From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 07:05:14 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote,
> I distinctly recall seeing articles in Newsweek and other magazines
> (hardly to be described as moderate or conservative in editorial
> agenda) about the protests against bath houses being closed by health
> officials in cities like San Francisco,
This is totally different than opposing a medical quarantine which is what
you originally claimed. A quarantine should try to isolate only those
infected with the virus. Shutting down gay establishments isolates
noninfected gays as well. I can see why some could object to this while not
objecting to a real medical quarantine.
> HIV positive status is treated today unlike testing positive for any
> other disease. It is treated only as an issue of individual concern. As
> a result, we have positive individuals going around infecting others
> for years, even when they are aware of their positive status, and their
> partners are considered to have no right to know.
How is this any different than any other sexually transmitted disease?
> When the first prosecutions of such individuals was attempted, gay
> rights groups went up in arms over even this, as if gays alone have the
> right to kill innocent people.
Evidence, please? I don't recall gay activists arguing for the right to
infect innocent people or try to kill them. Remember that I lived through
this movement you are recalling. It would be like me telling a Viet Nam vet
what really happened in the fox-holes. Do you really believe that gay
rights advocates demanded the right to infect people or kill people? This
seems preposterous on the face of it. I am certain that this story has been
"interpreted" from a conservative commentator. I would sure love to see
references and examine the original source for this.
> Individuals even have the right to donate blood while positive, with
> the onus on the blood banks to test every pint that comes in, and
> praying that they don't get a false negative.
This is bogus. Evidence please? As gay person, I have been blocked from
giving blood for decades. In Florida, there is a form they show you that
says if you have had even protected gay sex 15 years ago, they do not want
your blood. Now someone can always lie and give blood. But I know of no
"right" to declare you are HIV positive and give blood anyway. It simply
doesn't exist, at least not in my state.
As for the onus of testing being on the blood bank, that only makes sense.
We certainly don't want to rely on donors to keep the blood supply safe. I
wouldn't want it any other way. I don't know why you bemoan blood testing
as if it were an onus caused by gay rights. I think testing blood before
infusing it into someone is just simple medical safety. I would demand such
for myself as a health advocate, not as a gay activist.
> Conversely, lets look, for example, at gun owners: we don't protest the
> prosecution of criminals who use guns in crime, we celebrate it.
Give me a break! What about when the laws being violated are gun-control
laws, record keeping laws, waiting period laws, underage laws, storage laws,
or access by minors laws? These are constantly being protested and fought
by the NRA. I can't believe you think that gun owners don't protest against
laws they don't like or support "criminals" who break these unjust laws.
Gun owners and the NRA are no different than any other political lobbying
group that is trying to overturn laws they don't like.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 16 2003 - 07:19:00 MDT