The Instigator
Philocat
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
funnycn
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Homosexuals should be banned from giving blood

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
funnycn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,205 times Debate No: 65543
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

Philocat

Pro

On a pragmatic basis, opening up blood donations to allow one gay person to give blood must allow all gay people to give blood. Whilst it is nonsense to suggest all homosexuals are riddled with HIV, there is definitely a larger proportion of HIV-positive people in the gay community.

Mathematically speaking, let's say that 20% of gay men are HIV positive. There are around 14 million gay men in the USA which makes there about 2.8 million HIV positive gay men in the USA. Taking HIV tests to be 99.9% accurate then that leaves 2800 undetected HIV-positive individuals that would be allowed to give blood if the law was changed. If there was a really serious shortage then the benefits of blood donation might outweigh the risks, but for now I struggle to believe that the benefits of allowing homosexuals to give blood outweighs the risks of the HIV-infected blood that would inevitably be added to the blood supply.
At the end of the day, once you get HIV you can never lose it. It can also be a horrendous disease if it leads to AIDS. Is it worth increasing the risk by allowing homosexuals to give blood?

If there were positives to allowing them, I would be more willing to support their choice to give blood. But from what I can see there is no benefit apart from giving homosexuals an opportunity to validate their own self-worth.
funnycn

Con

==Argument==

However, what about the 11.2 million gay men that AREN'T infected with HIV? If they donated blood, many lives could be saved. Pro is looking at ONLY the ones infected with HIV, not the ones. To further add, if an HIV-Positive man donated blood, there is a VERY high chance that it would be seen as HIV-Positive blood and disposed of.

"that leaves 2800 undetected HIV-positive"

Seeing the accuracy of the tests when blood is donated, most of them would be filtered out. On top of that, often hospitals check to see if someone has bad blood before donating. In total about 5 of them would get by the system.

Now assuming you're claims are what I think they are, straight people with HIV shouldn't donate blood either. Saying that Gays have HIV thus shouldn't donate blood, is the equivalent of saying since Straight people have HIV, they shouldn't donate blood.

To add even more, IF this "law" passed how could hospitals be sure they're gay? Possibly, married couples could be snuffed out, but what about Gay men with boyfriends? It would be near impossible to find out then seeing as there wouldn't be much if at all, proof he is gay.

To close, it's also their right to donate blood if they're gay or not. 1 man's blood could save 1 man's life.
Debate Round No. 1
Philocat

Pro

Agreed, many gay men do not have HIV, and in an ideal world we could allow them to give blood. However, your argument rests upon the premise that lives would be saved if gay people were allowed to give blood. In a country where there isn't a severe blood shortage, people who need blood will still get the blood they need irrespective of whether gay people are allowed to give blood. Only around 5% of people are homosexual, which would mean that there would be a minuscule increase in the blood pool if gays were allowed to give blood.
Ultimately then, the benefit to the health system provided by the blood of healthy homosexuals is very little.

Now I have established that there isn't a benefit to legalising it, I ask you why then we should legalise it when the larger consequence of doing so is an increase in the amount of HIV blood being donated. You are correct in asserting that HIV tests are very accurate, but they are by no means faultless. Inevitably, more HIV blood will be added to the supply if homosexuals were allowed to give blood than if they weren't.

"Now assuming you're claims are what I think they are, straight people with HIV shouldn't donate blood either. Saying that Gays have HIV thus shouldn't donate blood, is the equivalent of saying since Straight people have HIV, they shouldn't donate blood."
A tiny amount of straight people have HIV, yet the vast majority of people are straight so they must be allowed to give blood otherwise supply would not be met. At present, supply is met by straight blood donations. Yet allowing homosexuals to give blood adds a disproportionate amount of HIV-infected blood to the blood pool considering that there is no need for gay blood donations.

"IF this "law" passed how could hospitals be sure they're gay? Possibly, married couples could be snuffed out, but what about Gay men with boyfriends? It would be near impossible to find out then seeing as there wouldn't be much if at all, proof he is gay."
Well, the law has always been that gay people cannot give blood because of the exact reasons I have mentioned. True, they cannot enforce it 100% but at least a law against it would decrease the amount of gay people who do give blood. I believe they enforce it currently in the form of a pre-donation questionnaire.

"To close, it's also their right to donate blood if they're gay or not."
You cannot make up human rights based on personal opinion, if it is a right, kindly point it out to me: http://www.un.org...
funnycn

Con

=Rebuttal=

" I have established that there isn't a benefit to legalising it"

You have established this:

i. Many gay men have HIV

ii. Tests are "99%" accurate

iii. 2800 Gay men would donate blood

And to say, you never provided a source in your first argument.

"A tiny amount of straight people have HIV"

Incorrect. Actually, recorded cases of HIV between hetero and homosexual contact are just about EQUAL.

"were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact (19%) and heterosexual contact (19%)e compared to other transmission categories. " (1)

To say that a tiny amount of straight people and a LARGE amount of gay men with HIV is incorrect. You're argument, is faulty and illogical, void, and absent from statistics.

"considering that there is no need for gay blood donations."

Blood donations are needed. Every second you breath, is another second someone needs blood. "More than 41,000 blood donations are needed every day" (2)

And a single donation could save lives.

"One donation can help save the lives of up to three people."
(2)

"True, they cannot enforce it 100% but at least a law against it would decrease the amount of gay people"

By how much? There are laws against illegal drugs but cartels and dealers make thousands a month from it. A common reason why people donate blood is simply "they want to help". So why don't you let them?

The only source you provided for round two only helps my argument.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" (3)
Article one.

=Argument=

ii. Looking at statistics

Of course, this being an estimate, we aren't 100% sure, but the number can be very close; only 1,144,500 persons above the age of 13 have HIV infections. Your original claim that "2.8 million HIV positive gay men" is most likely faulty.
(4)

Every donor is also checked to make sure they can donate blood.
"Every blood donor is given a mini-physical, checking the donor's temperature, blood pressure, pulse and hemoglobin to ensure it is safe for the donor to give blood." (2)

Further more,

"All donated blood is tested for HIV, hepatitis B and C, syphilis and other infectious diseases before it can be released to hospitals."

They don't just check for HIV, they check for everything.

=Sources=

(1) http://www.cdc.gov...
(2) http://www.redcrossblood.org...
(3) http://www.un.org...
(4) http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Philocat

Pro

I'm going to go over my maths and cite my sources, to avoid any confusion:

There are ~9 million homosexuals in the USA (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
440,408 homosexuals are diagnosed with HIV, yet the real figure is 44% more because only 66% of homosexuals who have HIV are aware of it (http://www.cdc.gov...). This makes the figure of homosexuals with HIV around 670,000.
If HIV tests are 99.8% accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org...) then that leaves ~1340 people with undetected HIV blood who could add their blood to the pool undetected. If we don't allow gay people to give blood, that number is reduced to a negligible amount (taking into account those who lie about their sexuality).

"Incorrect. Actually, recorded cases of HIV between hetero and homosexual contact are just about EQUAL."

See table would suggest otherwise (http://www.cdc.gov...).
Nonetheless, a much higher proportion of homosexuals have HIV compared to heterosexuals.

"Blood donations are needed. Every second you breath, is another second someone needs blood. "More than 41,000 blood donations are needed every day"

Of course they are, but this demand is met by straight people. Anyhow, as only 5% of people are homosexual the amount of blood that would be added to the pool would be minuscule.

"A common reason why people donate blood is simply "they want to help". So why don't you let them?"

Because, as I am arguing, legalising gay blood donations will probably do more harm than good.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"

How does that relate to the argument?

-----------------

On a side point, after recalculating my statistics I have found that some of my statements in round 1 are actually incorrect. This is completely my fault and I apologise. I have now recalculated them in this post with relevant sources.
funnycn

Con

==Rebuttal==

Your numbers changed from the previous claims.

" homosexuals with HIV around 670,000."

from

"2800 undetected HIV-positive individuals"

Thus, those claims are faulty and invalid.

" will probably do more harm than good."

Keyword PROBABLY. If it doesn't?

"How does that relate to the argument?"

They have the right to donate blood. That's how it relates.

Vote Con (me)
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
It's unclean?

What does that have to do with their blood anyway.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The very thought of their lifestyle .It is an unclean way to live.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
cheyenne

So why would you never take blood from a homosexual?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
One thing you do not know about me. I do not compromise. I would never take blood from a homo. Period. Of course there is something else about me, I do not go to doctors first. I go to the word for healing. It has served me well for 40 years. The doctor is the best friend you have if you do not know how to use faith.The word says that when a person gives his word, he will keep it even to his own hurt, the righteous man of course. Now if a person's word is no good, then they will fold like a cheap watch after the first pressure.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@cheyenne
But in the hypothetical case where that was not an option?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I would live till they got one that is not gay.Simple as that.
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
I must admit, I performed poorly in this debate. I was careless with my statistics and that is my fault entirely.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

The biggest problem with this debate is how long the claims made by both sides go unsupported. Pro's case goes completely without evidence until R3, which is far later than it should be, not to mention that those numbers are in obvious disagreement with those presented in R1. Con's case gets support in R2, but the most important points remain unsupported throughout. I'll get to that as I go through the arguments.

Let's start with HIV spread. 2.8 million HIV positive men is brought down to 670,000 in R3, and even that's an estimate with a) faulty math (if 66% of homosexuals who have HIV know it, then 34% more, not 44%, exist that don't know " otherwise, that would be 110%), and b) faulty assumptions (not being aware of an HIV infection doesn't mean they won't be aware of being sick, which tends to also screen out possible blood donors). The former's not an issue because the number's still close, but the latter is actually a very big deal, since Pro's assumption is based in the mindset that sick people (and not just sick people, sick people with known active HIV infections) will both endeavor to give blood and not be detected in their efforts. Even if I assume that all 34% are completely symptomless (an extremely kind assumption), you're still reducing the number who give blood and go undetected to less than 500. Of course, Con gives none of this analysis, so I'm forced to accept Pro's number. I'm not sure what that number means, especially when Pro tells me that "only 5% of people are homosexual the amount of blood that would be added to the pool would be minuscule." It seems to me that, if 9 million potential donors is minuscule, then less than 2,000 new HIV cases a year is even smaller. That little contradiction could easily have costed Pro the debate if Con had noticed it.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Pt. 2

Very little of the debate is focused on the other issues here, which is to Con's detriment. Con never actually shows that there's a deficit for blood of any types (there is), in any parts of the country (there is), at any times of year (there is). All Con showed was a couple of links that don't really counter Pro's assertion that we have plenty of blood already. Since that's Con's major burden of proof in this debate, the lapse is a big problem. As is the lapse in examination of the rights involved. It's not necessarily difficult to explain why all groups should be able to donate blood equally, but it has to be fully explained. Simply saying that inequality is bad, which is what Con's argument boiled down to, was insufficient, especially as compared to the real world harms of HIV spread. I think there were a lot of decent arguments to be had about why HIV is no longer a death sentence that could, at least, have reduced the impact of Pro's case, but I didn't see it.

Con's case just comes off as weak, and much as Pro's case is riddled with logical holes, I don't see the responses I need to defeat it. As such, despite my very strong biases towards Con, I vote Pro.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Would you rather die and receive blood from a gay man?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
PhilocatfunnycnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
PhilocatfunnycnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Funnycn easily disputed Philocat's claims, and showed that not only do heterosexual and homosexual people have about equal HIV rates, he did so with reliable sources, and his last argument, "Keyword PROBABLY. If it doesn't?" holds a lot of merit. However conduct point goes to Philocat because I really can't stand when people say to vote for them. You aren't running for president.