Homosexuals Banned from Sperm Donations

Remove all ads!

So why would they institute such a policy? It boggles the mind.

 

It certainly does beg this question, as we can see that the policy can be easily circumvented. My guess is that this was caving to the religious right/evangelical christians/whatever-you-want-to-call-them. If nothing else, having such a policy in place is a moral victory for them, and a slap in the face for homosexuals - even if they never intended to donate sperm in the first place.

 

Joacin, I never said that I wasn't basing my views on my conservative viewpoint -- I just wanted to point out that even the evil old Cons can use facts logically, too! Fact is that many people don't want to get AIDS. Homosexual men have a statistically higher chance of having AIDS. Therefore, their orientation is a valid question for people about to be impregnated with the sperm in question.

If I were in charge of the deal, there would be a questionaire, and it would like this:

1: Have you had any blood transfusions between the years of 1986 -- 93 administered by the incredibly incompetant fools of the Canadian Red Cross?

2: Have you been to any of the following locations in the last 2 years:

A: Any African nation
B: Honduras
C: Jamaica
D: Thailand
E: (any other countries that have a high rate of AIDS, hepatitis, or other horrid disease, as reported by the WHO, not the Right Wing Digest)

3: Are you a promiscuous bas***d? (Maybe I'd word it a bit more diplomatically) maybe something like "do you use the services of prostitutes? How many different sexual partners have you had in the past 10 months? Did you use protection in each and every case?"

4: Do you now or have you ever been diagnosed with one of the following diseases: (Once again, AIDS, Hepatitis, Chlamydia, herpes, syphalis, etc.)

I don't think that those questions are an undue invasion of privacy for someone trying to pass on his genetics, especially given that another person's right to live healthily is in the balance. You'll also note that I didn't deal with homosexuality openly in the questionaire, though if it were a private company, I'd cheerfully add:

5: Please check off your sexual preference (this is assuming a sperm donor clinic, therefore all applicants should be males unless biology has changed significantly since I last took a course):

A: Females
B: Males
C: Both males and females
D: Neither males nor females
E: Anything that moves
F: Pretty well anything, moving or not

And I still don't think that that would be unfair to the donor.

On a final note, I should mention that yes, my religious and conservative beliefs, which of course influence my ethical and moral beliefs, lead me to agree with Chev -- ALL sperm donations are slightly reprehensible (with the possible exception of sperm being used for research rather than anonymous fertilization) If it's just for research, hell, let anyone fire away, as no one else's health is involved!

 

Thats probably one of the most racist and bigoted posts I have seen in a long time!

To say Lord Keldin Depaara is judgemental is an understatement.

But getting back on topic, there are too many orphaned children to warrent spermbanks and IVF (not the terrorist group )

 

I don't think LKD was being serious. The screening is fatally flawed. His version of the questionnaire was purposely un-PC to point out how ridiculous the screening is. He's saying that if you're going to screen homosexuals because they statistically have higher incidences of AIDS, you might as well be this blunt and thorough so you cover all the other groups with statistically higher chances of having AIDS.

 

Uh, in medical situations, they do often ask similar questions to that -- for instance, after the SARS scare, there were signs in health clinics asking people who had recently been to Thailand (I think it was Thailand, I know it was a far east country) to IMMEDIATELY inform the staff. This was not a slam against the Thai people, it was just that the CDC had determined that that was where the disease had originated from.

I'm far from a racist, I just advocate taking into account all of the risk factors in medical situations. When I donated blood a few years ago, there were fairly similar questions asked.

To reiterate, if a question offends someone, I'm really sorry, but someone else's health takes priority over feelings and right to privacy.

 

Agreed. Policies may vary but any donations for medical purposes should be strictly screened. Just because you want to donate, it doesn't mean what you are giving should be automatically accepted with gratitude.

 

I don't understand this. I was under the impression that sperm donors are tested inidvidually for these kinds of diseases anyway - and if they aren't, then my god, what kind of bananas fertilisation system is the US running? Some kind of political motivation suggests itself to me. Very sinister indeed.

 

In a similar vein, I saw a commercial on Spike TV the other day warning women of African American decent to beware of AIDS. It cited a statistic that said that 2/3 women who are getting HIV are African American. Not a racist thing, but a statistical thing, likely funded by groups of African Americans.

While I agree that statistics can be bent for racist or bigoted purposes, to slam any stat or policy that even takes risk factors into account as bigoted is foolish and irresponsible.

 

Everyone who hasn't been screened is a potential risk; the best policy is to simply screen everybody, and don't introduce idiotic recommdations such as this.

As I said before, I have no idea what the purpose of this is. Every single donor should be tested thoroughly - if they are not being, then you have an incredibly serious breach in the system.

 

@DD

I agree, and that's why I think there is political motivation for this. I can't find hard facts, but I too was under the impression that semen from sperm donors was screened the same way as the Red Cross screens blood donations - in other words - every single one of them.

If such a practice is in place, then I fail to see the need for such a regulation as your tests should bear out definitely whether or not someone is a risk.

 

Somehow I have a feeling that the same people who claim that homosexuality is a choice, or a disease from which people can "recover", still secretly believe that there just might be a "gay gene" out there, and therefore are basically advocating a kind of stealth eugenics program. Of course, God couldn't have meant for these people to be homosexual, so let's help Him along a little...