FDA! No gay sperm donations allowed.

[Japher]

Oh, yeah... would you (anyone but striker) hit his daughters?

Not to bust yer bubble or anything, but why should gay couples be allowed to have children? THis is something I have debated with, and really, if you "chose" or wish to accept that you are gay then why should you have children? Only because of science? Having children is not a right, though it should be regulated, what with all the sheity parents around these days.

[SlowwHand]

What about Black Intravenous drug users ?

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What about Black Intravenous drug users ?

What about Gay Intravenous drug users?

Why does this matter? I don't get it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Japher
Oh, yeah... would you (anyone but striker) hit his daughters?

Not to bust yer bubble or anything, but why should gay couples be allowed to have children? THis is something I have debated with, and really, if you "chose" or wish to accept that you are gay then why should you have children? Only because of science? Having children is not a right, though it should be regulated, what with all the sheity parents around these days.

You and the Chinese government share similar beliefs.

[SlowwHand]

You brought up Blacks. I'm bringing up intravenous drug users, no matter their pigmentation, though I referenced your reference.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You brought up Blacks. I'm bringing up intravenous drug users, no matter their pigmentation, though I referenced your reference.

My point is it's ridiculous to point to gays as "the" high-risk, when the risk is ANYTHING but high to begin with, and there are other, more visible minorities that have much higher risks, though even then they're very small.

I'm pointing out how utterly stupid it is to make a case AGAINST 29M people who are willing to donate things like blood -- which are ALWAYS in the demand -- because it 'costs too much' to test a lot more, and at 0.000086%, it's a "high risk" that one minority will be infected.

[SlowwHand]

I want the donation of blood or anything else checked, and don't care who the donor was, before it's used in me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I want the donation of blood or anything else checked, and don't care who the donor was, before it's used in me.

No ****, what an extreme position you take.

The issue is preventing specific minorities from giving blood/sperm in the first place, refusing to even test it.

[MrFun]

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

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Mr. Fun:



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.

I'm always weary with any idea of putting monetary value on human dignity and principle of basic respect for one another.

[Caligastia]

Anita Blake compares homosexuality to deafness. Doesn't anyone else here find this a tad ridiculous? Homosexuals are not disabled.

[Japher]

All I'm saying is that because you are gay you are limited in your ability to reproduce. What right is there to a homosexuals ability to reproduce?!

I'm a man, I can never give birth to a child.
Women can never donate sperm.
Blacks will never be able to join the KKK.
Why should gay people be allowed to reproduce? No matter what science allows them...

IMO, I don't think the should. No gay sperm donors, no gay recipents (i.e. surigate moms), but I would allow adoption...

Not to be a stickler, but cheating the system is still cheating the system.... Who else can have their cake and eat it to?

[Asher]

If gays want to have children, and a woman wants to be a surrogate mother, why should you step in with a baton and tell them no?

Why do you support an authoritarian government? Is it only when it's convenient to you and your beliefs?

I'm a man, I can never give birth to a child.
Women can never donate sperm.

White is never black.
Women can never happily leave the toilet seat up.
Why should men and women have sex? No matter what biology allows them...



You listed a bunch of "impossibles", then you listed something that's not impossible. If a gay man and a woman agree to have a child, why is this akin to a man giving birth to a child or a woman donating sperm? Hello? I don't understand why you think your beliefs and your opinions have a veto over what other consenting adults want to do.

[Thorn]

Don't worry, people like him will be arrested in my Reich one day.....

[Anita Blake]

I was using the Deaf couple as an example. It just ticked me off when someone said that deafness was a disability. The comparison that I made was that neither homosexuality nor deafness are disabilites, just different ways of life.

[Adam Smith]

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

Originally posted by Asher
13% of the USA is Black.
~10% of the USA is gay.

I will take your word for that.

Originally posted by Asher 55% of reported HIV cases are in black people.
7.3% of reported HIV cases are in gay people.

But the text of the article indicates

black people account for 55% of all new HIV cases.(my emphasis)

This is consistent with the CDC data. I am also skeptical of your 7.3 percent for reasons stated below.

Originally posted by Asher Are you sure that risk factors for black people are much lower?

That is my understanding, especially after you factor out other identifiable risks, such as IV drug use, as I said before.

Originally posted by Asher 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.

This calculation is totally wrong for a number of reasons. First, the standard CDC measure is annual incidence, so the 11,600 is per year, not over a period of four years. Second, as the BBC article indicates, this is only for 29 states, excluding New York, California and DC, all of which have higher than average rates. (ie, this is part of the US, not world wide, as you claimed in a prevous post.) Third, it is my understanding that gay men are at risk, not lesbians. So cut the denominator in half. Lastly, and most importantly, the probability of infection depends on the cumulative number of cases in the population not on the additional number of cases each year, which is the number you used.

Originally posted by Asher 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?

Leaving aside the problems with your math, let me put it this way. The BBC article indicates there are 40,000 new cases each year, of which 11,686 are gay men. If the BBC numbers are correct, and the same proportion held back in previous years, then you can cut the problem size by 25 percent by screening out gay men. You can probably take off at least another 25 percent by screening out IV drug users. Any epidemiologist would be happy to have that kind of success before the first medical test is even run.

Originally posted by Asher 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.

I warned you that the BBC article was totally confused, and in addition you made a complete hash of the facts in two successive posts. I think its clear who's position is supportable.