MnM~
Please list the "Pro's" to this? Why is it worth public discussion (meaning to say "Why should I be paying for it")?
MnM~
Please list the "Pro's" to this? Why is it worth public discussion (meaning to say "Why should I be paying for it")?
LOL, yes you do...you're just being extreemly nice about itOkay. I don't know why you are obsessed with defining risk by identity rather than behaviour.![]()
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





This is my whole point,i dont understand why i cant get it understood??Originally Posted by Madcap
Why should you be paying to test high risk groups???
Why should the FDA??(tax dollars)
I agree,im not sure how they would enforce it,but the point is valid IMO.
Its a no brainer to me that high risk groups should be excluded from donating.
If someone tells me,and is correct in saying that homosexual men are NOT considered a high risk group,i might have a different opinion on the thread,but nobody is doing that,just side skirting the issue and turning this into a gay issue and its not.
Its money saving.
Time saving.
its common sense according to medical stats imo.





Okay,this is the second time you have somewhat misquoted what i said,or didnt understand my meaning.Originally Posted by Jenny
This is what i said..
I dont think black men are at a higher risk.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??
I have heard that black gay men are the highest growing "group"to get hiv/aids.
Its more of a question then a statement because im not really sure if its true,its just what i think i have seen.
Again,i posed this as a question.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??
I dont think black men are at a greater risk,just wanted to be sure to clear that up.





Im not.Originally Posted by Jenny
Hasnt it been done though??
Hasnt every world medical agency declaired homosexual males as a high risk "group"??
The behaviour has already been identified,studied,and stats have been compiled that are up to date pretty much.
If your saying that gay males are not a high risk group when donating sperm,then ok,im with ya,its discrimination.
If you cant say that,then your just fanning the homosexual propaganda machine,even if what your saying makes no social sense for anyone involved.
yes the fuck you ARE ! Or you would not have disregarded EVERYTHING Jenny explained.Im not.
It has been repeatedly explained that it is BEHAVIOR that makes someone high risk NOT their sexual identity...you are just WILLFULLY ignoring it for OBVIOUS reasons. Everyone can see the reason too...everyone but you...... apparently.
FACT:
A homosexual who practices safe sex in a monogomous relationship is not a higher risk than heterosexual who engages in unprotected sex with numerous partners.
FACT: An IV drug user is a higher risk than a non drug user
FACT:
It is BEHAVIOR that makes a person higher or lower risk. BEHAVIOR is the key not the sexual identity of a person.
But this new FDA policy does not treat people that way.
It treats a heterosexual man who has sex with an HIV+ woman as a lower risk that a gay man who has safe sex with a Hiv- person.
Explain to us why that makes sense. It must make sense to you because you have sat here for days now defending it.... grrrr !
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





Did anyone actually read the article (boldface emphasis by me):
NEW YORK — To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor
In short, these are recommendations for sperm banks to follow, not neccesarily laws. Secondly, if the homosexual sex in question occured more than five years earlier than one is not on the barred list.
The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. Critics accuse the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men rather than adopting a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight.
The problem here is that people do not catch HIV in the same manner as someone with a risk of cancer in their family catches cancer. If one doesn't not use IV drugs, has never had an infected transfusion, and has kept their sexual history limited to HIV-negative people then there is no way they can catch HIV.
"Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years," said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.
Which is the crux of the problem with these guidelines. Its not that they bar perfectly clean donors by the way they are written up, its that they leave serious loopholes for other donors engaging in high risk behavior to circumvent them. Or allow men who are gay to potentially circumvent them by simply stating that:
A.) They've never engaged in gay sex in the last five years
B, ) They're not gay
If you've got to test everyone's sample anyway, why not let the test results decide who can donate, and who can't.
So why test a guy who admits to having sacked some hookers in roach motels three years ago? Also I assume these tests would be paid for by the clinics, not the government.Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
Former SCJ now in rehab.
Originally Posted by doc-catfish
If you've got to test everyone's sample anyway, why not let the test results decide who can donate, and who can't
Thankyou DocWell done !
Maybe MnM will listen to you being that you are both men ...and because you don't have a regular pattern of defending equal rights for homosexuals like I do .... nor are you gay yourself like some of the other people, who like me, speak out here on SW against anti gay policies and agendas.
Last edited by Hello~Kitty; 05-09-2005 at 08:20 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



Bullshit. The only difference would be who was being discriminated against and the methods employed.Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
Kitty,
You continue to ignore the vCJD issue and blood donation being disallowed to people who lived in Great Britain for 3 months. Please note that it does not say except vegetarians (who would have had a very low risk of exposure). In your organization of the world is this vegan discrimination?
PS your continued failure to respond must signal that I have risen to the exhalted ranks of the "ignored".
huh ? I must have missed that one...let me look..... Actually, wait no, that would be what you want and I am not here to do your bidding.Originally Posted by montythegeek
My opinions on this subject matter are very clear......A policy that is making judgements based solely on a persons sexual identity INSTEAD of behavior is discriminatation.
Support of this new FDA policy ='s homophobia (IMHO)
If you don't like those opinions...well that is just too fucking bad now isn't it.
Go bait someone else![]()
Last edited by Hello~Kitty; 05-09-2005 at 08:22 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
now this one I will bite on as I am curious.... just who would be the one discriminated against instead of homosexuals when it comes to spem donation if it were Democrats were in office?Originally Posted by Hef
And what methods would being used instead ? And what would the purpose be ?
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



With regard to sperm donation? Who knows? I'm talking bigger, like a new issue with a new dog to kick. People are people, regardless of party affiliation, and discrimination knows no party lines.Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
Ah..ok...you had me wondering on that oneOriginally Posted by Hef
![]()
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





Trust me,your being heard,just not by those who's entire platform would come crashing down if they answered.Originally Posted by montythegeek
It aint a gay issue,its a general public safety issue,its a time and money saving issue,its a no brainer.
I think the only ones who got a real bitch is the brits,at least the vegans,and to be honest,i could care less about britts not being able to donate sperm in the colonies.
They should have thought about that when the Nina,The Pinta,and the other ship with all the strippers on it were leaving.





Ok this is off topic,but it struck me as funny.Originally Posted by Jenny
Can-Free blood,pay for the cookies.
USA-Free cookies,pay for the blood.
Bush banned gay sperm donations as well. That's why you don't see Jeff Gannon at the White House very much any more.
Bookmarks