Weeding out the gay gene

Comment on CNN's Article: "FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex"

So the FDA is recommending that any man that has had sex with another man be barred from being a sperm donor because according to them: "gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus."

"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.

Now riddle me this? Where is the science and logic behind this? ALL sperm should be properly screened before it is given to anyone. I'm not going to go off on a long rant about this one, because clearly this is discrimination plain and simple. But it is my personal belief that the reason all of this is happening is because there is more and more evidence showing that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, and now they are putting steps in place to weed out the gay gene.

You can find it here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/05/gay.donor.ap/

Terri Schiavo "Re-loaded"

Before I begin, I’d just like to say that the "Terri Schiavo case" was a tragedy, and that there were no winners. Everyone lost in that case because there was no right solution to the situation. The only true solution is the ending of sickness and poverty. That being said, I’ll continue with my Rant…

Point #1 – The husband as legal guardian

Regardless of whether or not you believe that the decision to let Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube be removed was right or wrong, it was her husband’s decision to make. This isn’t some new radical law made by “activist judges.” This is and has been the law for a very-very-very long time. And for all the Christian readers out in cyber space, it’s even supported in the bible (Genesis 2:24). Once you get married, your spouse is your next of kin and has the legal right to make medical decisions for you in the event that you cannot make those decisions for yourself. They become your legal voice. Marriage is not just some religious sacrament; it is a legally binding agreement.

Point #2 – Right to life vs. Quality of life

It seems to me that whenever people bring up the “right to life” argument, they conveniently ignore the issue of a person’s quality of life. Yes, I agree that everyone has a right to life. This is why we have & I support laws against things such as murder. I don’t want to die and I don’t wish others to die either. And yet, there still exists a quality to which life exists. Just as no one wants to die, there are other things people don’t want either, such as pain, disease, suffering and the like.

It seems to me that everyone that was trying to save Terri’s “life” in reality didn’t care much about her life at all. It seems as though they were really trying to save her “soul” which is a very different matter altogether.

The reason I feel that people really didn’t care about Terri Schiavo’s life is because of many observations I have made throughout the case:

1. Those that wanted to keep Terri Schiavo were claiming that she would be starved to death and this is such a horrible way to let a person die. If in fact Terri Schiavo could actually feel pain (which is not what I believe at this point in time), then I have to agree. What a terrible way to die. I do have to question however, why these same people aren’t advocating for the countless millions of others who are dying of starvation and malnutrition. If you truly believe that this is a horrible condition for people, then you cannot in good faith vote against public assistance programs (TANF, Medicaid, etc.) that help to alleviate these conditions.

2. I find it insulting and very ironic that various political figures took special time out to come advocate on behalf of Terri Schiavo and draft an emergency bill to keep her alive and at the same time trying pass legislation that would cut Medicaid benefits that were paying for much of Terri Schiavo’s medical costs, and for others in her same condition.

3. I also find it odd that these same political figures are demonizing her husband and claiming that he just wants to keep the money he won in a lawsuit - for himself, stating that this money could be used to pay for Terri’s rehabilitation, and yet also pushing for legislation to limit how much people can win in malpractice cases. So on one hand, this money could be used to help Terri but at the same time, people shouldn’t be allowed to win that money in court even when doctors and hospitals are at fault.

Point #3 - Personal responsibility vs. Social responsibility

I am a big advocate of both personal and social responsibility. I believe both are key components for a health society. Unfortunately, many people do not agree. In fact, Republican values are completely opposed to the idea of social responsibility as they see personal responsibility as the solution to all social ills. But what does this have to do with Terri Schiavo?

Simply put: Terri’s condition was a result of her own actions. As horrible as that may sound, it is in fact a true statement. Despite the claim made by the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation (a foundation started by her parents and opponents of the decision to remove her feeding tube) that “In 1990, Terri Schindler-Schiavo collapsed in the home she shared with her husband, Michael Schiavo. The cause of her collapse is unknown to this day.” We know that this in fact, is false.

Terri Schiavo’s condition was brought about by an eating disorder that lead to her having a heart-attack (which is very common). The lack of oxygen to her brain resulted in her condition.

Wrapping it up:

Without commenting on this much further, I’ll just finish this rant with an open-ended question:

Since Terri’s completely avoidable and yet tragic condition was the result of her own actions, to what degree should we as a society attempt to take care of her with tax money, social programs and other resources, and at what point do we say to an individual “your condition is due to your own actions, you need to take personal responsibility for your own life?”