. Just put yourself in the shoes of the blood recipient, would you want to be sure that everything possible was done to make sure that it is safe or would you rather risk an incurable and fatal illness to please a few bleeding hearts? In an emergency, you will be given blood without your consent, how would you feel if through no fault of your own, you ended up with HIV because the blood technicians weren't stringent enough in their screening? If we can drastically reduce the chances of transmitting infected blood by simply asking one question and excluding the small portion of the population that answers yes, then by all means do it.

Also, probably least importantly, blood banks have no legal obligation to receive blood from anyone. They could flat out say "we hate gays, go away" if they wanted and wouldn't be breaking any laws.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, just who you've actually had sex with. Even if you consider yourself heterosexual and for some reason have had sex with a man in the past you'll be excluded, a homosexual who has never had sex with another man will not be excluded.

Which is why I said a man who had gay sex rather then just a gay man. Though ideas like gay men having unprotected sex more frequently led me to believe there might be just a tinge of homophobia regardless of if anyone realizes it or not.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

My country has very few black people compared to the US and I haven't heard any statistics of AIDS prevalence in the black community, but if the risks were just as high then I would want them to be excluded as well. Just put yourself in the shoes of the blood recipient, would you want to be sure that everything possible was done to make sure that it is safe or would you rather risk an incurable and fatal illness to please a few bleeding hearts? In an emergency, you will be given blood without your consent, how would you feel if through no fault of your own, you ended up with HIV because the blood technicians weren't stringent enough in their screening? If we can drastically reduce the chances of transmitting infected blood by simply asking one question and excluding the small portion of the population that answers yes, then by all means do it.

I'm actually glad to hear that to be honest. I like it when people are consistent.

Hopefully I will never have to be in a position where a blood transfusion is needed. But if I was while I would like for the blood used in my transfusion to be clean I would also like it to be available. From what I understand, at least in the US, there is a drastic shortage. There were even a line of fairly aggressive commercials encouraging people to donate blood, though honestly they made it seem more like threatening.

Of course don't they have to screen all the blood anyway to check for these diseases? They wouldn't just take it on faith so what does it matter if the person has a higher risk for infection when their blood will just be screened bad and thrown out anyway? Wouldn't it be better to take the bad with the good and just throw out what doesn't work rather then losing good blood that we could have used?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Also, probably least importantly, blood banks have no legal obligation to receive blood from anyone. They could flat out say "we hate gays, go away" if they wanted and wouldn't be breaking any laws.

True, but then they also have no right to complain when they run out of blood.

P.S. My mother says her blood type is A- and mine is A+ so I was way off base there.

P.S.S. I don't know how it's done in other areas, but my grandmother volunteers at the blood drives here and says that they just have to read a booklet and do a blood test. Otherwise, as long as you haven't left the country, you're good to go.

I can't donate blood.. I have no pulse... Srsly..

Originally Posted by Blackberryfox

I can understand doing certain things for the sake of prevention, but how is that any more risky then a straight male? Both can take dangerous risks and both can be safe so shouldn't it be more a promiscuity thing then what gender you have sex with? Or am I missing the point?

If I'm not mistaken aids was more prevalent in the gay community when it was debuting. This is why there are some conspiracy theories out there saying that the government invented it to destroy gays and whatnot. Anyways, I'm 0+, and I've donated around 6 gallons of blood. 14 more to go and I get a polo tee shirt! I donate because I really like the staff that works there, and it's just a good thing to do.