[PASSED] Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act

[The Greater Tulsa Area]

We do not allow men who have had six with men, to give blood within three months of having sex with a man. This is because we know that doing so would increase the chance of HIV-infected blood into the blood supply, even with screening and testing. This is based on sound scientific data. Men who have sex with men, who have not had sex within three months, are perfectly welcome and encouraged to give blood.

HIV can be passed between anyone engaging in unsafe sex. A gay couple is no more likely to get HIV than a straight couple. It would make perfect sense to block anyone who has recently had unsafe sex from donating blood, but only applying this policy to gay men is simply both non-sensible and bigoted.

[Tinhampton]

Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act was passed 11,380 votes to 4,344.

I take it that the proposal was non-illegal all along?

[Angar]

It's vital that the blood supply remains uncontaminated. Angar agrees that men engaging in homosexual intercourse are more likely to pass HIV. That has been proven statistically. To exclude homosexuals from blood donation would protect against the spread of the disease.

[Drew Durrnil]

Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act was passed 11,380 votes to 4,344.

I take it that the proposal was non-illegal all along?

I think they said that the arguments weren't convincing enough or something. I bet that someone's gonna try to repeal it in the next week or so.

[Outer Sparta]

Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act was passed 11,380 votes to 4,344.

I take it that the proposal was non-illegal all along?

I think they said that the arguments weren't convincing enough or something. I bet that someone's gonna try to repeal it in the next week or so.

There'll be like millions of terrible proposals submitted with only like one or two that are properly drafted on the forums.

[Ainland]

We do not allow men who have had six with men, to give blood within three months of having sex with a man. This is because we know that doing so would increase the chance of HIV-infected blood into the blood supply, even with screening and testing. This is based on sound scientific data. Men who have sex with men, who have not had sex within three months, are perfectly welcome and encouraged to give blood.

HIV can be passed between anyone engaging in unsafe sex. A gay couple is no more likely to get HIV than a straight couple. It would make perfect sense to block anyone who has recently had unsafe sex from donating blood, but only applying this policy to gay men is simply both non-sensible and bigoted.

Like I said, we know that men who have sex with men have a significantly higher chance of having HIV than men who have sex with women and vice versa. This is an unfortunate scientific fact.

Anyone who has unsafe sex could catch HIV. But allowing men who have had sex with men within the past three months, to give blood, would result in a significantly higher chance of HIV entering the blood supply. Despite testing and screening. This is very well researched and studied.

I can't do anything about the fact that this doesn't make sense in your head. But the fact that you are prepared to literally ignore scientific fact, to say that the scientists are simply bigoted and using the blood donation service as an outlet for the homophobic, is staggeringly foolish. To risk the health and life of large numbers of people in this way is really taking this whole angry woke thing to a dangerous level. These people shouldn't be allowed anywhere near politics, let alone science or medicine.

Scientific fact is not bigotry.

[Uueidhhd]

Everyone that does not like it REPEL it NOW it passed.

[Uueidhhd]

Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act was passed 11,380 votes to 4,344.

I take it that the proposal was non-illegal all along?

I think they said that the arguments weren't convincing enough or something. I bet that someone's gonna try to repeal it in the next week or so.

True probably hahhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahhahhhahahhahahhahhahhahahhahhhahhahhahhahahhahahhahahaha

[Uueidhhd]

Why is no one repelling it. If no one repels it in a week I will repel it.

[Ardiveds]

HIV can be passed between anyone engaging in unsafe sex. A gay couple is no more likely to get HIV than a straight couple. It would make perfect sense to block anyone who has recently had unsafe sex from donating blood, but only applying this policy to gay men is simply both non-sensible and bigoted.

Like I said, we know that men who have sex with men have a significantly higher chance of having HIV than men who have sex with women and vice versa. This is an unfortunate scientific fact.

Anyone who has unsafe sex could catch HIV. But allowing men who have had sex with men within the past three months, to give blood, would result in a significantly higher chance of HIV entering the blood supply. Despite testing and screening. This is very well researched and studied.

I can't do anything about the fact that this doesn't make sense in your head. But the fact that you are prepared to literally ignore scientific fact, to say that the scientists are simply bigoted and using the blood donation service as an outlet for the homophobic, is staggeringly foolish. To risk the health and life of large numbers of people in this way is really taking this whole angry woke thing to a dangerous level. These people shouldn't be allowed anywhere near politics, let alone science or medicine.

Scientific fact is not bigotry.

OOC: Can you please provide some recent sources that support your scientific fact

[Ainland]

Like I said, we know that men who have sex with men have a significantly higher chance of having HIV than men who have sex with women and vice versa. This is an unfortunate scientific fact.

Anyone who has unsafe sex could catch HIV. But allowing men who have had sex with men within the past three months, to give blood, would result in a significantly higher chance of HIV entering the blood supply. Despite testing and screening. This is very well researched and studied.

I can't do anything about the fact that this doesn't make sense in your head. But the fact that you are prepared to literally ignore scientific fact, to say that the scientists are simply bigoted and using the blood donation service as an outlet for the homophobic, is staggeringly foolish. To risk the health and life of large numbers of people in this way is really taking this whole angry woke thing to a dangerous level. These people shouldn't be allowed anywhere near politics, let alone science or medicine.

Scientific fact is not bigotry.

OOC: Can you please provide some recent sources that support your scientific fact

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 017-v2.pdf

[Uueidhhd]

Why is no one repeling it.

[Outer Sparta]

Why is no one repeling it.

1. It's "repealing" not "repeling"
2. People have to draft a proper repeal to be looked at by the GA community before it can get the go-ahead.

[Uueidhhd]

Why is no one repeling it.

1. It's "repealing" not "repeling"
2. People have to draft a proper repeal to be looked at by the GA community before it can get the go-ahead.

1.Stop I don’t have time to correct it . 2. I am waiting for a issue . 3 You don’t have to mention it. 4.don’t like waiting.

[Outer Sparta]

1. It's "repealing" not "repeling"
2. People have to draft a proper repeal to be looked at by the GA community before it can get the go-ahead.

1.Stop I don’t have time to correct it . 2. I am waiting for a issue . 3 You don’t have to mention it. 4.don’t like waiting.

Well it's not like proper repeals can be written overnight. Usually, the best WA resolutions take a while, even months to properly write and get community feedback.

[Crowheim]

The amount of misunderstandings here, either with WA proceedings or the risks of unsafe sex, are quite amusing.