FDA! No gay sperm donations allowed.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I still don't understand how gay men are going to be able to propagate if they can't make sperm donations.

[Asher]

The ban is only on anonymous donations, so the most popular method of gays having babies (through a surrogate mother) is still legal.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Anita Blake
they are. maybe i took it wrong, but i took it as mr fun saying that they were wackos b/c they were trying to have a deaf baby. if i misudnerstood that, then i take my comment back

They are whackos because the want to force a disability on a future child.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I still don't understand how gay men are going to be able to propagate if they can't make sperm donations.

The same way they always have... by recruiting our children!

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?

[axi]

Does your government still believe that homosexuality is inheritable?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Anita Blake
and i'm not a dl

...BTW, what do the little dancing smileys mean?

Hazing ritual for DL's.

A settler. In the OT. Registered this month. This very day, even.

Think about it. Of course we're suspicious...



Oh, and

[Q Classic]

maybe they're afraid that gay blood would infect them and turn them gay? and gay sperm will breed more gay offspring after it infects the woman and turns her gay? omfg it's teh gay agenda! r0x0rz!

[Adam Smith]

Re: Re: And Now For The Rest of The Story

Mr. Fun:

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

Any test will be both costly and imperfect. So when a donation is made there is always some chance that an infection will slip past the test and into the blood supply. Screening by risk factors helps reduce that chance. Given that testing is imperfect, how much are we supposed to pay for this supposed right to infect the blood supply? $1? $1000? $1000000? Note also, that the FDA regs do not apply to agreements between private individuals. They only apply to public blood supplies.

Asher:

Originally posted by Asher
So a minority in which 7.3% of all cases belong to is banned from blood/sperm donations, while a minority in which 55% of all cases belong to is permitted.

Obviously, your argument is bunk.

My argument is not bunk. Your analysis is wrong. The question is not "What proportion of HIV cases are accounted for by blacks or gays?" The question from a screening perspective is "What proportion of blacks and gays have HIV?" Two very different questions. Gay men are clearly a high risk group. Blacks probably come out much lower, especially after you factor out other identifiable risks, such as IV drug use. Both you and the BBC article have conditional, marginal, and cumulative probabilities hopelessly confused.

In closing, I don't care whether you are liberal or conservative. I want policy based on facts, not personal prejudice.

[DinoDoc]

So what. Who cares if people don't want you masterbating into a cup? If you wanted to breed, you'd be doing other things anyway.

[Anita Blake]

Deafness is not a disability, neither is homosexuality. It's just a difference, and until people like you, mr fun, get that, then we're going to keep having hate crimes.

[monkspider]

I have to admit that Adam Smith makes a good case, but I'm pretty much on the fence at this point.

[Ted Striker]

It is my goal to anonymously populate the world with little Ted Strikers and become rich in the process!!!

[SlowwHand]

I have to disagree with Adam.
All policies need to be based on my personl beliefs and personal prejudices.
Wait. That's the same thing as facts.

As you were.

[Solomwi]

Yes, MrFun, YOU are the chief hate-crime-committing-type-person here! Begone with your bigoted ways.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: And Now For The Rest of The Story

Originally posted by Adam Smith
My argument is not bunk. Your analysis is wrong. The question is not "What proportion of HIV cases are accounted for by blacks or gays?" The question from a screening perspective is "What proportion of blacks and gays have HIV?" Two very different questions. Gay men are clearly a high risk group. Blacks probably come out much lower, especially after you factor out other identifiable risks, such as IV drug use. Both you and the BBC article have conditional, marginal, and cumulative probabilities hopelessly confused.

13% of the USA is Black.
~10% of the USA is gay.

55% of reported HIV cases are in black people.
7.3% of reported HIV cases are in gay people.

Are you sure that risk factors for black people are much lower?

And, even then, the infection rates of gay men is still tiny.

11,600 gay men were infected with HIV over 4 years. That's 2,900 per year.

The USA's population is 291,950,153 as of September 2003 according to the US Census.
10% of 291,950,153 is 29,195,015.

2,600/29,195,015 = 0.000089% infection rate.

So you're serious when you say we should deny 99.9911% of a minority's population the right to give blood and sperm, because 0.000089% of them get infected with HIV?

In closing, I don't care whether you are liberal or conservative. I want policy based on facts, not personal prejudice.

Well, you're certainly not using facts. I'm not sure what I attribute your ridiculous position to, but facts would definitely not be it.