Gay Men No Longer Allowed to Anonymously Sperm Donors

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Originally posted by ntotoro

Eugenics is selective breeding, not screening of groups of at-risk men. Should they next accept semen from admitted intravenous drug users?

Nick

If you honestly believe that lame excuse they're giving then you probably think the cure for aids is p@$%y.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Liberty

They would still have to check all of them for AIDS wouldn't they? And my guess would be that sperm from gay men is only a small percent so it would not make that much of an impact.

I would assume (there's that word, again) that they test all sperm, for lots of things, just like they test all blood.

Unfortunately, there is a period after you get infected with HIV, during which you will still test negative. And it isn't know if, for some of that time, if your bodily products might be infectious.

(Although, in the case of blood, I recall reading that there's never been a case where someone has been infected by blood that tested clean. If true, then that doesn't prove the testing is 100% effective, but it has been, so far.)

[codeorama]

First, I agree that the clinics have a right to do what ever they choose, no question.

What I would ask is what would the reaction be if these same clinics said that they would not take samples for black men because they had a higher risk of _______ or Asian men because they had a higher risk of _______.

Certain races DO have higher risks, I'm sure whites have a higer risk of something... Just curious.

[Larry]

Originally posted by codeorama

First, I agree that the clinics have a right to do what ever they choose, no question.

What I would ask is what would the reaction be if these same clinics said that they would not take samples for black men because they had a higher risk of _______ or Asian men because they had a higher risk of _______.

Certain races DO have higher risks, I'm sure whites have a higer risk of something... Just curious.

But then you get into even other things.

Blacks have a shorter life expectancy. Is it racist to charge them higher prices for life insurance? (Would it be racist to give them higher payments, if they buy an annuity, since odds are they won't be collecting it as long?)

To me, in order to really judge whether this decision is moral, I need to know some numbers: It shure would be nice to know what percentage of gay men (vs. general population) are HIV positive. (An even more applicable number would be the percentages of each group who are infected enough to be contagious, but not enough to fail the test.)

If it's 1 out of 500K for gays, vs 1 out of 1000K for everybody, then I'd say it's discrimination. They're not doing it to prevent one problem in a half million, they're doing it because they're a disliked minority.

OTOH, if 1 out of 100 is a threat, then I can understand it.

So, anybody know the numbers?

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by ChocolateCitySkin

If you honestly believe that lame excuse they're giving then you probably think the cure for aids is p@$%y.

No, I don't feel that way at all. I neither said that, nor do I appreciate the assumption that I feel homosexual are deviant human beings who must be "cured" or whatever.

Christ never said homosexuals were going to Hell in any of the Gospels. That's good enough for me. I have three gay family members, one in my direct family. The thought of them being chastised at a personal level is more than I can bear.

I do realize, however, that homosexual behavior leads to certain medical issues at a greater number and commonality than heterosexual behavior, for a variety of reasons. Screening isn't always 100% accurate. I wouldn't hold them or intravenous drug users to a different standard, regardless whether it's blood or semen.

Nick

[ChocolateCitySkin]

And I'm sure that your family members would appreciate their "lifestyles" being compared to intravenous drug users.

This is a rather thinly veiled attempt at discrimination.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by ChocolateCitySkin

And I'm sure that your family members would appreciate their "lifestyles" being compared to intravenous drug users.

This is a rather thinly veiled attempt at discrimination.

No offense, but your posts on this topic make little sense.

First of all, it's not __damn eugenics. PERIOD.

Secondly, it's not a matter of emotional desires that anal intercourse is 'compared' to IV drug users when it comes to HIV transmission.

Just as men are far less likely to get HIV from a woman(whereas women get it relatively easy from men) people are more likely to get AIDS from anal intercourse.

If we go by the standards that "everyone gets AIDS" or that you can acquire it in different ways, then there won't be screening at all. There won't be DONATIONS of blood or sperm at all. But you have to draw the line somewhere.

Did you know that if you go to Haiti you can't give blood(or it was that way?)

We could probably get into the sexual practices(including heavy drug use) that runs rampant in many of the larger metropolitan area gay male populations. I even was reading article about how safe sex and anti-drug warnings and fliers are common in London, but in New York they are pretty rare.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

First of all this policy is POLITICALLY motivated and makes sweeping assumptions that to be "gay" you engage in anal intercourse. Whereas, a significant portion of the "gay" population does not engage in that form of sexual behavior.

If they wanted to SCREEN then they should check to see if that individual was engaging in that type of behavior. Not just make a sweeping generalization that all gays do. That way they screen hetereosexuals as well as gays.

By their logic then blacks and mexicans should not be donating blood because demographically they are at higher risk for AIDS. But, now that would never happen-- wonder why?

[Larry]

Originally posted by ChocolateCitySkin

By their logic then blacks and mexicans should not be donating blood because demographically they are at higher risk for AIDS. But, now that would never happen-- wonder why?

Oh, come off it.

Everybody knows the only way to get AIDS is

[*]To be gay.

[*]To be contaminated by a gay who was allowed to donate blood, or something.

[/list=1]

In fact, if there weren't any gays, AIDS wouldn't exist.

Neither would hurricanes or tornados.

[/sarcasm]