FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 5, 2005.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    i'd love to know who's behind this move. is it wrong of me to suspect christian conservatives? and if i'm right, would this mean there's some belief there that sexuality could be nature over nuture?

    i wonder if that's really the driving force here.
     
  2. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
  3. wrc fan macrumors 65816

    wrc fan

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    In a world where LPs are made like pancakes
    #5
    Um... how exactly can they tell? Really? How are they gonna enforce it? Make everyone that wants to donate take a lie detector test?
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    Tomorrow's news headline: "Homeland Security looking to hire 1000s of new surveillance agents. New Homeland Office of Man-on-man Observation (HOMO) division to be based out of San Francisco."

    Seriously, you have to suspect the religious right had more to do with this than any desire for protecting the public from HIV, as zimv says.
     
  5. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #7
    You can't donate blood if you've had sex with another man, either.

    I'm sure all of you would be more than forgiving if your sister decided to use a sperm donor and ended up getting HIV because the test missed it.
     
  6. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #8
    and if african americans are at a higher risk of being HIV infected? I guess that's the next logical step isn't it?
     
  7. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #9
    Being African American is a genetic and cultural trait.

    Having sex with another man is an actual action.
     
  8. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #10
    if it's the risks we're concerned with, what's the difference?
     
  9. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #11
    Getting/having HIV through semen transmission while engaging in sex with another man is far more likely than just being black.

    I don't necessarily like it. I tried to donate blood once and had to leave the bloodmobile, but even with testing there is no 100% guarantee that I or my partner don't have HIV (and we've both tested negative for five straight years).

    That said, there is no 100% gaurantee that a straight man, gay woman, whoever doesn't have it either....but two men exchanging semen in whatever way is probably the easiest way to get the disease.
     
  10. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #12
    And I'm sure we'd feel much better if we knew that sperm came from a straight donor with HIV.

    What about egg donors? Do they draw the line at lesbians? What about staight women who've had sex with gay men?
     
  11. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #13
    So what is your solution, try and eliminate the riskiest behavior or be PC about things and put people at risk?

    Let's allow anyone to donate sperm, blood, platelets, organs...

    Christ.
     
  12. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #14
    We're not talking about blood, platelets and organs; we're talking about sperm, which already has a reliable testing procedure to eliminate risky donors, straight or gay.
     
  13. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #15
    100% accurate, right?
     
  14. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #16
    Damn conservatives. I guess they think the gayness will be transferred to the child and the entire nation will eventually be gay. Maybe they should try reading a middle school level biology book :rolleyes:
     
  15. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #17
    Nothing 100% accurate. Aside from sex between virgins - monitored since birth to ensure no activity of any possible disease-transferring kind has occurred - which is 100% safe.

    No, wait, guess not. Disease could come from the mother during pregnancy or child birth.

    So I guess now we're limited to sex between two heterosexuals who descend from an unbroken chain of monogamous couples who have never been exposed to other diseases.

    I think the point here is that we should develop the best screening test possible and warn those who use the services of the possible risks. I simply fear we - meaning the religious far right, not actually most of us - would rather target gays than develop better tests.
     
  16. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #18
    I didn't see anything about conservatives in the article. Talk about generalizing and stereotyping.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #19
    Do you know what the infection rates are for women who are inseminated by gay sperm bank donors vs. straight sperm bank donors?
     
  18. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #20
    Answer the question.
     
  19. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #21
    I don't see liberals as being behind this. It's essentially a ban on allowing gay men to donate sperm, as it's unlikely that men who have been celibate for five years are likely to be sperm donors.

    I would be amazed if the chances of actually becoming infected with HIV due to receiving donated sperm - from anyone whose sperm has passed the current tests - are in any way higher than those of catching it during heterosexual encounters with anyone other than a committed partner of the woman accepting the donation - which doesn't apply, because such women wouldn't be accepting sperm donations from strangers (meaning that, if the partner's sperm worked, they wouldn't be looking elsewhere).

    This is simply going to encourage donors to lie. Period. Whereas efforts to develop better tests would help everyone.
     
  20. makisushi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #22
    come on now...Is this comment really necessary?
    Let's try to stay constructive here.
    Whoever is pushing this ban is probably not looking at the issue from a medical standpoint, but more of an emotional side.
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    AFAIK:

    The transmission from a known HIV positive donor is less than 5%

    It happened a total six times before testing was initiated. Since then it hasn't happened.
     
  22. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #24
    I don't see liberals being behind this either, but it's no better to say "Damn Conservatives" than to say "Damn gays."

    Both comments are stereotyping.

    At the end of the day, if anyone of us was a woman, would you rather have a seminal implant from a seuxally active gay man that has been tested negative, had his sperm "washed," or a sexually active straight man who has only had sex with women?

    I know which one I'd rather have, no matter how "un-PC" the decision is.

    I agree, though, better testing is needed.
     
  23. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    assuming p'brits figures are correct, and that since testing began there have been exactly zero incidents of HIV transmission to the receiver, do you still assert better testing is needed?
     

Share This Page