So, as Christians, we should choose to die before letting someone that is gay donate blood to save us? ......ooook
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So, as Christians, we should choose to die before letting someone that is gay donate blood to save us? ......ooook
M
MidniteWelder
Guest
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
So you just ignored my post and restated the false assertion anyway. That's lovely. READ THE POSTS IN THE THREAD BEFORE YOU REPOST FALSE INFORMATION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REFUTED WITH SCHOLARLY DATA.
"The CDC's 'Diagnoses of HIV Infection, by Transmission Category expanded' clearly shows that the 'Estimated Number of Diagnoses of HIV Infection' for the homosexual subpopulation is much greater than the heterosexual subpopulation.
For example, in 2011 JUST the male component of the homosexual subpopulation had 30,573 new HIV infections while the entire heterosexual population (including all heterosexual IV drug users) + homosexual women combined had only 13,402 new HIV infections."
You're simply repeating false assertions that have all been refuted. And the blood isn't tested once. Each blood donation is tested twice and recipients still get infected.
No thank you for repeated false assertions that have already been refuted because you're too lazy to read the information in the discussion your posting in.
"The CDC's 'Diagnoses of HIV Infection, by Transmission Category expanded' clearly shows that the 'Estimated Number of Diagnoses of HIV Infection' for the homosexual subpopulation is much greater than the heterosexual subpopulation.
For example, in 2011 JUST the male component of the homosexual subpopulation had 30,573 new HIV infections while the entire heterosexual population (including all heterosexual IV drug users) + homosexual women combined had only 13,402 new HIV infections."
You're simply repeating false assertions that have all been refuted. And the blood isn't tested once. Each blood donation is tested twice and recipients still get infected.
No thank you for repeated false assertions that have already been refuted because you're too lazy to read the information in the discussion your posting in.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
No. A wolf pack came in under the false pretense of being Christians and began deliberately distorting God's Word and insinuating that the God of the Bible was morally blighted (e.g. blasphemy) as they pushed the homosexual agenda with all their might literally lying in most every post.
When it was uncovered, due to one of them inadvertently admitting it and then trying to cover it up so they could continue what they were doing, they were banned.
Paul speaking in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."
Jesus speaking in John 8:44, "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father..."
Both Jesus and the apostle Paul often had harsh words for this type. You can defend them if you like and pick up where they left off, but I don't recommend it. They are under conviction until such time as they repent (if ever) and if you align with them: so are you.
When it was uncovered, due to one of them inadvertently admitting it and then trying to cover it up so they could continue what they were doing, they were banned.
Paul speaking in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."
Jesus speaking in John 8:44, "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father..."
Both Jesus and the apostle Paul often had harsh words for this type. You can defend them if you like and pick up where they left off, but I don't recommend it. They are under conviction until such time as they repent (if ever) and if you align with them: so are you.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
But it does mean that subjecting young people to a very small population of blood donors that are heavily infected with deadly diseases could kill some of them long before they would otherwise die of natural causes if they hadn't been subjected to that 1.7% or so of the population.
This may sound like a marvelous idea to you but I find it reprehensible and a form of murder.
This may sound like a marvelous idea to you but I find it reprehensible and a form of murder.
UK plasma supplier sold to US private equity firm Bain Capital
'Is there no limit to what this Government will privatise?': UK plasma supplier sold to US private equity firm Bain Capital
Sell-off puts blood supply at risk, warns Lord Owen
The Government was tonight accused of gambling with the UK’s blood supply by selling the state-owned NHS plasma supplier to a US private equity firm.
The Department of Health overlooked several healthcare or pharmaceutical firms and at least one blood plasma specialist before choosing to sell an 80 per cent stake in Plasma Resources UK to Bain Capital, the company co-founded by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in a £230m deal. The Government will retain a 20 per stake and a share of potential future profits.
'Is there no limit to what this Government will privatise?': UK plasma supplier sold to US private equity firm Bain Capital - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
'Is there no limit to what this Government will privatise?': UK plasma supplier sold to US private equity firm Bain Capital
Sell-off puts blood supply at risk, warns Lord Owen
The Government was tonight accused of gambling with the UK’s blood supply by selling the state-owned NHS plasma supplier to a US private equity firm.
The Department of Health overlooked several healthcare or pharmaceutical firms and at least one blood plasma specialist before choosing to sell an 80 per cent stake in Plasma Resources UK to Bain Capital, the company co-founded by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in a £230m deal. The Government will retain a 20 per stake and a share of potential future profits.
'Is there no limit to what this Government will privatise?': UK plasma supplier sold to US private equity firm Bain Capital - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
I
Isa615
Guest
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
I disagree. I think it fits here perfectly. First the government dumps off the responsibility to the lowest bidder and then the error rate goes up.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
A thirty something year old man just died at our church from contracting AIDS through a blood transfusion a number of years ago. That's right. It went right through both blood test checks and he got it anyways. He didn't even know he had it and checked into the emergency room with terrible pneumonia and died a horrible painful death two weeks later. He leaves behind a pregnant wife.
You heard that right. Do you think the mother and the baby are HIV positive too?
Now a brother in Christ is dead and his family fatherless and possibly infected.
Thanks for nothing.
You heard that right. Do you think the mother and the baby are HIV positive too?
Now a brother in Christ is dead and his family fatherless and possibly infected.
Thanks for nothing.
You're assuming all anal sex is gay.
Why is it homosexuals can't donate blood? Shouldn't we, instead, prevent people who have anal sex from donating blood?
Second, you're missing some VERY crucial information. What percentage of homosexuals who haven't been imprisoned are infected with HIV or AIDs? Even if you argue 90% of infections stem from gay sex, it doesn't mean much if the number of homosexuals with infections are incredibly low. You're missing too much data.
Lastly, you are aware that blood samples are always tested, right? So it really doesn't matter who donates - as long as the blood is tested.
The problem isn't that homosexuals were allowed to donate blood. The problem is that the blood wasn't properly tested.
Umm Sorry but the real problem is the HIV virus may not show positive for up to six months.
[h=1]HIV Test Window Periods[/h]
There's a period of time after a person is infected during which they won't test positive. This is called the “hiv window period.”
The window period can be from 9 days to 3-6 months, depending on the person's body and on the HIV-test that's used. During that time, you can test HIV negative even though you're HIV infected. You can still catch HIV from someone who is in the window period. In fact, there is evidence that a person in the window period is more likely to pass the virus on.
HIV Test Window Periods - San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Interesting. But shouldn't we find better criteria for weeding out those who might potentially have HIV? Like I said, you can't just assume the only people who have anal sex are gay men. Shouldn't we take into account the number of partners, parent's history, etc.?
No and it shouldn't be just gay men,but does include bisexual men also.
[h=1]HIV Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men[/h]
- Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (referred to here as MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States.
- Among all MSM, black/African American MSM bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.
- From 2008 to 2010, HIV infections among young black/African American MSM increased 20%.
[h=2]The Numbers[/h][h=4]New HIV Infectionsb[/h]
- In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM and 12% among MSM overall.
- Among all MSM, white MSM accounted for 11,400 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white MSM (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.
- Among all MSM, black/African American MSM accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American MSM (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American MSM aged 13 to 24.
- Among all MSM, Hispanic/Latino MSM accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino MSM (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.
CDC – Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men – Gender – Risk – HIV/AIDS
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
And there will always be cases where donated blood is not properly tested and is properly tested but yields a wrong result.
One of the controls in place to reduce the number of casualties arising from this inevitable problem is to limit demographics that pose the greatest risk from donating blood. We need to continue this policy so that people do not become HIV infected unnecessarily due to government implemented negligence to accomplish political purposes for the homosexual lobby.
Go back and read the thread from the beginning. Obviously if you have a demographic whose rate of HIV infection is 44 times that of everyone else: then you want to prevent them from donating blood.
That's the right thing to do. That's the moral thing to do. Not doing that by design is second degree murder... which when done by government policy qualifies as democide.
One of the controls in place to reduce the number of casualties arising from this inevitable problem is to limit demographics that pose the greatest risk from donating blood. We need to continue this policy so that people do not become HIV infected unnecessarily due to government implemented negligence to accomplish political purposes for the homosexual lobby.
Go back and read the thread from the beginning. Obviously if you have a demographic whose rate of HIV infection is 44 times that of everyone else: then you want to prevent them from donating blood.
That's the right thing to do. That's the moral thing to do. Not doing that by design is second degree murder... which when done by government policy qualifies as democide.
S