Friday, May 06, 2005
Stuck in the 90's With You
From
Liz's blog I see that
the FDA is trying to ban gay men from being able to donate sperm because of the threat of AIDs. For some reason it's not at all surprising to see that the FDA is still stuck in the 80's with their knowledge of AIDs. I guess that we shouldn't be surprised that a federal agency under Bush has no real care to use science. It's unfortunate that it has to come through with such clear prejudice.
UPDATE: Wonkette thinks Dylan is silly...
From
Wonkette:
FDA wants sperm banks to start profiling donor spunk. No swarthy gay spunk allowed. Recklessly promiscuous straight spunk okay.
In my opinion you have three choices:
(1) Ask the men if they are gay;
(2) Ask the men if they have a lot of risky sex (such as anal); or
(3) Make sure everyone is tested for AIDs.
I'm thinking there are two of those where the men could lie to make a few bucks. As a matter of "economics" Dylan would go for the one that encourages men to lie and potentially have more newborns infected with AIDs at birth. In lieu of the option that would catch AIDs at all stops.
I'm not sure the analysis part should be included with economic analysis if this is as good as it gets.
-x-
5 Comments:
Aren't you a libertarian? Why not allow the donation clinics to decide whether or not they want to accept sperm from homosexuals? This shouldn't be a government thing at all. Private individuals decide they want to donate sperm and private individuals decide they want to become impregnanted by that sperm. I think that's completely different than blood donations where blood transfusions are often administered without your concsious knowledge.
It's funny how when it comes to regulating against gay people many libertarians are more than willing to turn a complete 180.
You're making negative sense. Banning is not a necessary option. If the government really feels the need to step in here they could do say that for all donars you have to have AIDs testing done. The men who want to donate can donate the sperm then go and pay for their own AIDs test. The sperm would be held conditionally until an authorized AIDs test result is prepared and certified.
It makes negative sense to do an complete banning. Remember that what we're talking about here is sperm testing Dylan. It's not necessary for anyone to have sperm in order to live. This is entirely optional for all parties. This is a private venture between consenting adults. The FDA needs to spend a little more time making sure my turkey isn't rotten and less time worrying about what gay guys are up to.
Dylan, the next time on your blog that you begin your typical whining about Democrats wanting government intervention, I will gently remind you that whenever it's Republicans wanting intervention in private markets (even when it's something as frivolous as SPERM) you parade around with whatever song and dance they tell you. Not even stopping to think for yourself but dancing to whatever appauling tune they give you. Credibility is the question.
First Dylan, I don't make cost benefit arguments because I think that most economic arguments are bullshit. I know that you also bow at the feet of anything economics because it makes the world an easier place for you to be cruel in. If that's what gets you through a sad life then have at it.
Second, in case you weren't aware of why this isn't about being gay, perhaps I will have to explain sexual intercourse to you. The higher rates are the result of anal sex. It isn't just gay men who have higher rates of HIV/AIDs, it's anyone who engages in anal sex with multiple partners. That is the reason it is also bullshit to single out gay men.
Why does the FDA just no choice to regulate an area that is very minor, an area where the parents are meticulous in their decision of who the donor will be, and where it won't make any substantive changes? Because being tough on gays is the easy way for conservatives to get more votes. That is what I find appauling.
Then you ban anyone who has anal sex.
Period.
It's not about being gay it's about risky sexual activity. You still haven't made an argument (let alone a convincing one) that anal sex between a male and female who are promiscuous isn't also very risky. What your arguing is for a result that only cures a little bit of the problem. That is ridiculous.
Post a Comment
