FDA to ban gays from sperm donation.

[toms]

Originally posted by txa1265

Well, think about it - aren't there already 'anti-gang' laws in place in most urban centers, and anti-mafia laws as well? Aren't those restricted rights based on association of a small group of the population based on behaviour associated indirectly with organizations of that type?

 

I would have thought there was a difference between treating people differently due to their membership of criminal organisations, rather than treating them differently due to their membership of certain ethnic or sexual groups... but there are probably still a few people in south africa who wouldn't see the difference either...

[Spider AL]

I would have thoght there was a difference between treating people differently due to their membership of criminal organisations, rahter than treating them differently due to their membership of certain ethnic or sexual groups...

"Membership of criminal organisations" is a lot harder for the cops to prove than "membership of the financial underclass".

 

Once again, the ideal is to treat everyone equally upon meeting them, no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation or financial status. But once again, realism intrudes most inconveniently into the pursuit of this ideal.

 

Just because I'm not racist, doesn't mean that members of other races won't be racist against me.

 

Just because I'm tolerant of all spiritual beliefs, doesn't mean that followers of other religions don't hate me for not believing in their god.

 

Just because sexual orientation is an irrelevance to me, doesn't mean that a minority within the alternative-sexuality-community doesn't look down on me for being "straight" and thus inferior.

 

Just because I don't discriminate against poor people, doesn't mean that a minority of poor people won't try to rob me.

 

Morality is essential. It also disarms one against possible attack from all quarters. It's always the way, if one is moral one is good, but evil people will take advantage of your limitations, if you are good. So one has to strike a balance between moral ideals and perception of reality. Moral questions like those we're discussing aren't as clear cut when you look at them objectively.

 

Thus I make the choice: If picking on roving groups of poor people cuts violent crime, I'm in favour of it.

 

Furthermore, in the UK a lot of youths shoplift and mug while wearing hoodies to conceal their features. Thus, several shops have now banned hoodies. People are calling this racist and fascist. Heheheh. Now that's PC gone mad, and is a perfect example of faux-moralists ignoring reality.

[El Sitherino]

But see that's the thing. It's not racist or fascist.

 

The question I'm asking here is if it's the health concern, why are they also not banning gay males from blood donation?

[Spider AL]

But see that's the thing. It's not racist or fascist.

But many people think it is.

 

The question I'm asking here is if it's the health concern, why are they also not banning gay males from blood donation?

Perhaps they should. But maybe the pressure groups didn't pressure them on that front. Maybe they wanted to, but considered that they couldn't force the legislation through. Or maybe they are labouring under the neoconservative misapprehension that homosexuality is hereditary, and they want to limit the spread of evil gayness.

 

Here's a question to which we actually CAN find an answer: do you think that banning homosexual men from donating sperm AND giving blood... would be a good thing?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Spider AL

maybe they are labouring under the neoconservative misapprehension that homosexuality is hereditary, and they want to limit the spread of evil gayness.

Actually most neo-cons think it's a choice. This may just be their way of "just to be sure".

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

Here's a question to which we actually CAN find an answer: do you think that banning homosexual men from donating sperm AND giving blood... would be a good thing?

No, but at least it would be consistent. So far acting like being gay is hereditary and this being a way to stop the "fags" from spreading, seems a rather bit fascist though. Eliminating a population because of your hatred for them and all.

[Spider AL]

No, but at least it would be consistent

It might also cost more lives than it saved. Sperm doesn't save lives. So it's fine to stop people giving sperm... whereas stopping people giving blood might directly cost lives, especially if some homosexual blood donors possessed rare blood types. I think that's a possible reason for the specific nature of this request from the FDA.

 

In simple terms:

 

Stop people with a greater chance of being infected from donating sperm and you're DEFINITELY ONLY saving lives.

 

Stop people with a greater chance of being infected from giving blood, and you might be costing as many lives as you saved.

[txa1265]

And *that* is what I meant by calculated risks.

 

And I guess my gang / 'color' analogy was bad, but what I was referring to was that not *all* members of a gang are criminals, but they associate with criminals and we have no problem treating them like criminals. Guilt by association is for more than just elementary school ...

 

I am a straight white, male, upper middle class, married ... which makes me a broad target for acceptable discrimination. We teach our kids that because they are affluent white males, they have things easy - or at least they don't start with a penalty (we'll leave the Affirmative Discrimination discussion for another day ). They know that people are people, and that life is hard enough without judging.

 

Mike

[Sabretooth]

Firstly, that sucks major.

 

Secondly, I don't see why. What is wrong with gays? Why are they denied rights? Are they going to consume heterosexuals? Are they going to completely eliminate females? What is wrong with it all?

[SkinWalker]

Statistically, it is logical that homosexuals are more likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals as donors of sperm. But restricting donation of sperm because you are homosexual implies a few things:

 

1) that testing for HIV/AIDS is either not available or not cost-efficient.

 

2) that the risks associated with heterosexual transmission of disease (not just HIV/AIDS) is negligible.

 

3) that donors would be truthful about their sexual orientation.

 

 

The latter, I think, is the most significant.... if you think about it, only the honest and forthright donors will answer truthfully and thus exclude themselves from donation, while the homosexual that is in the closet, dishonest, or otherwise refuses to answer truthfully the homosexual question in the screening process will undoubtedly get the opportunity to donate.

 

Ironically, it is the honest and forthright donor who is restricted from donation that is probably most likely to practice safe-sex and thus be lower in risk.

 

Therefore, the move to restrict sperm donation probably exists as a political motivation rather than a public health one.

[Spider AL]

Sabre:

 

Secondly, I don't see why. What is wrong with gays? Why are they denied rights? Are they going to consume heterosexuals? Are they going to completely eliminate females? What is wrong with it all?

Well... umm... You could try reading the discussion so far, several ideas have been put forward to answer your question.

 

Skin:

 

1) that testing for HIV/AIDS is either not available or not cost-efficient.

 

2) that the risks associated with heterosexual transmission of disease (not just HIV/AIDS) is negligible.

 

3) that donors would be truthful about their sexual orientation.

1 - HIV testing probably ISN'T cost-effective. Almost no medical testing can be carried out on all patients to walk into a clinic. Tests = time and money.

 

2 - The risks associated with hetero donors don't have to be negligible to make the measure worthwhile, they just have to be fewer, more mild.

 

3 - The fact that people can lie their way past legislation like this is no reason to avoid introducing it.

 

Therefore, the move to restrict sperm donation probably exists as a political motivation rather than a public health one.

Almost all similar decisions these days are politically motivated rather than altruistic. So with that proviso, I agree. But the effect will no doubt be positive nonetheless.

[jon_hill987]

I think that rather than banning gay men from donating they should have to put their sexual preference on the jar as it were, so anyone thinking of using that sample would have the option to choose for themselves.

 

that is my idea anyway.