Thai women rescued from human-egg farm in Georgia

Plenty of women from the UK go to Europe for anonymous donor egg treatment though, in less well regulated countries, and while the eggs may not have been “farmed” as such, they may still have been obtained in ways not 100% ethical.

Realistically there's going to be very few western women benefitting from this specific situation. They're using Thai women's eggs, the babies will need to be believable as the biological child as its being done illegally and so not viable to be used on a large scale by western women. This sounds more likely to be being ran in the US with an Asia based client base. It would probably be seen as safer to use the US criminals than a local branch where connections are easier to be made.

Ew. How Handmaid's Tale. These poor women. And it would traumatise me not knowing where my eggs had gone.

I'm glad you posted here. I might have minded this otherwise.

Thanks for replying to me and engaging! Voluntary adoption (as opposed to court enforced) is more common in America I believe, but I think that's (a) because religious opposition to abortion is much more prevalent, abortion is banned or heavily frowned upon in more places (b) absolute poverty is more widespread, not saying poor single mothers in the UK have it easy whatsoever but in some parts of the USA the deprivation is on another level entirely, meaning you can see why some mothers do face a really desperate choice (c) prospective parents are allowed to make quite substantial financial payments to the birth mothers, I think exact laws vary state by state and I don't think it is allowed to be a straight-up payment for a baby anywhere, but I have seen examples for instance of adoption agencies advertising payment of college fees for birth mothers which I think is tantamount to or even worse than commercial surrogacy personally. I don't think introducing any of this to the UK/EU would be a step forward even if it did result in more voluntary/open/'humane' adoptions and fewer surrogacy or donor situations.

Equally I'm sorry to hear about your own family, but I don't think it was the (relative) lack of stigma around having your baby adopted if you were unmarried and pregnancy in 70s Ireland that made that system 'work' if indeed it can be said to have worked, for all the sad reasons you mention. Surely what was behind that system was the enormous social and religious taboo around sex before marriage and therefore single/unmarried motherhood that gave those poor women no other choice, I'm struggling to see what a more positive version of that would look like? A certificate for the birth mother? A ceremony thanking them for their service? Seems far too trivial/tokenistic to me. Surely without something with some tangible value i.e. money, no-one is going to put themselves through that even if all the practicalities are totally easy and you're very well treated and looked after before/during/after? I can only see it really happening in the sorts of circumstances where people already agree to be an altruistic surrogate e.g. giving their baby to a family member or very close friend, but then aren't there going to be all the same issues we already see and discuss with surrogacy (and presumably if we're talking accidental pregnancy there's also the father to then consider and bring into the picture which isn't usually an issue with surrogacy at least)?

As it happens in the UK there is a legal mechanism/scheme to give up your baby for adoption if you want to, including a more 'open' type of adoption with at least some ongoing contact between the birth mother and the child and their adopted family. You're right, it's not very well utilized at all (vanishingly rare in fact) and I guess it is so unusual as a choice that it probably would seem to someone trying to use it that there were lots of barriers and stigma, but that's because the vast, vast majority of women who choose to carry a baby to term do then want to go to raise that baby themselves and really just need support to do so (whether that's practical, financial, mental health/health care). I think TBH if we're talking on a population level about reducing stigma and helping people who want to have babies but can't, that's the group we should be looking at first, i.e. poor/deprived/ill people who either choose not to have children at all because they can't give them the life they want, or do have children and go on to struggle and not get the right support, with all the attendant social and societal problems that causes. Rather than putting resources into somehow persuading people to give away their babies to better off people, that smacks of social engineering to me (sorry!). Like I say I am desperately sorry for anyone that wants a baby and can't have one for whatever reason (been there myself in fact) and in a world where gamete/embryo donation and surrogacy are scientifically possible and indeed morally and ethically OK in some circumstances, I don't have the answers to how it should all be regulated. I also do think adoption has a place in society, I wouldn't want to demonise or outlaw it, but I'm not sure I'd be a personal advocate of increasing adoption rates at all...

@NoctuaAthene I think the financial support would have to be very limited otherwise as you say it turns into a surrogacy situation again so it would have to be limited to medical costs and income protection rather than compensation. I think in the US adoption is more common through private agencies, I admit much of my knowledge here comes from TV shows but it certainly seems to be more the norm there, maybe just certain states.

I was adopted in Ireland in the 70s where termination wasn't an option so it was either become a parent or give a baby for adoption. Sadly the system was cruel to mothers and was all about shame and sin, very cloak and dagger, but in theory it worked so in theory a more positive version could work again. It would have to involve a 3rd option for unplanned mothers with lots of emotional support. All that can be done is a system established, what women chose to do after that is up to them. But i think there would be a percent of people, perhaps a small number that would prefer this to termination either on religious/ moral grounds or because they are too far along when they realise they are pregnant. It's just a thought.. i don't have the answers!

To clinics in Eastern Europe probably.

Awful for the women

BUT where did all the harvested eggs end up going? - to unsuspecting people dear me.

We can't do anything, that's the issue.

Girls from places like Isan are groomed by their fathers and uncles and then sent to BKK and other places to work in massage parlours or to be bar girls.

The girls that want to avoid this look for other solutions and unfortunately they are taken in by the promise of big money.

It is slowly changing, the last 5 years BKK has cleaned up a little bit, but it is the way things are here. Pattaya is becoming more inundated with this stuff because they are trying to make BKK look better and so are pushing it to other places.

But there's also a LOT of women being trafficked TO Thailand, particularly young African and Eastern European girls.

There is absolutely nothing we can do on the Thai end. The only thing we can do is put pressure on the UK/Europe side of things.

The minimum wage here is around £240 a month but the reality is that housekeepers and maids are often paid far less as their employers are providing accommodation.

In reality maids rooms are tiny, not air-conditioned and of a far lower standard than the rest of the house or condo.
We use our maids room for our cat litter tray and to store suitcases. I wouldnt put a human in it.

But these conditions mean that sex work is appealing as they can earn far more and potentially find a western man who will marry them. It is very difficult for a foreigner to buy land or a house here, so the men will marry a Thai woman and put it in her name, hoping she will be honest.

It's the best case scenario for these women and the end goal.

Its a systemic and cultural issue that has been going on forever, quite frankly due to the disgustingness of men.

People can still go abroad (fertility tourism) for anonymous egg donation though - or order another anonymous sperm online.

That is genuinely horrifying. Like something out of a movie. The commoditisation by of women and children’s Lives in such a stark and dystopian way. Horrifying.

This is a really interesting post. I too wish there was a way for people who desperately want to become parents but lack the correct/functioning gametes and reproductive equipment (gay couples, infertile women) to do so without having to resort to egg/sperm donation and/or surrogacy which I agree have a lot of moral and ethical issues and pitfalls around them. I've never really considered expanding adoption as a solution though. Can you say more about how it would work?

The problem as I see it is there is that for your (presuming) 'target group' of emotionally and physically healthy, financially stable women who happen to find themselves pregnant not as a result of any kind of physical trauma or sexual assault or coercion but who don't want a baby/to be a mother, there's a current very easy and accessible solution which is abortion. I don't think it's the 'stigma of giving up a child' or financial considerations which mean these women choose abortion, it's not being willing or able to put their bodies through the physical strain and risks of pregnancy and childbirth then the huge emotional implications of giving away their child at the end of it. How would your proposal (without becoming commercial surrogacy or exploitation of poor and vulnerable women) persuade these women to go through that? It would have to be an enormous amount of social appreciation for sure. Of course if you add large financial incentives (it would have to be considerably more than 'expenses directly related to pregnancy which in the UK are pretty small really considering all healthcare is free and pregnant people have protection for things like time off work for appointments) I'm sure you would get some takers but then how is that really any different to surrogacy and how would you stop it being exploitable?

Thanks for sharing. So appalling.

I would think when choosing an egg donar that most people would opt for someone who closely resembles themself? So I would think that these poor thai womens eggs are probably being brought by rich women in asia rather than the west. That doesn't mean of course that there arent other women out there in similar farms from poor regions of europe also having thier eggs harvested.

I really don't know the answer. I was able to have biological children with no issue so can't fully understand the desperation and sadness of those who can't however as someone who was adopted as an older child I can say that adoption isn't a magic fairytale answer either.

If fertility treatment was completely free (for the first 2 children) would that help take away the cheaper, less regulated IVF/surrogacy routes? Just having tight regulations in the country means that those who don't conform just go abroad where it is cheaper and less regulated.

IVF and surrogacy are quite separate things. What do you mean by this and what is it you feel needs discussing?

We are not having an honest conversation about how it's only rich western women who benefit from this at the expense of poorer women.

Do middle Eastern or Asian women not suffer from infertility? I suspect its rich couples and rich women who benefit irrespective of where they come from rather than 'western women '.

In the UK egg and sperm donations are no longer anonymous.

I lost all sympathy at ''Bore off'' too- it's so utterly crass.

That's shocking. Really disgusting. The fact is fertility is an issue that won't go away and a desperate person will stop at nothing to have a baby. This I can understand having gone through IVF myself but my eggs were OK to use, but it may not have been the case. The answer must be extremely tight regulation.

I know it's not the majority view but I have always been in favour of an adoption system, it is a solution to a problem in theory at least, a supply demand issue. If women who do not wish to become mothers themselves were supported financially during pregnancy and the stigma of giving up a child was removed, then less couples would look to surrogacy or egg donation. This would involve a shift in attitude across society where birth mothers were admired for their decision, not vilified.

Well what do you actually want?

I would tend to agree with that opinion. However, I don't mind you raising awareness for this issue.

That's the problem.

We are not having an honest conversation about how it's only rich western women who benefit from this at the expense of poorer women.

Until we are honest about this and until we have a conversation about how DNA and this sense of 'knowing where you come from' matters in terms of identity, we are stuffed.

What gets me is in the leftie narrative of identity, the idea of where you come from matters and us valued but instantly is discarded when deemed irrelevant when it doesn't fit with other identity politics 'rights' whilst the right is perfectly happy with the idea of ultra capitalist ideas of buying everything including babies.

That leaves children caught in the middle as commodities and ultimately disposable.