Posted on 05/05/2005 2:56:21 PM PDT by Last Dakotan
To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration (search) 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And the job title would be?
Turning their hobby into $$$$ (?)
I said it can be present in any bodily fluid. (It's even been detected in tears.) It doesn't mean that it's easily transmissable that way. It depends on how intact the mucous membranes of the "recipient" are. I sure as h*ll don't want to be sharing a toothbrush with someone who is HIV+.
While I agree that people's decision-making processes are often less than optimal when dealing with their own fertility problems, I've never known choosing donor sperm to be a problem area. Many couples have trouble making the choice to use donor sperm at all, since it represents giving up on the father having a genetic relationship to the child. But once the donor sperm route is chosen, there are a number of highly reputable sperm banks, and unlike donor eggs, all donor sperm is very inexpensive in the context of fertility treatment costs. Furthermore, most fertility clinics steer patients to the reputable banks, or even flat out require that one of those be used.
I can't imagine anyone deciding to save a hundred bucks by going with some sketchy sperm bank, when they can have state-of-the-art screened donor sperm for a little more. My impression is that the sketchy sperm banks serve mostly do-it-yourself single women and lesbians, who aren't spending any money at all on treatment, and have no fertility problems. Before the advent of sperm banks (and especially of sperm banks willing to serve unmarried women), these groups used totally unscreened donor sperm from friends or friends-of-friends, often using a non-professional intermediary in order to maintain anonymity. A few still do that, and if the expense of professionally screened donor sperm is artificially raised by a bunch of government regulations, more people will be driven to choose the informal, totally unscreened donor arrangements -- a trend which is hardly likely to reduce the presently microscopic incidence of HIV transmission from donor sperm.
This is a dangerous topic...I can just see men taking matters into their own hands over this...
[rimshot]
Gamete so many interesting people in the sperm donor crowd...although I'm sure a lot of them are your average jerkoffs, I bet most of them pull their own weight.
"Next thing you know they won't let em make withdrawls from the sperm bank either......"
ROFLMAO!
I'm sure they'll make exceptions for the poor suckers.
(pun intended)
LOL!
Who says they don't "catch" `em by using female condoms in a manner inconsistent with their labeling?
Of course, that would mean they'd have to wash the sperm before donation to get that crap off them.
Hope y'all ate dinner before coming on this thread.
I don't know, but I bet credit card companies and loan officers would be naturals at the job. They've been sniffing up people's @$$es for years.
Any gay man who thinks he's going to donate is having delusions of glandeur (I love recycling puns). There's a vas defrens between a straight man and a gay man donating. For one thing, I don't see a straight man becoming the joke of so many butts.
Here we see an intermediary using a non-professional collection device before transport.
Vas deferens...oh, that was a good `un. Anal try to think of more good ones.
Yanking the tail of reality, and giving a browns eye view to genetic claims, the conclusion to sack the breedership ability of a protected species is a no brainer.
Spermisitcally speaking, of course. :-)
My girlfriend (raised RC) fought hard to overcome her sexual inclination when she was young. She got married, had a baby, worked as an RN, and fought for her marraige. It ended when she found her husband in bed with another woman.
After the divorce, she remained celebate for many years, but eventually she gave in. She and her lover, Maggie, also a nurse, stayed together for over two decades until Maggie's death from cancer in 2001. They raised my girlfriend's daughter.
My girlfriend was thrilled that her daughter was straight. She didn't want her daughter to go through the "hell" she went through as a young person. She also wanted her daughter to be "right" with God. She and Maggie did their best not to influence her daughter, refraining from any show of affection between them (kissing and such) infront of her and keeping all matters relevant to the bedroom in the bedroom only (even discussions thereof).
I'm pleased to report my girlfriend's daughter is happily married to a wonderful man, has a beautiful three year old, and is expecting again.
Faith in the Lord may not have been enough to save my girlfriend from sin, but it was enough to make sure she worked daily towards promoting a heterosexual lifestyle as the desired norm for her daughter.
We may just have to agree to disagree about the regulation issue. When I was looking into the banks, it seemed to me to be an industry in the shadows, with nobody looking over their shoulder to see if what they were telling people was true. Since this is such an important issue to the consumer, injecting sperm into a woman and producing children, it seems to me to be a reasonable area for regulation. If the banks are really doing all the QC they claim, there is no additional cost to them.
Wrong. It's narcissism and a selfish sort of life that people choose because they simply can.
AIDS is only one of several viral and bacteriologal diseases that are spread by anal intercourse. The typical age of death of gays is 44 years. They won't be much of an influence on culture very much longer.
Let them go, and collect all their assets to pay for their care.
Some of them are. Most just want to be left alone or are brainwashed. Homo radicals are a tiny minority of an already small homosexual minority.
Without the liberals and the God haters, conservatives would have an easier time dealing with homosexuals. From converting to counseling, the whole process would be greatly help. Destroy the DEMs and the path is clear.
Good !!!
Your friend sounds exceptional.
Sperm banks are used by a lot of heterosexual couples with male factor infertility (which in spite of major advances like ICSI, remains a common obstacle), and by single heterosexual women. Just peek at the fertility message boards, which are overwhelmingly inhabited by married women.
As for no cost to additional regulation, it never seems to work out that way. If nothing else, taxpayers will be supporting yet another government program. And all for a process which has been found to have infected precisely ONE woman WORLDWIDE since the advent of HIV antibody testing.
As for the other parts of the FDA's proposed package, the testing for embryo donation could be really onerous. In addition to testing the parents before the embryos are created, they're also going to required testing several months afterward, in case the parents (almost always married heterosexual couple) had contracted AIDS or some other disease shortly prior to the creation of the embryos, but to soon before for the tests to show positive). The timing of the additional tests means that they would have to be done while the parents have a few-months-old baby at home, and for parents who used an out of town clinic, they would incur the time and expense of travel as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.