Differences between Essay #2 and Essay #3

Differences between Essay #2 and Essay #3

One major difference in paper 2 and paper 3 is that they were different styles. For example, paper 2 was an analysis and paper 3 was a persuasive paper. I felt like paper 2 was easier to write because we mostly just wrote down what we saw. There were also more visuals in paper 2 than paper 3 because of the ads. In paper 3 you were informing your audience of a topic and trying to make them have your same stance, but in paper 2, you were describing what you saw.

Final Paper #3

Jacob Kirsch

English 101

Professor Begert

November 21^st, 2015

Gay Blood Ban

             In 1983, a ban took place against men who had sex with men, also known as MSM, to give blood. To me and a lot of other people, this ban now seems to be discriminatory because we have the ability to test blood accurately for HIV when we didn’t in the 80’s. According to GMHC.org (Gay Men’s Health Crisis), a movement to fight aids, the ban was carried out to, “to help prevent inadvertent transmission of HIV through blood transfusions. At that time, HIV/AIDS was largely not understood by doctors, scientists, and the general public, and the technology and procedures used to test donated blood for HIV were extremely limited.” The ban is on any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even if the man who wants to donate is HIV negative, always practices safe sex, and even has been in a monogamous relationship for most of their life. Some transgender woman are also affected by this as the ban is against birth sex and not gender. This ban is completely outdated, and is a huge form of discrimination towards these people.

            I believe this ban is a huge form of discrimination to these individuals because it prohibits them from participating in an activity that helps people and saves lives. With the incredible advances we have been making in the world of medicine, donated blood is tested for diseases such as syphilis, HIV, hepatitis, and HTLV (human T-lymphotropic virus) (mskcc.org). Since this ban has not been brought to light since 1977, the FDA should consider all of the advances in the world of medicine persuading them to change the ban.

This ban also promotes discriminatory stereotypes against MSM. According to GMHC.org, it insinuates LGBT birth assigned men are at a horrifying risk for sharing the virus, while saying that that heterosexual people have an extremely low risk of this. This is not the case provided each party uses the proper precautions. Arguments could also be made that are homophobic, such as, “it’s bad to be homosexual so it’s bad for them to donate blood” These stances and views are completely bias. Medically, lifting this ban would only help people and save lives

            Another way this ban seems to be a clear form of discrimination is that women who have had sex with a MSM are able to donate blood (GMHC.org) These women are allowed to donate blood a year after having sexual intercourse with a MSM male, while men who have been in monogamous relationships since the seventies and have had an HIV tests that came back negative are not able to donate a drop of blood. Why should a woman or a straight man who may have had unprotected sexual intercourse with an array of partners be able to donate blood while these LGBT+ birth assigned males are not?

           

The opposition might ask, “If the ban was lifted, what would happen if a MSM donor lied about their positive HIV status?” This question has an easy answer, HIV tests would catch it, just as it would if anyone lied about their positive HIV status. Since clinics and blood drives do HIV testing on donated blood, this is not a problem.

Prior to donating blood you are required to fill out a form by the FDA, in which you have to disclose your birth sex, and if you’re a male, whether or not you’ve had sex with another man, (FDA forum). So whatever a person’s sex or sexual orientation, if they don’t disclose that they are HIV positive, they will be caught. If this ban was lifted there would be no difference in problems that people who are able to donate blood have now.

            Overall, this discriminatory ban is hurting the mission of blood drives and securing blood donations, to procure blood for people who need it. GMHC.org states that, “There is strong opposition to blood drives at many colleges, which only serves to reduce the blood supply . . . San Jose State University does not allow blood drives on campus because the ban violates the university’s nondiscrimination policies.” The fact that some colleges aren’t allowed to host blood drives because it breaches their nondiscrimination polices show that this is a mammoth pattern of discrimination.  It also negatively affects the whole mission by rendering blood drives inaccessible to those who are capable of donating. Another way this interdiction compromises the whole essence of gathering this live saving element is how many pints they lose by not allowing LGBT+ birth assigned MSMs to donate. Going back to GMHC.org, “according to one estimate, the ban prevents over 130,000 gay and bisexual men from donating over 219,000 pints of blood annually. “ A graph from The Huffington Post created by The Williams Institute at the University of California that studies lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc issues confirms this estimate.

            This graph shows the number of men likely to donate that not are not presently able to do so and the number of pints of blood likely to be donated with three scenarios .From left to right, if the ban was lifted for LGBT+ birth assigned men, if there were a twelve month deferral from donating, (they would have to wait a whole year after having sexual intercourse), and the last scenario shows the data after a five year deferral from donating. According to The Huffington Post, the FDA is recommending that the ban be lifted and replaced with the 12-month restriction shown above.

            I believe that by educating more people on this topic, we would be able to radically increase the amount of blood available to people who need it. There is mounds of evidence proving that we can safely allow LGBT+ birth assigned men to donate blood that will help millions of people all around the United States, so why not do it? Yes, the FDA has made some strides to help, for example, the one year deferral recommended above, and yes, there have been some attempts to provide awareness, as demonstrated by The Gay Blood Drive. This movement focuses on trying to make people aware of this outdated ban and how it focuses purely on “sexual orientation instead of sexual behavior and personal risk” (which as I have mentioned before, is a huge gross form of discrimination.) Gay blood drives are held in various places around the US. At these events, LGBT+ birth assigned males bring an ally to donate for them to show their willingness. The men who aren’t able to donate write a letter to the FDA. They and their advocates don nametags, have their picture taken displaying their name and their letter, this personalized petition is then sent to the FDA. At their last blood drive, over 1500 eligible allies donated, and over 1500 LGBT+ birth assigned men participated. This organization spreads the word of the ban that if lifted, could save thousands number of lives.

            Overall, the evidence that I have provided shows that this ban is outdated. Adequate HIV testing is available to make sure that these men and transgender women are cleared to donate blood which will save an abundance of lives. Although the FDA has been making some effort to change this, the change seems to be slow and I would like to be able to cut through some of the bureaucratic red tape to expedite this much needed change. We need to pump up awareness of this issue with more organizations such as the Gay Blood Drive. I hope this paper made you aware of this problem and how it affects everyone. When this ban is lifted, many lives will be saved.

Work Cited

“After You've Donated Blood.” Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Memorial Sloan                         Kettering Cancer Center Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Food and Drug Administration. Full-Length Donor History Questionnaire. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Gay Men’s Health Crisis MSM Blood Ban FAQ. Gay Men’s Health Crisis. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Terkel, Amanda. “FDA Recommends Lifting Lifetime Ban On Gay Men Donating Blood.” Huff Post Politics. Huffington Post, 15 May 2015. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Yezak, James. National Gay Blood Drive. National Gay Blood Drive, Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

In Class Lab: Analyzing an Argument

Emily's Paper

1a. That Art should be kept in schools

1b. Clearly stated in the first paragraph.

2a. That it helps with learning capability and helps other subjects, it’s a wide range and not specific, reduces high school dropout rate.

2b. Sources from authors, Magazines

2c. Yes, the reasons are plausible and sufficient

3a. Yes, she mentions how there’s a counter-argument about how artists don’t make enough money and it’s not a wide range of a career that it’s not worth working on.

3b. She backs it up with a wide range of art careers, and that it benefits other subjects.

3c. She treats them respectively with maybe a little aggression.

3d. Yes they are, as they back up her main thesis

4a. She authorities like writers that have participated in studies or wrote books about education and websites about her topic that help strengthen how art helps the overall school system.

4b. As far as I can tell they seem credible. One source by Katy Independence School District Fine Arts Division could seem pretty bias (since it is a fine arts school)

4c. A few are from 2009 and one is from 2011, not extremely current (depending on how you view it) but she might be able to get away with it. 6 years is a lot of change in my opinion.

5a. Not really. She gives a lot of information, so if you were new to the topic, you would understand.

5b. Her language kind of excludes you

5c. I do believe that we share the same belief that art should be more funded in school, but she might be a little more passionate about it than me.

Molly's Paper
1a. The main point she is trying to make, is that no one deserves to be homeless
1b. She talks a lot about how we need to change homelessness which is implied, but it makes me understand her stance.
2a. She talks about how giving the homeless homes would help all of us and our society. Also about how we have all these empty homes to be filled. Why not fill them with the people who need it?
2b. She has statistics.
2c.Yes her reasons are sufficient.
3a. There is no mention of counter arguments.
3b. N/A
3c. N/A
3d. N/A
4a. She uses her sources as statistics
4b. They seem credible as journals and universities
4c. For her topic, her sources seem to be current enough.
5a. No she doesn't. She gives a lot of information for people who are new to this topic.
5b. It includes me.
5c. I feel that we do. I didn't know a whole lot about this topic until reading her paper. It helped me understand and want to side with her on her stance.

Final Draft Paper #3

Jacob Kirsch

English 101

Professor Begert

November 21^st, 2015

             In 1983, a ban took place against men who had sex with men, also known as MSM, to give blood. To me and a lot of other people, this ban now seems to be discriminatory because we have the ability to test blood accurately for HIV when we didn’t in the 80’s. According to GMHC.org (Gay Men’s Health Crisis), a movement to fight aids, the ban was carried out to, “to help prevent inadvertent transmission of HIV through blood transfusions. At that time, HIV/AIDS was largely not understood by doctors, scientists, and the general public, and the technology and procedures used to test donated blood for HIV were extremely limited.” The ban is on any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even if the man who wants to donate is HIV negative, always practices safe sex, and even has been in a monogamous relationship for most of their life. Some transgender woman are also affected by this as the ban is against birth sex and not gender. This ban is completely outdated, and is a huge form of discrimination towards these people.

            I believe this ban is a huge form of discrimination to these individuals because it prohibits them from participating in an activity that helps people and saves lives. With the incredible advances we have been making in the world of medicine, donated blood is tested for diseases such as syphilis, HIV, hepatitis, and HTLV (human T-lymphotropic virus) (mskcc.org). Since this ban has not been brought to light since 1977, the FDA should consider all of the advances in the world of medicine persuading them to change the ban.

This ban also promotes discriminatory stereotypes against MSM. According to GMHC.org, it insinuates LGBT birth assigned men are at a horrifying risk for sharing the virus, while saying that that heterosexual people have an extremely low risk of this. This is not the case provided each party uses the proper precautions. Arguments could also be made that are homophobic, such as, “it’s bad to be homosexual so it’s bad for them to donate blood” These stances and views are completely bias. Medically, lifting this ban would only help people and save lives

            Another way this ban seems to be a clear form of discrimination is that women who have had sex with a MSM are able to donate blood (GMHC.org) These women are allowed to donate blood a year after having sexual intercourse with a MSM male, while men who have been in monogamous relationships since the seventies and have had a HIV tests that came back negative are not able to donate a drop of blood. Why should a woman or a straight man who may have had unprotected sexual intercourse with an array of partners be able to donate blood while these LGBT+ birth assigned males are not?

           

The opposition might ask, “If the ban was lifted, what would happen if a MSM donor lied about their positive HIV status?” This question has an easy answer, HIV tests would catch it, just as it would if anyone lied about their positive HIV status. Since clinics and blood drives do HIV testing on donated blood, this is not a problem.

Prior to donating blood you are required to fill out a form by the FDA, in which you have to disclose your birth sex, and if you’re a male, whether or not you’ve had sex with another man, (FDA forum). So whatever a person’s sex or sexual orientation, if they don’t disclose that they are HIV positive, they will be caught. If this ban was lifted there would be no difference in problems that people who are able to donate blood have now.

            Overall, this discriminatory ban is hurting the mission of blood drives and securing blood donations, to procure blood for people who need it. GMHC.org states that, “There is strong opposition to blood drives at many colleges, which only serves to reduce the blood supply . . . San Jose State University does not allow blood drives on campus because the ban violates the university’s nondiscrimination policies.” The fact that some colleges aren’t allowed to host blood drives because it breaches their nondiscrimination polices show that this is a mammoth pattern of discrimination.  It also negatively affects the whole mission by rendering blood drives inaccessible to those who are capable of donating. Another way this interdiction compromises the whole essence of gathering this live saving element is how many pints they lose by not allowing LGBT+ birth assigned MSMs to donate. Going back to GMHC.org, “according to one estimate, the ban prevents over 130,000 gay and bisexual men from donating over 219,000 pints of blood annually. “ A graph from The Huffington Post created by The Williams Institute at the University of California that studies lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc issues confirms this estimate.

 

            This graph shows the number of men likely to donate that not are not presently able to do so and the number of pints of blood likely to be donated with three scenarios .From left to right, if the ban was lifted for LGBT+ birth assigned men, if there were a twelve month deferral from donating, (they would have to wait a whole year after having sexual intercourse), and the last scenario shows the data after a five year deferral from donating. According to The Huffington Post, the FDA is recommending that the ban be lifted and replaced with the 12-month restriction shown above.

            I believe that by educating more people on this topic, we would be able to radically increase the amount of blood available to people who need it. There is mounds of evidence proving that we can safely allow LGBT+ birth assigned men to donate blood that will help millions of people all around the United States, so why not do it? Yes, the FDA has made some strides to help, for example, the one year deferral recommended above, and yes, there have been some attempts to provide awareness, as demonstrated by The Gay Blood Drive. This movement focuses on trying to make people aware of this outdated ban and how it focuses purely on “sexual orientation instead of sexual behavior and personal risk” (which as I have mentioned before, is a huge gross form of discrimination.) Gay blood drives are held in various places around the US. At these events, LGBT+ birth assigned males bring an ally to donate for them to show their willingness. The men who aren’t able to donate write a letter to the FDA. They and their advocates don nametags, have their picture taken displaying their name and their letter, this personalized petition is then sent to the FDA. At their last blood drive, over 1500 eligible allies donated, and over 1500 LGBT+ birth assigned men participated. This organization spreads the word of the ban that if lifted, could save thousands number of lives.

            Overall, the evidence that I have provided shows that this ban is outdated. Adequate HIV testing is available to make sure that these men and transgender women are cleared to donate blood which will save an abundance of lives. Although the FDA has been making some effort to change this, the change seems to be slow and I would like to be able to cut through some of the bureaucratic red tape to expedite this much needed change. We need to pump up awareness of this issue with more organizations such as the Gay Blood Drive. I hope this paper made you aware of this problem and how it affects everyone. When this ban is lifted, many lives will be saved.

Work Cited

“After You've Donated Blood.” Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Memorial Sloan                           Kettering Cancer Center Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Food and Drug Administration. Full-Length Donor History Questionnaire. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Gay Men’s Health Crisis MSM Blood Ban FAQ. Gay Men’s Health Crisis. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Terkel, Amanda. “FDA Recommends Lifting Lifetime Ban On Gay Men Donating Blood.” Huff Post Politics. Huffington Post, 15 May 2015. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

Yezak, James. National Gay Blood Drive. National Gay Blood Drive, Web. 27 Nov. 2015.