NEWS: FDA Recommends Barring Gay Sperm Donors

Although I NORMALLY AGREE that government should play A SMALL role in the FREE ENTERPRISES SYSTEM...the argument that you can place the potential of contracting AIDS within the same argument as other self regulating, free enterprise is as valid as saying “The best way to regulate muggings, is to allow free enterprise to effectively sue the muggers.” There is too much at risk FOR THE INDIVIDUAL to allow the standard free enterprise system to regulate.

I also think it would be apparent that the root issue is not one of violating rights, but of making more accurate medical decisions.

This is not an issue of whether someone has the “right” to donate sperm...because if there is even a MINUTE chance of killing someone by doing it...the answer is no (just as it is illegal to fire a gun into the air in a populated area, because there is a minute, but realistic, chance of the bullet coming down on top of someone’s head.)

The ANSWER IS determining if there REALLY IS a minute chance of killing someone...which there may or may not be as determined by current medical science.



FIRST, one HAS to remember the ENTIRE DEBATE centers around one critical fact. Regulations are put into place to regulate UNSCRUPULOUS facilities.



If there were no medical facilities willing to risk peoples lives to make a buck...there would be no need for the FDA. Just like if there were no thieves and muggers, we would not need the police.

So, working from the MEDICAL assumption of ...

Since there is a minute chance of in vivo fertilization spreading the AIDS virus...what about protecting the rights of women from unscrupulous donor clinics who do not pass this information onto the women in order to maintain profits. If you don’t think things like this happens, see the SG interview with Julia Derek. (http://suicidegirls.com/words/Confessions+of+a+Serial+Egg+Donor+author+Julia+Derek/)

See #1

Yet again, this does not involve a right to procreate. It involves their right to participate in private enterprise. If you assign it as a “right” you are violating your own arguments #1 and #2, as rights are governmentally protected.

Also, “...in the manner of their own choosing...” What if their “manner of own choosing” is rape? You would not stand for that, because it is a violation of other rights. What about the right of a mother not to die, or watch her baby die, from AIDS she contracted from an unscrupulous clinic?

Concede. However, were I presented with having to choose between someone not being able to donate (losing out on a small paycheck and the “warm feeling” of knowing they have a child out there...somewhere) and a woman potentially giving birth to an AIDS infected child (although the odds are INCREDIBLY unlikely)...the choice seems simple.

Unfortunately, part of the argument is the fact that...should an ungoverned, and unscrupulous, medical institution error in favor of the donor (by accepting a risky donor), the result is one or two deaths by AIDS. Should an unscrupulous medical facility err in favor of the mother (by NOT accepting a donor) the donor loses out on $150.

Whew!! All I can say is from what I know of genetics there are certain genetic traits that can be triggered by enviroment. Its allready been proven that higher birth rates of females in the human race is directly linked to stress in the father. (they contemplate that this response is a Stress in men=too few women) Its complicated and im not going into the specifics. If thats the case its not a far reach to think that a "gay" gene if it does exist is also so linked, making the screening out of gay parents useless. And if gay people also trying to have kids I dont think our species is in any danger. What could be the enviromental trigger you ask? Could it be overpopulation causing stress and other hormonal inbalances? Genetic population control. With 6 billion people on the planet this should come as no suprise.

[Edited on May 08, 2005 4:08AM]

Just to toss some research at you people:

There is no evidence of a "homosexuality" gene. They've looked. It does not appear to be hereditary. Still, I'm sure the fear of making "little gay people" is a motivating facotr.

The gay male population is actually the least at risk for AIDS. Anal sex is the most risky type of sex as far as transfer of the disease goes. However, 1) its all the rage with heterosexual couples, B) the gay male community cottoned to the dangers and is very big on protection. They are the least at risk. Next is the heterosexual/bisexual community, which does not do a good job of practicing safe sex. The most at risk group is the gay female population, who apparently have been transfering AIDS in record numbers due to ignorance of safe lesbian sex options.

So far, the best theory science has come up with for homosexuality is this: Sexuality is a bell curve. Some people are born all straight, soem born all gay, most people are born along a continum inbetween. We are socialized to be more heterosexual by society.

Also, interestingly enough, homosexual monogamous relationships are virtually exclusive to cultures with proscriptions against homosexuality. Soceities open to homosexual behavior don't tned to produce homosexual couples. No one is sure why. One possible explantion is that coupling is a biological imperative to create a stable child rearing group, and so couples only form with the possibility of rearing children.

An interesting arguement against gay marriage, however I might add we've evolved to use condoms, birth control pills, desk top computers, and to raise livestock. Humanity has evolved beyond "natuaral" imperatives. Gay marraige is just social progress. It is where a thinking society moves towards. No wonder Bush fears it.

Please tell me where you got this information. First of all, the dyke community I'm familiar with is quite clear on the use of gloves, dental dams and condoms when needed. And secondly, most practices of lesbian sex are just inherently safer, as long as no blood is present. Yes, some risk is present, but it is markedly lower than penile/vaginal or penile/anal sex.

*heavy heavy sigh*
sweet jumpin jesus people, do your loved ones know how you feel about them? hugs to all

Although I wonder if that can really be considered a "genetic" modification based on environment.

What I mean is, the genetics of the child may not be getting changed as a result of the environment...rather, the father would be producing more sperm with the “x” chromosome, than sperm with the “y”.

It has been a long accepted fact that the male determines the sex of the child, as the mother always produces “x” eggs. Therefore, when stressed, the sperm with the “y” chromosome is (by some manner) excluded or destroyed within the semen before discharge.

For devil’s advocate, there has been several independent research projects, however, that have seen evidence that the HYPOTHALAMIC STRUCTURE is smaller in gay men over straight men. Should the tendency be related to a biological condition, the question remains “Is this difference the result of genetics, environmental/developmental factors, or both.”
(http://www.qrd.org/qrd/origins/1993/gay.brains-02.16.93),,,just one example.

Personally, I don’t suspect the “little gay children” is an influencing factor, as all the statistics you have presented about “the bell curve” of homosexuality have been well demonstrated throughout many cultures.

I suspect this is strictly an issue of the fear of contracting AIDS. When one is convinced that a single pin-prick from a needle that was produced in a factory with an HIV positive executive working in the HQ 200 miles away will give you AIDS...it does not take much to generate fear.

I suspect medical investigation and education is the answer here.

Great quote so close to Mother's day !! :-D

"Happy Mother's Day, Mom. Thanks for the Gucci, oh and the tips on giving head!"

[Edited on May 08, 2005 2:39PM]

ALL EXCELLENT POINTS...you are correct in your thinking from a sociological standpoint, however part of our society is the empathy for the individual. With that said...

Completely agree...with one flaw. Part of our legal system (and society as a whole) is to protect the individual.

A small number of these lawsuits would, indeed, curb the problem. But what of the infected infants/women. The law usually only steps in when the instance of offense is so great as to make a lawsuit unacceptable compensation for the INDIVIDUALS involved.

What would your acceptable price be to suffer a terrifyingly painful death within the next ten years?

Also agree completely...however, read the news and see how many cases there are of companies, especially small clinics, running WITHOUT insurance and just packing up and disappearing when trouble hits. It is ASTOUNDING.

Also agreed, but it is entirely naive to think this is a solution...as there is actually an epidemic of unlicensed clinics and practitioners occurring right now.

Again, Doctors and clinics operate, until caught, and then disappear. There was a recent instance regarding a Dr. who was wanted in 5 states for operating without a license. Each time he injured someone, he just disappeared and opened up under a new name in a new state (as state approving agencies do not share the same database.)

When’s the last time you checked your Dr.’s credentials (and I don’t mean looking at the diploma on his wall. A freshmen graphic arts student can forge those.)

http://www.phudson.com/archive/2003_09_07_index.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3875/is_200209/ai_n9105277

http://www.speroandjorgenson.com/spero7.htm#Spero%20&%20Jorgenson,%20P.C.%20%20in%20the%20news%20.......

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HMW/is_2_8/ai_n11851349

It took me about 3 minutes to come up with the above links. Try searching a little longer ...

I will challenge you to this (everyone actually.). You can even pick your OWN Dr. (which biases the experiment in your favor) and try to get some FACTUAL information regarding his performance, licensing, past malpractice suits, or even patient referrals. You will find it difficult at best. NOTE: Getting unverifiable information from his desk nurse doesn’t count :-)

Yes...and that returns us to the question immediately preceding. Even amongst legitimate Drs., with long records that can be tracked, when’s the last time you did this? It is actually difficult to get any kind of “performance quality” information on Drs. And institutions. There are some sites that will do it for a fee. Its fine if you’re just getting an ingrown toenail fixed...but when the instance can cause painful death, the law is usually DEMANDED by the people to step in.

Agreed...except that compensation does NOTHING for the individuals involved. AND in fairness to our governing bodies, if the FDA took your stance, EVEN ONCE, their entire staff would be forced out of office in a week by the people.

We expect our lawmakers to protect the INDIVIDUAL...as well as society. I guarantee you (to use a previous analogy) if your Mother/sister/wife/g-friend got raped, and the response you got from the police was “Take them to court and get a settlement to discourage this in the future”...you’d take a shotgun to the place, and probably get away with it.

(Added post post :-)
...Or, to preempt a potential retort...if the police department said they would no longer pursue or incarcerate rapists, but allow the civil lawsuit approach to curb the problem...

* Edited for fatfingers and an afterthought :-)


[Edited on May 08, 2005 by BurningKrome]

yeah, but gay guys have a higher than average chance of getting AIDS. i hate to be all "backwards thinking bastard man" but that just the facts.

Completely agree. And you are correct in the above (see previous posts noting that laws are only affected in response to unscrupulous individuals/clinics.)

However, one must remember that laws only serve one purpose...to be interpreted by the courts at the time of infraction.

Meaning, that by enacting such a requirement, the courts can then throw another charge at those caught acting in an unscrupulous way...having much the same effect as the lawsuits, but from a criminal aspect.

I’m glad you sited the examples given...because one is a perfect example of this. In the article found at ...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3875/is_200209/ai_n9105277
...the criminals were charged with “possession of a deadly weapon”...I.E. a hypodermic needle. This is obviously an attempt of, “Oh shit...these people were definitely breaking the law...but WHAT laws?!” So they really reached and came up with this one.

Right now, if a woman gets AIDS from an infected sample, which the clinic did not warn her about...she can sue. If they DO enact the clause, now there are criminal AND civil liabilities.


[Edited on May 08, 2005 by BurningKrome]

“Gay guys” may have a higher than average instance of contracting hiv THROUGH SEXUAL ACTIVITY, but (as pointed out earlier in this board), the highest incidence is still the result of intravenous drug use (and in some foreign countries, like Africa and Jamaica, the highest incidence is amongst straight men having intercourse with infected "professionals".)

Point being, the clinics are not being required to refuse sexually active Africans, Jamaicans or ask if donors have used intravenous drugs (although, they DO ask...they have not been REQUIRED to ask.)

Woohoo! I'm in an old newswire!

I'm naked! Woot!

but are you donating gay sperms ?

I is.