Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: How political correctness kills – tainted blood

By Alexander Baron     Sep 9, 2011 in Health
The powerful homosexual lobby has succeeded in overturning the blood donation ban imposed in Britain in the 1980s, but heterosexuals will pay the price.
There is a widespread perception that money talks, that the rich can get what they want by bribing politicians and even entire governments to frame the laws in their favour. That is the old-fashioned way, now there is a more effective way to lobby the government, the media, and the public. Set up a campaigning group, scream aloud that you are the victim of some sort of “ism”, and demand special privileges while at the same time shutting out all your opponents by branding them bigots (or more usually Fascists), people who are so contemptible they have no right even to be heard.
The homosexual lobby did not originate this methodology, but they have been amongst the most successful exploiters of it. They have used it for example to lobby successfully for something they call gay marriage; while civil partnerships are a good idea (and not only for homosexuals), some of their other demands are less so. How about the right to be liked? It is one thing to argue that homosexuals should not be criminalised for having consensual sex between adults on private property (then thrown into gaol with men). Likewise it is one thing for them to expect equal protection from the law where little matters like assault or even murder are concerned. Everyone should have that right.
But how about the right to have people like what you do in the bedroom, or more often in public toilets, even when they are revolted by the very thought of it? Homosexuals have a word for people who don’t like what they do, they call them, us, homophobes.
One on-line dictionary defines homophobia as an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.” But what about when this is not an unreasoning fear, rather a reasoned and well thought out antipathy?
Like the right to be protected against a life-threatening infection by tainted blood?
Yesterday, it was announced that the lifetime ban on homosexuals donating blood will be lifted in England, Scotland and Wales. The rhetoric is that the latest medical evidence no longer justifies a blanket ban, but the reality is that the homosexual lobby has been hammering away at this ban for years. According to the BBC: “The ban had been questioned both on equality and medical grounds.”
Here we go with this equality nonsense again; the law must be applied equally or it is racist, sexist, or in this case, homophobic. This is the same law that forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread – as a famous Frenchman once said. There is absolutely nothing wrong with equality before the law, but one should always apply the caveat implicit in that statement.
In the 1980s, around 1,200 British haemophiliacs were given tainted blood; by the end of 1983, more than two thirds of them were dead. Although, awareness of AIDS and other infections led to a vast improvement in the screening of blood, tragedies still happen like that of American Roger Wolf who was given tainted blood in July 2009; two months ago he filed a lawsuit against the hospital concerned.
In the UK, there is a long list of people who should not give blood. According to the National Health Blood Transfusion Service, you should never give blood if:
you’ve ever had syphilis or hepatitis
if you have ever worked as a prostitute
if you have ever injected yourself with (recreational) drugs - even if you have only ever done so once.
What has this to do with prejudice, bigotry, or discrimination? The answer is absolutely nothing, it is about safety. According to the Guardian, the new guidelines mean that “Men who have had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months, with or without a condom, will still not be eligible to donate blood”, but those practising homosexuals who haven’t, will.
Oral sex with a condom? Yuk!!! For the truth about condoms and (unsafe) safe sex, check out this article. How will the NHS know the donor has not had sexual relations with another man in the past year? Bearing in mind the extent to which even ordinary people lie about their sex lives, this requires a monumental leap of faith.
For the Organised Homosexual Movement, this is, unbelievably, a civil rights issue; their concern is not for the recipients, but for themselves, and only for themselves. The lifetime ban on donation by homosexuals remains in the United States; we can only hope that if the government goes ahead with lifting this ban on November 7 that ten years from now we are not in the position where American healthcare professionals can look at us and say: We told you so.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about Homosexuality, Homosexuals, Blood transfusion, Blood donation, Aids
More news from
Latest News
Top News