http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155637,00.html
FDA to Ban Gay sperm donation




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155637,00.html
FDA to Ban Gay sperm donation
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR !
What the Dr. said in the article nails it :
"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."
I don't believe for second that this would be happening if we didn't have a bunch psycho NeoCons in power right now ....... this level of discrimination would have never be allowed to happen under a moderate Republican or a Democratic President..... NEVER.
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590
Guess again Kitty,
This is a link from the FDA web site. It is a letter written by the ACLU about the FDA IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION 1999!!!!!
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/.../3817b2_09.pdf
No time but other search results are at
http://google.fda.gov/search?client=...s+sperm+&as=GO
how do they know if you're gay or not....surely they don't expect you to tell them!
This is a little odd. I thought these folk insisted the whole "Gay gene" idea was nonsense...
I agree with DD, how are they supposed to know you are gay?? And this is the stuff they are putting their effort into instead of other more important things.
Heck, all I read was the thread's title, and I wondered how they could tell that the sperm was gay. Do they interview all those little things?
Don't they test all that stuff for HIV (or whatever), anyway?
This is a politically-motivated rule change! Are they similarly blocking straight men who've bought sex in the past 5 years?
That's always been my question in regards to all these laws prohibiting "discriminating" against gays. Say you outlaw discriminating on the basis of sexual preference in hiring. How many employers ask their applicants, "so, tell me, who do you sleep with?"?Originally Posted by discretedancer
I don't see this as discrimination as much as laziness. From the article:
Traiman said adequate safety assurances can be provided by testing a sperm donor at the time of the initial donation, then freezing the sperm for a six-month quarantine and testing the donor again to be sure there is no new sign of HIV or other infectious diseases.
Let's face it, that seems like a lot of effort. I'm guessing the FDA just figured, hell, let's just ban all donations from gays and save ourselves the trouble.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle





Just a question, but since the concern the FDA has here is AIDS, wouldn't you have to put people who use IV-drugs on the forbidden list too? The article didn't mention that.
Secondly how do you get a potential donor to fess up the truth about their sexual preference or sexual history? A polygraph test? Why not just give them an HIV test and make sure they're clean before allowing them to donate? Seems a lot simpler if you ask me.
I mean duh.![]()
Former SCJ now in rehab.
I agree. It is a scatch my back , I'll scratch yours situationOriginally Posted by Chicagoeditor
ban on Canadian drugs ='s profit protection for drug companies
followed by- failed plan to legalize gay discrimination on the federal level ie gay marriage ban.
FDA returns favor on banned Canadian drugs by creating a federal level gay discrimination policy
edited to add: I just opened the links that Monty posted and it says that the goal is not to prevent hiv or aids but rather to prevent gay men from having offspring.
It also goes on to say that heterosexual men with multiple sex partners are deemed acceptable but homosexual men , even in monogomous relationships are not be acceptable.
It goes on further to point out that the only case to date where a sperm donor ended up being hiv+ and it was not even a homosexual . It was a heterosexual man.
After reading these links it is even more obvious that this change in donor rules is based on nothing but discrimination.![]()
Last edited by Fearless Fairy; 05-06-2005 at 12:43 PM.
Yeah I know they test every sample. What I was refering to was the suggestion that they freeze it for six months, then test the donor again. I took that to mean that they would do that just for the donations from gay men, as a way of checking for HIV. That sounded like extra work.Originally Posted by Jenny
I don't know about sperm, but with blood, there is a small window of time from when you contract HIV that your blood can transmit it and not show up on the screening test. There was case in Texas where it was verifired that a kid contracted HIV from a blood transfusion even though the blood was tested for HIV and came up negative.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle





some of you people freekin slay me.
Sorry if some high risk people are not welcomed at the doner table,to fuckin bad imo.
In order for homosexuals to get thier "equal"fucking rights,or not scream foul when someone says"your to high a risk",some of you would have no problem putting the blood supply and sperm donations at the same high risk level.
Thank you FDA for at least fuckin reading the CDC reports and seeing the ACTUAL elevated risk level that results when you let homosexual men donate blood or sperm.
lets ask this poor kid what he thinks.There was case in Texas where it was verifired that a kid contracted HIV from a blood transfusion even though the blood was tested for HIV and came up negative.
again,some of you people freekin slay me in your blindness.
The most amazing or should I say absurd part of this new policy is it does not include all persons at a higher risk. It is limited to only one higher risk group which is why it is a policy of discrimination.
If the true intent was to protect rather than to discriminate it would not be limited to only the one higher risk group.
Ofcourse one must be of a discrimination is wrong mindset to understand that fact. Those who themselves discriminate against homosexuals will most likely think this new policy to be a good one.
As for the mention of connection to either this or the past President, I think it is important to note that this new policy was not enacted until after the change of office. That lends itself to the notion that it was refused by the Clinton administartion but embraced by the Bush2 administration. Which is par for the course considering the Bush2 agenda which includes creating more gay discrimination on a federal level.





oh really??Originally Posted by Fearless Fairy
so they push the people with hepatitis to the front of the line at the doner table???
Do you really think they are the only ones not"welcomed"??
I would agree with the statement"they are the more vocal of any barred catagory".
lololOfcourse one must be of a discrimination is wrong mindset to understand that fact. Those who themselves discriminate against homosexuals will most likely think this new policy to be a good one.
ok thais is funny chit man!!!!!!
I must say,the most elegent way of saying"if you disagree with the gay communities blitzcriege<sp>(Im still learning German on a different thread)assault on anything social standard,on any level,you MUST be homophobic"I have ever heard.
lol
You should run for fuckin office,ya got my vote!!!!
its all bullshit,we agree.As for the mention of connection to either this or the past President, I think it is important to note that this new policy was not enacted until after the change of office. That lends itself to the notion that it was refused by the Clinton administartion but embraced by the Bush2 administration. Which is par for the course considering the Bush2 agenda which includes creating more gay discrimination on a federal level.
Has there ever really been a "homosexual friendly"administration??
do you even see one in the near future???
think Kerry would have been???
LOLOLOL
Its really sad imo.
If you have a man,doesnt matter if he fucks sheep(well kinda imo)he has already shown the desire to donate,that means he cares about something and deserves a chance to do his part for what he belives in.
I would like to donate sperm all day,5 days a week.I have no problem with a 40 hour work week,and i can work overtime and be called in on my days off.
I just cant do that(and walk)
So I donate to mankind in other ways.
Thats what i think these people need to do,donate in other ways, and stop bitching about medical facts.





BTfreekinW
Do you think any homosexuals work for the FDA???
Is it a "gay free"zone??
Show me a homosexual male or female who works for the FDA who doesnt agree with the findings.
I dont think you can.
THEY SEE THE REAL LIFE STATS!!!!!
Evidentially,they agree with it also.
rut ro!!!
Time to bash those gays in newspaper stings!!!!!!!!!!!!
sheeeeesh
The FDA formulas rules.
Anyone given blood lately? the Red Cross will not take your blood
See
At this time, the American Red Cross donor eligibility rules related to vCJD are as follows:
You are not eligible to donate if:
From January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1996, you spent (visited or lived) a cumulative time of 3 months or more, in the United Kingdom (UK), or From January 1, 1980, to present, you had a blood transfusion in any country(ies) in the (UK). The UK includes any of the countries listed below.
http://www.redcross.org/services/bio...pply/CJDv.html
Above is about a tenth of the restrictions. See
http://www.redcross.org/services/bio...0_557_,00.html
Must be the vast anti-limey lobby. Or folks who never got over the War of 1812.
MnM, glad your gaydar is sufficiantly advanced to pick 'em out of the crowd, but i don't have such faith in the gaydar of a lot of other folk.Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
In other words, just how can something like this ever be realistically enforced?





Yes,im aware of that,every donation is supposed to be tested.Originally Posted by Jenny
Yes,got it,your helping my to stress my point,only your making sense when you do it and not being looked at as a homophobe for saying about the same thing.So it's not a matter of actually passing on disease, you understand? If any diseases or infections are passed on, it is because the AGENCY collecting them has not been testing adequately. Because they have to test EVERY sample. Okay, have we got that? Great.
I donate in other ways.I'm not sure when you last donated anything,
Im no angel and consider myself in a high risk catagory also,so i dont give blood.
I also dont whine about not being able to donate body fluids due to choices I make in life.
Thats kewl,im happy when any "group"slows the growth of any disease by however means.I might point out, that homosexual men are in the slowest GROWING group of AIDS patients,
But on the negative side,isnt homosexual men the largest,by far,group of infected people?
I dont want to be labeled as a racist homophobe,but i thought it was african american men??Or is that the largest growing group??
What is the number of infected people in the UNITED STATES??
Would homosexual men be more then 50% of those infected???
that they are the group MOST likely to use condoms and that finding a 23 year old gay man who has NEVER engaged in unprotected, penetrative sex is way easier than finding a 23 year old straight woman who has never engaged in unprotected, penetrative sex), then one is not really at any higher risk than those straight men who have never engaged in unprotected sex, and is certainly lower than those who have. You see how that works?
lol I see what you wrote,but it doesnt jive with anything i know to be fact.(my facts could be wrong,so im always open to new facts to replace my old ones)
Your statement may be true,hell,im sure it is,wouldnt surprise me at all.
Now, who has a higher percentage of HIV or Aids acording to the CDC??
23 year old straight females or 23 year old homosexual males??
Who is actually at a higher risk statistically?
See how that works???![]()
I never did it so i dont know,and the misses had me spayed and neutered after the twins,so even if I were a gay male and wanted to donate,I couldnt.Now, following the questionaire, (at least for blood. I obviously have no semen to donate, so I don't know what comes next for those guys)
Any sperm doners on the forum who would like to help here??
ahhhhhhhhhthe nurse gives you two stickers with a bar code, undecipherable without a scanner, one labelled "Yes" and the other "No". If the patient in question has any doubts about their blood, but doesn't want to admit to it for whatever reason, he or she may choose the "No" code, stick it on the file, and then the unusable blood is detected before the more costly blood test.
my point is bold faced by me.
But before that i gotta ask,why go thru that all just to put a "No"sticker on??
Do you think its cost effective to test the "NO"samples??
Think they get flushed??
I would guess so,or sold to third world countries on the black market.![]()
So what is the beef again???
For the right to put a "NO"sticker on??
Or just to have a legal place to "polish your spoke"for 30 mins without interruption?
anyways...
This is my point in a nut shell.If it cost alot of money to test the sperm,doesnt it make sense to exclude any and all high risk groups,not just homosexual males?the more costly blood test
Its the goverment SAVING MONEY for kripes sake!!!
Those Repub basterds!!!
Git a rope!
See???Now. They STILL have to test EVERY sample. They CAN'T just take anyone's word for it. The questionaire and sticker is NOT about protecting patients from infected blood. That is what the blood tests are for. It is about maximizing the percentage of "healthy blood" per tested batch or, in the case of semen,apparently to prevent gay offspring .
we agree right??
we agree except for this part,but it sure is a great example of how the homosexual community flips out over stupid chit.apparently to prevent gay offspring
They turned it into a gay bashing thing,and by your own reasoning,it really isnt.
Its like saying abortion is intended to kill the black community.
Its flipped out propaganda imo.
Am I even beginning to make my point clearer??
True,we agree again,anyone can lie.
Now, assuming that the bad, disease ridden gay men are going to lie about their sexual history, while the straight men will tell the truth is stupid. Assuming that the bad gay men will tell the truth about their sexual orientation, and then lie about their sexual history seems kind of nonsensical.
But if someone "Lies"on that type of questionare,just because they feel discriminated against,and something bad happens,like someone gets infected(like the above post have suggested can happen)then I dont belive that person is a "Doner"any more,he then becomes a criminal IMO.
And do criminals really answer questionares truthfully?
nope,we agree again!!!!By the way. People who HAVE hep aren't a "high risk group". "High risk group" mean a group of people who habits and lifestyle make them more suseptible to a given disease or condition than the rest of the population. Not people who already actually have the disease. That's not really a risk anymore, is it?
(I know,so many times in just one post,im floored too!)
I was just giving examples of people who were not wanted at some doner tables and that those people,as I do,try to find other ways to donate to the planet and mandkind.
So I just dont get it,neither you or I are in the effected "group"and it doesnt really matter to me,but it seems to matter to you,so I swear i really am trying to understand your views.
Im trying to understand why someone would fight for the rights of a high risk "group"to donate??
If the fact that they were a high risk was in doubt,then its a different story,I would be on your side all the way.
Are you saying that homosexual males are not a high risk "group"anymore??
Or are you fighting for the rights of ALL high risk groups to put a money wasting "No"sticker on a test tube of sperm?
I just dont get the whole thing.





cum cum cap,you to???Originally Posted by Madcap
I would have thought you could see thru this crap and figure out whats best for whats best and not see it as an anti gay issue,yet a common fucking sense regulation put in place for the protection of the general public.
hell i dunno,it probably never will,that is,until someone gets sick,and its traced back to a gay male doner who went with the "Yes"sticker,lieing about his known high risk lifestyle,but donated anyways.In other words, just how can something like this ever be realistically enforced?
Im guessing he would be in some kind of legal trouble.
If it happened in the next few months,and hit national news,how do you think this would impact the gay marriage issue??
Instead of crying wolf,the homosexual community should be supportive of a public saftey issue and get behind this IMO.
I don't really see it as an anti-gay issue. But the common sense of it escapes me. I see it as a dreadfull waste of time and tax money because it's something that can never be enforced in any way. If all a homosexual has to do is checkmark the "Heterosexual" box to donate blood or Semen, and no-one who isn't a telepath can say otherwise, then why not work on the problem in a realistic way rather than waste money debating something that just plain won't work. If someone is HIV positive and lies about it and someone down the line gets HIV, isn't this while deal moot? You can't unsmoke the ciggarette, and once whoever it was wound up HIV positive, then all this failed, anyway. So why bother in the first place.Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
Also, in a way related to Jenny's comments, what if a heterosexual heroin addict wanted to donate blood or semen to get some cash to score a fix, you think they're gonna add "Junkie" to the 'comments' line?
Rubbish.
Figure out another way. Better testing or something, but this is a waste.
Thankyou Jenny, exactly.... well said.Originally Posted by Jenny
I would also like to get an answer to that question from one of the people here who supports this new FDA policy... but I am not holding my breathBy the way - if it was traced back to an HIV+ straight man who knew he lived a high risk lifestyle, would that mean that they shouldn't take blood from straight men anymore?![]()
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590





Actual stats wise,im sure blood and sperm contamination doesnt happen often,if it does happen,who cares where it came from,its a little late for that at that point.Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
Its not a gay bashing issue,its a high risk issue.All they are doing is setting guidlines on who is considered high risk.
The last i heard,gay men were a high risk group.
Is that true??easy question,basic facts only please,no propaganda.
What group of americans has the most cases of aids within in ranks??Homosexual Males??
Whats the fastest growing group of aids/hiv cases,black homosexual males??
If any of THESE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS are true,then its not public discrimination,its public protection.
All the FDA is saying is that the amount of money spent and lost on that group has made it cost effective NOT to except them as doners.
How can the gay community get thier panties in a bustle over this??
Whats the plan now,mass protest by donating??
Sperm ins??
Whats that going to get??
Lets say they call it unfair and discriminating,whats won??
Now a high risk group has the right to be donors and to put "No"on a cup??
Just who is more high risk after a 1 year time period... a heterosexual man who has engaged in unprotected sex with an HIV+ woman or a homosexual man who has engaged in safe sex in a monogomous relationship ?
According to this new policy and those who support it~ the man who has had unprotected sex with an HIV+ female is considered less of a risk.
Logical policy ?
Not even close.
Policy of homosexual discrimination ? 100%
For there to be no discrimination the policy would have to be based of behavior of the person and not their sexual identity. As long as the policy revolves around heterosexual vrs homosexual it is discrimination.
If it were based completely on behavior and nothing else then and only then would it be non discrimination.
Support of this new policy ='s homophobia (IMHO)
Last edited by Hello~Kitty; 05-09-2005 at 12:07 PM.
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590
Bookmarks