The US government said it would ban homosexuals from making anonymous donations to sperm banks, in the name of preventing transmittable diseases,
This part makes it seem like all you'd have to do to be able to donate is not be annonymous.
New Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) rules that take effect May 25 require agencies that collect tissues or cells including sperm to ask the donor if he has had sex with men or used injectable drugs in the past five years. If the answer is affirmative in either case no donation is allowed.
This part is a little different though. I wonder how this kind of rule would impact things like blood donations as well since it's supposed to pertain to all agencies who collect tissues or cells, not just sperm.
Considering how ridiculously stringent the screening tests for giving blood are I don't know that they can afford to eliminate even more of the population.
I mean, I set off one out of the seven or so screening tests they use to screen blood and they even admit that it's basically nothing but it's still means that I can't donate blood, subsiquent clean tests or not, until the laws change.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
I've been thinking about this. Could this be an elaborate way to prevent gay men from getting children? The security against STDs is transparant bullshit, they already screen and purify donations and through out the ones that test positive. But one thing you can do is bookmark your sperm for deposit in a specific woman. I've heard of, and I don't know how common this is, of a gay couple getting a woman to carry the baby and afterwards they adopt him. This might not add security against STDs, but it sure would kibosh any openly gay men trying to have a child that way.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
Gil Hamilton wrote:I've been thinking about this. Could this be an elaborate way to prevent gay men from getting children? The security against STDs is transparant bullshit, they already screen and purify donations and through out the ones that test positive. But one thing you can do is bookmark your sperm for deposit in a specific woman. I've heard of, and I don't know how common this is, of a gay couple getting a woman to carry the baby and afterwards they adopt him. This might not add security against STDs, but it sure would kibosh any openly gay men trying to have a child that way.
No Gil, this has nothing to do with anything substantial. Think about it, being gay isn't exactly obvious to the eyes or to testing, so why come up with a rule like this while anyone willing to leave the box marked "Are you gay?" unchecked can get around it?
The answer: more bullshit attempts to paint discrimination against gay people as acceptable. The Gay Marriage debate has enjoyed moderate success for the Republican propeganda machine so now they are going for even more by suggesting that gay people carry disease and good Christian folk don't want to be impregnated by "tainted" sperm.
