Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 156
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Or perhaps it's based on actual stats and they are trying to minimize risk be eliminating the highest risk catagory?

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure
    As noted in the above article, HIV transmission is increased by indulging in known high risk behavior by either hetero or gay people. Screening for risky behavior would be more effective than labelling an entire group as those who indulge in risky behavior outside of long term monogomous relationships.

    Get the difference.
  2. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #22  
    All I can say is that I hope they test whatever sperm they acquire regardless of its origin for every kind of disease known to man. You can require people to disclose information all you want; it doesn't mean people will actually disclose everything.

    There is clearly no science in this decision. The fact that I as a hetero male can have unprotected sex with ten prostititutes a year before I donate, and a gay man who lives next door to me can be in a monogamous relationship with his partner for twenty years and not donate unless he abstains from sex for five years prior is not logical at all. It's a clear case of discrimination, and no court is going to uphold it. I doubt most clinics will pay any attention to this new rule.

    Being gay in-and-of-itself doesn't put you at risk for getting AIDS. Taking part in risky behaviors does. And since you never really know who does what in the privacy of his or her own bedroom, I think mandatory testing of the product itself before using it would be common sense.

    But why would I expect common sense?
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  3. #23  
    But being gay in a monogomous relationship (unless a condom is used) is risky sexual behavior. Fecal matter introduced into the blood stream reduces ones imunity, therefore making them more susceptible to diseases (hepatitis comes to mind) thus making them a high risk group of people.

    As I said they are not saying that they CANT donate they are just taking extra measures, which seems logical to do with a higher risk group.
    Last edited by sxtg; 05/05/2005 at 07:40 PM.
  4. #24  
    Don't blood donor places do the same thing?
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'll summarize by saying this position by the FDA is the equivalent of saying that HIV is a gay disease.
    I disagree, I believe in my opinion that they are trying to reduce the chances by reducing the risk.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    As noted in the above article, HIV transmission is increased by indulging in known high risk behavior by either hetero or gay people. Screening for risky behavior would be more effective than labelling an entire group as those who indulge in risky behavior outside of long term monogomous relationships.

    Get the difference.
    Agreed - that's exactly what the stats I posted were about. Clearly, if you look at the data, homosextual activity is far and away, as a percentage of real numbers to infections, the highest risk catagory that exists in the US.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyparanoid
    I disagree, I believe in my opinion that they are trying to reduce the chances by reducing the risk.
    I disagree with the approach, and agree with Mrjoec. If a loved one contracted aids or hepatitis from a donor would you care if that donor were gay? If they weren't would you then feel that sufficient safety protocols were in place and your loved one was a victim of bad luck? Of course not! We don't simply screen blood based on sexual risk factors, right? Or am I mistaken and blood donations aren't tested at all? How is this different?
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    But being gay in a monogomous relationship (unless a condom is used) is risky sexual behavior. Fecal matter introduced into the blood stream reduces ones imunity, therefore making them more susceptible to diseases (hepatitis comes to mind) thus making them a high risk group of people.

    As I said they are not saying that they CANT donate they are just taking extra measures, which seems logical to do with a higher risk group.
    Pardon me but who is introducing fecal matter into one's bloodstream?

    No the FDA is stating it's their guideline to not accept sperm donations from gay people.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Pardon me but who is introducing fecal matter into one's bloodstream?.
    C'mon surely you're not that dillusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No the FDA is stating it's their guideline to not accept sperm donations from gay people.
    I thought you said they simply had to wait longer than the typical year. (5yrs wasn't it)
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    C'mon surely you're not that dillusional.
    Apparently you're not very aware of anal sex, not that there's anything wrong with that. So how is fecal matter physically entering the bloodstream? Mainlining?

    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I thought you said they simply had to wait longer than the typical year. (5yrs wasn't it)
    Is that not forever? You're going to abstain from sex for 5 years to be a nice guy and donate your boys?
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    There is clearly no science in this decision. The fact that I as a hetero male can have unprotected sex with ten prostititutes a year before I donate, and a gay man who lives next door to me can be in a monogamous relationship with his partner for twenty years and not donate unless he abstains from sex for five years prior is not logical at all. It's a clear case of discrimination, and no court is going to uphold it. I doubt most clinics will pay any attention to this new rule.
    I dissagree. IMHO The risk of someones sexual behavior contracting AIDS based on it being introduced to the bloodstream would logically be as follows
    Highes to lowest:

    Homosexual male
    Heterosexual female
    Heterosexual male
    Homosexual female

    Notice the Homosexual female is at the lowest risk.
    This ban is not Bash on homosexuals. It just happens that the people at the highest risk of defective product in this particular circumstance happen to be homosexual.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Apparently you're not very aware of anal sex, not that there's anything wrong with that. So how is fecal matter physically entering the bloodstream? Mainlining?
    I said introduction, not injection

    You really are ignorant to the friction causing broken blood vessels?
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    As noted in the above article, HIV transmission is increased by indulging in known high risk behavior by either hetero or gay people. Screening for risky behavior would be more effective than labelling an entire group as those who indulge in risky behavior outside of long term monogomous relationships.

    Get the difference.
    Oh I "get the difference" - you're just not willing to see the stats for what they are. There is no denying the rate of infection as a percent of persons in the catagory of homosextual is dramatically higher than the rate in the hetero population. And as posted by another in this thread, homosextual intercourse is, in and of itself, definded as risky behavior.

    That said, I have many gay friends and have no bias against the gay community - I'm just presenting information that may be helpful is seeing some of why the FDA ruled as it did.

    By the way, why do you continually post in a condescending manner when someone disagrees with your position - particularly when you faced with supporting data you cannot refute?
  14.    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I said introduction, not injection

    You really are ignorant to the friction causing broken blood vessels?
    And when blood vessels get broken stuff goes out not in. Ask any medical professional.

    I'm sitting here with some JUICY road rash apples right now. By your logic I should be infected to the gills. Also, a good bout of **** sex is no more abrasive than a good bout of coitus.

    Your comments in this area are giving me a greater insight into your personality.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    And when blood vessels get broken stuff goes out not in. Ask any medical professional.

    I'm sitting here with some JUICY road rash apples right now. By your logic I should be infected to the gills..
    So there is no justified reason to keep an open wound clean and protected? Infected cuts, scrapes, "road rash", are nothing more than a persons imagination?

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Also, a good bout of **** sex is no more abrasive than a good bout of coitus.

    Your comments in this area are giving me a greater insight into your personality.
    Cool Thats what discussions are supposed to do.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    And when blood vessels get broken stuff goes out not in. Ask any medical professional.

    I'm sitting here with some JUICY road rash apples right now. By your logic I should be infected to the gills. Also, a good bout of **** sex is no more abrasive than a good bout of coitus.

    Your comments in this area are giving me a greater insight into your personality.
    And your seat of the pants rebuttals (no pun intended ) are telling me something about yours.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq22.htm

    take a look, you'll see it is indeed quite possible to contract HIV via "small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the *****"

    Once again with the condescending attitude and no facts to back it up....
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    And your seat of the pants rebuttals (no pun intended ) are telling me something about yours.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq22.htm

    take a look, you'll see it is indeed quite possible to contract HIV via "small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the *****"

    Once again with the condescending attitude and no facts to back it up....
    Yet these possibilities to contract HIV via "small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the *****" are not exclusive to a particular sexuality. So again, why exclude a group based on sexuality instead of excluding all of those which engage in risky activity?
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yet these possibilities to contract HIV via "small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the *****" are not exclusive to a particular sexuality. So again, why exclude a group based on sexuality instead of excluding all of those which engage in risky activity?
    Once again, national statistics show the incidence is dramatically higher in some catagories than others - would seem intuitive to me to minimze risk by eliminating the highest risk catagories. Wouldn't you agree it is better to err on the side of caution in a circumstance like this.

    You're aware of mortality tables and the like....to me the same thought process can apply. By eliminating or minimizing the greatest risks one can greatly reduce the overall risk. That's not to say the de-selection process should necessarily stop with one catagory, however it can reasonably start there.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    You're aware of mortality tables and the like....to me the same thought process can apply. By eliminating or minimizing the greatest risks one can greatly reduce the overall risk. That's not to say the de-selection process should necessarily stop with one catagory, however it can reasonably start there.
    Well said!
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Once again, national statistics show the incidence is dramatically higher in some catagories than others - would seem intuitive to me to minimze risk by eliminating the highest risk catagories. Wouldn't you agree it is better to err on the side of caution in a circumstance like this.

    You're aware of mortality tables and the like....to me the same thought process can apply. By eliminating or minimizing the greatest risks one can greatly reduce the overall risk. That's not to say the de-selection process should necessarily stop with one catagory, however it can reasonably start there.
    So why not screen for past behavior instead of a sexuality? Do you want to accept the hetero that utilizes prostitutes over the gay male that's been in a monogomous relationship for years?
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions