The sort of feminism where rich women walk over poor women. Times article on egg 'donation'

[Forwarder]

The Times is quite fond of human body parts for sale stories. Here's one where a woman in her late 40s can't get pregnant (shock!)

So she has to buy a younger woman's eggs. But :-( that's pricey.

The woman's own sister is too busy to be an egg donor. So it's contracted out to a lesser female.

Or have I got this wrong? If the sexes were reversed then the 40 something man would be gaily starting a new family with 30 yo woman. Is this a win for equality?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/238e675a-e2b4-42e3-8bc1-bd6d46403093?shareToken=9579efa3a218abf8dabc9fb74b22a5c3

That's an interesting question and I honestly am not sure how to answer it. What I will say is that if we are not the owners and controllers of our own bodies, you get the pro-life position that is so strong on my side of the Atlantic, where there are so many states where the government expects to have a say over your reproductive capacity.

Ironically one of the arguments the anti choice people make is that women may be coerced into having abortions. It's as if women aren't full human beings with the capacity think for themselves and make their own decisions.

If you were pregnant with a wanted baby and planning an abortion because you were desperately poor and couldn't afford to support a child, and an anti abortion group offered to pay your expenses (this is more significant over here of course) and give you some support, would that be coercive?

The trouble once you add money in, and substantial amounts of money at that its no longer about a persons choice it's also about the financial implications of that money. And how that impacts decision making

Studies have found that higher payments for participation in medical studies drive higher participation rates even if the study is riskier

If donating your eggs is the difference between you being able to afford IVF or not is it even a choice any more?

So for me offering money in exchange for a part or someone's body be it an egg or a kidney isn't pro choice because of the impact of the money.

It's worth noting that the line works both ways, not just as to the importance of the body part but also the size of the inducement. I wouldn't think it was any near as problematic if the inducement was a £10 amazon voucher for example. I'm not saying I would still agree with it, I would have to think for longer on it, but I do acknowledge a difference.

I would also like there to be a study on how this impacts women from lower incomes as I have a feeling (but acknowledge nothing to back it up) that women from a lower income are more likely to do egg donation. And if that's the case, and it may not be, then it's less to do with choice and more to do with exploiting poorer members of society

Yes, because it would be a financial inducement to sway your decision

But I also support and campaign for a society where people don't have to choose to have an abortion for financial reasons and don't have to look to politically biased groups to support them

I'm not sure it's necessarily rich woman walks on poor woman. I thought a lot of donor eggs are harvested from woman who are themselves going through IVF. And that they can in some cases agree to donate the extra eggs to others going through IVF. That said, this lady is 46. You can't turn back time sadly.

I am very pro-choice fwiw, but egg selling (is it ever a donation?!?) is very problematic. Using manipulative marketing on young women is awful, especially because few have ever had their own child. Private agencies sell donor eggs by listing their traits: eye color, skin color, intelligence of egg mother, which has elements of eugenics. The whole business (even the vulnerable women who get a discount on their IVF like PP pointed out), is unethical.

The other ethical issue is the children made from these arrangements. To choose some future children to keep and others to give away for a discount is very disturbing to me. It may be good for the commissioning parents but imagine knowing that 3 of your siblings were raised by your bio parents but you exist because your bio parents sold leftover embryos. To be inelegant but honest, that's seriously fucked up and not okay to do to a child.

Maybe I should say that the buying of eggs is the issue, as I don't think that the women selling are really in a financially good position to make this choice, similar to how I hate when women who sell themselves for sex are criticized, I'd rather condemn the buyers.

The argument being made is that being paid to donate your eggs is wrong because it would be a financial inducement to sway your decision. However, that suggests that the payment is to induce you to do something you would not otherwise have chosen to do.

But isn't it a different matter when you are being paid to enable you to do something you very much want to do but would not otherwise be able to do?

But isn't it a different matter when you are being paid to enable you to do something you very much want to do but would not otherwise be able to do?

It's a false choice here. Why not be paid to clean a house or do civil service temp job to be able to afford IVF? Why is the only way you can get a discount if you sell your egg or embryos? Would not it be better to lower the IVF price altogether for everyone? Instead, this very precious commodity happens to be a healthy woman's eggs and it's the "only" way to IVF. Manipulation on the highest order. Regardless, a woman's body is being commodified and I find that deeply problematic. It's like the myth of promising your first born to the evil troll.

If people want to be surrogates, who is anyone to tell them no. There's nothing worse than not allowing people to do things for their 'own good', usually dicated by white people thinking they are superior

There are lots of things we don’t allow people to do. Only women can be surrogates. Women can and do die during pregnancy and childbirth. Making babies with the expressed purpose of taking them from there mother is not good for babies.

I think we need to use the word genetic parents or morher here not " donor".

What about adoption? This is technically the same. Being poor isn't good for babies, having one or two bad parents isn't good for babies, actively choosing to be a single parent isn't good for babies, not breastfeeding isn't good for babies etc etc. Why draw the line at surrogacy?

But it's not a 'baby' at conception.

Some donors are completely altruistic, but at all 'forced'. I know one personally.

What about adoption?

Adoption (or rather fostering which sometimes leads to adoption) here in the UK at least almost always happens because the child is at serious risk if they stay with their mother and father.

In surrogacy a woman's body has bern used to outsource the gestation and delivery of a planned baby. It's not the same.

^ I didn't express that very well. Hope somebody else will be among with a more eloquent answer on the difference between adoption and surrogacy.

You are right, I should have referred to it as the potential of a baby as I had done earlier rather than actually a baby/child at that point. It was quite late and my language wasn't as accurate as it could have been

Separate to this actual conversation but do you say that of all dc from a first union about second families?

What if he wasn't much younger. What if he was 40 but had never had dc of his own and wanted to experience fatherhood. The woman's 3 are adults/near adulthood so he won't be a father to them.

So many interesting thoughts-
what about higher pay for jobs with an element of risk? Does that land in the coercion field? Some dangerous jobs don’t seem to attract higher pay (military?). Others do.

The genetic parents of a dc born from gamete donation never met. That’s an odd idea, that your parents never met.

How conniving of you, to try to pre-emptively play the "white people" buzzword, in order to defend the practice of surrogacy. Do you actually believe your framing?

Sure, by all means, let's ignore the spectre of poor women in the global south, being persuaded to have pregnancies for the benefit of rich men and women in other countries, and then flatter ourselves that we're standing against exploitation of black and brown women.

No, actually, let's not. When India became the commercial surrogacy capital of the world, today's Westerners were following in the footsteps of the people who colonised and ransacked India from the 18th century onwards.

There's nothing worse than not allowing people to do things for their 'own good'

Gosh, are you sure? Really, really, really sure? I can think of many, many worse things...

What about adoption? This is technically the same. Being poor isn't good for babies, having one or two bad parents isn't good for babies, actively choosing to be a single parent isn't good for babies, not breastfeeding isn't good for babies etc etc. Why draw the line at surrogacy?

If it's technically the same as adoption, it's the same as the form of adoption where pregnant unmarried women were coerced into mother-and-baby homes for the duration of the pregnancy, and then had their babies removed and given to naice middle-class married couples. Thousands upon thousands of women across the UK and Ireland have come forward to speak about the psychological impact of that. And so have their now adult children.

Since the reforms that followed those women and adoptees speaking out, modern adoption is supposed to be a process to give a family to a baby or child who already exists but does not have willing and fit parents. It is a process for the benefit of the child, when all other options are worse. You are starting from the viewpoint that adoption does not have negative effects on babies and children, and that therefore, it is morally neutral to create babies with the express intention of making them experience separation from their mothers. Separating newborn babies from their mothers, is a traumatic process for the baby.

The research is in about the impact of disrupted attachment, and the risk of lifelong effects on adoptees. Some forms of adoption will continue to exist as a process, because, sadly, for many babies and children staying with their biological families will be more damaging than removal and placement elsewhere. However, it has to be a child-centred process, focused on finding adults to meet a child's needs.

I am so pleased someone else found this statement unbelievable.

Mind you the whole article is littered with the sound of thuds as even more crass, unempathetic statements of white western priviledge hit the floor. I can only assume that her editor hates her and is hanging her out to dry for revenge.

Yes and additional in adoption the pregnancy doesn't commence with the purpose being the removal of the child from the mother.