New Legislation: Fda Bans Homosexual Sperm Donors
Fatal_Error
Join Date: 2005-01-15 Member: 35840Members
Join Date: 2005-01-15 Member: 35840Members
<div class="IPBDescription">(lt)</div> <a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/05/' target='_blank'>http://edition.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/05/</a><span style='color:red'>***</span>.donor.ap/index.html]http://edition.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/05/g...r.ap/index.html
Discuss.
(Replace red Asterisks with g.ay, no period.)
Discuss.
(Replace red Asterisks with g.ay, no period.)
Comments
[edit]I don't understand why the FDA doesn't just create better procedures for testing <i>all</i> sperm donors for HIV/herpes/any STD you care to name.
Then again, this law is coming from the same government that gave us the doctor who wasn't sure whether or not tears and sweat could transmit AIDS.
"This rule will make things legally more difficult for them," she said. "I can't think of a scientifically valid reason -- it has to be an issue of discrimination."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT, disgusting is what it is.
Also, california wins the acceptance on homosexuality in general, they even beat out vermont now. Because of this;
<!--QuoteBegin-cnn article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cnn article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
However, some sperm banks, notably in California, have welcomed **** donors. The director of one of them, Alice Ruby of the Oakland-based Sperm Bank of California, said her staff had developed procedures for identifying **** men with an acceptably low risk of HIV.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't THAT the real intention of this legislature?
It probably would have been phased to this forum anyway, and all the unnecessary and inflammatory posts removed.
And sadly, I think juice may have a point.
I think if yer gonna donate sperm at least get the best breed
I think if yer gonna donate sperm at least get the best breed <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
... Just because a person is homosexual doesn't mean their genes are in any way diminished/inferior to heterosexual genes. Infact, I know a few g-a-y people who have quite admirable genetic makeup. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There would be all kinds of problems if we started selecting the genes of our babies. There's already some research (or at the least a mention of it in the scientific community) about "designer babies". It's possible that in the future, parents will be able to select the sex of their child, their eye color, etc. Thats got all kinds of people up in arms, and for good reason I think.
Whoops, took that slightly off topic. Sorry about that.
<obligatory eugenics comment>
Alright, I said it, let's move on...
To be honest, if the woman cares that much about it, she probably shouldn't be a parent.
Besides that, there's no proof that homosexuality is genetic, as far as I know.
Basically it comes down to that we don't know and probably won't for a long time.
Exactly the same reason we don't know what causes chronic depression we think it has to do with chemicals in the brain, but that is a guess and that is the reason some treatments work and others do not.
Really? So I guess no one cares whether they have grandkids or their genes get passed down another generation? Which isn't going to happen unless the homosexual child is a sperm donor as well.
I don't really see the point in trying to stop the spread of homosexuality using this legislation. IIRC, the gene for it can sometimes be found in heterosexual parents, just not expressed.
Really? So I guess no one cares whether they have grandkids or their genes get passed down another generation? Which isn't going to happen unless the homosexual child is a sperm donor as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why does that matter so much? The point of having a child is to raise the child. It's THEIR job and choice to raise a child of their own. Stop thinking "OH WOW GUYZ I AM SO GOING TO BE A GRANDMA WHO SPOILZ DA GRANDCHILDRIN" and start thinking about taking care of the <i>actual child</i>.
That, and I wouldn't want a mother who doesn't accept me for who I am. (My mom was abused as a child because her mother wanted a male, not a female. I can see the same thing happening to a lot of homosexual children, even though not all the mothers who are disappointed that their child is g.ay will do that, and it honestly hurts me.)
If the sperm was contaminated with the virus there is the potential of it sticking to equipment used, such as needles which would then obviously become a vector for the virus.
Any risk just isn't worth it when it comes to HIV.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HIV doesn't pass down genetically, right? Just by the vaginal fluids during birth?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mostly all that blood and other ickyness that causes HIV to be transferred, unless the mother was systemically infected then it is potentially possible that the virus can transfer across the placenta.
I do not believe HIV would be able to be passed down genetically.
HIV is a STD. However, it is rarely transmitted from a female to a male. And the odds of transmission are less in vaginal sex as opposed to anal sex.
Statistically in america, homosexual men have the highest percentage of HIV infection compared to any other demographic.
This issue isn't about repressing **** people. It's about public welfare. Who here donates blood? All the questions you get asked there... for me, because I'm female I have to answer 'have you had sex, even once, in the past five years with a homosexual male?' and other similar questions. I whole heartedly disagree with the claim that this is discrimination.
On the one hand you have *** arguing that its not their choice, while the Bush administration (through its proposed laws) has pretty much stated they feel "****" is a choice of the individual.
Now why would filtering genetics prevent the spread of homosexuality if homosexuality is not genetic? HHmmmmmmm.......
On the one hand you have *** arguing that its not their choice, while the Bush administration (through its proposed laws) has pretty much stated they feel "****" is a choice of the individual.
Now why would filtering genetics prevent the spread of homosexuality if homosexuality is not genetic? HHmmmmmmm....... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because Our Glorious Leader says so, of course.
As someone said before, you can contract HIV and live with it for quite a long time before any HIV test would turn up positive.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is correct, up to a point. With todays tests we can be sure within a few weeks if someone is infected. (CDC)
<!--QuoteBegin-Grayduck+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grayduck)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
HIV is a STD. However, it is rarely transmitted from a female to a male. And the odds of transmission are less in vaginal sex as opposed to anal sex.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HIV is primarly a STD. Wrong on the second part sexual contact it is in the exchange of any bodily fluids, whether it be kissing, oral sex(HIV is not the only one that loves to prey on oral sex contact, herpies (cold sores) is another good example), anal sex, or vaginal sex could result in HIV contraction, it is in the fluids not what kind. (CDC again.) (See below for list of fluids.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Grayduck+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grayduck)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Statistically in america, homosexual men have the highest percentage of HIV infection compared to any other demographic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, oh so horribly wrong. Right now as we speak there are about 10 to 1 ratio of hetrosexual to homosexual people. Techinically speaking for the first time there are more hetrosexual people infected then homosexual (CDC, again.) (Roughly 54% are hetrosexual, obviously this is with an error precentage just like all stats, they say plus or minus %3)
<!--QuoteBegin-Grayduck+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grayduck)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This issue isn't about repressing **** people. It's about public welfare. Who here donates blood? All the questions you get asked there... for me, because I'm female I have to answer 'have you had sex, even once, in the past five years with a homosexual male?' and other similar questions. I whole heartedly disagree with the claim that this is discrimination.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You disagree with it being discrimination because you have absolutely no clue on the actual statistics of what you are talking about. The fact you didn't know HIV is fluidic transmitted (any fluids, blood, saliva, sexual excremets) just amplifies the fact you shouldn't even be commenting. I have given blood multiple times(read once a year) because I'm a rare blood type, so they need all they can get from me, I have NEVER been asked if I have had sex with a homosexual male, with a male, yes but never homosexual. If your state is asking that, they are discriminating and can be sued for prejudice questions. Much like the old John Crowe laws.