What’s the general MN verdict on donor eggs?

[Sortilege]

The general critical re-examination of surrogacy is quite evident, and I have my own views on that, which I’ll keep quiet for the purposes of this thread.

Now I find myself chewing over other fertility treatment. I’ve had fertility treatment myself and so have family members. So I have a sense of how private clinics put you on a conveyor belt and normalise things.

What is the general view on donor eggs & embryos (implanted into the birth mother and gestated by her)?

Im trying really hard not to bias the result so have tossed a coin to assign YABU/YANBU to viewpoints. Don’t read into that.

YANBU = Donor gametes are ethically fine.
YABU = Donor gametes are problematic.

Well said.

I'm considering fertility treatment as a single woman. Sperm donation doesn't really have an ethical issue to me as sperm is essential for pregnancy - women have no option but to receive sperm in order to conceive (admittedly this is usually sperm received via sexual intercourse).

I think I'll probably need IVF to conceive. I have considered egg-sharing in order to fund this as it often means significantly cheaper treatment. However, I'm approaching the cut off age for the sharer and I'm still not ready to start the process (I think I'm still holding out to do things through traditional way) so don't think that is going to be an option for me.

I'm not sure I would be able to receive an egg donation. I have no problems with the idea in itself but I don't think it is something I would want (although I appreciate I'm saying that without having been in that position).

@ChocChipPancake

I don't doubt it and I am really glad to hear it. I hope that those new regulations and rules solve the issue from the UN study.

So does this mean that in the case of surrogacy, where someone uses their own egg in a surrogate's womb, you believe the surrogate is the biological mother? Its the woman who carries the baby is the mother regardless of the biological material used?

If its just a collection of cells that would have been a period as you say then why do people bother going through implanting their own eggs and sperm into a surrogate?

*Disclaimer: I totally disagree and am against surrogacy in general, but that's the logical follow-on from what you said.

This. How many of those who think egg donation is fine would be completely happy if their daughters did it in these circumstances for financial reasons?

So does this mean that in the case of surrogacy, where someone uses their own egg in a surrogate's womb, you believe the surrogate is the biological mother? Its the woman who carries the baby is the mother regardless of the biological material used?

It's not a matter of belief. By law and fact, the woman who gives birth to the child IS the biological mother. She is the mother, full stop, unless those rights are changed/terminated by legal process. ?And even then....

My local NHS hospital appealed for egg donors;people came forward freely of their own will and donated their eggs without being paid because they wanted to help other people become parents.

I see nothing wrong with that.

She may be the legal mother, but she's not the biological mother. That would be the woman who donated her egg.

Sorry that last comment was in reply cupidstunt22

Well said. Agree wholeheartedly. What interests me is who the objectors think they're protecting?

The children who don't give a shit, the grateful women who are finally able to bear their own children or the altruistic women who willingly donate their eggs?

Seems to me all those actually involved are perfectly happy and everyone else should keep their sanctimonious opinions to themselves.

Wrong. Check a dictionary. Biological mother means the woman who gave birth to a child.

www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/biological-mother

Very defensive

That definition would be based on the assumption that the egg was the birth mother’s

Biological = science, meaning the egg. The egg donor is the biological mother of the child. The genetic makeup of the child, comes from that egg.

I think in general, it is fine.

However, I know someone who received donor eggs through a matching/swap scheme. She had money for IVF, but no viable eggs. The donor had viable eggs, but no money for the IVF she needed. My understanding is that my friend effectively paid for both sets of IVF, and the donor donated half her eggs in return.

While that seemed to work out well for my friend, who has two lovely children from the donor eggs, I do sometimes wonder about her donor. Was her IVF successful? Or is she walking around knowing that she doesn't have children, but she potentially has multiple out there being raised by someone else. I hope not. It just seems wrong, as I can't imagine anyone agreeing to that risk except through desperation.

I think if a woman used her own eggs for IVF and then donated spare eggs/embryos to someone, that's fine. I mean, otherwise they would just perish, so might as well use them.

Not sure about other cases.

That said, if I imagine myself in that situation, I'm not sure I would have donated my eggs/embryos, because the idea of "my" child (who might look like me) growing up in strangers' family doesn't sit right with me.

Nope @moveintothecountry. @cupidstunt22 is quite right. The donor provides gametes. The recipient carries and nurtures the baby in her uterus. The physical (biological) environment she provides determines the outcome of the pregnancy in multiple ways, including influencing the expression of genetic traits (see epigenetics).

The physical (biological) environment she provides determines the outcome of the pregnancy in multiple ways, including influencing the expression of genetic traits (see epigenetics).

While this is true, we seem to be on the edge of undermining the very significant impact of the donor providing 50% of the child's DNA. Whatever the correct term for the donor mother is, her biological impact is extremely important.

It’s not ‘donation’ if money is paid (including reduced charges for fertility treatment).

A PP suggested that DC who don’t know the identity of one (or both) of their biological (genetic) parents ‘don't give a shit’. That seems very unlikely: presumably DC (children and when adults) will have diverse thoughts and feelings about their parentage. They’re probably the most important group in this.

@TheKeatingFive absolutely not downplaying the genetic contribution of the donor, just trying to address the very confused thinking about what constitutes the biological role of a mother.

just trying to address the very confused thinking about what constitutes the biological role of a mother.

Well I think most lay people would expect sharing DNA to be a key aspect of being a biological mother.

The language is very confused. It could do with some work to clarify, certainly.

Well when donor eggs are used it's the pregnant woman is who is considered the legitimate mother.

When a surrogate is used then the genetic providence reigns supreme.

And when a surrogate with donor eggs is used then it's the person taking the baby home.

Basically the paying customer calls the shots and everything else fades to the background.

How often are we asked of our family history in a medical setting? Quite often, in my experience. The egg donor is just as much a biological parent as a sperm donor, surely.

Agreed. There are three biological actors in this scenario, but by convention we assume there can only be two.

For me, there is a huge difference between U.K. egg donors who are traceable and contactable once the child is 18 and using clinics based abroad. Some of these clinics are ethically corrupt. Young women being paid, yet it is cheaper for the recipient of the egg. Plus the anonymity factor.