The purposes of this article are two-fold: (1) Probing the basic logic of this regulation “Gay and Bisexual Men Are Not Allowed to Be Blood Donors”, and (2) Finding out the way to reconcile the conflict between “blood safety” and “human right”. In literature review section, the author introduced some concepts and prevention methods about the blood safety. Then, three confronting pairs of notions under the blood safety with gay and bisexual men are discussed: (a) risk behavior vs. risk group; (b) blood transfusion vs. HIV test; and (c) How to recognize a gay (bisexual) man. Some issues with AIDS policy are also raised. The author analyzed the regulation from two dimensions: one is “the difference between the criteria for donor selection and the donor’s statement”, and the other is “the attitude of CBSF(Chinese Blood Service Foundation) introducing some virus like hepatitis-B, hepatitis-C, HTLV and HIV in its web-site.” It’s found that the value of CBSF has been influenced by the prejudiced Taiwan AIDS policy. I thing there are 3 ways to reconcile the conflict between “blood safety” and “human right”: (a) the selection of blood donor should depend on the donor’s action not her/his personal sexual identify;(b) Popularizing HIV test centers; (c) Offering full-scale counseling service before blood transfusion.