“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to the dismay of gay-rights activists, is recommending that any man who has had sex with another man in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor. In rejecting demands to scrap the provision, the agency is insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. Accusations of the stigmatisation of all gay men has been levelled at the organisation with critics saying that the adoption of a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behaviour by any donor, gay or straight would be a much fairer policy. Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors, says that under the new rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be accepted as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not unless he has been celibate for five years. Traiman says adequate safety assurances can be provided by testing a sperm donor at the time of the initial donation, then freezing the sperm for a six-month quarantine, then, re-testing the donor again to be sure there is no new sign of HIV or other infectious diseases. Despite disagreement over whether the FDA guideline regarding gay men will have the force of law, most doctors and clinics are expected to observe it.” —News-Medical.net (US)

This is one of those arguments where a superficial bit of logic conceals a bunch of underlying nonsense. On the surface of it, you can see the FDA’s point: gays have been central to the spread of AIDS, therefore — in a “better safe than sorry” spirit — why allow them to contribute sperm to couples hopeful of having a child? Isn’t an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? After all, isn’t it better to restrain homosexuals than to risk having babies with AIDS?

That’s not an illogical line of reasoning — but it’s superficial. In the first place, the AIDS infection rate is spreading in other populations. The rate is increasing among young people — so are you going to ban them too? The rate is expanding among blacks — so are you going to ban them too? AIDS is exploding in Asia — so are you going to ban them too? Etc. etc. If you follow the logic of censure to its conclusion, there will be nobody left to donate sperm but newborn lesbian babies — and even these will probably have to be conceived in test tubes with white celebrity parents from Connecticut.

The real solution, of course, is more scientific than sociological. All donated sperm should be screened — rigorously. Period. If it’s time-consuming and therefore expensive, so what? Isn’t a healthy baby worth the cost?

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.