FDA to ban gay sperm donors - Page 4

Gemini Cricket · 05-08-2005, 11:18 PM

Initially, my blood kind of boiled when I first heard this news story. But then, I really had to sit back and think for a moment. I thought of a couple of things:

1. This is an important issue to me how? So I don't get to sell my spunk to a bank. Big deal. The government is forcing me yet again to feel apathetic about one more thing. 'Okay, don't take my sperm.' But at the same time, I do get to say, 'But if I need it to impregnante my surrogate mom, you better let us make a withdrawl.' It's the same thing with me not being able to donate blood. It's like I'm being forced to say, 'Fine don't take my blood. But if I need it, you better bleed for me.' And saddest of all, with the military I say, 'I can fight like the rest, but fine don't recruit me. But do die FOR me. Thanks.' It's an infuriating thing, but if the government wants it that way, fine.

2. Why is this issue in the media? They tend not to report on how someone is profiting from huge gas prices, they don't talk about big corporate entities not paying a whole lot of taxes nor do they discuss that we Americans are working harder and longer than before for less money. But we're talking about gay sperm. Yes, from a civil rights standpoint, it's hugely important. (I mean, who gets to decide if you're a queen or not? Some desk clerk with keen gaydar? Or will we be forced to wear pink triabgles?) But my point is is that any gay issue right now is a heated wedge issue and hugely distracting from other important issues that this administration doesn't want us to pay attention to.

3. What most people should be concerned about it the really backward thought the FDA has on this matter. What scientific proof do they have that taking the gay sperm out of the equation will make us safer? Nada. Zip. Zilch. And why doesn't the FDA have the capability to identify sperm infected with HIV? The scientific process does exist. But there's no profit for this administration in investing money into any sort of AIDS research, so it doesn't get done.

So, ultimately, this one is not my fight because there are places who do accept gay sperm regardless of what the FDA says. AND, if I really wanted to donate sperm to some woman that needs it all she needs to do is ask. I may be queer but I got the tools to get the job done.*

*This isn't an actualy offer to anyone I know, but you get my joke right?

Gn2Dlnd · 05-09-2005, 02:21 AM

Just for the record, semen carries the virus, sperm doesn't. As far as I know, artificial insemination involves sperm, not semen.

Nephythys · 05-09-2005, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

So would you agree that a set of guidelines that apply to everyone would be fine? Or would you prefer a separate set of guidelines for those who are gay and those who are straight?

I think I was perfectly clear.

Motorboat Cruiser · 05-09-2005, 07:46 AM

I think the safest thing to do would be just ban everyone from giving blood and sperm. Problem solved.

Or we could look at it logically, but that seems to be too much trouble.

ALL people have the potential for being a risk to the system, not just gay people. I think that is the point.

Cadaverous Pallor · 05-09-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I think I was perfectly clear.

Quote:

So ban them too.

So monogamous gay men are still banned?

BarTopDancer · 05-09-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I think I was perfectly clear.

Maybe to yourself. I'm trying to get clarification. To me it sounds like you want to separate sets of rules, where promiscuous heterosexual men (and women) can donate blood but monogamous homosexual men can't.

Back to the sperm topic,

Does anyone else think this is a way to try and stop people who are gay from having children via a surrogate?

Nephythys · 05-09-2005, 01:02 PM

WHERE in the world did I say anything about two sets of rules? I said I did not care who got offended- that we should ban anyone who could possibly taint the blood supply. I have zero clue where you pull out me wanting two sets of rules.

Tell you what- if someone feels the need to set me up as the opposition even when I have said NOTHING that leads to such a conclusion- don't.

Cadaverous Pallor · 05-09-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

WHERE in the world did I say anything about two sets of rules?

Hmm, I think she's got me on ignore. Anyone want to repost my post for me?

Gn2Dlnd · 05-09-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I said I did not care who got offended- that we should ban anyone who could possibly taint the blood supply.

That would include you, me, Mel Gibson, the Pope, pretty much everyone.

Prudence · 05-09-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Does anyone else think this is a way to try and stop people who are gay from having children via a surrogate?

I'm assuming this doesn't affect people making private arrangements of the "I want to get pregnant using this man's sperm" variety, just the standard and anonymous Klassy mag + cash = genetic deposit sort.

Then again, I don't think people have a "right" to their own genetic offspring anyhow.

05-08-2005, 11:18 PM	#31
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Initially, my blood kind of boiled when I first heard this news story. But then, I really had to sit back and think for a moment. I thought of a couple of things: 1. This is an important issue to me how? So I don't get to sell my spunk to a bank. Big deal. The government is forcing me yet again to feel apathetic about one more thing. 'Okay, don't take my sperm.' But at the same time, I do get to say, 'But if I need it to impregnante my surrogate mom, you better let us make a withdrawl.' It's the same thing with me not being able to donate blood. It's like I'm being forced to say, 'Fine don't take my blood. But if I need it, you better bleed for me.' And saddest of all, with the military I say, 'I can fight like the rest, but fine don't recruit me. But do die FOR me. Thanks.' It's an infuriating thing, but if the government wants it that way, fine. 2. Why is this issue in the media? They tend not to report on how someone is profiting from huge gas prices, they don't talk about big corporate entities not paying a whole lot of taxes nor do they discuss that we Americans are working harder and longer than before for less money. But we're talking about gay sperm. Yes, from a civil rights standpoint, it's hugely important. (I mean, who gets to decide if you're a queen or not? Some desk clerk with keen gaydar? Or will we be forced to wear pink triabgles?) But my point is is that any gay issue right now is a heated wedge issue and hugely distracting from other important issues that this administration doesn't want us to pay attention to. 3. What most people should be concerned about it the really backward thought the FDA has on this matter. What scientific proof do they have that taking the gay sperm out of the equation will make us safer? Nada. Zip. Zilch. And why doesn't the FDA have the capability to identify sperm infected with HIV? The scientific process does exist. But there's no profit for this administration in investing money into any sort of AIDS research, so it doesn't get done. So, ultimately, this one is not my fight because there are places who do accept gay sperm regardless of what the FDA says. AND, if I really wanted to donate sperm to some woman that needs it all she needs to do is ask. I may be queer but I got the tools to get the job done.* *This isn't an actualy offer to anyone I know, but you get my joke right?
	Submit to Quotes

05-09-2005, 02:21 AM	#32
Gn2Dlnd Parmmadore Jim Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Casita del Queso Posts: 3,810	Just for the record, semen carries the virus, sperm doesn't. As far as I know, artificial insemination involves sperm, not semen. __________________ Does anyone still wear a hat?
	Submit to Quotes

05-09-2005, 07:46 AM	#34
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	I think the safest thing to do would be just ban everyone from giving blood and sperm. Problem solved. Or we could look at it logically, but that seems to be too much trouble. ALL people have the potential for being a risk to the system, not just gay people. I think that is the point.
	Submit to Quotes

05-09-2005, 01:02 PM	#37
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	WHERE in the world did I say anything about two sets of rules? I said I did not care who got offended- that we should ban anyone who could possibly taint the blood supply. I have zero clue where you pull out me wanting two sets of rules. Tell you what- if someone feels the need to set me up as the opposition even when I have said NOTHING that leads to such a conclusion- don't.
	Submit to Quotes