FDA! No gay sperm donations allowed.

[SlowwHand]

Bull****, Cal.
The majority here, for right ot wrong, labe me a religious right winger, and I have said time and again that Gays don't choose.

I'll say this, I get tired of Gays, Blacks, New Zealanders, whomever thinking it's terrible to generalize about their specific group, but quite all right to generalize about others.

You do that, you can go **** yourself as far as I'm concerned.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'll say this, I get tired of Gays, Blacks, New Zealanders, whomever thinking it's terrible to generalize about their specific group, but quite all right to generalize about others.

What does this have to do with anything?

1) All samples are tested for HIV
2) Vast majority of gay people do not have HIV
3) So why are gays banned from providing samples?

I'm tired of straight Texans ignornig the valid points, and instead opting for easy, obvious trolls.

[Solomwi]

Sloww, how prevalent is your view among the religious right?

Generalization's not bad. Projecting that generalization onto a specific individual is.

[Japher]

My point was that if the right wing is convinced it's a choice, as many of them seem to be, then it's pretty silly to ban the sperm of gay men based on fears of increasing the possibility of the produced child being gay.

I agree. We are very hypocritical, we like to keep ya'll guessing

I'm sorry, why does a chemical engineer have some kind of superiority when talking about legal issues and biological issues? I must miss the connection.

So you deal with the FDA at work. So what. I deal with LLNL and NASA, but I'm no nuclear scientist nor rocket scientist, and I don't use those as excuses.

I think my experience with the FDA DOES give me superiority when talking about the FDA, especially when the thread title says to F'em.

My job is to design processes that insure that the product is made according to production specs, specs which I define. I work with regulatory, validation, and quality assurance all of whom trust in what I say and trust in what I know such that the FDA can be convinced that product won't have any ill effect on those who take it. These are not legal issues, as far as I am concerned, but I know that I can't make something that you are to consume without knowing EXACTLY what is in it, and what it will do to you.

As for biologic issues, I do work with micobiologist and biochemist, I am no expert in these fields. However having worked as a bioprocess engineer in the field of protein purification I do like to think I know a thing or two about biology. Also, my speciallty is now water chemistry and cleaning validations which has to do with sterilization and santization of bioreactors, and this does have quite a bit to do with microbiology. On top of that my wife manages a vivarian colony for genetic research, she is quite educated in biological sciences. And, sadly, she likes to talk to me about that crap.

Chemical Engineer is my current title and my formal education, but it is a poor descriptor of what I actually do.


Oh, and the dealing with the FDA is a little tougher than dealing with some ISO 9000 certified metal shop. If the FDA doesn't like what I am doing they can lock up my shop and arrest my CEO, so maybe "dealing" is the wrong word.

[SlowwHand]

Solomwi, walk a day in my shoes around this portal to Hell.

[Gibsie]

The reason is clearly that gayness is an inherent trait and will doubtlessly infect the women receiving the sperm, leading them to catch the gay. This allows the gays to attack on two fronts- lesbianising women in addition to the creation of a new race of gay babies.

[Solomwi]

I agree. We are very hypocritical, we like to keep ya'll guessing

"ya'll"? You might be surprised.

Btw, is Chemical Engineer a very apt job description for many of us who have it on our degree?

[Adam Smith]

And Now For The Rest of The Story

I don’t even know where to start with you idiots…

First, basic public health. If you are trying to prevent the spread of an infectious disease, first you screen out high risk populations based on risk factors, then you test. You do it this way because testing is time-consuming and expensive. Gay men are high risk for HIV, so they get screened out just like other high risk groups such as drug users, people who have contact with hepatitis, or literally 20 other risk factors in the regs, including risk factors that heterosexuals face.

Second, this is part of a set of procedures to prevent the spread of a variety of diseases including HIV, hepatitis, SARS, West Nile Virus, and a host of others. Its got nothing to do with singling out gays and somehow preventing them from reproducing covertly. The regs apply to any kind of donation from risk groups, not just semen from gays.

Third, the first article posted contains no hint of any of these considerations, and instead plays up the gay angle exclusively. That is either absolute crap journalism by the writer (Agence France Presse?), or selective editing by the poster.

HERE are the proposed regs, if you bothered to look.

Note:
1. My wife is a physician / epidemiologist who works for the FDA
2. U R All Gay *****

[Japher]

The reason is clearly that gayness is an inherent trait and will doubtlessly infect the women receiving the sperm, leading them to catch the gay. This allows the gays to attack on two fronts- lesbianising women in addition to the creation of a new race of gay babies.

Yeah!... The only reason MrFun is against this is that it is foiling his plan to spread gayness. THe fairy dust is not all that efficent

Btw, is Chemical Engineer a very apt job description for many of us who have it on our degree?

Not in my experience. I do, however, know some ChemEs that it would fit just fine, but they are in the consumer product industry (Chlorox) and pertolium industries.

[SlowwHand]

Y'all. A contraction for you all. All of you.
Damned prune picker.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
Gayness is a mental disorder, and those are possible to inherit, i.e. bipolar.

(How's that for a troll?)

eh . . . .


7/10

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

What does this have to do with anything?

1) All samples are tested for HIV
2) Vast majority of gay people do not have HIV
3) So why are gays banned from providing samples?

I'm tired of straight Texans ignornig the valid points, and instead opting for easy, obvious trolls.

Did everyone miss this point -- the vast majority of gays do not have HIV/AIDS.

[Japher]

AS, if the screen can be proven effective, which I am sure it is or can be, I have no problem with gay donors. Still, we don't know which gene to erradicate to get rid of gayness, that is the infectious disease we are worried about

[MrFun]

Re: And Now For The Rest of The Story

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I don’t even know where to start with you idiots…

First, basic public health. If you are trying to prevent the spread of an infectious disease, first you screen out high risk populations based on risk factors, then you test. You do it this way because testing is time-consuming and expensive. Gay men are high risk for HIV, so they get screened out just like other high risk groups such as drug users, people who have contact with hepatitis, or literally 20 other risk factors in the regs, including risk factors that heterosexuals face.

Second, this is part of a set of procedures to prevent the spread of a variety of diseases including HIV, hepatitis, SARS, West Nile Virus, and a host of others. Its got nothing to do with singling out gays and somehow preventing them from reproducing covertly. The regs apply to any kind of donation from risk groups, not just semen from gays.

Third, the first article posted contains no hint of any of these considerations, and instead plays up the gay angle exclusively. That is either absolute crap journalism by the writer (Agence France Presse?), or selective editing by the poster.

HERE are the proposed regs, if you bothered to look.

Note:
1. My wife is a physician / epidemiologist who works for the FDA
2. U R All Gay *****

Sorry -- to justify unjust discrimination because "it will cost a little more" does not sound right.

[SlowwHand]

I missed that by Asher. Asher,