- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
While I am all for having more blood reserves in the hospital, I will have to say that it is a responsibility too big for the current state of the country.
You cannot just gather blood from the masses.
First and foremost, you must ensure that the blood that you received will be stored in a good shelf. The current amount money that blood banks consumes already racks by millions. Now imagine how much would be spent if every single person would donate blood?
Second, think of the maintenance. Supposedly that the state found a way to gather enough money, you must also remember that it takes a lot of manpower to check every single storage. And that's not all. An average pack of blood has an average shelf life of 2 years, which means that people has to donate blood every year to replace all those that cannot be used anymore, which means that more doctors are needed to accommodate the people. We do not even have enough doctors in hospital, let alone add more in blood banks.
I would love to have more blood in our blood banks, but I don't think that we have enough technology to resolve that, yet
No. My point is that, why does he discriminate?
I can understand that it would be a wise choice not to spread a genetic disease. However, if that is his only reason for going against incestous relationships, he must also stand against the relationship between people that carries Alzheimer's, anemia, haemophilia, dementia and so on.