Those opposed to surrogacy, what are your views on egg donation?

[wholeeverything]

I'm a gender critical woman with a high degree of skepticism about commercial surrogacy. I'm also facing the possibility of never having my own child.

Thinking hard about egg donation, I am conflicted about my own views about the ethics of it, from the point of view of the egg donor. What are your views? I am particularly interested in the views of those opposed to surrogacy. Do you see it as the same issue?

I feel like I cannot think objectively because of my own fertility issues. I am personally fine with the ethics of the child's rights, in that I would view it as similar to adoption with a child having the right to know their biological origins, and that then being something for me to decide if I am OK with at a personal level. Where there is full transparency, I don't see it as violating the child's rights.

But what about the young women selling eggs? Is it invasive, dangerous? Should it be viewed like surrogacy or selling an organ? Is it only considered by women in financial hardship, i.e. effectively coerced?

I’ve assumed she’s under 18, based on the fact that egg donation was much less common in the past. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t feel anywhere nearly as strongly about sperm donation because sperm donation carries no risk to the donor at all. The main reason I am opposed to egg donation is the risk it poses to the women. Generally speaking, I don’t believe that humans should be able to purchase their genetic material, but an altruistic sperm donation does not risk the life of the donor.

A cursory google brought up this response: “No, egg donors do not typically receive their own general fertility treatments for free, but their medical costs for the donation cycle are fully covered, and some specific programs let donors freeze or use their own eggs at a reduced cost or for free.”

This is exactly what I said. You don’t get your fertility treatment free, even privately but you will get a discount in terms of costs for your own treatment, and there are a few programmes where you can get costs for freezing your own eggs reduced. And in the case of NHS treatments there is no charge to discount.

You don’t think women should be able to take risks they have been informed of and agreed to in order to further something they want to do with their own bodies? So no abortions then? That’s a risk, undeniably. I didn’t have you pegged as agreeing with the anti-abortion lobby, since that’s one of the arguments they trot out regularly about these poor ill-informed women who don’t understand what they’re doing to themselves.

So all the handwringing about the poor children not knowing who their genetic parents are isn't an issue when it's sperm donation. So you've spent days now bleating on about it and how the children's lives are guaranteed to be miserable and full of hatred for their parents when it's actually irrelevant because you're not actually bothered as long as the donor isn't taking any risk. What a waste of time that was 🙄

Do you think people should be able to purchase kidneys and bone marrow? Should we get rid of labour laws and legalise prostitution? After all people should make their own decisions about their own bodies.

What are you on about? It’s got nothing to do with abortion.

Reading comprehension seems to be an issue. I didn’t say that risk to the woman was my only objection, but it is certainly my main objection, as I’ve said repeatedly.

Youve made up the rest to suit you - I didn’t say any of it.

Right, and now you’ve had a look, do you still think these incentives have no impact on whether women donate their eggs? They are substantial in monetary terms.

In the UK egg donors not taking part in egg sharing schemes are paid a flat fee of £985 for their donation. This is a straightforward payment, nothing like loyalty card points.

People have always had to live with the possibility that their supposed father is not actually their biological father. Societies have always gone to huge lengths to try to reduce the likelihood of this, some more than others, and it has generally been regarded as sorrowful to discover that your dad isn't biologically connected to you. None of that DNA transfer you talk about for the sperm donor.

None of it is ideal. I'm not sure how it helps to deflect from one situation to raise another. Imo both are deeply problematic.

But mothers used to be the only possible genetic connection. The sperm could always come from an unnamed source - my cousin's wife's mother was the result of rape by a Russian soldier in WW2 for example. But you could always be pretty sure who your mother was.

Imo no one should be treating genetic inheritance in such a cavalier fashion. Giving it away for a £985 a shot....

In the USA egg donors are paid between $5000 and &20,000 per cycle, plus having their medical costs covered separately and their travel and lodging reimbursed. They are paid on egg retrieval day. That is a substantial payment and could well be called incentivising.

This does not apply in the UK and the flat fee would barely cover travel expenses if lodging or distance were involved. In the USA the money is taxable - don’t know about the UK but I doubt many people would consider that much of an incentive considering the amount of medical misery involved in being thrown into artificial menopause followed by many injections of hormones to stimulate egg production.

Kidneys, no - an egg donor can produce more eggs but nobody can produce another kidney. Bone marrow? Why not? Risks are rare and people should be informed of them, but they produce more bone marrow to replace it. Many countries have legalized prostitution. Labour laws are widely ignored depending where you live but in any case irrelevant to donation of something replaceable.

But it would be poor people selling their bone marrow, that's why we don't allow it.

Btw you can't just dismiss the £985. If you live in London, say, you presumably could go to a London agency on the bus as a day patient. You can't say there is no financial inducement then, when it's pointed out that there is, say, oh well it's not that much. It either exists or it doesn't. They could instead have a scheme where you claim back expenses but they don't.

no a woman cannot produce more eggs. she was born with all her eggs.

Clearly you are not comprehending the similarity of the argument you are making about risks, or perhaps you’re unfamiliar with ani-abortion arguments but this is a common one trotted out over here in the USA by that crowd.

But egg retrieval only takes a few of them, not all of them as with a kidney. In her next cycle more will ripen.

It’s women going through unnecessary medical intervention for money. Not cool.

Do you think it’s a one-day procedure? It isn’t . Do you think all potential donors live conveniently near London and don’t need accommodation? They don’t. Do you think what’s left of £985 after all expenses are covered is a great deal of money? I don’t but if it meant that much to someone to go through the medical misery involved I’d be inclined to say why shouldn’t they. Nobody has to stick to someone else’s idea of what they should be allowed to do with their body if it is legal to do so. Strikes me as incredibly patronizing to think otherwise.

No an egg doner cant produce more eggs she has her entire lifetime supply of eggs at birth and every egg harvested is a lost chance of a baby and increases the chance of early menopause.

Them why not a kidney? They've still got one and one is enough.

Egg retrieval from doners take more than a few its not unheard of 100+ being retrieved in 1 session thats not a few thats almost a decades worth of eggs and btw you have 2 kidneys and can live with only 1 so they aren't taking all of the kidneys just 1 so by your logic we should be able to sell them too

No, it’s a poor analogy and makes no sense as argument. It might make some sense if women were paid to have abortions. Or received financial incentives to have abortions in return for access to their own medical care.

There are plenty of situations where the law does not permit people to make decisions involving selling body parts in the name of bodily autonomy, so even you cannot pretend that that is a complete answer. I believe that the law is on the wrong side on this one, mainly because clinics have sought to present egg donation as similar to sperm donation when it is an entirely different proposition.

Don’t be silly. 100 eggs retrieved in one session would suggest a diagnosis of PMOS and the vast majority would be unusable due to this.

The best chance of a live birth happens with an egg collection of around 15 eggs so no doctor would be seeking to exceed that 6x.

I said "if". And like many other opportunities, they make sense only if you live near a major city. Obviously, millions of people live in day travel distance of London and other cities so the procedure is doable on a budget. There will presumably be less interest if you live in rural area, but that is irrelevant. Basically a young woman in London can do this at minimal cost and pocket most of the £985.

I just wanted to mention that one of my daughters often asks me "do you think I get X from my birth mum"? Genes absolutely matter to her and I am fine with that and talk calmly to her about it.