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

In a survey of adult children conceived from donor eggs/sperm 75% of those children prefer to refer to the donor's as their biological parents.

I think it's also worth noting that 80% find and try to meet with their donor parents. So that link does remain even if people don't consider these donors their parents. The children often want to also find their siblings, who they do consider to be siblings. And only 2% of those who have siblings don't want to find their siblings.

So from a child created from donor genetic materials perspective they treat it very much the same as adopted children. Where donor material has been used the there will be biological parent(s) and well as their parents who have raised them.

Therefore whilst I understand that you feel that birthing and raising makes that mother the parent and the donor not a parent, I feel that the children always deserve to be centered and listened to in this.

Now all of this doesn't change the fact that I think donor genetic material should not be available, but whilst it is and whilst there are children born from donors I will follow their lead in how they want these relationships referred to.

I think it is absolutely fair enough that a child created from donor egg and sperm should be able to contact their donors when they are adults, and I know my DD feels the same.

Absolutely. But I also think its fair that those children can both consider, and call, those donors 'parents' if they want to and that we (as in the general public) should follow their lead in this

@Delphinium20 if you are unaware of the risks associated with the meat industry you might find it interesting to follow the link I gave upthread

www.osha.gov%2Fmeatpacking%2Fhazards-solutions%23%3A~%3Atext%3DOf%2520particular%2520concern%2520are%2520exposures%2Cmeat%2520and%2520poultry%2520processing%2520workers.&sref=https%3A%2F%2F

Yes, the egg “donor” is the child’s genetic mother.

Thank you. I'll read that. it's just not something I've paid any attention to.

I think that in these situations a child may have up to three mothers (possibly four if she/he has a future stepparent). Birth mother (if surrogate or if legal mother uses donor eggs/embryos), the mother who raises child (legal mother) and genetic mother (who the child is related to and shares half her DNA). "Mother" is defined as the female parent, so this can also include step mothers, foster mothers and, most commonly non-bio but adoptive mothers.

I considered doing it, simply to help other women

I'm on the fence about surrogacy and egg donations as a whole (many factors and I don't know enough about it to have an educated opinion), but regardless of this issue, this particular article has an uncomfortable air of using a baby as a mid-life crisis prop

The reality is that many women will have fertility treatment, and their eggs which aren't used will then be destroyed. Unless they agree to pay a reduced cost for giving their eggs to someone else. Rather than be destroyed, the eggs will be given to the new woman, whose husband will fertilise them. The child born would not be here at all would it not be for the new couple. I don't see that as a negative, and I feel a previous poster's statement that the resultant child is no more linked to the birth mother than an adopted child is wrong, and too simplistic (biologically I mean). A woman has carried the child, has grown it, supplied nutrients and oxygen, birthed it, breastfed it. The DNA will come from the donor mother and the sperm provider, yes, but epigenetic research has shown that uterine environment plays a huge role in brain development, immune health, stress, metabolism etc. So the link biologically is greater. An an aside, the University of Southampton has found that DNA is passed between baby and surrogate too, but this is in its early stage of research.

It’s disingenuous to separate the egg and embryo from the baby. No one wants an egg or an embryo. They want a baby. Without the baby there would be no requirement for the egg/embryo.

As a foster mum, the birth and genetic mother was hugely important. So much care is taken to preserve the link where at all possible, and to gather as much information as possible for the child.

It’s disingenuous to say they are irrelevant if there’s a loving new mummy available.

A friend didn’t know she was adopted And really struggled as a young woman, feeling she didn’t fit in with her family.

It’s such a new area. The baby must come first. If the eggs and embryos were available as ‘spares’ when the woman’s treatment was completely finished then maybe. Otherwise, hard no.

That is a huge amount of reaching, assumption and defensiveness in response to a dictionary definition.

Not really no

In fact rather than feel defensive I actually felt disappointed.

We are on the feminism forum having an interesting, informative and fairly polite debate about the ethics of egg donation and the role of the biological mother.

And as far as I can see your sole contribution to the conversation is to make sure that the childless woman knows that she can't refer to her family members as family based solely on the output of her uterus

How disappointing

I think you are missing the point.

The situation with donor eggs is complicated. The birth mother is the egg recipient who is the gestational mother and whose body influences the genetic expression of the DNA contained in the ocyte provided by the donor. So there are two maternal biological contributions, and the baby is not the same baby as would have been gestated by the donor. The recipient is the biological entity responsible for transforming a cluster of cells holding the potential for a baby, into a baby.

This complexity introduces its own issues in terms of child identity which deserves more ethical scrutiny than it currently receives, in addition to questions of donor exploitation. But it is a very different scenario to either fostering or adoption.

Sigh. You’re going to see what you want to see. I wish you well.

I think it both is and isn't the same as adoption

It isn't the same because the mother who carries and gives birth to the child had an impact on which genes are expressed and how they are expressed in a way that an adoptive mother cannot

However they are the same in that the child has two mothers, or two fathers or both depending on the genetic material donated.

I don't think it serves women well to erase or underplay the role of women who had donated the egg in this process. I also don't think it serves the child well. Although this last part is more generic @greyflannel and I am not implying that this is what you were suggesting should happen.

I do think that the impact on children of having 2 or even three mothers (biological, surrogate, mother) should be extremely closely examined. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

At the moment the case with egg and sperm donation is that the biological donors can be contacted by the resulting children once those children reach age 18. I think that's entirely reasonable. Some children will want to do that and some won't be interested.

Presumably that’s assuming the child has been told, @Britinme ?

@greyflannel yes and no. The woman who carries the baby is massively important, as is the woman who donates the egg (and the sperm donor).
My comparison with fostering and adoption was that EVEN WHERE ITS ESSENTIAL for the child’s welfare, the link is preserved as much as is possible because it’s so important. Even when the original mum is dangerous to the child in some way, we try and preserve the link as far as possible. Because that link matters.

@pickledandpuzzled - the literature my DD had from the clinic was very strong on the importance of telling the child, and she was provided with age-appropriate material for different stages of the children's development to help her to do so. I beliieve she and her DH have done this. The children are currently aged 7 and 4.

I’m sure the best parents do the right thing, but of course there’s no guarantee. It’s not something anyone would ever know if the parents choose to be discreet. It is troubling that there’s no safety net at all.

I mean, there’s never much guarantee about your dad.

Absolutely. This thread is quite upsetting. Some women have decided that receiving a donor egg is wrong, and their decision will not change, nor adapt to understanding others' positions. The children born are obviously much wanted, and will be much loved. Perhaps they should worry about the many childen born to women, naturally, who do not give 2 fucks about them. I wish this wasn't on the gender forums, where women are usually very understanding of each other.

I’m sorry you find it upsetting. That can’t stop the discussion of ethics.

There are issues in these areas.

And yes, some babies are born into bad situations. We do what we can.

Actually the research evidence suggests that genetic links are not important to family relationships in the way in which evolutionary psychology has hypothesied.

There is now longitudinal research evidence on this. And the psychological problems shown by adopted children have been found to be largely related to factors associated with the adoption, and the context for this, rather than the absence of a biological link between children and their adoptive parents.

Which isn't to be blase about the identity issues of individual donor conceived people, but it is to say that we absolutely shouldn't extrapolate from adoption which is an entirely different scenario.

I grew up in an abusive household, don't make the mistake of thinking that because I don't agree with egg donation that I don't care about children being abused. You would be wrong

I, and many other posters on both sides of the debate, have been far politer to people with the opposing view than you have, so perhaps you might start by showing some of that understanding you feel is sorely lacking.

Some women have decided that receiving a donor egg is wrong, and their decision will not change, nor adapt to understanding others' positions

And some posters have decided that recieving an egg donation is right, and their decision will not change, nor adapt to understanding others positions. You cannot complain about the behaviour of the people on the other side of the debate to you whilst ignoring the fact is identical to the people on the same side of the debate as you. That would be hypocritical.

It's upsetting because people have created children in ways that many people find unethical and they are now confronted with that because we all want to feel like good people. I get it's upsetting but adult desires to get what they want shouldn't override a child's needs and shouldn't exploit women.