by Furry Girl

05.21.12

"The Web sites I found, trolling through hundreds of Google hits for 'egg donor' were similar, placing heavy emphasis on the motivation of donors.  They spoke of fulfillment, of 'making a difference,' of 'one of the most loving gifts one woman can give to another.'  The pictures were of babies, clouds, building blocks.  The site I chose was among the most thickly written, its invitation to donate dripping with hyper-feminized expressions of motherhood and generosity.  It was the linguistic equivalent of a doily.

[...]

The application also asked, 'What is the least amount of compensation you will consider accepting for an egg donation?'  Elsewhere, the agency stated that it would not accept requests of more than $10,000.  So I typed in: $10,000.

[...]

When I suggested later that the egg-for-dollars swap is hardly a donation, [the doctor] looked genuinely confused and changed the subject to my egg-producing potential.

[...]

The mainstreaming of fertility treatments contributes to a larger concern among cultural conservatives, who worry egg donation is a step on the way to the much-feared designer baby.  'Do you really want to pick a kid the way you shop for a car?' Reader's Digest asked in 2001.  Feminists, too, find the mixture of capitalistic enterprise and female bodies disturbing.  The Nation's Katha Pollitt has called surrogacy 'reproductive prostitution.'  Sexual anxieties make for strange bedfellows: In 2004 National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote a column slamming egg donation, approvingly quoting Pollitt.

While egg prices range from a few thousand dollars to $30,000 or more, ASRM guidelines recommend donors receive a maximum of $10,000, above which compensation is deemed 'inappropriate.'  Paradoxically, such guidelines are sold as being in the interest of the donor, usually portrayed as cash-strapped and naive.  In the words of the President's Council on Bioethics, such women tend to be from 'financially vulnerable populations,' which implies they need protection from the temptation of incurring bodily risk for profit."

-- Kerry Howley in Ova for Sale on reason.com

I support the consensual selling of organs, bodily fluids, tissue, and eggs/sperm, as well as women renting out their uteruses for surrogacy, or people being paid participants in medical research.  The same arguments hurled at sex workers are also deployed against other "weird" or "possibly dangerous" uses of one's body for income.  (Though very few people will apply that condemnation of occupations with physical injury risk to sports, agriculture, construction, the military, manual labor, or any number of blue collar jobs.)

Also: the euphemisms and bullshit parade that accompany egg-selling remind me of the prostitutes who put on airs about how they are "erotic journey facilitators," "tantric healers," and "sacred goddess practitioners."





3 Comments

  1. My main concern with the libertarian ideal is that it doesn't take into account the huge differences in wealth and power. It's one thing for relatively wealthy people to decide to sell body parts or perform sexual acts for money and quite another for someone who can't find a job and is in danger of being homeless or starving to death. Another way to think about it is that poor people would be able to sell kidneys but never buy them.

    The argument about dangerous jobs is the same - if people can provide for their existence without having to resort to dangerous working conditions, but choose to do so for the extra pay, okay. But if there are no jobs and it's either starve or risk your life, it's not much of a choice. Note that most of the military people who are getting killed and maimed come from the lower classes. Not too many rich kids volunteer for military duty because they have a lot more options.

    I agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy in the egg donor situation. But unlike Furry Girl or libertarians in general, I do think a lot of things should not be for sale. That doesn't mean I would make selling them illegal though - that just adds a second wrong (state sanctioned violence) into the mix.

    Comment by James S — May 24, 2012 @ 10:57 am

  2. James: I'm not a libertarian, so I can't speak to any quibbles you have with that ideology. (I have plenty of my own, but that's another topic.) However, it's wrong to assume that people who are poor/disadvantaged are entitled to fewer rights than people who are wealthy, or that they are less capable of making their own decisions. A poor woman has as much right to sell her eggs as does the most privileged woman. While we'd probably all agree that it's sad when people do something they find painful or degrading out of desperation for money, the solution is never to take away someone's choices. The "won't someone please think of the poors!" argument leads only to the conclusion that it is "morally superior" for the poor and disadvantaged to starve than do things that offend the sensibilities of the middle and upper classes. More choices, not fewer choices, should always be the goal of human rights advocates.

    Comment by Furry Girl — May 24, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

  3. Stumbled on your blog while trying to get a perspective on cam girls. I'm not in agreement on your libertarian tendencies, but I respect them and love the way you write. All of which is long way of saying: I love how much actual bullshit you call bullshit. Keep it up!

    Comment by HornyGuyWhoLovesWomen — June 2, 2012 @ 11:26 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Furry Girl: a good time not yet had by all.

Activism

My adult sites

More of me online

Enjoy my writing? I enjoy presents!

Buy SWAAY shirts:

Browse by topic

New to my blog? Some favorite posts

Favorite sex/ho blogs

Videos and podcasts

Sex workers' rights info

Search

RSS