Regarding the ban on blood donation, I feel that it is morally justified to stop people from a high-risk demographic giving blood. However, I don't see why they couldn't be tested for HIV first, and then allowed to donate after a negative result.
Not as simple as that. There is a
window period for the HIV virus, which can range from 3 months to 6 months. During this
window period, the HIV virus will remain invisible in the blood. If a newly infected person donates his blood even before this
window period (i.e before 6 months after he got infected), then there is a chance that the recipient will become HIV +ve.
Thanks, this makes sense. I may not agree with your opinions on homosexuals but you are clued up on some things. I have nothing against gays but, as I said, I would agree with a ban on gays donating blood seeing as they are a high risk demographic, for whatever reason.
I made my views clear in my previous post about why I think gay men are a high risk HIV group, feel free to pick holes in my conclusions.