Gay sperm need not apply

Post by **Roofus** » Sat May 07, 2005 12:12 am

"To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor. The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus."

Link

molotovwars · Post by **molotovwars** » Sat May 07, 2005 12:24 am

Thats actually pretty serious. Now I've never dononated sperm, but aren't there tests and precautions. When I read the subject title, the first thing that came to mind, would be an arguement related to how being gay is carried in genes, and that for some reason under those terms it shouldn't be accepted and would lead to a gay america. Either way I won't be suprised if this gets a good amount of publicity, seeing as it does directly discriminate on the basis of sexuality. At least I see it that way...seeing as theres no scientific basis.

Untamed · Post by **Untamed** » Sat May 07, 2005 12:31 am

I heard something mentioned about this, and I seriously hope this gets overturned. They should have required tests (and they do) before sperm donation, so if they're baring gays just for that reason alone, it isn't right. Especially if they're tested first.

(Couldn't get out the words right. =/)

AuroEdge · Post by **AuroEdge** » Sat May 07, 2005 1:00 am

One word can sum this up... SODOMITES!

Post by **Christuserloeser** » Sat May 07, 2005 7:23 am

AuroEdge wrote:One word can sum this up... SODOMITES!

Don't bother us with your hobbies.

Sir Savant · Post by **Sir Savant** » Sat May 07, 2005 12:05 pm

All guys should be tested. If I was a chick, having straight guy sperm with aids wouldn't be better than gay guy sperm with aids.

Sir Savant · Post by **Sir Savant** » Sat May 07, 2005 12:07 pm

All guys should be tested. If I was a chick, having straight guy sperm with aids wouldn't be better than gay guy sperm with aids.

Orange_Ribbon · Post by **Orange_Ribbon** » Sat May 07, 2005 12:11 pm

Untamed wrote:I heard something mentioned about this, and I seriously hope this gets overturned. They should have required tests (and they do) before sperm donation, so if they're baring gays just for that reason alone, it isn't right. Especially if they're tested first.

(Couldn't get out the words right. =/)

Yeah, I could understand them saying any male that is untested for any sexual diessess. Picking out gays for aids alone is wrong.

Now I want to say this knowing it is wrong and stupid, but I want to beat someone too it. So here I go.

It is a proven scientific fact that gays have gay babies. The research was like done at harvard.

Rand Linden · Post by **Rand Linden** » Sat May 07, 2005 1:39 pm

The exact same rule applies to donating blood, and has for a very long time.

Why complain now?

Rand.

Post by **Roofus** » Sat May 07, 2005 6:18 pm

Rand Linden wrote:The exact same rule applies to donating blood, and has for a very long time.

Why complain now?

Rand.

I don't see the logic behind that one either. They test your blood for everything before it ever makes it into the supply. And they're always complaining of blood shortages.

FETUS · Post by **FETUS** » Sat May 07, 2005 6:25 pm

It's just risk factor, if you test 100 straight males and 3 end up hiv positive, then you've spent for 100 tests and have 97 good batches. If you test 100 gay males and 20 end up hiv positive you've spent the same amount with less product. It boils down to cost effectiveness. statistically your still a higher risk for hiv as a gay male, work and change that and then complain.

Post by **Roofus** » Sat May 07, 2005 8:00 pm

FETUS wrote:It's just risk factor, if you test 100 straight males and 3 end up hiv positive, then you've spent for 100 tests and have 97 good batches. If you test 100 gay males and 20 end up hiv positive you've spent the same amount with less product. It boils down to cost effectiveness. statistically your still a higher risk for hiv as a gay male, work and change that and then complain.

Bullshit. If you test 100 batches of blood and 3 come up HIV positive. You've saved three blood recipients from HIV. I wouldn't care what the sexual orientation of the person whose blood I'm recieving is. I'd care that it's been tested for diseases.

bizzle · Post by **bizzle** » Sat May 07, 2005 8:24 pm

Roofus wrote:
FETUS wrote:It's just risk factor, if you test 100 straight males and 3 end up hiv positive, then you've spent for 100 tests and have 97 good batches. If you test 100 gay males and 20 end up hiv positive you've spent the same amount with less product. It boils down to cost effectiveness. statistically your still a higher risk for hiv as a gay male, work and change that and then complain.
Bullshit. If you test 100 batches of blood and 3 come up HIV positive. You've saved three blood recipients from HIV. I wouldn't care what the sexual orientation of the person whose blood I'm recieving is. I'd care that it's been tested for diseases.

You know you aren't supposed to get around the word filter..

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Sat May 07, 2005 8:34 pm

I really don't get this artificial insemination thing. If you can't have a baby, why not ADOPTING one?

FETUS · Post by **FETUS** » Sat May 07, 2005 8:40 pm

Roofus wrote:
FETUS wrote:It's just risk factor, if you test 100 straight males and 3 end up hiv positive, then you've spent for 100 tests and have 97 good batches. If you test 100 gay males and 20 end up hiv positive you've spent the same amount with less product. It boils down to cost effectiveness. statistically your still a higher risk for hiv as a gay male, work and change that and then complain.
Bullshit. If you test 100 batches of blood and 3 come up HIV positive. You've saved three blood recipients from HIV. I wouldn't care what the sexual orientation of the person whose blood I'm recieving is. I'd care that it's been tested for diseases.

You comepletely missed the point, to keep costs down they want high risk people out. They have to test everything. since gay men have a higher risk for aids they are more likely to give useless blood or semen.

Post by **|darc|** » Sat May 07, 2005 8:40 pm

FETUS wrote:It's just risk factor, if you test 100 straight males and 3 end up hiv positive, then you've spent for 100 tests and have 97 good batches. If you test 100 gay males and 20 end up hiv positive you've spent the same amount with less product. It boils down to cost effectiveness. statistically your still a higher risk for hiv as a gay male, work and change that and then complain.

Then you set it up so if anyone is HIV positive they pay for the test. That way you've spent for 177 tests and have 177 good batches.

greay · Post by **greay** » Sat May 07, 2005 8:44 pm

Stormwatch wrote:I really don't get this artificial insemination thing. If you can't have a baby, why not ADOPTING one?

Because it's part of our evolutionary history / perogative to want our own DNA carried into the next generation.

FETUS · Post by **FETUS** » Sat May 07, 2005 8:44 pm

For the most part if your donating blood plasma or semen your not havin the best luck, most places pay for those donations so you would see a lot less people donating for fear they may be leaving with a bill instead of money in there pocket.

Post by **|darc|** » Sat May 07, 2005 9:00 pm

FETUS wrote:For the most part if your donating blood plasma or semen your not havin the best luck, most places pay for those donations so you would see a lot less people donating for fear they may be leaving with a bill instead of money in there pocket.

As opposed to the lot less people donating because they like snails over oysters?

FETUS · Post by **FETUS** » Sat May 07, 2005 9:08 pm

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with being a sexualy active gay not just gay. I bet if you've use needle drugs you can't donate either same with any high risk factor. It's nothing of bigotry or hatred it's just plain statistics and cost effectiveness. Like I said before when the homosexual comunity is no longer a high risk group then they can complain untill then its there own fault.