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

Agreed. Although some of them do also come down to resources.

I've met an uncoerced donor. I think it is possible.

Referring to a donor's child as 'her baby' is not meaningful or scientifically accurate. Unfertilised eggs are not a potential human, and arguments that they are, are phenomenally dangerous to women, for the reasons already mentioned. Asserting donors must be mothers, and 'their children are being kept from them', is reactionary for this reason.

You contradict yourself in the first sentence "donor's child" and "her baby" mean the same thing. A gamete is not a child so when the egg seller/donor gives up an egg, it is not her child but when then a baby is born from her egg, it is the egg seller/donor's baby. DNA will prove this. That's not reactionary-it's reality.

No one did that here that I can see.

Sorry - I should have put child in speech marks. I was responding to your formulation. Think I may have done this upthread too - sorry not to be clearer.

You have a very impoverished view of what a child is (and what a mother is) if you think the sole determinant of this is DNA code.

Your sole determinant of the child/parent relationship is DNA in common?

You have a very impoverished view of what a child is (and what a mother is) if you think the sole determinant of this is DNA code.

Never said that. In fact, if you look at all my writing on this topic, you'll see that I note that mother is the female parent and, often in cases like surrogacy with sold/donated eggs a child will have three mothers: Legal, genetic, birth.

Adoptive mothers are mothers. Step mothers are mothers. Foster mothers are mothers, etc. I've said this repeatedly on many posts regarding surrogacy and egg selling/donating.

I am saying that a DNA mother is still a mother even if she became that way by giving up her eggs to other people to use.

Do you think people have to be mothers just because they gave away some tissue they had no use for, to help someone, even if they don't consider themselves to be such?

Just another reminder that the vast majority of adult children of donor genetic material prefer to refer to the donor's as their biological parents

Unless some posters are completely unwilling centre the child at any point, then it would perhaps be reasonable not to be so determined to argue that they can't be referred to as such

Children of the donor process have voices which are incredibly important here

I think they are in denial that they aren't a type of mother.

Your sole determinant of the child/parent relationship is DNA in common?
No. I never said that.

Yes the woman who gave or sold her egg that became a human being is the bio mother. Just as the man who gave or sold sperm that fused with an egg that became a human being is the bio father.

It's a bit more than selling your hair for a wig.

They are. But which children? Ones that were told from an early age? Ones that were traumatised through late disclosure?

The study included those that had been told from a young age through to those that found out via 23andMe etc

The need to know one's biological parents is a strong need in many adoptive children. Not that children can't have loving, strong bonds with step, adoptive and foster parents. Children want their origins known and this includes children who were raised by their own two bio parents: knowing one's family history and ethnicity and traditions, homeland etc is a very human desire.

Child Development research shows that even when a parent has been kept away from a child because they have done awful things, a child who has background knowledge of this parent, and connection or knowledge of extended family has a better overall chance for healthy connections with others. Many feel relief they weren't raised by said parent but without knowledge of their bio parents, I think it can be really difficult to be even make assessments about identity. And many people go overseas to places like the Czech Republic on purpose so they can purchase anonymous donors. I'm sure you agree anonymity is wrong, but the people doing this tell themselves all kinds of things, including that a gamete is just a cell, to try to make their decision palatable.

My friend who is looking at egg donation said this. These are the profiles she was looking through and why she felt it was an ok situation. She also made sure they would be contactable for her future child.

Another article in the Times today pushing egg donation. I would really like to know why the Times is si utterly uncritical of this, comments are of course turned off:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/494dc9a7-c583-4eb9-b06a-33d310d5689e?shareToken=b81efb6bd1a2797ccd941dfe13bdee6f

If you are borrowing from adoption studies and applying findings to assisted reproduction you are looking at the wrong evidence base.

Children born through donated eggs are never seperated from their birth/gestational mother, and their progress from the potential for life, to life, is entirely contingent on the biology of the recipient, and an intricate exchange between them, over 9 months of pregnancy, which as mentioned earlier, changes both for ever. Not acknowledging these as biological acts of motherhood is perverse. Children who are told, are clear on their biological origins, and the circumstances of their conception, face no dislocation from their birth mother.

Genetic heritage remains a very, very important issue for children (and their mothers), but needs understanding in its own right, and not entangled with the other issues typically involved in adoption, which are not present in egg donation. I can't link, but this is open access:

A Longitudinal Study of Families Formed Through Third-Party Assisted Reproduction: Mother–Child Relationships and Child Adjustment From Infancy to Adulthood, Susan Golombok et al, Developmental Psychology, 2023.

Thanks @greyflannel. That's very clear to me.

Christianity's record isn't too good though, is it? Women as the source of all sin, passing on the "stain" of the Fall; women burned for being witches; unmarried mothers locked up in asylums, often for life; children being sold away from their mothers in "Christian" countries. Oh, and husbands auctioning off their wives, all under the watch of the church. Persisted here in England right into the 20th century. Vulnerable, much?

The world (planet Earth with its biosystems, if you like) is not able to support exponential human population growth. Not everyone needs to reproduce.

I agree, I think cut price IVF in exchange for eggs is coercive. There are posters inside the cubicle doors of the female toilets at our local shopping centre advertising for egg donors. £800 from the age of 18. It's repulsive.

Women need to accept the limits of our fertility. I know most of us do. A baby isn't a vanity project to keep your younger boyfriend interested.