Sperm Donation Elitism

The Food and Drug Administration, recently criticized in myriad ways for running a ship with no captain, no stern, no stanchion, has decided to turn its attention on sperm donations. On May 5th, CNN reported that the FDA was “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.” The inference is that gay men will be prohibited from donating sperm because they may be a high risk for diseases.

There are many advantages to allowing people of all backgrounds to donate sperm and keep the gene pool diversified. The FDA plan is a whole new spin on keeping the business of bringing new life to the world a political issue with a very clear reactionary bias. There is an uncomfortable comparison brewing; the specter of racial cleansing rears its ugly head.Or in this case it is purification based on sexual preference bias?

"Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years," said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, California, that seeks gay sperm donors was quoted by CNN.

Indeed there is extensive testing for HIV/AIDS and communicable diseases before people are allowed to donate sperm. There is a thorough health questionnaire provided and room to describe mental health issues as well, even dental problems. So who is to say who may donate sperm? Being gay does not mean that you are in the habit of practicing unsafe sex. There is a plethora of advocacy for condom use fby people and agencies across the country or hasn't the FDA read their own inserts?

Although a bill approving stem cell research was approved today by appointed and elected officials, President Bush was not in agreement. It seems as though politicians are about to predicate who can receive improved treatment and who can offer their organs, tissue and cells to prolong and create life. In an environment that is humming with pro life sentiments, wouldn’t it make sense to allow those who want to donate sperm be thought of partaking in an act of generosity, and perhaps compensation (since donors are paid for their sperm). Apparently the limelight is focused on the more obscure arena where donating sperm can be thought of as an of predators intent of criminal activity or with an aim to transmit a specialized disease process.

Sperm donation is an enormous technological advancement. But in this era, it will become scrutinized and delivered like other products to the market place; for a high price and with the right pedigree. Does human life always come with a price tag and a written disclaimer?