Worlds first HIV positive sperm bank

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
Deleted User 1074

Unread post

Pjmm wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:21 am
water<wine wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:10 am
Pjmm wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:09 pm

Your athlete could have some recessive gene for God knows what. I'll take a normal guy who has a good sense of humor, is loving, kind and has good character. As for the bank and immune systems Idk Magic Johnson is doing well and has been for what, twenty five years? I remember thinking he wouldn't live this long. He got sick when it was still often a death sentence.
and I wouldnt KNOWINGLY choose someone with a recessive gene for say cystic fibrosis just to "break a stigma". I would do everything in my control to have the healthiest baby with the best genes. it doesn't have to be "would you rather", if you're paying for sperm, it becomes a product and you are perfectly justified in being discriminating.
To me this is all hypothetical anyway since I don't want more kids. My point is I wouldn't necessarily choose an athlete. I want different characteristics for the father of my children. Also you never know. I found out, sadly that heart disease runs on my ex's side. He died very young. Too late to worry about it now. My second point was I'm not sure HIV drugs ruin a man's immune system since Magic Johnson apparently beat the odds given to him at the time. But if the virus isn't present in the sperm then it seems to me there's no more problem than what my boys face- an increased risk of heart disease. In the end we all choose what we wish. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
I think you're failing to see my point. I am dumbfounded as to why anyone would PAY FOR A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. I am not speaking about procreating with a partner you love, "taking a risk" for some genetic flaw because you love them and want them to father your kid. I am speaking about buying sperm. there are thousands, maybe millions of donors to choose from. you have no emotional connection to them, so why would you not choose the best product? of course there is always a risk of a genetic flaw but people buying sperm usually try to control that as much as they can. its a fact men with healthy lifestyles and a healthy immune system will have healthier sperm with less chance of defects. there is a reason men are supposed to take vitamins, stop drinking, and improve their diet for months before TTC. a lot of drugs can cause defective sperm. why would anyone want that?

quick google and I found this:

Result(s)
Biological alterations in reproductive physiology may account for sub-fertility in patients infected with HIV. Psychosocial factors in patients with HIV infection may affect reproductive desires and outcomes. Antiretroviral medications may have direct toxicity on gametes and embryos. Available evidence indicates that fertility treatments can be a safe option for HIV-discordant couples; although, potential risk of viral transmission cannot be completely eliminated.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165097/

I mean, people discriminate against egg donors and surrogate mothers too. you cant be older than 30-35, fat and in the case of surrogates a 1st mom.

does that "stigmatize" old, fat, never before pregnant women? or is it just people paying for eggs or paying for a surrogate want the best candidates with the best chances for a successful outcome?
Pjmm
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 18971
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:31 am

Unread post

water<wine wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:50 am
Pjmm wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:21 am
water<wine wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:10 am

and I wouldnt KNOWINGLY choose someone with a recessive gene for say cystic fibrosis just to "break a stigma". I would do everything in my control to have the healthiest baby with the best genes. it doesn't have to be "would you rather", if you're paying for sperm, it becomes a product and you are perfectly justified in being discriminating.
To me this is all hypothetical anyway since I don't want more kids. My point is I wouldn't necessarily choose an athlete. I want different characteristics for the father of my children. Also you never know. I found out, sadly that heart disease runs on my ex's side. He died very young. Too late to worry about it now. My second point was I'm not sure HIV drugs ruin a man's immune system since Magic Johnson apparently beat the odds given to him at the time. But if the virus isn't present in the sperm then it seems to me there's no more problem than what my boys face- an increased risk of heart disease. In the end we all choose what we wish. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
I think you're failing to see my point. I am dumbfounded as to why anyone would PAY FOR A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. I am not speaking about procreating with a partner you love, "taking a risk" for some genetic flaw because you love them and want them to father your kid. I am speaking about buying sperm. there are thousands, maybe millions of donors to choose from. you have no emotional connection to them, so why would you not choose the best product? of course there is always a risk of a genetic flaw but people buying sperm usually try to control that as much as they can. its a fact men with healthy lifestyles and a healthy immune system will have healthier sperm with less chance of defects. there is a reason men are supposed to take vitamins, stop drinking, and improve their diet for months before TTC. a lot of drugs can cause defective sperm. why would anyone want that?

quick google and I found this:

Result(s)
Biological alterations in reproductive physiology may account for sub-fertility in patients infected with HIV. Psychosocial factors in patients with HIV infection may affect reproductive desires and outcomes. Antiretroviral medications may have direct toxicity on gametes and embryos. Available evidence indicates that fertility treatments can be a safe option for HIV-discordant couples; although, potential risk of viral transmission cannot be completely eliminated.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165097/

I mean, people discriminate against egg donors and surrogate mothers too. you cant be older than 30-35, fat and in the case of surrogates a 1st mom.

does that "stigmatize" old, fat, never before pregnant women? or is it just people paying for eggs or paying for a surrogate want the best candidates with the best chances for a successful outcome?
My God. I don't want a defective product. I made two points. If I was going to pick a donor I wouldn't necessarily choose a bloody athlete. If I had my choice in purchasing sperm I'd look for character and mental stability because if my sons are any indication some of that seems to be heredity. My second point was I'm not sure HIV drugs affect a man's immune system. Now if someone doesn't want a donation from an HIV positive person by all means don't take it. I don't care. The bank said they're giving full disclosure so what they're doing is fine by me.

I'm just not sure the sperm is "defective" because the man has non detectable HIV. I might not take that risk but I was talking about the athlete comment.
Deleted User 276

Unread post

Someone who has non-detectable HIV levels does NOT have defective sperm for goodness sake. There is a stigma and a complete lack of education about the ability for HIV positive men to procreate and this stigma follows these men into their relationships, partnerships, and marriage. IMO, this sperm bank by accepting sperm from HIV donors who have undetectable viral loads IS helping in removing the stigma and gosh knows, just by the responses in this thread, that is needed. For men and women who wish to purchase sperm there is full disclosure so I don't see what the problem is. But I think the benefit to these men, who may have been told by those that are ignorant that their sperm is tainted, is immeasurable.
Deleted User 1074

Unread post

msb64 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:05 pm Someone who has non-detectable HIV levels does NOT have defective sperm for goodness sake. There is a stigma and a complete lack of education about the ability for HIV positive men to procreate and this stigma follows these men into their relationships, partnerships, and marriage. IMO, this sperm bank by accepting sperm from HIV donors who have undetectable viral loads IS helping in removing the stigma and gosh knows, just by the responses in this thread, that is needed. For men and women who wish to purchase sperm there is full disclosure so I don't see what the problem is. But I think the benefit to these men, who may have been told by those that are ignorant that their sperm is tainted, is immeasurable.
I just provided a source that says antiviral meds HIV patients take DO cause birth defects so to say their sperm is defective is accurate. no one said its "tainted". I also wouldnt use a surrogate who takes anti-seizure meds that cause birth defects. there is no "stigma" against epileptics though, no sjws would care if I said that. why?

seems there is a huge focus on minimizing how serious HIV is by the left. Just because a disproportionate number of "minority groups" (POC AND GAY MEN) have it. you're on a quest to make this "social injustice" right. But you will not make it right by treating it differently from other deadly serious communicable diseases.

and yes, I realize if you have constant access to a cocktail of drugs you wont die. but death isnt the only serious complication of HIV. most people prefer to avoid it and rightly so.
Deleted User 276

Unread post

water<wine wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:34 pm
msb64 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:05 pm Someone who has non-detectable HIV levels does NOT have defective sperm for goodness sake. There is a stigma and a complete lack of education about the ability for HIV positive men to procreate and this stigma follows these men into their relationships, partnerships, and marriage. IMO, this sperm bank by accepting sperm from HIV donors who have undetectable viral loads IS helping in removing the stigma and gosh knows, just by the responses in this thread, that is needed. For men and women who wish to purchase sperm there is full disclosure so I don't see what the problem is. But I think the benefit to these men, who may have been told by those that are ignorant that their sperm is tainted, is immeasurable.
I just provided a source that says antiviral meds HIV patients take DO cause birth defects so to say their sperm is defective is accurate. no one said its "tainted". I also wouldnt use a surrogate who takes anti-seizure meds that cause birth defects. there is no "stigma" against epileptics though, no sjws would care if I said that. why?

seems there is a huge focus on minimizing how serious HIV is by the left. Just because a disproportionate number of "minority groups" (POC AND GAY MEN) have it. you're on a quest to make this "social injustice" right. But you will not make it right by treating it differently from other deadly serious communicable diseases.

and yes, I realize if you have constant access to a cocktail of drugs you wont die. but death isnt the only serious complication of HIV. most people prefer to avoid it and rightly so.
I read what you posted and the study indicates that women who are taking antivirals during their first trimester of pregnancy may be more at risks of delivery a baby with birth defects. There is nothing about men who are taking antivirals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165097/

HIV is a serious communicable disease, but generally treatable if diagnosed. IMO, any effort to educate people on the disease and encourage people to be tested is worthwhile. About 15% of people in the US living with HIV are unaware that they are infected. Any effort to de-stigmatize HIV, educate the population that it is not a death sentence and doesn't preclude someone from having children is a good thing. It encourages testing.

In 2015, among all adults and adolescents living with HIV (diagnosed and undiagnosed),
63% received some HIV medical care,
49% were retained in continuous HIV care, and
51% had achieved viral suppression (having a very low level of the virus). A suppressed viral load protects the health of a person living with HIV, preventing disease progression. There is also a major prevention benefit. A person living with HIV who takes HIV medicine as daily prescribed and gets and stays virally suppressed can stay healthy and has effectively no risk of sexually transmitting HIV to HIV-negative partners.

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview ... statistics

I don't see this as pandering to minority groups but rather as important health education.
User avatar
Valentina327
Princess
Princess
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 2:23 am

Unread post

msb64 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:05 pm Someone who has non-detectable HIV levels does NOT have defective sperm for goodness sake. There is a stigma and a complete lack of education about the ability for HIV positive men to procreate and this stigma follows these men into their relationships, partnerships, and marriage. IMO, this sperm bank by accepting sperm from HIV donors who have undetectable viral loads IS helping in removing the stigma and gosh knows, just by the responses in this thread, that is needed. For men and women who wish to purchase sperm there is full disclosure so I don't see what the problem is. But I think the benefit to these men, who may have been told by those that are ignorant that their sperm is tainted, is immeasurable.
My thought on this isn't really relative to the HIV itself, but along the lines of what has the medication protocol altered. Being a cancer survivor, I'm very attuned to the gifts that strong medication can leave you with. It changes your body and you have lasting effects. So my hesitation wouldn't be viral, it would be cellular.

If you're in a relationship with a man you love and you want children together, no question I'd move forward. Without hesitation. That's the cards you're dealt. You're attached to each other. I'm just curios who is going to actually seek out these sperm, knowing they're not "perfect".
Let's Go Brandon!
#FJB

https://openvaers.com/
Deleted User 276

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:49 pm
msb64 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:05 pm Someone who has non-detectable HIV levels does NOT have defective sperm for goodness sake. There is a stigma and a complete lack of education about the ability for HIV positive men to procreate and this stigma follows these men into their relationships, partnerships, and marriage. IMO, this sperm bank by accepting sperm from HIV donors who have undetectable viral loads IS helping in removing the stigma and gosh knows, just by the responses in this thread, that is needed. For men and women who wish to purchase sperm there is full disclosure so I don't see what the problem is. But I think the benefit to these men, who may have been told by those that are ignorant that their sperm is tainted, is immeasurable.
My thought on this isn't really relative to the HIV itself, but along the lines of what has the medication protocol altered. Being a cancer survivor, I'm very attuned to the gifts that strong medication can leave you with. It changes your body and you have lasting effects. So my hesitation wouldn't be viral, it would be cellular.

If you're in a relationship with a man you love and you want children together, no question I'd move forward. Without hesitation. That's the cards you're dealt. You're attached to each other. I'm just curios who is going to actually seek out these sperm, knowing they're not "perfect".
I don't think that people will seek out sperm from men who have HIV, even if they have non-detectable HIV levels. But I also don't think that's the point of allowing them to donate to the sperm bank. It's a statement rather than a money maker, if that makes sense. Refreshing if you ask me.
Locked Previous topicNext topic