CreateDebate


Debate Info

0
17
Yes, there are STDs/diseases No, it's immoral/prejudiced
Debate Score:17
Arguments:9
Total Votes:19
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No, it's immoral/prejudiced (9)

Debate Creator

MKIced(2511) pic



Is it right to ban gays from donating blood?

In case you don't know, gay men cannot donate blood (what a shocker).  For many blood donation organizations, this includes a lifetime ban for all gay men who have performed any sexual acts in the past. Ever.  The reason is that there is a fear of AIDS.  At the same time, however, a straight man who has been forcibly raped by another man can donate blood again in his life, sometimes as soon as 1 year after the incident.

Yes, there are STDs/diseases

Side Score: 0
VS.

No, it's immoral/prejudiced

Side Score: 17
No arguments found. Add one!
4 points

Are you kidding me? Every month they send out appeals saying that people aren't donating enough blood... and all the while they're contributing to the problem by banning 5-15% of the population from donating.

They're supposed to test everyone before deciding whether or not they could donate anyway, so if anybody had AIDS they'd figure it out. And it's not like only gay men get AIDS - even people who aren't sexually active can get it, hence the importance of always testing first.

This sounds like pure prejudice, hidden under a flimsy excuse. There are times when I can accept a little prejudice under the name of personal freedom, but when it's putting people's health and lives in danger it is horrendous.

Side: No it's plain stupid
3 points

No, it's biased not to mention stupid. I would have hoped that we, as a society, would have gotten past such prejudices by now, but apparently not.

Side: No, it's immoral/prejudiced
2 points

Many blood collectors test their blood for STDs and illnesses, or at least have the capability to do so. On top of this, they could easily require a man to get tested for HIV (the main cause for this ban) to certify he is no contaminated. And even if this all fails, HIV is transmitted to only one out of 2 million people from a blood transfusion. Yes, this is still "some" people, but the chances of a man being tested for HIV and resulting in a false negative and then that blood actually infecting a patient are astronomically small- much too small to ban an entire community from helping out in a part of the medical world that needs them.

Side: No, it's immoral/prejudiced
2 points

That is the dumbest thing ever. There are plenty of people out there who have Aids or other disease that can be transmitted and they take their blood. Plus they do have a way to test if a blood is good or not.

Side: No, it's immoral/prejudiced
2 points

wow, I didn't know this and it's appalling. Of course it is not right to ban someone from doing a charitable act based on who they are attracted to.

Side: No, it's immoral/prejudiced
1 point

I personally think this is extremely unfair. Thousands of people could use that blood, and just think of how many more lives we could save!

We shouldn't let stereotypes get in way of greater good.

Side: No, it's immoral/prejudiced

There is prejudice involved and I think it is time to do away with the ban.

Side: No, it's immoral/prejudiced

If government made this decision, what a shocker, government isn't prejudice.

Side: No, it's immoral/prejudiced
0 points

The word "Gay" is too much up for discussion;it's a prejudice to deny giving blood to any urgent patient.

Side: No, it's immoral/prejudiced