FDA To Bar Gays As Sperm Donors

[cynatnite]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/05/health/main693297.shtml

To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the U.S. government 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.

[Kikosexy2]

1. I'll just ...

toss my hair back, grab my fur and take my gay sperm elsewhere where it's most useful like...Slammers, Midtowne Spa, The Flex and Bally's Gym...

[xchrom]

7. indeed.

steamworks is always fun -- and lot less clinical.
:9

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. That is OUTRAGEOUS!!!! Recommended.

Translation: gays are monsters and we only want GOOD donors, like self-involved, gods-in-training medical students, to make the next generation.

The only other possible reason: the expectation that ALL gays have HIV or other diseases, they cannot be detected by tests, and they will pass on to their children.

And it's a GOVERNMENT agency, paid for by all of us, making this rule.

Like I said, OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
:grr:

[fudge stripe cookays]

29. Or that gayness is somehow hereditary....

At least that's the first thing I thought.

FSC

[Nothing Without Hope]

30. Yes, that's an additional reason. Plus the implication that gayness is

a kind of horrible disease that should be eradicated.
:grr:

[ktowntennesseedem]

33. But I thought gays CHOSE to be gay! (sarcasm alert)

Which is what makes it sinful, right? So now, they're saying its hereditary, but wouldn't that take away the whole "choice" thing and mean you were -gasp!- BORN that way?

But... :banghead: but... :banghead: but... :banghead:

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

39. They can't have it both ways

They say it's a lifestyle choice and then they try to stop it being passed on... hmmm.

Of course two of my best friends are straight guys with gay dads, so perhaps the gay gene comes through the mom?

[FreedomAngel82]

51. More then likely their reasoning

Which is just sad. I think this is so disgusting.

[GirlinContempt]

3. *blink*

:wtf:

[gollygee]

4. Another thread about this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3603434

it's crazy.

[cynatnite]

5. So then lesbians shouldn't be allowed to donate their eggs????

This is as insane as it gets.

I'm so sick of the fucking hypocrisy with this government and the damn neocon fundies who've got nothing better to do than to ask who you fucked last.

Who cares if someone gets screwed or screws every living person within a 60 mile radius. As long as they are healthy they should be able to donate sperm, eggs or whatever to help those who need it.

What about organ donation?? If they are going to ban gays for those lame stupid ignorant reasons they should do it with organ donation, too.

Yeah, keep it up you fundie bastards. Show the world how truly ignorant you are.

(my fundie mom pissed me off today with her hypocrisy)

[gollygee]

6. The next step will be that

lesbians won't be able to get sperm from a bank.

[Misunderestimator]

9. That's what I was thinking...

and of course, the next step is that it will be illegal for a gay couple to use a surrogate. Then, why not force lesbians to give their children up for adoption right after birth? After all, it's becoming harder and harder to adopt or be a foster parent... why should we be trusted to actually give birth? :mad:

With THIS... it isn't all too far-fetched.

[sellitman]

10. The next step is NO DEMOCRATS. can donate.

Imagine a world free of democratic Semen. :sarcasm:

[FreedomAngel82]

52. Shhh

don't give them any ideas.

[LostinVA]

38. I always tell homophobes lesbians must be blessed by God

Just LOOK at our low HIV/STD rates! The lowest of any demographic. Why, I tell them, if AIDS is a scourge from God, he must looooove lesbians, because we pretty much never get AIDS.

(hmmm..... God must be a straight entity if he loves lesbians...)

[FreedomAngel82]

53. Like any male

he probably likes the girl-on-girl action. :spray:

[d.l.Green]

8. Then we're just going to have to ramp up our recruitment efforts if we

can't be involved in breeding more little homosekchules...

(for the fundies reading this): :sarcasm:

[Telly Savalas]

11. So does this apply only for artificial insemination...

or the more traditional means of donating sperm as well?

[bertha katzenengel]

12. Unless things have changed recently, the Red Cross won't accept blood

donations from any man who will admit to having had sex with another man since 197?. Perhaps the FDA is taking their cues from this other head-up-its-ass agency.

[prodigal_green]

20. I've been a vegetarian since 1979 but

since I lived in the UK for more than 3 months, back in the 80s, I cannot donate blood for fear of mad cow disease.

[bertha katzenengel]

24. Oh, for sweet Christ's sake.

:eyes:

[Nothing Without Hope]

31. So amazing, when the US government is NOT working to prevent mad cow

disease from meat. It's one of the greatest scandals of this administration of enormous scandals: they are allowing the country's cattle population to be raised under conditions in which they may acquire mad cow disease, and they have no real controls in place to test for, detect, or remove from human consumption infected meat.

Yet you cannot donate blood. I can understand the blood donation ban, but not side by side with the utter carelessness about mad cow-contaminated meat in this country right now.

[TwentyFive]

45. Residents from England don't contribute as much $$$ as Cattle Industry.

The Republicans do have priorities, you know.

[Nothing Without Hope]

47. So true. And they have the labor-saving efficiency of having the cattle

industry representatives writing their own legislation. :eyes:

[LostinVA]

35. I was on vacation and ate beef in the UK during a time in

the 80's that's been pinpointed to a Mad Cow outbreak, and thus can't give blood either. However, before that went into effect, I refused to give blood in solidarity of my gay brothers. It is an extremely homophobic policy and is disgusting (and, it is stupid! You can lie and give blood). Lots of straight people engage in at-risk sexual behavior.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. Oh good grief

What ignorance.

[thinkingwoman]

13. are they afraid it's genetic?

If there's a "gay gene" to pass on won't that completely fuck their "lifestyle/choice/sin" argument?

[Hard_Work]

14. exactly what I was thinking

So, are they admitting that homosexuality IS genetic?

[thinkingwoman]

28. they're so confused

which may be why they're so insecure about their own sexuality that they have to try to regulate everyone else's.

[Democracy White]

34. Homosexuality as genetic

I think that there was a study or there is a study in progress about the heredity of homosexuality. I know that I am a lesbian as I have been this way since I was little.

Are they going to deny me from donating my eggs or blood?

Dee

[thinkingwoman]

46. I'm straight

and never "chose" to be. I've never met anyone--gay/lesbian, bi, or straight--who can remember "choosing" or having any feelings/longings/etc that would indicate it is anything other than hardwired.

I hope you know that there are more than a few of us straights who feel pushed to the brink alongside you by this nonsense! And I also hope you know that the generation that is teenaged now has more of a live and let live cause it's nobody else's business attitude than I've ever seen before. They are our future.

Finally, I wonder how they'll know that a donor is gay or lesbian? Will they be asking? Will there be truth serum?

[Democracy White]

48. considering...

That history has shown that this kind of lifestyle discrimination and segregation before (Nazi Germany, where such pople were killed for it) I wouldn't be surprised if they do resort to such superficial screening such as behavior, appearance, likes and dislikes, etc rather than the true person. (I am a lesbian, I have short hair, act butch at times, wear butch yet I also can and sometimes do act feminine, wear feminine clothes, etc.) If they resort to stereotypical things, alot of people are going to be screwed.

I also won't be surprised if the gov't starts rounding up people and interrogating their personal lifestyles and putting it on these ID cards.

Welcome to Fascism Ladies and Gentlemen, please remain seated while your freedoms parade by you. Say "Sayonara" to all of the rights and things we have worked so hard for in this country. Sayonara indeed.

Dee

[hollowdweller]

55. They are afraid it is genetic. Backdoor attempt to elimnate future

Democratic voters.

[newyawker99]

68. Hi Democracy White!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[kenny blankenship]

61. It isn't a reason; it isn't an argument--

it's just an opportunity to slap at a minority in public view, to score points with the hardcore hate-crowd (who can now point out this fact in arguments when they bash homosexuals--"see, if there wasn't something wrong with them, why does the government tell health authorities to turn them away from sperm banks?"),It's an opportunity to institutionalize their private bigotry in a public policy, so that EVERYONE GETS THE MESSAGE: GAYS ARE SUB-CITIZENS. Gays are marked as different and lesser, a medical problem in fact!
There was no real reason for the Jews to have to wear the Star of David for years before the policy of deporting them from Germany was begun. It was just a Nazi demonstration that the power of the state would be used to make the ugly bias, which used to be bottled up in the minds of some individuals before the Nazi takeover, henceforth something that ALL German citizens would participate in, because it was given form in policy and laws. You had to know these laws and obey these laws and the laws discriminated against Jews and marked them as inherently alien and criminal.

If you were not especially biased against Jews priot to the Nurnburg laws and the public stigmatization of Jews with the Star of David requirement, YOU NOW were being provided with a powerful inducement to feel prejudice towards them and to feel fear of them, because of the mere identification of Jews by the Nazi state as aliens who must identify themselves rather than pass unremarked. You could tell that they must be "trouble". All kinds of laws had been passed that affected only them, the wearing of the Star of David was of course just one of these and indeed one of the milder discriminatory measures enacted against Jews. The Nazi state, even prior to Kristalnacht and the deportations, took every opportunity it could think of to mark Jews as less than normal German citizens for no other reason than to promulgate anti-Semitism among the rest of the country's population. It wouldn't be smart to have much to do with them, as people would talk. And in order to avoid contact with them you would naturally tend to make them feel unwelcome and unwanted in your presence when chance brought you into contact with them. In this way, and of course more traditional forms of propaganda, the Nazis spread hatred of the Jewish minority, seeding it where it hadn't been before, stoking it into flames where previously it had only smoldered.

Now the Refasciscans are doing it here. Their opportunities to whip up hatred and discrimination against gays are less ripe than the Nazi's were against the Jews in the 1930s, but you can't help but notice that whenever these forces--same here and now as they were then--achieve some measure of success, they never rest or are content but double their insane hateful demands on the rest of society. They demand that others join them and validate them in their poisonous hatreds and they expand their attacks on gays, women, liberals, secularists, --on minorities of all kinds. Yesterday it was gay marriage, today they are attacking gay families, and gay adoption. Yesterday they were attacking abortion, today they want to wipe out references to birth-control and curtail its availability. Yesterday they grumbled and sneered at liberals, today they say all Democrats are liberals, liberals are evil and then throw these Democrats out of their own churches! Through the power of hatred, previously unmentionable hatreds--things you wouldn't even joke about ten, fifteen years ago--unleashed without reason or apparent direction of an argument, without a stated objective in view, and without respite, they have been making the conditions ever more ripe for the full flowering of their hatred. It's BLOSSOMING. Even they couldn't guess wouldn't allow themselves to believe it would look quite like this!

Through loving their hatred, harboring it, growing it, flooding others around them with it, they are literally willing Fascism into being.

[Oilwellian]

15. So, exactly HOW will they screen the donors?

Big Brother wants to know.

[fishwax]

25. yeah, that's the question

i think it's pretty much unenforceable.

[Ms. Toad]

49. Never tried making a donation, did you?

They already take an extremely detailed history for two reasons:

1. To match daddy as closely as possible so that baby looks and acts like mommy and daddy and mommy and daddy can pretend baby is not really some other man's bio baby. If they can't match a characteristic to daddy, they match the characteristic to mommy (same theory). Questions include intelligence, ethnicity, religion, politics, occupation, musical/other gifts, etc.

2. To make sure there aren't hidden genetic/familial health problems (deafness, cancer history, blindness, etc.) I wasn't aware of how detailed this health screening was until they backed off on doing hearing tests at birth (required for anonymous dads in my state) because conception was via a recognized donor bank.

They'd just throw one more question - "are you gay?" - in with all of the other questions they already ask.

[spunky]

16. Discrimination aside, this is unenforceable, unless you start making

gays wear arm-bands so they can be recognized on sight. What's the test? Fashion? Music tastes? Speech patterns? Come on, aside from the fact that its stupid, disgusting discrimination, the ONLY way to enforce it is through stereotypes!

I gotta stop reading the news this morning. Its all just too much.

[Plaid Adder]

17. While anything the Bush administration does involving gay people is always

suspect, I should point out that most sperm banks have already adopted this policy. The reason given is HIV, though in a lot of ways that doesn't make too much sense; sperm banks test every sample for STDs, including HIV, so a gay donor wouldn't cost them any more on that front than a straight one would. They are just using 1980s-era logic and 1980s-era policies dating to back when AIDS was supposed to be for gay men, Haitians, IV drug users and nobody else.

I ain't sayin' it's right, I'm just saying that this one time the BUsh administration has not gone any farther than the private sector, really.

The Plaid Adder

[King Coal]

18. I think I am the only one qualified to judge who should be allowed to be

a sperm donor.
So there.

[H3Dakota]

26. Actually, that includes hemophiliacs

Take it from me... my EX husband is a hemophiliac. We have been divorced 3 years, which took 2 years to get - so haven't had "relations" with him in over 5 years.

I *STILL* cannot donate my blood. I was told that I would never be able to donate blood by the local blood banks here in FL.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. you are completely

'on' track with your reply- this has been 'policy' for MOST 'clinics' since the mid 80's. The dis-clusion ALSO rules out iv drug users, and those who have 'many encounters'-
As for 'screening' or testing every sample- most clinics changed to the practice of using only 'frozen' semen, and those donors who tested HIV negative after 6mos. were then considered acceptable- that went for ALL donors- based in large part by the experience that one could be exposed to the virus, and not test positive for many months-
It's intent, when adopted back in the 80's was to try and keep the virus contained- both for the couple seeking AID, and the resulting baby- NOT as a 'judgement' against 'gays'- Which is reinforced by the reality that EVERY donor went through the same 'scruty'- blood tests for HIV and Hepatitls every 6 mos, and not using the 'donations' until tests were clear 6mos. later-

It was also designed to protect clinics against being held 'liable' for infecting a woman, 'unknowingly'. As far as donating sperm to another KNOWN person, by a 'gay' person, that's NOT illegal, nor has it ever been- that's an issue of trust between people who know what they are doing- and CAN be performed by the medical professionals, or by the individuals themselves-

It really IS nothing new- just something contentious, and meant to stir up strife, and predjuce-

[intheflow]

19. This is all wrong. They need to ban heterosexual sperm!

Everyone knows heterosexual couples produce gay children. Obviously, it's the heterosexual sperm that's suspect.

[LostinVA]

36. My two heterosexual parents created a gay child!

It's all their fault!!!!!!!!!

[intheflow]

44. Sadly, I hear this story again and again.

I tell you, marriage between a man and a woman is going to be the end of civilization as we know it.

:evilgrin:

[The Animator]

21. The fudies are eventually run the human race into extinction.

They won't be satisfied until only fundie nutjobs are breeding. Natural selection will take care of the rest.

Darwin awards anyone?

[prodigal_green]

22. This begs the question

regarding rigor in testing sperm. From my research (considered going to the bank for a baby at one time), sperm donation is quite a complicated process. Donor is tested and makes a donation. Donor returns 3 months later (HIV test window) and is tested again and donates again and once again deposit is not used until the next testing period. In other words, there is a safety window built into the process. This is just testing for HIV. Other diseases, infections, etc. are also tested for.

BTW, New York has had this rule in effect for quite some time.

So, since this is completely ridiculous for disease prevention purposes, it is a eugenics policy. I suspect they will then erode reproductive rights even further by not allowing lesbians or single women purchase semen.

[loyalsister]

70. Eugenics- I was waiting for that word

I have been reading up on how it was orchestrated in the U.S> in the early part of the 20th century. First they gathered the scientists, then they lobbied to get government agencies on board. They proceeded very cautiously because they knew they had to reel the public in slowly.
When he didn't have luck with the Census Buereau, eugenicist Henry Laughlin went to the Virginia state Registrar of Vital Statistics to get a program started. It was the most obscene racist policy ever!!
This all took place here long before Hitler got started. The reason it fell into place so quickly was he didn't have to do any work. We created a perfect plan for registering people, keeping track of minorities, segregation, and mass sterilization.

There were a couple of differences we were after a "superior Nordic race." And, although the phrase "final solution" was uttered, and euthanasia was considered an eventual option for dealing with the "unfit," the American eugenicists never got that far. They did however hope to.

For more on that I recommend this book. Their methods were quite interesting and strikingly familiar. They used questionaires where they asked people about their patriotism and religious affinities. Those things were factored in to judge whether or not they should be sterilized.

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/www.lewrockwell.com/

The site below offers some interesting history. Also makes a conspiratorial suggestion re: AIDS..... Interesting. I'm not sure what to make of it.

<snip>
Indeed, the eugenicist Leon F Whitney wrote, "We cannot but admire the foresight of the (German) plan (of sterilising 4,00,000 people) and realise by this action Germany is going to make herself a stronger nation". http://www.unclenicks.net/drugs/Eugenics/body_eugenics.htm

[morffin]

23. How do they get Neocon Sperm?

Wouldnt the Neocon have to aerrrr... you know...... do what Laura claims W does to horses? Isnt that a sin?

[bonzotex]

64. They just scrape it off copies of the Starr Report

They leave laminated copies of the "good parts" around the White House bathrooms.

[FuzzyDicePHL]

65. ROFLMAO

That was a good one, thanks for the guffaw.

[newyawker99]

69. Hi morffin!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[lala_rawraw]

32. And how are they going to know if anyone is gay?

No really, will it be listed on the ID card?

[LostinVA]

37. I expect a tattoo on the forehead. I'm not joking. n/t

[lala_rawraw]

57. Someone should

go in under cover... I would, but I lack the appropriate package;)

[Strawman]

40. delete

posted in the wrong spot

[Strawman]

41. Well you know if the little lady gets inseminated...

with some homo jizz and your pee pee somehow comes into contact with that shit, that makes you a fag. :sarcasm:

I can totally picture some homophobic husband in a fertility clinic pulling a doctor aside: "Lemme ask you something Doc...How do I know this stuff your a puttin' in Betty Lou ain't no homo sperm?"

[MissMarple]

42. This is just so incredibly ignorant. It is an embarrassment.

It is a new low. I'm almost at a loss for words. I have always hoped that the American people are smarter than this. Sadly, that proves not to be the case.

[true_notes]

43. Why do Humans Think they are above beast?

When issues like this arise, the notion pains me.

[Robworld]

50. Will they make Gay people sew purple triangle patches on their clothes?

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

[Shallah Kali]

56. BTW does this means the FDA approves of the Sin of Onan

since that is how the donations are derived? :evilgrin: I am surprised none of the repressive groups are not trying to totally ban sperm donations for this reason. But back to the topic. This is a load of hooey. They test for AIDS so the only reason they are doing this has to be fear that there really is a gay gene. Since they can't come out and say that because they insist it is a choice it is lie lie lie. bah.

[Nothing Without Hope]

58. Story now being carried by MSNBC. FDA says it's because of AIDS virus

which is a bogus reason based on bad science and willful blindness. I'm betting someone in the administration applied pressure to block "homo sperm."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7749494

FDA to Implement Gay Sperm Donor Rules

By DAVID CRARY
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:21 p.m. ET May 6, 2005
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.

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.

(snip)

Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple.

"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."

[philosophie_en_rose]

59. This is sick.

Why not screen anyone that has had unprotected sex or similar risky behavior? Why not just list that the donor is gay, so that the bigots can do their own screening and take their own risks?

I cannot think of a single reason why it would matter whether or not a sperm donor is gay.

[Nothing Without Hope]

60. Yes, that's my view as well. I'm wondering if some wacko who thinks

"the homosexuality disease" is either genetic or passed some other way through sperm has pressured the FDA into this policy. The FDA is in the administration's pocket, and there is no lack of bigots and spouters of lies and bad science.

This is such an outrage for so many reasons. It simply CANNOT be allowed to stand.

[FuzzyDicePHL]

66. someone in the administration applied pressure to block "homo sperm"

Probably Rove, b/c he wants it all for himself.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ellipsis]

63. Ridiculous. Foreboding. Ignorant.

[jukes]

67. unenforcible

& they know it. another sop to bush's fundy fanbase to trick those myopic fools into believing "he who was chosen of yahweh" cares about their agenda.


o/c, it does demonize gays & furthers the established lie that gays are sub-human.


"we the people" have NO representation in this government; not from either party.