Reply #26: Not.

[omega minimo]

What a well written, thoughtful piece right up to SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH the needle is ripped from the groove. The reader might infer from your words that you are referring to "young black women... since they're now the fastest growing sector," who have been infected due to "Risky behavior on the part of black males, especially those on the "down low" which you did not mention until the followup post.

So, perhaps the OP might read "If the FDA was serious about shunning classes of people at risk for HIV infection, they would ban black males, especially those on the "down low" whose risky behavior has led to a huge increase in infections among heterosexual black women. Even married, monogamous, heterosexual women."

And then "If the FDA were to do that, there would be such an outcry that the people who tried to enforce that regulation would end up on the bread line in the morning. As it should be, because like I said modern screening and testing render such a ban unnecessary."

So why not state the case more directly and why shift the focus to young black women and why shift the focus to black people at all?


"There is no real reason to automatically eliminate an entire class of people when there are ways of preventing spreading the infection that don't lead to worsening the regular shortages of blood found in various regions of this country, or lead to those who can be saved with a Bone Marrow Transplant dying for lack of a donor."

Given the above premise and the tone of the whole OP, the veering off course into race/gender land was a major distraction. It didn't do justice to the spirit and the eloquence of your essay. Best wishes to your friend on finding a match. I'm sorry you weren't allowed to help.