Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 156
  1.    #1  
    This is complete and utter bull****!

    --------------------------------------

    "FDA Set to Implement Sperm Donor Rules
    By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
    Thursday, May 5, 2005

    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.

    <snip> http://news.google.com/news?q=%22hom...UTF-8&filter=0
    Last edited by KRamsauer; 05/05/2005 at 07:24 PM.
  2. #2  
    Does a gay man have to disclose he's gay in order to donate? If it is genetic (which I think is complete and utter bull!) I would hope they are required to disclose.

    I think its wrong to subject children to that environment in the first place, so my comments would probably be dismissed as Knee Jerk anyway...
  3. #3  
    Are they citing any statistics of negative effects from homosexual sperm donors to justify this?
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Are they citing any statistics of negative effects from homosexual sperm donors to justify this?
    Well apparently, according to the "Its not a choice" theory, the offspring would be prone to homosexuality. Negative or not depends on who you ask.
  5.    #5  
    The ban is not based on gay being genetic.

    The FDA is banning gay sperm donors on the basis that it will reduce the chances of donor sperm being HIV+.

    Anyone want to point out the COMPLETE lack of science in that arguement?
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The ban is not based on gay being genetic.

    The FDA is banning gay sperm donors on the basis that it will reduce the chances of donor sperm being HIV+.

    Anyone want to point out the COMPLETE lack of science in that arguement?
    ...it seems to me that at least statistically speaking it would reduce the chances...
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The ban is not based on gay being genetic.

    The FDA is banning gay sperm donors on the basis that it will reduce the chances of donor sperm being HIV+.

    Anyone want to point out the COMPLETE lack of science in that arguement?
    What do you think the motives are? (serious question)
    They aren't saying they can never donate.
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyparanoid
    ...it seems to me that at least statistically speaking it would reduce the chances...
    If you remove any group and thus lower the number of donors than you have statistically reduced the chances. We all know this is not a "gay" disease, it simply started in the gay community in the U.S. In other cultures and countries it is mostly a hetero disease.
  9. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
    #9  
    Boy... so many thoughts... such lazy fingers. I guess I'll just say this:

    Decisions like this should be based on science and nothing else. The target I assume to be safety for the mother and child.

    If this is based on science fine. If not, then this is simply "big government" imposing its will. Yet another example of why I used to be a Republican and am no longer.
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    What do you think the motives are? (serious question)
    They aren't saying they can never donate.
    I think they're being lazy and I think they feel no one will say "Hey! That's not right!"

    The obvious recommendation should either be a list of risky sexual behavior to screen for (sex with prostitutes maybe) OR PREFERABLY to freeze donations and test donors 6 months later for HIV then allow the donation into the donor pool.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    If you remove any group and thus lower the number of donors than you have statistically reduced the chances. We all know this is not a "gay" disease, it simply started in the gay community in the U.S. In other cultures and countries it is mostly a hetero disease.
    But.. but.. You are talking about a ban in THIS culture!

    I thought
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I think they're being lazy and I think they feel no one will say "Hey! That's not right!"

    The obvious recommendation should either be a list of risky sexual behavior to screen for (sex with prostitutes maybe) OR PREFERABLY to freeze donations and test donors 6 months later for HIV then allow the donation into the donor pool.
    This explains why they might think they will get away with it. My question was, what are thier motives for doing it.
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    But.. but.. You are talking about a ban in THIS culture!

    I thought
    Keyword being "began". Currently and for the past decades, hetero HIV cases have gained on the number of gay cases.
  14. #14  
    I lived in the UK for 6 years, I can't give blood...doesn't bother me.
  15. #15  
    correct sxtg...other cultures have nothing to do with this argument.
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    This explains why they might think they will get away with it. My question was, what are thier motives for doing it.
    You would have to ask the people that were on this panel: "part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25".
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Keyword being "began". Currently and for the past decades, hetero HIV cases have gained on the number of gay cases.
    There probably should have been more drastic measures sooner, you're right! However in the interest of not discriminating almost all medical references to AIDS and homosexuallity were/are Taboo. But, that doesn't mean we should keep our head in the sand. Does it?
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    correct sxtg...other cultures have nothing to do with this argument.
    Thats what I thought. A similar ban would probably have little to no effect in other cultures. AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK $they$ $are$ $not$ $trying$ $to$ $implement$ $one$ $either$.
  19.    #19  
    I'll summarize by saying this position by the FDA is the equivalent of saying that HIV is a gay disease.
  20. #20  
    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.
    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
Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions