Women will be paid to donate eggs for science

[Sapphire Blue]

Women will be paid to donate eggs for science

· £250 payment to aid disease research
· Fears over landmark medical ruling

Denis Campbell, social affairs correspondent
Sunday February 18, 2007
The Observer

Women will be paid to donate their eggs for scientific research in a landmark decision that will prompt a fierce backlash from leading figures in the medical world.

The Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government regulator of this highly sensitive area, is expected to approve the policy when it meets on Wednesday. At present, clinics are not allowed to accept eggs donated for scientific research unless they are a byproduct of either IVF treatment or sterilisation. Campaigners for change say that this has led to a chronic shortage of eggs for scientific use.

(snip)

Women who go through the medical procedure to harvest the eggs from their ovaries, which doctors describe as 'invasive' and possibly dangerous, will be paid £250 plus travel expenses, the existing maximum compensation for any egg or sperm donor. Anyone agreeing to donate will have to show that they are acting for altruistic reasons, for example because they have a close relative suffering with one of the conditions scientists are trying to develop new treatments for with the aid of human eggs.

But scientists from the University of Padua in Italy have warned that women who donate their eggs for research could be at risk from life-threatening side effects induced by the powerful drugs administered to them. The drugs help to increase the number of eggs produced and were found by the scientists to cause paralysis and could lead to limb amputation and even death.

There were also warnings last night that poor women could be tempted or coerced into taking part for the money. 'The HFEA could be unwittingly opening the door to barter or sale of eggs, including women in Britain as well as abroad, even though it is saying that women doing this would do so for purely altruistic reasons,' said Donna Dickenson, emeritus professor of medical ethics and humanities at the University of London and one of Britain's leading experts on the issue.

(snip)

Role of stem cells

Scientists need supplies of human eggs for stem cell research. Stem cells are found in high numbers in embryos and are used by the body to create brain, skin, bone and other cells. To create stem cells, an egg is taken from a woman and its nucleus removed. Then a cell is taken from a patient, its DNA scooped out and placed in the nucleus-free egg. The resulting embryo is allowed to grow for up to 14 days. Then its stem cells are removed and used in research. Crucially, these stem cells have the same genetic make-up as the patient so will not trigger immune responses from them.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2015789,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

This is not using IVF clinics' excess embryos that are routinely discarded; this is creating embryos for the sole purpose of stem cell research.

IMO, this is way past the 'slippery slope' & right over the cliff.

I am exercising my freedom of speech to say that I believe this is very, very wrong.

[babylonsister]

1. And my freedom of speech lets me say that they are still eggs, not

'people', regardless of how this is viewed ethically. I await others chiming in to hear their views.
Thanks, S B!

[Sapphire Blue]

2. Not "eggs" - "The resulting embryo is allowed to grow for up to 14 days."

[rodeodance]

4. Tissue is the outcome ------for valuable stem cell research. Some will

say it life and oppose this program

[Greybnk48]

6. It's not an embryo at 14 days

it's still a blastocyst (tissue ball).

[Sapphire Blue]

15. I was quoting from the article: "The resulting embryo is allowed to grow for up to 14 days."

[Greybnk48]

17. Sorry.

Shame on the author. The language in this debate has always been sloppy and has led to confusion and downright dishonesty, which always irks me. Didn't mean to jump on you. It's an issue with me. :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Yet many definitions use 'embryo' from fertilisation onwards

embryo: An animal in the early stage of development before birth. In humans, the embryo stage is the first three months following conception. http://ehrweb.aaas.org/ehr/books/glossary.html

Embryo: Term used to describe the early stages of fetal growth, from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. http://www.fertility.com/international/glossary/index.jsp (and also from that source: Blastocyst transfer: A recent advance in infertility treatment, in which embryos develop for 4 or 5 days (until they reach blastocyst stage), rather than the usual 2 or 3 days in IVF.)

Embryo: Product of conception from the time of fertilization to the end of the embryonic stage eight weeks after fertilization. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/briefing/3985B1_03_Definitions.htm (and: Blastocyst: An embryo with a fluid-filled blastocoele cavity (usually developing by five or six days after fertilization).)

embryo An egg that has been fertilized by a sperm and undergone one or more divisions. http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/Index/E.htm

It seems many regard 'blastocyst' as a stage of 'embryo'.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

105. Two questions

1. Why did you highlight "The resulting embryo is allowed to grow for up to 14 days" but did not highlight "women who donate their eggs for research could be at risk from life-threatening side effects"?

2. Do you think a 14 day old blastocyst has anything resembling a human spirit/mind/soul/consciousness/whatever?

(Edited for correct terminology thanks to Greybnk48)

[Greybnk48]

5. Same here Babylonsister

an egg or a blastocyst is not a person and I have absolutely no problem with this either. The "potential people" argument defies common sense.

[rodeodance]

3. I only problem with this is that many low income women will see it as

a way to gain some short term cash. Nothing wrong with that-----yet I do hope the gov program truly will care for them should there be problems.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

13. I'd like to know about the surgical procedure used to procure the eggs.

The fallopian tubes and ovaries are fairly fragile and easily scarred. It is certainly a straightforward process to remove eggs from the ovaries, but not without risk.

And, it certainly shouldn't be done repeatedly, which I'm a little worried could happen.Infertility, painful scarring or misery inducing infections risks would jump exponentially each time the ovaries were subjected to an invasive procedure. MKJ

[gollygee]

22. I donated eggs to a family member

you have to take hormones for a couple of months, including giving yourself injections for a couple of weeks, and then you do undergo a pretty minor outpatient surgery. It isn't risk free, but the risks aren't huge. There is the same risk factor for infertility as there is in getting an IUD - it would be caused by getting a uterine infection when a foreign object passes beyond the cervix.

I don't have an opinion about this particular issue - just passing on word on what's involved.

[demrabble]

7. This is a Very Good Thing

IN my opinion, this is a very good thing.

It empowers women even further to make choices over their own bodies.

It empowers women to make real, and substantial contributions to science that could, and no doubt will, lead to greqat breakthroughs in medicine -- likely giving rise to cures for many diseases and conditions that plague humanity.

The ony bad thing is see is that the fee seems awfully low to me. It should be higher.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. Little did I know

when I had my ovaries removed I was giving up a cash crop.

[Greybnk48]

14. Think of all the cash lost to sperm banks

when men get vasectomies, not to mention all those "people" wasted to masturbation.:sarcasm:

[BlackVelvet04]

28. Think of all the money I could have made....

damn.

I was just making a joke....probably an inappropriate one.

[Warpy]

8. Uh, this is strange

but I suppose there have been problems with frozen blastocysts (they're not embryos yet, you know). The viability does go down with freezing.

Still, I have to cringe at the ethics of this for the women involved. A woman has to go through miserable and dangerous hormonal treatment to produce a sufficient number of eggs for harvesting. The harvesting procedure itself carries risk of hemorrhage and infection. This is not a benign procedure. A woman risks her life for it. How much pay is her life worth?

As for creating blastocysts for the purpose of creating fresh stem cells to be used to relieve human misery, I see no problem. A blastocyst is not a person.

[demrabble]

10. How is this Difference From Surrogate Pregnancy?

Surrogate pregnancy -- a process that allows unfertile couples to have children -- is also a procedure in which a woman has to go through all the dangers of pregnancy and delivery.

Yet few would -- because of those dangers -- deny women the RIGHT to choose to become surrogate mothers.

Why should this procedure in which women are paid for their eggs by considered any different fro msjhurrogate pregnancy?

[Warpy]

12. That is underpaid and undervalued, also

A woman risks her life to produce a child. That is the bottom line.

I see a half dozen ethical nightmares surrounding surrogacy for strangers.

Surrogacy for relatives is a little different, but not much.

People choose suicide, too. Is that right?

[demrabble]

16. Making Informed Choices About One's Own Body

Making informed choices about one's own body is never wrong.

There are plenty of choices I would never make for my own body.

But it is the height of arrogance and elitism to suggest that what someone else does with her own body is wrong.

[demrabble]

9. Women Donate

Women are simply to be allowed to donate eggs.

Unfertilized eggs.

Your real problem seems to be with what others do with those unfertilized eggs.

It seems to me terribly anti-women to deny women the choice to do what they want to with their own bodies.

[Sapphire Blue]

19. ONE of my problems with this is that poor women will be SELLING their eggs because they need money.

Much like poor people SELL body parts to rich people on the black market.

It seems terribly "anti-women" to take advantage of a woman living in poverty in this way, to treat her as nothing more than a commodity.

[demrabble]

20. You'd Prefer, Then, That Poor Women Have Fewer Options?

Being poor and taken advantage of is always -- always -- a terrible tragedy and a gross injustice.

But it seems to me to be highly offensive and elitist to deny poor women any opportunity to better themselves economically.

I hope I am never in any position where the only way I can obtain money I need is to sell a part of my body.

BUT -- if I ever should be in such a position, I would want every opportunity to use whatever I have to better myself economically.

I do not ever want to choose for another person how she or he uses his own body.

I'd really prefer to leave that up to each person to decide for herself.

Including poor, desperate women who may see selling their eggs as one way to support themselves and their children.

[Sapphire Blue]

23. "it seems to me to be highly offensive and elitist" to treat a poor woman as a commodity...

... while attempting to ease one's own conscience by suggesting that treating poor women as commodities is an "opportunity <for poor women> to better themselves economically".

[demrabble]

24. Any Woman

Any woman -- not just poor women -- would be able to CHOOSE to sell her eggs.

Do you donate your time?

Do you work for a living?

Do you consider that, by volunteering your time or by working for a wage, you are being treated like a commodity?

Then why in ther world would you want to deny ANY woman the opportunity to CHOOSE to use her own body as she sees fit?

My guess is that youj really don't object to poor women using their body as they see fit.

No, my guess is that you object to the use what others might do with the eggs women sell.

And, because you object to what MIGHT happen, you prefer to deny all women this opportunity to CHOOSE what the ywould do with their own bodies.

[Sapphire Blue]

25. I am a cancer patient who objects to using poor women as commodities for my benefit.

Got any more guesses?

[demrabble]

29. Cancer Is Awful

I hope you are able to beat your Cancer.

But I really do not see what your own desires regarding allowing your own choices for curing your cancer have to do with allowing other women to make the choice to sell their own eggs.

If you don't want to benefit from women who choose to sell their eggs, then I think you'd be free to exercise your right to choose not to be treated with any medicine that science might find as a result of research using eggs that women choose to sell.

You seem to think that women who choose to sell their eggs are reduced, because of their choice to sell their eggs, to mere commoditities.

Do you also think that men who are choose to donate their sperm (and are paid for doing so) so that women may choose to become impregnated are also reduced to mere commodities? Are you in favor of closing down all sperm banks because paying sperm donors reduces them to mere commodities?

[Sapphire Blue]

32. Not much of a "choice" if a woman does it out of desperate poverty, is it?

[demrabble]

35. Poverty Is Awful, Too.

Poverty is awful.

Cancer is awful.

Not the same kind of awful.

But people with cancer can choose different treatments.

And people in poverty can choose different ways to escape or deal with their poverty.

I would never presume to tell someone with cancer that she should not have every option available to treat her cancer.

Nor would I ever presume to tell someone who is poor that she should not have every option available to escape her poverty.

Nor would I ever demean someone with cancer because she selected a treatment that I would not choose for myself.

Nor would I ever demean someone living in poverty for selecting a means of escaping or dealing with her poverty that I would not choose for myself.

I hope you understand.

[mondo joe]

36. Anti abortion people adopt the same patronizing attitude toward poor women - they

can't be trusted to make authentic choices.

:eyes:

[bobbolink]

46. Some are *never* going to "get it", Sapphire Blue, because to them,

we *are* just commodities.

You have said this just right, and the only reason you are not heard is just plain hardheartedness.

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[Sapphire Blue]

47. ..

:hug: :loveya: :hug:

[bobbolink]

50. !

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[liontamer]

76. men sell their sperm as well

they get paid less because it's less difficult to extract semen, but it's pretty equivalent otherwise.

[blogslut]

56. Don't you think

that a good majority of those poor women probably already have children of their own?

[Sapphire Blue]

57. I don't know. What difference would it make if they did??

I know, they could sell their children, too!
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Edited to add: You do know that poor people sell their children into slavery, right now, in the year 2007, don't you?

Mark, the 6-year-old boy whose photograph is in my sig line, is a former child slave. He was rescued just a few weeks ago.

[blogslut]

58. The point being

...that a good many women are poor because they have children. A good many women are poor because they have no control over their own bodies and are therefore, forced to give birth to child after child after child.

Get snarky if you want. It's your choice. :)

[Sapphire Blue]

59. Well, perhaps all poor women should get sterilized then. that is, after their eggs are harvested...

... for the rich.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[blogslut]

60. Okay

I see you made your choice.

Actually, in Texas, sterilization is the only birth control that is offered to mothers on welfare. Ask me how I know this...I dare you.

[Sapphire Blue]

62. So, then if women are (according to you) poor because they have so many children, Texas must be...

... helping poor women overcome poverty through forced sterilization?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[blogslut]

63. That's your claim

Not mine.

My point is that the state won't offer other forms of birth control like condoms and birth control pills to mothers on welfare rolls. Just sterilization.

I see you didn't take my dare. But you go on ahead and speak for poor women.

[mondo joe]

61. Or maybe only higher income women should be paid since lower income

women obviously can't be trusted to make their own choices, or to donate eggs for altruistic reasons.

:sarcasm:

[liontamer]

74. but isn't the problem poverty?

the problem is a woman that has so few resources, she would feel forced to do this.

[Sapphire Blue]

79. Yes. Selling eggs, body parts, & selling children into slavery does nothing to alleviate poverty.

It forces people to make "choices" that they would not make if they weren't living in poverty. It also allows the privileged class to take advantage of poor peoples' circumstances, while the privileged soothe their own consciences by suggesting that the poor person is improving his or her circumstances by being a commodity.

Where is the justice, where is the dignity in using poor people as commodities, to be bought & sold?

[Thothmes]

83. Sell Body Part

Much like they sell their blood or plasma

[BlackVelvet04]

18. I made a joke about my ovaries being removed and being

a cash crop but I have a serious question. From what I understand all of the eggs a woman will produce over her lifetime are actually formed and in the ovaries. Lots of women have their ovaries removed for different reasons....could eggs be harvested from those ovaries if the ovaries are not too diseased? And if so, might it be too tempting for some medical facilities to remove ovaries unnecessarily?

[Greybnk48]

21. Since I gave you a hard time

I'll answer. I'm not sure if eggs could be gotten this way. But there is documentation with all hospital procedures and this would be evident. At any rate, the procedure can be restricted to donors only, with required documentation.

There will always be abuses with anything, but not wide-spread. The people that do this stuff are like you and me, with families and kids and moral beliefs, etc. They are not ghouls.

[BlackVelvet04]

27. I didn't take it that way....

I don't really have a problem with this practice. The cash crop comment was me being silly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. Without having proper knowledge (dangerous I know), some possible reasons why that might not happen

How many ovaries are removed that don't have some problem - at least a potential one?

Women donating eggs have to take drugs to get extra eggs to develop (they're all present, but not fully developed, in a woman's ovaries) before they are removed. Doing that with a woman who is facing surgery for a different reason would seem unethical, on the face of it (why increase the risk of something going wrong?)

[mondo joe]

26. I'm pro choice on whatever women (or men) want to do with their own bodies.

If a woman wants to abort, fine with me.

If she wants to accept pay for donating eggs, fine with me.

[EFerrari]

30. There must be something wrong with me because first thought was

"Too bad my ex mother in law didn't have this option."

:rofl:

[bobbolink]

48. ~~hands to cheeks~~

Ohhh, myyyyy......

~~guffaw~~

That's just ..... E-vil....

:rofl:

:hug:

[RB TexLa]

31. I think suicide is wrong, but it is not my place to try to remove someone's right to it. n/t

[kiahzero]

33. Slippery slope arguments are, by definition, logically fallacious.

Make a reasonable argument, then we can talk. Until that point, rational discussion is impossible.

[Sapphire Blue]

34. So your point is that I'm not rational & there's nothing else to discuss?

Why did you bother to reply? Just to insult me?

[toddaa]

43. Logical rhetoric has rules

Follow the rules and your argument becomes worth considering. Don't follow them, and you'll get side swiped by a rules lawyer, like you just did. I think you have a legitimate argument, albeit one I happen to disagree with, but using slippery slope kind of dooms you coming out of the gate. Don't take it as an insult, it's only your argument that is fallacious, not you. Here's the ultimate handy guide to logical fallacies for your reference. Everyone breaks the rules now and then. I know I do. But if you want to avoid the haughty brush off of a rhetorical rules lawyer, you're going to have to at least avoid the most common fallacies, like slippery slope.

Also, slippery slope is not always fallacious, but you better be sure that the slope is very steep.

[kiahzero]

133. That's a bit of a semantic distinction.

An argument that is properly classified as "slippery slope" is always fallacious, but not every argument of the form "It's a slippery slope..." falls into that category. The key to determining whether the argument is valid or not lies in figuring out if the inductive logic is sound.

Perhaps this is my personal bias with the term "rules lawyer" (coming from D&D to mean someone who harps on the exact words of the rule to the detriment of both the spirit of the rule in question and the game itself), but this isn't a distinction without a difference. Understanding what arguments are and are not valid is essential to a democratic society.

[spoony]

52. That particular fallacy has never held much water

Because slippery slopes do exist, things do careen down them, and bad results do occur.

Denying that is denying that catastrophes had warning signs and initial stages that developed into the eventual disaster. While I understand that people can't know what is going to happen in the future, we all know damn well that slippery slopes are a tragic part of looking at history's mistakes and evils.

[Mme. Defarge]

54. And then there's that pesky law

of unintended consequences!

[kiahzero]

67. As I said, they are by definition a logical fallacy.

A slippery slope argument is a faulty use of induction, where the inductive step is unspecified. If the inductive step is specified, it ceases to be a "slippery slope."

If you want to defend irrational appeals to an unspecified doom, feel free.

[spoony]

77. Such rigid inductions

may have their place in a symbolic logic or math classroom, in the actual world where logical predicates are difficult to pin down as they are highly dynamic, however, they are little more than quaint guiles.

[kiahzero]

92. Also false.

Paying attention to logical fallacies allows one to distinguish worthwhile arguments from emotive arguments with no real meaning. Slippery slope arguments fall into the latter category.

[spoony]

122. Yet you are unable to say why

Which shows that you are less a master of logical rhetoric and more a serf on its land.

[kiahzero]

132. Forgive me, I thought it blindingly obvious.

I suppose I overestimated the intellect of other posters. :shrug:

Slippery slope arguments threaten some sort of ultimate doom, but fail to make a case for the path from the case at hand to the bottom of the slope. Thus, a rational person should refuse to accept the connection between the case at hand and the doomsday scenario presented as an argument.

It's a shame rationality is in such scarce supply when discussing anything regarding fertility.

[spoony]

149. I didn't ask you to run

to some website for freshmen and give us all a definition. I asked you to refute my post about real-life predicates versus "mathematical" predicates.

Even you realise that slippery slopes exist in the real world. While some obviously are taken to extremes, you cannot call them all fallacies without impugning wise words of warning throughout history.

I mean, cripes, the very "fallacy" itself, whilst we're talking about definitions, is rubbish. It assumes two things it shouldn't: That an argument for the steps between now and a posited future has not been made and, presumably, cannot be made, and that the posited future is somehow itself unreasonable. As if every sentence beginning with "This could open the door for" is ended with something like, "viper-headed aliens from Quizgog to invade."

[kiahzero]

152. All I've been talking about is real-life predicates.

Your mistake is in assuming that logic is some sort of staid, purely academic endeavor that only applies to math.

I stand by my original statement: "slippery slope" arguments, in which the inductive step is undefined, are by definition logically fallacious. If you want to make it sound, you must specify the means by which one step leads to another. This isn't a trivial bit of formalism - it's crucial for distinguishing between those "wise words of warning" you mention and irrational fearmongering.

If you want to argue that this will lead us down a garden path to some treacherous end, argue it. Don't just say it will happen and expect no one to call you on your flawed "argument."

[HuffleClaw]

37. holy alarmist bullshit batman!

[Withywindle]

38. Women already HAVE been able to sell their eggs...

...They're used in fertility treatments and surrogate pregnancies for those who can afford it. Have been for years. You have to pass rigorous tests for health and "good genes" of course. But I have a friend who did it more than once, and put the money towards payments on a house. She's not in desperate poverty (though certainly not wealthy either)--she's just not at all sentimental about cells her body produces that she had no intention of using herself. She didn't see it as any different from, say, selling hair to a wigmaker. I don't have a problem with it. :shrug:

[TorchTheWitch]

39. I was just going to say that

You're right, women have been selling their eggs for years. I've even seen ads in the newspaper about it... there's one from some clinic that's in the city paper every week.

The only problem I have with this at all is the price being offered. Although I haven't checked for years, the rate last time I noticed was about $3500 (I'm sure it's gone up a bit since it's been years since I've gotten the paper and seen the ads). I would have done it myself then but after finding out that I was borderline too old and what the procedure entailed I didn't think it was enough money being offered (I'm really squeamish about medical procedures in general so I'd have to be paid more money for it to be worth it, but that's just me).

I don't see what the big deal is here. People sell their sperm, hair, nails and who knows what else.

[Withywindle]

41. That's pretty much how I feel...

...though I have to admit for the first few months after J told me all about it, every time I got my period I thought, "Damn, could've bought a new computer with that!" :evilgrin: But I don't like gratuitous surgery either.

Think of sperm donation--men have been doing that for decades, and sometimes they get paid. Considering extracting sperm is ridiculously easy and kind of the opposite of painful, stands to reason the price would be a lot lower. but if a man can get paid for wanking into a jar, why shouldn't a woman be able to get paid for essentially the same thing as far as pure reproductive function is concerned? Aside from the medical difference between the two, what's the ethical difference? None that I can see.

Also, if blastocyst creation is part of the process involved here, why is no one asking where the sperm comes from, and if it was acquired "ethically"? Why is it the eggs that carry all this moral fraughtness?

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. I think because sperm donation isn't risky in any way

where egg donation, while low risk, does have some - you have to take some drugs, and it is a form of surgery. Blood donation in the UK isn't paid either. They don't want to push people to the point of taking a risk for the sake of money. That needs to be balanced against the inconvenience and discomfort of taking drugs and having an outpatient operation. This ruling states there must be some 'altruistic' reason for the donation as well.

[kitkatrose]

51. I check the city paper too, and depending on the clinic,

it's between $5000 and $7000 per session. Of course you have to pass all the tests, but still...

The con arguments sound (to me) really similar to the ones against setting up an organ donor market and/or selling blood versus donation. At least with the eggs, people can do that now, so I don't know why this is so troubling and I haven't seen a con reply on the "egg donation for fertility clinics" market.

[demrabble]

40. The OP Has A Problem

The OP's REAL problem is that the eggs that women will sell will not be sold for fertility purposes.

Instead, they will be sold to scientists trying to discover cures for some of humanity's most dreadful diseases and conditions.

Speaking for myself, it seems to me to be unspeakably cruel to deny science the possibility of curing terrible diseases.

[Withywindle]

42. You mean that purchased eggs might be used to help people OTHER than...

...those able to shell out 10s of 1000s for fertility treatments? For conditions not even related to making babies at all?

Terrible. :sarcasm:

[Sapphire Blue]

45. demrabble, you seem to think that you can read minds. My REAL problem, indeed.

[EFerrari]

118. No. The Op poster has a problem with poor women having to resort

to something like this to eat or to have a roof over their heads.

As single mothers are the fastest growing homeless demographic, I guess I have the same concern / problem.

I'd never stand for anyone telling me what I could or couldn't do with my body. Ever.

On the other hand, this is a set up from hell for poor women. I think that's what Sapphire Blue is trying to point out and imho, she's dead right.

[demrabble]

125. Oh, The Horror!

Oh, the horror -- the.absolute.horror! -- of allowing poor women to "resort" to selling their eggs in order to have a roof over their heads or to be able to eat!

Why, it's almost as bad as allowing poor women to "resort" to working for wages in order to have a roof over their heads or to be able to eat!

Set ups -- from Hell!

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

126. I take it you've never been poor.

And I take it you've never been coerced into doing something to or with your body because of your poverty.

Good for you, demrabble.

I have.

[demrabble]

131. Your Assumptions Are Incorrect.

I have been poor most of my life.

I have chosen to do some things with my body in order to survive.

I'm sorry that others have coerced you -- and thus taken away your right to choose for yourself -- into doing things with and to your body.

I do not think anyone should ever take away another person's right to choose what to do with or to their own body.

Being poor sucks.

Being poor and not having control over one's own body sucks more.

[EFerrari]

134. I think we are on the same page. Imho, Sapphire Blue was pointing out

how easily this program could be used to exploit women living in poverty.

I think all three of us would agree that exploiting women living in poverty is not a good thing AND at the same time agree that women are the arbiters of their own bodies and that's not negotiable.

Is that right? I know you two will let me know if it's not.

This is the negotiation and it's a difficult one. Why it's so difficult is another thread. :(

[demrabble]

136. I'll Only Speak For Myself

I can only speak for myself.

No one should ever take away another person's right to choose to do with their own body what they think best.

Sometimes, people, because of their circumstances, only have choices that are not pleasant to contemplate.

No one should ever judge what another person chooses to do with her own body -- because no one can ever know what situation she was in.

No one should ever deny another person the opportunity to use her body as she sees fit out of some concern for what "might" be done as a result. That is, it is wrong to deny some women the opportunity to sell their eggs to science because scientists "might" use those eggs to create embryos that "might" be used to harvest stem cells. (That, by the way, was how this entire discussion began -- the opinion was stated that a line had been crossed if women were to be allowed to sell their eggs to scientists who might use them to create embryos in order to harvest stem cells from them).

[EFerrari]

138. I agree. Women should be in charge of their bodies, period.

And there are programs that if you're as old as I am that you can just see coming to prey on younger women living in poverty. For me, it's not about the ultimate use of those cells, it's about the initial betrayal of a female body because it was just there and had no one to object, no one to protect it, no one to offer a better option.

I don't know how to put it more simply than that and of course, I only speak for myself.

[liontamer]

75. thanks for saying this

currently the fertility clinic near me pays $8000 to egg donors. I'd personally rather those eggs went to research than designer babies (mothers are screened based on looks,grades etc) but that's my personal opinion and I wouldn't want people who wanted to participate to suffer based on my opinion on what is ultimately a personal matter.

[Dulcinea]

114. Hear, hear!

I have no problem with this as long as it's voluntary. I would gladly sell my eggs for scientific research. My sister has type 1 diabetes & my MIL has Alzheimer's, & if my eggs could help them and many others like them, sign me up!

BTW, I'm not poor, just a middle-class suburban mom of 2 who would like to alleviate some suffering. And I sold my plasma in college, too!

[Thickasabrick]

44. I think many are missing the point that the donor has to show

why she wants to do this for altruistic reasons...not money. The amount being paid makes sense to me because if someone is really doing it for altruistic reasons - the amount of money isn't the motivating factor.

[Mme. Defarge]

49. I agree with you!

IMO, this is consumerism run amok. Imagine the supply and demand issues if this research is successful?

[spoony]

53. Me too.

At least when people could only sell organs there were only so many in their body, this will turn women into walking scientific supermarkets, and that just gives me the chills.

[Sapphire Blue]

55. You realize you agree w/me at your own peril?

:hi: Thanks for your comment, Mme. Defarge. I appreciate it!

[Mme. Defarge]

64. I salute your courage

in taking such an unpopular stand in this forum.

It has long seemed to me that there is a logical and ethical inconsistency in the desire to protect the natural environment from destructive human intervention, and to impose restrictions that help lessen the "dis-economies" of laissez-faire capitalism and property ownership, while at the same time insisting that our bodies are private property that we are free to use, or mis-use, in the name of individual choice.

Why are we so concerned about saving endangered species, and, at the same time, unconcerned at the loss of all of the potential human creative brilliance as a result of mass-scale interruption of the development of human lives in the womb?

Why is a consumerist attitude toward procreation, if not morally repugnant, at least as aesthetically repugnant as degrading the environment?

It seems to me that liberals and conservatives are really flip sides of the same consumerist coin. IMO.

[mondo joe]

66. Here's one obvious reason: the environment is a shared resource that belongs

to everyone. Your body, however, is yours.

When you want to control what people can do at their most personal - their most intimate - you prove that sometimes liberals and conservatives are flip sides of the same authoritarian coin.

[Mme. Defarge]

68. Why are you so confident

that the longterm consequences of terminating the development of perfectly healthy fetuses, while going to extraordinary (some might say unnatural) lengths go create "wanted" babies, will not adversly affect the species?

Also, are you not troubled by the disproportionate impact of abortion in other parts of the world on the female population due to the cultural preference for male children?

[mondo joe]

69. I can't know - neither can you. But in the balance is also privacy and self determination,

two principles you seem as uninterested in as Robert Bork.

My trouble over a variety of things people do is simply that - my trouble.

[Mme. Defarge]

70. Who would have predicted

global warming when Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations?

[mondo joe]

71. Irrelevant. But then, I'm not the authoritarian here.

I'm not the one who'd like to substitute my judgment for the personal choices of others.

[Mme. Defarge]

72. Are you sure?

Labeling and dismissing seems like an authoritarian tactic to me.

Privacy. First off, there isn't any given our current political and technological environment. I admit that this is very regrettable. Second, are there no reasonable limits to privacy? I'm old enough to remember when the concept of privacy kept the police from intervening in domestic abuse situations. I'm old enough to remember when "states' rights" was a code expression for institutionalized racism. Defending a person's right to voluntarily snuff out a vulnerable, unborn human life on the basis that it is personal property, and in the name of privacy, strikes me as being a similar argument.

[mondo joe]

73. You've made clear you don't believe in a right to privacy to autonomy, so it's hard

to see why you'd describe the loss of privacy as "regrettable".

Certainly, in a worldview in which our bodies are not our own but simply resources to be used as best determined by some other authority, there can be no expectation of reproductive freedom. So your recent post does not surprise.

If a woman can be made to incubate an unwelcome fetus on the grounds that her body is not her own and is simply an environmental resource, there's no good reason to let her use birth control. Or even decide when, or where or with whom to have sex.

Regrettable indeed.

[Mme. Defarge]

137. My initial point

was that human life is a sacred gift -- even in the womb, and that I am troubled by what appears to me to be a rather crass, consumerist attitude toward procreation among many liberal thinkers. Your conclusion that I'm advocating that women should not have the freedom to choose their sex partners, or practice birth control -- thus forcing them to be treated as mere environmental resources -- makes me appalled at how inadequately I have expressed myself!

I am tempted to accuse you of promoting the right of a woman to sell her body as an environmental resource, but I have always later regretted jumping to conclusions about another person's motives.

Peace.

[mondo joe]

141. The determination of what is "sacred" is personal, and IMO best left to the individual.

My body is not a resource to be used for others' ideals or gains, whether as cannon fodder in wars, as a machine in a factory or a sacred vessel.

[Mme. Defarge]

150. Thank you for the honest self-disclosure.

It is hard to argue with this point of view since it reflects the dominant paradigm of the "Enlightenment" -- which is still largely operational today in the West -- where (so-called) facts are appropriate for the public domain, but values are strictly personal and private.

This works if all natural phenomena is explained by "cause", as in the mechanistic, Newtonian, model which posits that the universe is rational as well as necessary. If, however, natural phenomena is better explained by purpose, as would be the case in a universe that is both rational and contingent, then the truth, and therefore values, really does/do matter.

I fear that we can't go on indefinitely in this fractured state; that left to our own devices we will inevitably self-destruct. But then, I predicted not only that Ronald Reagan would never be elected President of the United States, that he would never be re-elected President, and that George HW Bush would also never be elected. So much for my credentials as a futurist!

At any rate, do hold your ground on not agreeing to be canon fodder. While I couldn't live if I didn't believe that that there were things worth dying for, this obscene "war" isn't one of them. I weep for all of our soldiers.

Peace

[sweetheart]

65. 12 * 250$ ... $3000

A few trips to the supermarket and an egg abitrageur might make a mint: :-)

[SoCalDem]

78. and to pay their credit card bills & buy a car n/t

[Thothmes]

84. Egg Donation

I do not see anything wrong with this. Stem cell research is a legitimate scientific investigation with great potential. People allow themselves to be used for all sorts of medical related investigations. People sell blood and plasma all the time. People volunteer for compensated participation in medical trials. As long as the objectives and risks are clearly identified, let the individual exercise their judgment.

[ulysses]

85. I'll just say this.

We seem to be at a point where issues of class and fertility are clashing - we saw this in the adoption arguments a while back, too. Sapphire, I don't entirely agree with you on this one, but I do see the point you're making. Our public ethics needs to catch up.

[Sapphire Blue]

86. Thank you for seeing the class issue, ulysses.

Poor women are welcome to sell their eggs for 'altruistic' reasons to benefit the privileged who can pay for medical treatment resulting from their 'altruism'. I wonder if these same poor women will be recipients of medical treatment resulting from stem cell research? How many poor people are denied medical treatment right now because they are uninsured and can't pay for their medical treatment? How many poor people die right now because they can't afford existing medical care? Medical care as simple as an unaffordable visit to the doctor, or an unaffordable prescription? Where is the outcry about this?????

The privileged will get what they want... and the poor will continue to be ignored... unless they can be used as a commodity to benefit the privileged.

[ulysses]

88. I think that's the disconnect right there.

I wonder if these same poor women will be recipients of medical treatment resulting from stem cell research?

Right you are. Access to high-quality health care should have been recognized as a right for *all* Americans decades ago.

I keep hearing echoes of the adoption argument in my head, though. (Disclaimer: I'm both a cancer survivor and an adoptive parent.) That anyone should not be forced by economic necessity to sell their eggs or give up a child for adoption is obvious. I am, however, a strong believer in choice where one's own body is concerned, and as long as that choice is fully informed, I don't believe that it's my place to say "no", here any more than with abortion.

I guess what I'm saying is that our health care system is facing more than a few large problems, among them lack of access by the poor and lack of resources for research and development. If we were wiser and more compassionate as a society, there's no reason we can't solve the latter without taking advantage of the former.

[demrabble]

87. Meanwhile. People Are Dying

"Our public ethics needs to catch up"

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can urge patience while other people are dying or are having their rights abridged.

While we wait for our "public ethcis" to "catch up", people -- real, live people -- are dying.

While we wait for our public ethics to catch up, people are suffering from all sorts of dreaded diseases and conditions.

How long should we wait --- and just how many deaths are "acceptable" -- while our public ethics catch up?

How long should we wait until women are given complete control over their bodies? (Men, as you know, are already allowed to sell their sperm -- and that was done without much waiting for public ethics to catch up!)

People who have no voice -- the poor and the sick and suffering -- are often told by those who have power that they must "wait". "Be patient", they are told. "The Time is not right", they are told.

That's Bullshit.

The time is always NOW for curing diseases and empowering people and freeing people from poverty.

Those things should not wait for any reason -- and certainly not until some undefined time "when our public ehtics catch up".

[ulysses]

89. hello, there.

I'm not sure what I wrote that gave you the impression that I want people to wait for cures, but I assure you that I don't. You probably haven't been around long enough to know, but I've written fairly extensively here about my own experiences as a cancer survivor. You might want to calm down, have some dip, and try to understand folks' perspective before you fly off the handle again.

[Sapphire Blue]

90. Yes. People are dying. People are dying from poverty. Real, live, POOR people.

People who can't afford to go to the doctor, people who can't afford a prescription. People who won't be able to afford the medical treatment resulting from stem cell research.

By all means, though, let poor women sell their eggs to benefit the privileged who can afford the medical treatment :puke: and let poor people continue to die :puke: .

Funny (not), I don't recall you ever responding to any of my many, many poverty related threads... threads begging people to take action on behalf of the poor.

[mondo joe]

93. As if only the wealthy have access to healthcare.

There is CERTAINLY not enough access to health care in the United States - but it's also not as bleak as some would like to make it seem.

The community healthcare movement has been providing accessible quality healthcare to low-income and uninsured people since the late 60's.

This will no doubt be fallaciously depicted as an argument that there is no problem with access by those who are more concerned with a division than in solving problems. But rest assured, it is not: there is not enough access, and significant disparities exist.

But there are also hundreds of thousands of uninsured and low-income people who will get the healthcare they need thanks to community health centers.

[demrabble]

94. Really!

Really!

Excuse me for saying this, but I do not measure my -- on anyone else's -- committment to taking action on behalf of the poor by the number of response to your poverty related threads.

Why in the world would you ever think that because I -- or anyone else -- has not taken the time to respond to your threads that we are not committed and active in poverty relief? There are many other ways to be active in assisting the poor and in forcing polciy changes to solve the root causes of poverty BESIDES responding to your threads here on DU.

And let me make sure I understand you correctly here.

Are you really saying that because some people will not be able to benefit from cures for things like diabetes, AIDS, MS, epilepsy, and many other conditions and diseases, that NO ONE should ever be able to benefit from cures for these things?

You seem to say that because some people will not be able to afford the cures, we should not pursue finding the cures.

I can't believe that that is really what you are saying, but I have re-read your posts a number of times, and I come, sadly, to that conclusion.

I would prefer to pursue policies that enable cures to be found, and to work for policies that enable all to benefit from the cures that are found.

But first the cures must be found.

[Sapphire Blue]

97. Yes, really.

I said that I didn't recall you responding to any of the many poverty related threads that I've posted here. Yet here you are, taking the time to post again & again & again in this thread. I find that curious.

Are you really saying that it's acceptable to use poor people as commodities to benefit the privileged? And at the same time, deny those very benefits to poor people? Is that acceptable to you??? So what if poor people are denied treatment, so what if people cannot afford treatment, let's take care of the privileged??? :puke: :puke: :puke:

[demrabble]

98. LOL!

My most sincere and abject apologies for not responding to your many, many poverty threads.

I did not realize how profound they were, and how posting to them was a measure of one's committment to eliminating poverty and caring for those who are poor.

And, no, it is never acceptable to use anyone -- poor or otherwise -- as a mere commondity. I think I have said that a number of times here, so I really am at a loss to know why you keep asking me that.

I do, though, believe that everyone should have control over his or her own body. You seem to think that poor women should not.

You seem to think that poor women who sell their eggs for altruistic purposes (like curing dreaded diseases and conditions) reduce themselves to commodities simply by exercising control over their own bodies.

You also seem to think, I guess, that only privileged women should be allowed to sell their eggs, since, according to you, only privileged people will be able to obtain the cures and treatments that result.

This is sort of like saying that since Michael J. Fox would benefit from a cure for Parkinson's Diseases, and since Michael J. Fox is wealthy, only rich women should be able to sell their eggs so that Michael J. Fox can be cured of his Parkinson's disease.

I admit that I really do not understand why anyone would not be in favor of empowering ALL women -- rich and poor -- to sell thier eggs so that cures for diseases and conditions could be found.

And I do not understand why anyone would be opposed to finding cures to diseases and conditions and at the same time pursue policies that ensure that ALL people can benefit from those cures.

[Sapphire Blue]

99. Do you feel better by ridiculing my efforts here?

[demrabble]

100. No One Is Ridiculing Your Efforts Here.

No one is ridiculing your efforts here.

Your efforts to alleviate poverty are most certainly admirable.

At the same time, you do seem to want to measure another person's committment to alleviating poverty by the number of times he or she has posted to your many poverty threads here. And that does strike me, frankly, as a bit silly.

But your efforts to alleviate poverty are quite admirable.

It would be nice if your efforts to find a cure for dreaded diseases and conditions matched your efforts at alleviating poverty.

It would also be nice if your efforts to empower women to obtain and maintain complete control over their own bodies matched your quite admirable efforts to alleviate poverty.

[Sapphire Blue]

102. You most certainly have been doing exactly that. Go back & read what you posted.

FYI - I am not measuring "another person's committment to alleviating poverty by the number of times he or she has posted to your <my> many poverty threads here". I commented that I find it curious that you've taken the time to post repeatedly to this particular thread, and not to others that I've posted. You certainly seem to be committed to this thread.


Choice:

Beluga Caviar or Sevruga Caviar

Sell one's eggs or get evicted

[demrabble]

112. I'm Sorry

I'm so very sorry that you seemed to have turned our dicussion into a diatribe about me and my posting habits.

You suggest that if I were to re-read what I have posted, I would discover that I have been ridiculing your efforts here.

I have re-read what I have posted here, and I'm sorry that you have concluded that I have been ridiculing your efforts here.

You also state that you are not measuring another person's committment to aleviating poverty by the number of times he or she has posted to your many poverty threads here.

I would suggest that you go back and re-read your posts here, and I'm sure you'll discover that you've done exactly that.

You find it curious that I have taken the time to post to a thread in which you state quite clearly that you are of the belief that poor women should not be allowed, because of their poverty, to exercise complete control over their bodies. (Or perhaps it is that they should not be allowed to exercise complete control over their bodies because, in so doing, some privileged person might be cured of a dreaded disease or condition. I can't really figure out which it is).

I'm not sure why you find that "curious". Perhaps if you saw a thread in which someone asserted that poor people should remain poor, you might be inclined to post your serious objection to such a silly notion. I know I would.

Similarly, when I see someone posting the silly notion that some women should not be allowed to exercise control over their own bodies, I will post to that thread. I'm sorry you find that curious.

Please do get one thing straight here -- I will not debate with you about which of us is more committed to ending poverty or to aleviating the conditions of people in poverty. That would be a quite silly exercise. It is clear to me that you are very much committed to ending and aleviating poverty.

But I do think you are quite wrong in your efforts to deny some women control of their own bodies.

[Sapphire Blue]

121. You're "so very sorry that you <I> seemed to have turned our *dicussion* into a diatribe about...

... me <you> and my <your> posting habits.

You ridicule my efforts here & you're "sorry that you <I> have concluded that I <you> have been ridiculing your <my> efforts here."

Sorry, indeed. You'd rather that I accept your insults?

A woman's right to control her own body would include not being forced to resort to potentially dangerous medical procedures to benefit the privileged, to be treated as a commodity, in an attempt to survive poverty.


Choice:

Beluga Caviar or Sevruga Caviar

Sell one's eggs or get evicted

You will never get it. Perhaps you should move on to another thread. Bye.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. Hmm

Rereading your own OP, you mention absolutely nothing about money or poverty. In fact, given your own added emphases, you were originally upset about this over stem cell research period. You then went on a poverty tangent.

Seems to me that position is the one telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

[demrabble]

124. I'm So Confused

I'm so very confused now.

Here are some of my points of confusion:

1. You keep referring to Beluga Caviar or Sevruga Caviar. I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. I am too poor to know much about caviar. I take it your life experience has enabled you to post such obscure references to different types of caviar.

2. You continue to insist that somehow allowing women -- poor as well as non-poor women -- means that poor women will be forced to sell their eggs in order to benefit the privileged. You seem to say that allowing poor women to sell their own eggs will reduce poor women to mere commodities "in order to survive poverty.

I wonder if you think poor women should be allowed to allowed to work for wages? After all, won't allowing poor women to work for wages simply mean that poor women are providing their time and labor in order that priviledge people will benefit? And won't allowing poor women to work for wages just reduce them to mere commodities? Doesn't allowing poor women to work for wages "force" them to work in order to escape poverty?

3. You continue to say that I am insulting your efforts here. I'm confused because I see no evidence of that.

You see, I trust, my confusion.

By the way, I still think you are wrong to deny poor women control over their own bodies.

[mondo joe]

129. Do you support the right of even poor women to choose abortion?

Even if their choice is influenced by economics?

[Cleita]

148. I'm in agreement with you on this and with Sapphire Blue about

the exploitation issue. I have in the past allowed myself to be used as a guinea pig by pharma companies who paid me to test new drugs. What I got in return besides some money was the prescription drugs for my asthma that I couldn't afford to buy back then. It seems that perhaps not paying for the eggs would take exploitation out of the equation. Then it would be the choice of the woman whether to be a donor or not.

[ulysses]

151. hey, Cleita

I understand the exploitation issue, but weren't you better off having the asthma drugs than not? I know that's not a particularly compelling argument, and you should have been able to get the drugs without offering yourself up as a test subject, but the inequities in the system aren't going away tomorrow. Until they do, I guess I'm more in favor of offering the money now and working to end the inequality of access as soon as we possibly can (someone needs to light a fire under the Dem leadership again).

That's my story, and it'll probably change tomorrow. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. "very, very wrong"

Why? What are you doing to cure Parkinsons?

[demrabble]

95. What Is the OP Doing?!

What is the OP doing, you ask?

Why, the OP is posting many, many threads here in DU begging people on behalf of the poor!

And you'd better respond to some of them, or YOU won't be doing your part to alleviate poverty.

:sarcasm:

[nam78_two]

103. self-delete

self-delete.

[calimary]

153. Got news for ya, my dumpling.

Sapphire Blue does not just perform a PUBLIC SERVICE in her many posts about the plight of the poor. She frickin' IS a PUBLIC SERVICE. I can't speak for everybody here, but I do know that I myself have become wiser and a lot more educated reading her OPs, on issues about which I'm not as well-versed as I am on others. Her perspective is EXTRAORDINARILY valuable, and she brings things up that we ALL need to ruminate on, discuss, brainstorm, and - yes - attempt to problem-solve.

Maybe posting all these "bleeding heart beg-a-thons" seems silly, but if it weren't for her, MANY of us wouldn't know much about some of these issues. That's certainly true for me.

BTW - she writes with urgency, because evidently, she regards these matters as urgent, sufficiently so that she feels clearly driven to bring them to the attention of the rest of us. I've posted a few of those exhortations myself, probably to the extreme nausea and/or annoyance of more than a few people here. If anybody feels "guilted" into responding, I'd suspect the problem is not with the OP, but rather in the eyes of the reader suffering such guilty feelings. The issue of poverty is pretty damned important, brought up many multiples of times more often in the Bible than are the scant few mentions of anything even remotely suggesting homosexuality. Yet look what short shrift poverty gets by comparison. When we have a so-called pResident prancing around snickering smugly about how "money trumps peace," it's painfully obvious that our priorities as a nation (AND DEFINITELY in our White House "leadership") are - um - well - how 'bout just plain FUCKED??? I'd be yelling and screaming about it, too. In fact, in my own way, I do - spurred more often than not by something Sapphire Blue and also bobbolink posted. They have perspectives I don't have, and I find them MOST illuminating. And once this stuff is put out there, it's that much more likely SOMEBODY's gonna feel spurred to do more than just post about it. Which is precisely the point. You can't do squat to remedy some situation if you've never heard about it in the first place.

The nice thing about DU is that nobody's holding a gun to anybody else's head to post or reply to any of this stuff. Besides, if it's really bothersome anyway, there's always the "ignore" button.

[bobbolink]

155. Someone who "gets" it!!!

:applause: :patriot: :applause:

"If anybody feels "guilted" into responding, I'd suspect the problem is not with the OP, but rather in the eyes of the reader suffering such guilty feelings. "

Amen! Preach it, sistah!! Sometimes, people NEED to feel some guilt for what they have "done or left undone". Too many people suffering and dying needlessly... better we should just close our eyes, and post fluff?????

Thanks so much.... being a modern version of a leper really sux....

[Sapphire Blue]

158. ..

:hug: :loveya: :hug:

[Katherine Brengle]

96. My biggest problem with this is the danger involved --

I think women should have the right to do as they choose with their eggs, but when you couple the danger and the money... poor women with no options will be the primary donors, as well as young women in need of some quick cash who are unaware of how dangerous it could be...

[gollygee]

109. It isn't that dangerous

It has a minimal risk. I've donated eggs (for a family member who was unable to conceive) so I can vouch for that. The risk isn't much more than the risk associated with getting an IUD. So there is a risk but it's not a very big risk. I'm a mother and trust me, if there was much risk at all, I wouldn't have done it because I wouldn't have taken any chance of having my daughter go through life without me.

I personally have mixed feelings. On one hand, it's a woman's business what she does with her body. On the other hand, it does potentially take advantage of poor women for the benefit of rich people. I mean, what if we could pay people to do very high risk medical experiments, knowing they had a high probability of dying? Some would do it, even if they knew 100% they'd die, because they'd want the money for their families. No one should be put in that kind of position. This isn't to that level but it's heading in that direction.

[Katherine Brengle]

111. Women with money won't do this.

Period. It is absolutely designed to take advantage of poor women.

But I also have trouble with it, because I don't think it's right to tell a woman she *can't* do it either...

What a world we live in.

[demrabble]

113. And You Would Know This.....How?

And you know that women with money won't do this.

How, exactly, do you know this?

Are you suggesting that women with money will not be motivated perhaps by a desire to assist in finding a cure for some of the worst diseases and conditions that currently plague humanity?

Do you also think that laws that allow men to donate their sperm for money are absolutely designed to take advantage of poor men?

[gollygee]

115. Well it isn't worth it

250 pounds is less than $500. And you have to give yourself injections for a couple of weeks before hand. And you bloat up so you like 4 or 5 months pregnant for several days after. It isn't as easy as just going in and giving blood. It's a pain in the ass. Almost literally. You'd have to be pretty poor to be willing to do it, and even then you wouldn't be able to do it in a moment of panic because it has to be lined up with your cycle and you have to take the hormones for a while ahead of time.

[demrabble]

116. Not Worth It...Unless.....

From the article:

"Anyone agreeing to donate will have to show that they are acting for altruistic reasons, for example because they have a close relative suffering with one of the conditions scientists are trying to develop new treatments for with the aid of human eggs."

It seems to me that if I had a close relative who was suffering with something like Parkinson's Disease or epilepsy or ALS or AIDS or diabetes or some other condition that could possibly be cured, I just might think the "pain in the ass" would be worth it.

Regardless of whether I was rich or poor.

[mondo joe]

117. Financial gain isn't the only motivation for such a donation. There are professional,

educated women making egg donations already, because they think it's a good thing to do.

[gollygee]

127. Yes, and needing cash isn't the only reason to join the military

but if you're poor and don't have a lot of options if you need money, and the Army is offering a cash incentive to join, you might sign up for the money and fight rich people's wars for them.

[mondo joe]

130. I'm not clear on what the suggested alternative is.

Some people who take part in scientific studies do so for a small cash incentive. Some are health care professionals who believe in supporting research.

Some people give blood for money. Some do because they care about having stocked blood banks.

Some women will donate eggs for the money. Some will do it for money.

Should lower income people be denied these choices to ensure those who do so are completely altruistic?

[gollygee]

140. Perhaps it is unethical for money to exchange hands

in these situations.

[mondo joe]

142. Perhaps so. But IMO, we virtually all make trade of our bodies for economic gain.

So I don't see a reason to deny others the option to do so, or to judge for themselves the uses to which they put their bodies and/or skills.

[demrabble]

135. Yes, But In Our Society....

Well, of course, if you're poor and don't have a lot of options and if you need money, and the Army is offering you a cash incentive, you might sign up for the money and fight rich people's wars for them.

But it is also true that if you're poor and don't have a lot of options and if you need money, and someone is offering you money to:

1} Clean rich people's bathrooms for them
2) Wash rich people's cars for them
3) Mow rich pepole's lawns for them
4) Sell rich people clothes.
5) Serve rich people food
6) Mine rich people's coal
7) Manufacture rich people's cars
8) Service rich people's cars
9) Slaughter rich people's animals so that other rich people can eat fine food.

No matter what just about anyone -- poor or even middle class -- does for money in our society, they are doing it for rich people.

[gollygee]

139. Somehow, selling your body parts feels worse

than the things in your list.

[mondo joe]

143. I'm asking this respectfully, but isn't that a rather personal choice?

If you look at the diversity of humanity, it seems plain to me that even when given equal opportunity people make very different individual choices based on personal preference.

I can think of many things that seem worse to me than the choices I've made - but my choices certainly must seem worse to those same people.

[gollygee]

145. Well like I said in an earlier post, I'm torn on this

because I see both sides.

The problem I have is that if people are kept in poverty, then everything like this that comes up becomes less of a choice and more of a necessity. In this case, eggs. Next time, what, a kidney? Or maybe undergoing a dangerous pharm. test? It isn't really a choice if the other choice is to not have enough money to get by, just like it isn't really a choice to not join the army if you don't have other options available for work.

[mondo joe]

146. I'd suggest the best route is to work to increase the choices for people in poverty - not

decrease them, or substitute anyone else's judgment for theirs.

(If I sound snarky I don't mean to - that's a sincere suggestions.)

[gollygee]

147. I just don't want to see poor people turned into commodities

Within the much less than perfect system we have now, we seem (to me) to be putting people into the following position:

We entice them to go into debt
We ship their jobs overseas
We ship their neighbors' jobs overseas too so there's lots of competition for not many jobs
We take away their ability to declare bankruptcy

Then what . . .

We give cash incentives to join the military
We pay women to donate eggs?

What else could we do?

We could let women sell their babies (I am not opposed to adoption but I don't think women should be paid to place their babies for adoption - it should be a choice available to them)
We could let people sell a kidney
We could let people go into dangerous medical tests for money
Etc.

It isn't the egg donation thing that bothers me specifically. Although "donating" is a misnomer in this circumstance. What bothers me is the whole environment that poor people can get into, and what few options they're given. If the only options they're given are dangerous (which I don't think donating eggs is as I stated above) or potentially dehumanizing, which I think selling body parts could be (not sure about eggs though), then that's just wrong. And the answer isn't to give more dangerous and dehumanizing options. The answer is to give them good options.

Anyway, it isn't a really specific disagreement I have with this - it's more of a general sense that it's potentially hurtful depending on the environment.

[Katherine Brengle]

154. If people were going to be moved enough on a large scale to donate for the scientific

value alone, they wouldn't pay because they wouldn't need to.

You honestly believe that upper-middle class women and middle class women will be showing up in droves to have their eggs sucked out? Bullshit.

[antigop]

101. Sapphire, thank you for your continued efforts on DU to support the poor and homeless n/t

[nam78_two]

104. Agreed-SB is one of DU's best

A toast to SB :toast:!

[calimary]

157. No kidding. If you have any doubt, anybody remember how many

hearts she had during the Valentine's Day fundraiser? I myself couldn't count that high.

[Crandor]

106. How is opposing an opportunity to earn some money "supporting the poor and homeless"? nt

[antigop]

107. I'm not involved in the current debate, just thanking Sapphire for continued support of the poor n/

[EFerrari]

119. Because poor women shouldn't have to resort to sellling pieces of their bodies

to EAT.

[mondo joe]

128. Are you under the impression that the women donating eggs for pay are impoverished

and doing it to get food to eat?

Are you really????

[calimary]

156. Well, I can remember hearing stories from my father-in-law about

how he was so poor he got extra money selling a pint of his blood here and there when he was young. That's the only way he was able to afford a marriage license so he and my mother-in-law could get married.

I'm sure there are some women who'll probably see this as little more than "an 'easy' opportunity to make a few extra bucks." But when your back is to the wall, you have no job, no home, no prospects, no NOTHING, maybe this looks like manna from heaven - at least on the surface. It's just a really sad thing when a woman in these circumstances will feel compelled to take the money in the short-term, willingly mortgaging her health in the long run because she needs the bucks NOW.

[ulysses]

110. much agreed!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

108. embryos are still just embryos not babies.

people who die of sickness, that can be cured from this research are however humans.

[EFerrari]

120. Very true. But I can see how poor women could so easily be exploited

by this practice. Somehow I don't see anyone anywhere really taking measures to ensure that they won't be. :(

[Irreverend IX]

144. Scientific progress is a good thing.

I could care less about embryos. In fact, I think it's rather amusing to watch the fundies weep and gnash their teeth over "the destruction of human life."