FDA! No gay sperm donations allowed.

[Kuciwalker]

It's been asked before: how is donating blood and/or sperm a fundamental right?

[Atahualpa]

Read Haldeman's "The Forever War" and you know that we'll all become gay (before we get replaced by perfect human clones).

[Rogan Josh]

I don't have any problem with gay men donating sperm, as long as it is properly 'labeled' and the person who will be 'using' it knows what that label is.

For example, if it is donated anonymously, it should be marked as anonymous and the person who receives it should be told if there are or are not restrictions (and what sort of restrictions) on who can donate.

I would also be in favour of having less anonymous donations where various characteristics of the donater were retained, such as age, height, weight, skin colour, sexual preference, likes and dislikes etc, but not the name. This would still be partially anonymous but give the user some ability to choose the characteristics (or at least influence the perceived characteristics) of their child.

In other words, as long as the receiver is made aware of the situation and is given a choice whether or not to use sperm which could have been donated by a gay man, it is fine. The problem only asires if there is no possibility for a receiver to obtain sperm which they are sure has not been donated by a gay man (but then, the same thing can be said for height, weight, skin colour etc etc).

[Gibsie]

If we assume that the fact that gay men are six times as likely to become infected with HIV than straight people, and that this risk is too great to allow them to donate their own cells, then we would also have to demand that straight people not make donations as well. Their risk is 1/6 that of gay people- if being gay is that big a risk, then 1/6 of that same risk is just as unacceptable.

Also it is a ridiculous exclusion factor, because I’m sure if you worked out the figures for HIV transmission in men who have protected gay sex, then their risk factor would be no higher than that of other people who have engaged in risky sex practises... most likely lower. The question asked should be, “Have you had unprotected sex?”. If anyone seriously thinks that a gay man who has protected sex with one other man in his entire life is at as great a risk of a woman who sleeps around with anything in sight, then their thoughts on this matter are not based in reality.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher


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.

Japher . . . . .


what Asher said.

[Adam Smith]

And The Winner Is

Originally posted by Asher
People with known cases don't go to give blood donations or sperm donations

A physician can't assume that. Medically and legally you have to ask, since no subsequent test is perfect.

Originally posted by Asher
So if about 14M gay men went to donate blood, only 0.0008% of them would likely be infected with HIV.

For the third time now, if all 14M gay men went to donate blood, the probability of infection would depend on the cumulative number of cases in the population, not on the additional number of new cases each year.

Originally posted by Asher
Clearly it can't be yours, as you have not supported it with any facts at all. And I honestly don't see how you can have issue with a number like a 0.0008% infection rate each year.

I don't have time to teach you remedial math, but I really want to commend your determination.

For misunderstanding the BBC article that you yourself posted as evidence;
For making a complete hash of the facts;
Not once;
Not twice;
But three times;
And above all, for coming back for more,

I hereby name you the second recipient of the Order of the Black Knight.

The competition for this award is very tough, especially in OT. But I always knew, deep in my heart, that someday you would win. Congratulations on a job well done.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

Man I'm glad that you aren't in charge of policy. My taxes would be 98% .

And man, has Adam School PWNED both you and Asher up and down this thread. Just give it up and save some dignity.

Adam's facts seem right to me, but those facts, IMO, do not change my opinion that we should discriminate people based on sexual orientation when we could invest more in testing everyone on the same grounds for transimissible diseases.

[Gibsie]

Through 2002, a total of 859,000 persons had been reported as having AIDS in the United States, dependencies, possessions, and associated nations.

From cdc.gov. Doesn't include HIV infected though... doh.

Someone else do the math

[Asher]

Re: And The Winner Is

Originally posted by Adam Smith
A physician can't assume that. Medically and legally you have to ask, since no subsequent test is perfect.

Who said a physician can assume that? For the sake of risk analysis, you can presume that the vast majority of people who know they're infected with HIV will not donate blood.

For the third time now, if all 14M gay men went to donate blood, the probability of infection would depend on the cumulative number of cases in the population, not on the additional number of new cases each year.

Do you not understand the concept of infection rate?
If you're going to say gays have a "high risk" of infection, cite some sources.
You'll also need to:
A) Define "high rate"
B) Cite the rate of infection for homosexuals

For someone who purports to base his judgement of "facts", it's very amusing that you've neglected to include a single fact in yoru case, and attempt to dismiss any which speak against your case with nothing but rhetoric.

I don't have time to teach you remedial math, but I really want to commend your determination.

For misunderstanding the BBC article that you yourself posted as evidence;
For making a complete hash of the facts;
Not once;
Not twice;
But three times;
And above all, for coming back for more,

I hereby name you the second recipient of the Order of the Black Knight.

The competition for this award is very tough, especially in OT. But I always knew, deep in my heart, that someday you would win. Congratulations on a job well done.

It's you that deserves the award. You have not provided any link, no evidence, and no support for any of your claims. Confronted with common sense, and even evidence of a minisicule infection rate, you choose to ignore it and treat it like 25% or more of all gay people willing to donate -- to help people, even -- will have HIV. Even if you play with my numbers and increase the infection rate by several orders of magnitude, it's still a miniscule number.

The fact is, I think you've been caught with your pants down. You seem to have assumed the HIV infection rate for homosexuals is far higher than it really is, probably because it seems like gays and HIV are constantly linked in everyday things like TV shows. Why? Because it adds drama. What better way to have a victimized gay character, than to give him a terminal illness that most people attribute to his being gay?

As long as the infection rate is EXTREMELY well below 1%, there's no reason at all you should ban an entire minority from donating. That's callous, that's irresponsible, and it's insensitive to the recipients waiting for blood transfusions and it's insensitive to the people who want to help people by donating blood, only to get a slap in their face telling them "your kind can't do that".

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun


Adam's facts seem right to me, but those facts, IMO, do not change my opinion that we should discriminate people based on sexual orientation when we could invest more in testing everyone on the same grounds for transimissible diseases.

Which "facts" are right, that gays have a "high risk" of infection?

He hasn't presented a single fact. A fact would be providing the rate of infection for gays, and then supporting his definition for why he considers something so tiny as a "high risk"...

[Adam Smith]

Re: Re: And The Winner Is

Originally posted by Asher
You have not provided any link, no evidence, and no support for any of your claims.

What are you, Fez's DL??
I did the calculations based on YOUR LINK for cryin out loud.


I have work to do. I don't have time for any more of this nonsense.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: And The Winner Is

Originally posted by Adam Smith
What are you, Fez's DL?? I did the calculations based on YOUR LINK for cryin out loud.


I have work to do. I don't have time for any more of this nonsense.

You did?
So what is the rate of infection for gays, and why do you consider it high risk?

That's the critical part. You have to explain why a risk factor that's WELL below fractions of 1% can be considered high risk.

You've consistently ignored the most important parts of the debate. You point out errors in my numbers, when you probably realize that even if corrected by several orders of magnitude, the number remains extremely tiny.

You wave your arms mumbling something about gays being "high risk", which costs money because sometimes they are found to be infected in tests which are always done anyway.

You're being inconsistent in identifying minorities who have a higher risk than straight, white males -- blacks (gay or straight) have a far higher infection rate than white people, as do hispanics, yet I don't see you advocating we prevent blacks or hispanics from donating blood or sperm -- which you should do to be consistent. The reason you're not doing that, is because it's more blatant discrimination. Society still tolerates discrimination against gays far more than it does people's race.

So get with it:
- Identify the risk factor for gays
- Explain why this is considered high risk
- Explain why you don't consider similar bans across other minorities with risks higher than straight white men

You haven't done any of these three.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Asher, you have a predilection for (especially with the black thing which has been explained so many times, one wonders if you have reading comprehension problems).

You are getting so badly PWNED, it's becoming almost painful.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Asher, you have a predilection for .

You are getting so badly PWNED, it's becoming almost painful.

How can I get PWNED by someone who isn't even in the debate?

How can he make blanket statements like 'gays are high risk' without identifying their risk, nor defining what high risk is?

Are you even reading the thread, or are you here as AS' cheerleader? Maybe you can help me out.

1) What is the risk of infection for gay people?
2) Why is this high risk?
3) Why is this different from other minorities, such as blacks, which have significantly higher risks than straight white men?

Are you guys not reading the question, should I write in small words, or do you have no answers (and thereby prancing around pretending like you're "PWNING" people).

And for christsake, it's PWN3D, not PWNED. Don't do things half-assed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even Mr. Fun thinks Adam Smith is right with the numbers, and HE'S ON YOUR SIDE! There is no one here that has come to your defense, while many who were outraged have said "Adam Smith makes a good case" (monkspider) or something similar. That ought to tell you something.