2007-02-21 16:23:46 · 16 answers · asked by Saddam 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
No, it's being safe. Would it be prejudiced to refuse to have sex with a person with AIDS? Or to share a needle with a person with AIDS? Absolutely not. Being prejudiced against a person with AIDS would be refusing them a job or refusing them the opportunity to do something even if it put no one else in danger of contracting the disease. But not if there's a danger, as there would be in boxing with the high possibility of blood exposure.
In any reputable fighting ring, they will test all their fighters for blood-borne pathogens (AIDS, TB, etc) before allowing them to fight--this prevents the moral dilemma in the first place.
2007-02-21 16:33:40 · answer #1 · answered by megan_of_the_swamp 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not think that it is prejudiced at all. It is merely a fact that there will be blood and other possible bodily fluids that can be exhanged during a boxing fight. In the long run, it is for the safety of not only the opposing boxer, but the AIDS infected boxer's manager, etc, too. Above all, having an awareness of AIDS is what will stop prejiduce and spread tolerance! :)
2007-02-22 00:54:39 · answer #2 · answered by Instant Karma 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if the fight really matters, go to a doctor beforehand, and explain the situation. The doctor will not only be able to inform you on the actual risk, but he or she will be able to schedule a follow up appointment immediately after the fight, and if you are in any danger he or she will be able to prescribe you a powerful antibody that will keep you from contracting the disease
2007-02-22 00:58:05 · answer #3 · answered by Chipper 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, what if you ended up getting their blood on you? People with AIDS shouldn't play contact sports where there is a high chance of injury that would expose others and endanger their health.
2007-02-22 06:26:48 · answer #4 · answered by Annabella Stephens 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it wouldn't be prejudiced. But I wouldn't have much respect for the fighter who has AIDS and is so inconsiderate of his opponents
2007-02-22 00:54:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Heck no! That would be smart. Why would you put your life in jeopardy? If you beat each other like you're supposed to, there are going to be open wounds. Therefore providing more of an opportunity for the disease to be spread.
2007-02-22 00:34:42 · answer #6 · answered by *karasi* 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no because the man with aids could bleed all over the man with out it and if the blood comes in contact with a cut on the other man he can catch aids
2007-02-22 00:31:30 · answer #7 · answered by comacati 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would see it in the interest of personal safety to refuse, especially if blood or other mixing of bodily fluids would be involved. It's not a risk like a fungal infection would be, but it's still a risk, in my opinion.
2007-02-22 00:27:07 · answer #8 · answered by samjrei 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not prejudiced. There's a legitimate safety concern.
2007-02-22 06:44:16 · answer #9 · answered by DawnDavenport 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there is a chance their blood gets into your wound, it's not prejudice at all, because you would refuse to box with them on the basis of their disease (not their gender, sexual orientation, or race.)
Though, from what I know of boxing, it's not bloody enough for their blood to mingle with yours.
2007-02-22 00:30:19 · answer #10 · answered by roxusan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋