And the bigotry continues...

[cheerful_deviant]

FDA set to ban gay men as sperm donors

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:34 p.m. ET May 5, 2005

NEW YORK - 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.

Full story here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can understand the desire to limit the spread of AIDS. And while AIDS may be statistically higher in gay men that in straight men, it is certainlly not unique to gay males. There are plenty of straight me walking around with AIDS that my not even be aware of it.

Wouldn't some form of comprehensive testing program be a better recomendation from the FDA than simply eliminating a social group based on overall statistics?

Or is somebody worried that we might go spreading those gay genes around.


Thoughts?

 

[wishfulthinking]

Who wants to be the first test case?

 

[dis_pac]

What is wrong with your country?

Actually I know, one word whisper's through the trees....Bush.

In Canada we are pushing to legalize gay marriage, in the U.S. they are pushing to ban gay men from donating sperm? WTF have they gone completely crazy.

Even as a straight man I find this absolutely preposterous. Gay men are not even the highest risk group any longer. If they want to ban high risk groups from donating sperm then they would have to ban certain ethnic groups as well (I will not name them). I'm sure this would go over well.

What about single men? Should they be excluded because they are having sex with multiple partners? You would never see that happening.

It makes me sick!!!

 

[TheEarl]

Thoughts?

There were thoughts involved?

The Earl

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It would sem to make sense for all sperm donors to recieve a full physical, including a wasserman test and a test for aids. It would also seem reasonable to ban certain people, those who work around radioactive materials and or mutative toxins.

Banning a social class makes sense only if you believe in eugenics. Considering the rater sordid history of that psuedo science, does it really surprise you the government that is working with feverish determination to destroy science and reasoning in our schools would buy into it?

 

[cheerful_deviant]

It would sem to make sense for all sperm donors to recieve a full physical, including a wasserman test and a test for aids. It would also seem reasonable to ban certain people, those who work around radioactive materials and or mutative toxins.

Banning a social class makes sense only if you believe in eugenics. Considering the rater sordid history of that psuedo science, does it really surprise you the government that is working with feverish determination to destroy science and reasoning in our schools would buy into it?

I'm very sorry to say that I don't think there is anything my fellow ammericans can do any longer that really suprises me. Offends me, embarrases me, outrages me, saddens me... yes. But surprises me? No.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

There were thoughts involved?

The Earl

Actually there were thoughts involved. No science... just thoughts.

 

[minsue]

Who wants to be the first test case?

Of being fathered by a gay man or of taking an AIDS test?

 

[oggbashan]

Is sperm a food or a drug?

The FDA seems an odd authority for this.

Og

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Is sperm a food or a drug?

The FDA seems an odd authority for this.

Og

Well... it can be a food.

 

[silverwhisper]

this is profoundly stupid. lambda legal's alternative is much simpler.

ed

 

[kendo1]

I could understand it if they banned the Welsh from donating sperm.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Is sperm a food or a drug?

The FDA seems an odd authority for this.

Og

Good point- especially considering that they won't touch vitamines or herbs.

Are we sure this is *real*

**I withdraw the last question. I just checked.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Did I read the article wrong?

Ya'll are saying "banning gay sperm"... I read "doesn't want sperm if the donor engaged in homosexual sex in the last five years AND wishes to donate anonymously".

Which begs the question for me... how is this different than saying the government doesn't want your blood if you've lived abroad in Africa during the last few years and wish to donate anonymously?

Or that they don't want your organs if you've taken prescription drugs in the last five years and wish to donate them anonymously?

Or really... at the end... is it terribly different than saying "we don't want your voluntary things if those things have a statistical danger within a certain limit and you don't want anyone to know who you are"

 

[sweetnpetite]

Did I read the article wrong?

Ya'll are saying "banning gay sperm"... I read "doesn't want sperm if the donor engaged in homosexual sex in the last five years AND wishes to donate anonymously".

Which begs the question for me... how is this different than saying the government doesn't want your blood if you've lived abroad in Africa during the last few years and wish to donate anonymously?

Or that they don't want your organs if you've taken prescription drugs in the last five years and wish to donate them anonymously?

Or really... at the end... is it terribly different than saying "we don't want your voluntary things if those things have a statistical danger within a certain limit and you don't want anyone to know who you are"

What about other high risk behaviors?

Wouldn't it be even more prudent if, say we decided to ban all *non-virgins* from donating? Considering that 'the only safe sex is no sex' and all that? (Hey- virgin birth!, nifty.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

What about other high risk behaviors?

Having donated sperm, I can say that they don't like a lot of higher-risk behaviors at all--that questionnaire can be brutal. But, yeah, I agree that if I want to be anonymous and admit to having higher-risk sexual behaviors... I'm not going to cry about them not wanting my sperm.

There are just a few more layers in this than "ban gay sperm". Hell, they wouldn't let me donate blood when I told them I'd been to Africa in the last six months. It's a shame that we can't all do what we want, but of all things to get freaky defensive about? I don't entirely get this one.

 

[Guest]

Having donated sperm, I can say that they don't like a lot of higher-risk behaviors at all--that questionnaire can be brutal. But, yeah, I agree that if I want to be anonymous and admit to having higher-risk sexual behaviors... I'm not going to cry about them not wanting my sperm.

There are just a few more layers in this than "ban gay sperm". Hell, they wouldn't let me donate blood when I told them I'd been to Africa in the last six months. It's a shame that we can't all do what we want, but of all things to get freaky defensive about? I don't entirely get this one.

I think it's more of a reaction to a scary trend in this administration, at least for me. The push to not allow homosexual couples to be parents or foster parents, the insanity over the marriage issue and now just a bit more anti-homosexual control. How dare they spread those gay genes around!

It feels creepily ominous to me. I don't like the direction we're headed.

But, on the other hand, Joe, what kind of stories did you read while you - ahem - donated? Did they give you plenty of naughty pics and vids to view?

C'mon, share the lusty details! (You know we'd tell you!)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think it's more of a reaction to a scary trend in this administration, at least for me. The push to not allow homosexual couples to be parents or foster parents, the insanity over the marriage issue and now just a bit more anti-homosexual control. How dare they spread those gay genes around!

It feels creepily ominous to me. I don't like the direction we're headed.

But, on the other hand, Joe, what kind of stories did you read while you - ahem - donated? Did they give you plenty of naughty pics and vids to view?

C'mon, share the lusty details! (You know we'd tell you!)

Yeah, I understand... but as the FDA didn't say anything about gay genes, I can't bring myself to accuse them of being concerned about them. My nature, s'all.

As for what its like, it was all fairly clinical. I got a weird cup/jug thingy and an examination room and it took about sixty seconds. I didn't take a magazine or anything.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yeah, I understand... but as the FDA didn't say anything about gay genes, I can't bring myself to accuse them of being concerned about them. My nature, s'all.

You do realize that plenty of people are smart enough not to be downright blatant about their bigotry right?

I mean, if you are only gonna believe that someone is bigoted when they come right out and say "Yeah, I don't like fags," or something similer- it might be 'scientifically sound' or whatever, but it's incredibly naive. You have to, at some point, learn how to draw conclusions *without* always having a preponderance of evidence, and to read between the lines. At least, once in a while.

 

[impressive]

You have to, at some point, learn how to draw conclusions *without* always having a preponderance of evidence, and to read between the lines. At least, once in a while.

Oh, sweet! That is just waaaaaaaaaay too existential.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, I understand... but as the FDA didn't say anything about gay genes, I can't bring myself to accuse them of being concerned about them. My nature, s'all.

Of course.

(but it still sounds suspicious to me)

As for what its like, it was all fairly clinical. I got a weird cup/jug thingy and an examination room and it took about sixty seconds. I didn't take a magazine or anything.

Now that's disappointing.

Unless . . . unless you have a thing for nurses? http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/krank/med.gif

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You do realize that plenty of people are smart enough not to be downright blatant about their bigotry right?

Of course.

I mean, if you are only gonna believe that someone is bigoted when they come right out and say "Yeah, I don't like fags," or something similer- it might be 'scientifically sound' or whatever, but it's incredibly naive. You have to, at some point, learn how to draw conclusions *without* always having a preponderance of evidence, and to read between the lines. At least, once in a while.

I think it better, and this is just me, to draw possible conclusions when I don't have enough evidence and avoid reading between lines like the plague as often as I can. While that's not to say that there are never things between lines, I can't bring myself to develop the habit--I like taking people at face value.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I'm actually shocked to discover that they don't test all doners of sperm for HIV and other diseases in the first place. College students donate a lot of sperm (they get paid) and college students have a lot of unprotected sex. It's not so hard to lie on a questionaire.

I am going to read between the lines here - it's bigotry. If they were so concerned about health, they would have testing guidelines for everyone rather than relying on people's honesty in how they answer a form. An interesting note, though, the FDA must believe that being gay is genetic, not a choice - not something this administration is willing to acknowledge.

 

[Kirk482002]

I’m not the brightest guy around but I believe that in this day age with all the precautions that can be taken with testing; how could anyone donate sperm to be used on strangers without the male being run through every test there is to make certain that they are in good health, disease and drug free for their age? (I’m not talking about someone saving their own for later use by a spouse.) I can even understand classifying the sperm by ethnic group as for the wishes of the parents unless they truly want a ‘random’ donor.

What I can’t abide is the total exclusion of a ‘type’ of individual.

Does the Swastika leap into anyone’s mind?

How about the 'old Dixie' South?

Fucking Bush Administration.

What’s next, eliminating guys because they have less than 20/20 eyesight? How about being hard of hearing? What if their Johnson too short?

How about we set a limit that the guy has to have at least a Forrest Gump IQ to qualify? That should keep Bush out from fucking up the genetic pool. Not that he’d notice. He’s too busy figuring out a way to fuck us out of your and my Social Security.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The scientific community has been up in arms for some time now because of the blatant politicization of government sponsored science under the Bush administration.

Findings have been distorted, research suppressed, and agencies like the FDA have been forced to bow to the political will on things like the morning-after birth control pill, which is still unavailable in the US because of... Well, I forget what the current rartionale is, but it has nothing to do with safety, efficacy, or health.

A whole slew of Nobel Laureates of National Medal of Science winners signed onto an official letter of protest. See how much good it will do.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381.