Fresh (Human) Eggs for Sale

Women can sell their eggs to people who want to make babies. Why can't they sell them to researchers who want to save lives?

Last week researchers announced that they had created stem cell lines using human eggs for the first time. The goal of this research, funded by the private non-profit New York Stem Cell Foundation (NYSCF), is to create stem cells that could be transformed into tissues and organs for use in transplants and other procedures where a perfect genetic match greatly increases the chances of success.

In this case, the researchers added the nuclei taken from donors’ adult skin cells to unfertilized human eggs. The stem cells they produced this way contain three sets of chromosomes rather than the standard two; what researchers call triploid rather than diploid. While these triploid cells are therapeutically useless, the researchers believe that studying them will lead to breakthroughs that will enable them to produce transplantable cells some day.

Heretofore, researchers have been able to produce cloned stem cells for lots of different animals but not for humans. One reason for this difference is that animal eggs for use in stem cell research are much more plentiful than human eggs.

Why is there a shortage of human eggs for research? In part, because bioethicists endorse the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) guidelines that forbid paying women more than their expenses for donating eggs for research. (In contrast, women are free to sell their eggs for thousands of dollars for use in assisted reproduction.) Fortunately for the NYSCF researchers, New York changed its regulations in 2009, allowing researchers to pay women for their eggs. This enabled the NYSCF researchers to obtain 270 eggs from 16 women.

The New York researchers paid the women $8,000 each for their eggs. They even jumped through another ethical hoop by working with a Columbia University fertility clinic that paid the women for their eggs. The women were paid in advance and were only asked after harvesting to choose between directing them to either reproductive or research purposes.

Nevertheless, many bioethicists agree with the NAS prohibition and still oppose paying women for their eggs. “This new form of research cloning, like the old one, still represents a highly speculative approach to stem cell research,” declared Marcy Darnovsky, the associate executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, in California. “We should not put the health of young women at risk, especially to get raw materials for such exploratory investigations.”

According to The Washington Post, University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Jonathan Moreno worries that the new stem cell research gets into “paying-for-organs controversy,” adding, “I've always felt it would be better to keep this field out of those areas of debate. We've got enough problems." Executive director of the Boston-based women’s health group, Our Bodies, Ourselves, Judy Norsigian agreed, “I do have some very serious concerns about such wholesale solicitation of young women for their eggs at such very attractive prices.”

The main risk that women run is ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), in which the ovaries become swollen and fluid can leak into the belly and chest area. In the NYSCF research, one woman actually produced 26 eggs. The good news is that a review of the medical literature published in the current issue of the American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) finds that the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome among women who donate their eggs is very low. Ellison and Meliker note that when proper precautions are taken into account the risk of OHSS is “diminished even further to almost zero.”

Stony Brook University bioethicist Brooke Ellison and preventive medicine professor Jaymie Meliker note that many opponents of egg buying argue that poor women would disproportionately subject themselves to this risk. After reviewing the OHSS data, they conclude the risk of “OHSS for women of any socioeconomic status does not appear to be so great as to warrant policies preventing women from donating eggs.” They also point out lots of activities that society encourages people to undertake including participation in clinical trials and some forms of manual labor are far more risky than egg harvesting. Note also that another recent study estimated that the risk of death from ovarian hyperstimulation is between 1 in 45,000 and 1 in 500,000, comparable to your lifetime risk of dying of a lightning strike (1 in 80,000). These mortality estimates are based on an earlier version of the treatment. Newer protocols cut the risk even more.

So if risks of selling eggs for research are not all that great, why is there so much opposition to it? Ellison and Brooke mention in passing the possibility of “the existence of paternalism in denying women the right to donate their eggs if they so choose.” In another AJOB article, University of Washington bioethicist Kathryin Hinsch and Univeristy of Miami bioethicist Robin Fiore, note that paying women for eggs used in assisted reproduction is routine. Reason Contributing Editor Kerry Howley chronicled her experience selling a dozen of her eggs in 2006 for $10,000.

“The only difference between providing oocytes [eggs] for reproduction and providing oocytes for research is that only the former can be compensated,” observe Hinsch and Fiore. They add, “Since fears of commoditization and exploitation apply equally to both, the ban on compensation for research oocytes can only be explained by the politics of stem cell research.” There is a whiff of paternalism wafting off the statements of Darnovsky, Moreno, and Norsigian against allowing women to sell their eggs for research. If the risks of producing eggs for ressearch are, as recent data suggest, minimal, then surely Hinsch and Fiore are right when they assert: "It is actually prohibiting payment that is exploitative of women: not paying them fairly for their time, inconvenience and risk, and their contribution to financially rewarding science."

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • RyanXXX||

    Threadjack (since honestly who gives a fuck about this article):

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/.....d=14711933

    This can't be good news for anyone, except maybe Israel

  • People are Property||

    Nice try. We're going to stay on topic: people as property to be owned, used, and abused.

  • 300-Pound Persian Cat||

    What?

    That's right; you ain't doin' nuthin'.

  • People are Property||

    People are Property to be bought, sold and used.

    Sound like a BDSM novel yet?

  • Libertarian Abuse||

    Don't forget abused.

    He'd like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him....Slave-master Rafe would never shell out the cold cash if, after he paid, I could haul him into court on assault and battery charges when he whipped me.

    Voluntary Slave Contracts
by Walter Block
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html

  • White Hypocrite||

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_2503582

    "Now that the doctor says I can use my body again physically to preserve and improve soil..."

    Taking advantage of modern medicine? Check!

    posted originally by OuterSunsetAnthropologist http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_2555788

    "White Indian, I am wondering how much time you have ever spent gamboling about the forest and plain? From the tone of your posts it seems as if you haven't done very much. That's unfortunate because you seem to have some very strange version of the world of the hunter and gatherer. It betrays someone who hasn't spent much time at all in wilderness. I have. I've spent weeks at a time in the wilderness. Days of it alone. I've fished and hunted, not done much gathering, but that would be possible if you learned about edible plants. Making simple structures to live in is not that difficult to learn. There is plenty of national forest land and BLM land in Montana, Alaska or Canada. You could also try the Amazon. I'd recommend spending some time with the Huarani in the eastern forest of Ecuador. I'll give you directions to a tribe of hunter gatherers who live off the Rio Napo. Some of them have old Michael Jackson t-shirts, but they hunt and gather everything they eat. I have friends who bow hunt elk and deer every year in Western Montana, although I'd suggest bartering for a .308 from the People of the Grain before you head off. A deer would feed you for a while if you dried it right. You might want some metal tools as well, at least till you make your own out of stone. You could try it for a year and then report back here. The life of a hunter gatherer is amazingly difficult, I doubt if you could hack it for a week, let alone a year. There are people who actually do what you endorse as some kind of ideal. They still exist. You are not one of them and never will be because you could not stand it and you know it."

    Espousing the virtues of untamed nature and wilderness while enjoying the benefits of agri-State[CULTURE]science... double check!

    Did you ever take him up on his offer White Numbnuts? You know, I'm forced through government threat of violence to pay taxes - no one forces you to use a computer and consume internet-meme culture (probably the most schizophrenic manifestation of modern civilization). You gladly consume and gobble up all the trinkets and baubles of city-state life, low-life hypocrite scum.

  • White Indian||

    God, I've got stalkers now. Cool. I feel very important. LOL

    I had to come back to where the easy marks are.

    People who rail against the state.

    Until....they switch....

    And gather the wagons around the agricultural city State with their progressivist, socialist, communist, and neo-con brethren.

    It just cracks me up.

  • cynical||

    True. The State owns all women in its territory, and thus gets to dictate the price of their eggs. It has graciously decided to make them free, but could make them three fiddy or a million dollars, if it wanted.

  • Libertarian Snuff Films, Inc.||

    There's a big free market in snuff porn. Just watch out for the pervert asking you: do you own yourself? They only want to dehumanize and objectify you as property...

    LIBERTARIAN MASTER: Do you own your body?

    MOM: [holding sick child] Yes.


    MASTER: And what can you do with property you own?

    MOM: Sell it?

    MASTER: Correct. Do you voluntarily sell yourself to me so I'll pay for your child's health care?

    MOM: Yes, I'm desperate.

    MASTER: Answer yes or no, and then sign here.

    MOM: Yes. [signs contract]

    MASTER: Did you once own your body, bitch?

    SLAVE MOM: Yes, Master.

    
MASTER: Now I own you. What can an owner do with any property?


    SLAVE MOM: Dispose of it?

    MASTER: That's right, bitch. [BANG!] [fap fap fap fap fap fap fap]

  • Max||

    Dude you're getting me hot n bothered

  • Tony||

    Soooooooo wet

  • ||

    Young, Pleistocene-era girl roughly 10 years old approaches her father:

    CAVE GIRL: Look dad! I discovered something! When you have two rocks, and two more rocks, you have FOUR ROCKS!

    *Caveman dad, eyes slowly widening in terror and rage, mouth starts foaming*

    CAVEMAN DAD: Math?! MATH!? FUCKING SLAVER! DIE! YOU WILL NEVER OPPRESS US WITH ABSTRACT THOUGHT!

    *Bashes daughter's brains against rock. Hands still covered in the warm ichor of his offspring's grey matter and skull bits, he becomes aroused, and starts slowly pleasuring himself*

    CAVEMAN DAD: Ah man that feels good... wait, WAIT! SHIT! I communicated with her using LANGUAGE! FUCK! I'M A SLAVER TOO! NOOOOOOOO.

    *Caveman dad then impales himself, anus first, on wooley mammoth tusk*.

    The End.

  • ||

    "Among the Walmadjeri and Gugadja of Australia, rites of passage involve genital mutilations, intensive religious instruction, blood rites, and extended pilgrimages to sacred sites."

    http://www.anth.uconn.edu/facu.....s2009.pdf, pg 5.

    Guess what "socio-cultural typology" the Walmadjeri and Gugadja belong to?

  • White Indian||

    If you consider circumcision to be violent, then agricultural civilization is much more violent as circumcision is much more prevalent.

    But thanks for the article; humans are always interesting to study.

  • derp derpers party||

    Most modern estimates are between 1/6th and 1/3rd of the population, most of them being Muslim countries, the US, and Israel. Jews started doing it around 4000BC, Muslims from around 700AD. I wonder how many tens of thousands of years the aborigines have been doing it?

  • White Indian||

    Thanks, derp. Circumcision was practiced by a "limited number of Aboriginal nations in Arnhem Land and the desert areas of what is now the Northern Territory and parts of Western and South Australia." http://www.circumstitions.com/Australia.html

    Like I've said a dozen times, there was less violence and more security in Non-State sociopolitical typologies.

    If you want to think in binary, black-white juvenile thinking, have at it.
    Humans have always had violence. Civilization increases violence notably, mostly via the city-STATE.

    Libertarians even make note of it, save for the fact they are confused about what the State actually is - it's just one aspect of an integrated system - the agricultural city-State.

  • ||

    Like I've said a dozen times, there was less violence and more security in Non-State sociopolitical typologies.

    "As to internal violence, the !Kung homicide rate, Lee found, is 29.3 per 100,000 person years, some three times that of even the United States."

    Nicholas Wade Before the Dawn p. 69

  • White Indian||

    Thanks for cherry picking one datum. I can do the same thing. Massachusetts' homicide rate is one third that of South Carolina, thus we know liberals are less violent than conservatives. Think that conclusion would hold up?

    So, to address your statistic:

    First, Knauft points out that such violence comes from the changing nature of Bushmen life as their old way of life is shattered and they are settled into a new, sedentary lifestyle.

    Bruce M. Knauft, Violence among Newly Sedentary Foragers: American Anthropologist, Volume 92. Issue 4. December 1990 (Pages 1013 - 1015)

    Second, looking at only the !Kung homocide rate, which is half of Washington D.C.'s, is not looking at all violence. You'll need to also consider:

    War
    the violence done by police
    incarceration (1 in 37 adults in the United States)
    Implied violence behind tax collection

    In civilization’s pursuit of a peaceful society, the “Monopoly of Force” has succeeded only in making every aspect of society violent.

    ~Jason Godesky
    Noble or Savage? Both. (Part 1)
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....th-part-1/

    But, I do compliment you. At least you're considering empirical data now, instead of leaning on unsubstantiated premises. Get rid of your cherrypicking and confirmation bias, and you'll go far.

  • ||

    I don't have to show anything else than the statement

    there was less violence and more security

    is false.

  • Progressive||

    Thanks, neoteny. All progressivists know the agricultural city-State has brought humans peace and security.

  • ||

    On average more peace & security than in hunter-gatherer tribes.

  • Robert||

    Why don't we ask our resident cave man if there's any validity to this story?

  • ||

    "watch out for the pervert asking you: do you own yourself? They only want to dehumanize and objectify you as property..."

    There are a number of fallacies employed here, and as a favor to you I'll name a couple.

    ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominem, argumentum ad consequentum. You're welcome.

  • Doctor Whom||

    I know people who would passionately side with that prohibition but who are just as passionately pro-choice on abortion. Do women have the right to make choices over their own bodies, including their own reproductive systems, yes or no?

  • Libertarian Cyborgs, Inc.||

    What about women selling live fetuses to be extracted for cyborg development?

  • ||

    http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/facul.....11ajhb.pdf

    "Spousal Violence and Paternal Disinvestment Among Tsimane’ Forager-Horticulturalists"

    "Results: Over 85% of women experienced physical wife abuse (n 5 49). Indicators of paternal disinvestment positively co-vary with indicators of marital strife and with rates of wife abuse. The wife’s age, matrilocal residence, and presence of joint dependent offspring decrease the likelihood of violence through direct and indirect routes."

  • Market Economy = More Violence||

    Bad things happens when civilization invades and occupies, doesn't it? I think you shot yourself in your foot, dumbshit libertarian.

    Tsimane’ society is gradually undergoing integration into the market economy. Sporadic wage labor opportunities exist for men, but usually not for women, and men exercise considerable control over the use of the small amounts of money they acquire.

    Spousal Violence and Paternal Disinvestment Among Tsimane’
    Forager-Horticulturalists, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 23:445–457 (2011)

  • White Hypocrite||

    BZZZT. Wrong. Where is Gurven suggesting this as the main causal variable?

    As for "invading and occupying": "Wage labor opportunities exist outside
    of the Reserve
    as either laborers for ranchers or itinerant
    river merchants, or through commercial logging." http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/facul.....11ajhb.pdf

    These noble foragers choose ALL ON THEIR OWN to engage in wage labor, and choose ALL ON THEIR OWN to keep it from their wives. And the wages they earn are only ONE ASPECT of their resources. Indeed, as Gurven notes early on:

    "They are traditionally matrilocal early in marriage, have limited residential privacy and exposure to violence in media, they do not own land and exhibit relatively low variance in socioeconomic status within and across sexes, they produce most of their own food, and they lack formal
    patriarchal institutions."

    Despite their wonderful gender-egalitarianism, and lack of patriarchal CIV structures, the women still get the crap beaten out of them. OWNED.

  • White Indian||

    Nice try. You brought up an example of traditional peoples in upheaval as civilization invades and occupies - and shoves them into marginal land called a "Reserve."

    I can come up with worse examples of what civilization does to traditional society.

    "Groups only lightly touched by aggressive cultures retained much of their basic sociosensual child nurture and instinctive intuitive rapport. These core traits declined as the force of conquest increased. In the face of sustained demanding contact, open sociosensuality largely disappeared from view, to reshape as a confined covert type (seen inside houses, at sea on boats, in obscure nooks, and in isolated social fringes). Where preconquest populations were unrelentingly besieged by harsh conquistadorial demands, intuitive rapport sometimes suddenly give way en masse, precipating a period of acute existential crisis. Arising from such crises was the `savage-savage’ who caused much of the mayhem and disorder seen in those disturbed and dangerous zones that so often barricaded entrance to remnant preconquest areas."

    Preconquest Consciousness
    E. Richard Sorenson
    Tribal Epistemologies: Essays in the Philosophy of Anthropology, Helmut Wautischer, ed.
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/v.....econquest/

  • ||

    From "Nisa: The life and words of a !Kung woman" http://books.google.com/books?.....ed&f=false pg. 66

    "It was during one of the early months of her pregnancy that my father became so angry at my mother that he kicked her in the stomach and she almost miscarried."

    So pure. So true to nature.

  • Good read||

    Nearly all mammals are violent and many sometimes commit infanticide, including humans until modern times.

    I've never made any claim that paleolithic life was a utopia or perfect.

    I have made a claim that it was less violent, and research bears that out.

    But enjoy the book - it's good, yet a sad story of the !Kung's lives being ruined by invading and occupying civilization.

  • Fluffy||

    Their lives were already ruined before.

  • Original Ruin||

    Are whales' lives ruined because they live as they naturally evolved?

    Are squirrels' lives ruined because they live as they naturally evolved?

    Are crows'lives ruined because they live as they naturally evolved?

    If not, then how are humans' lives ruined because they live as they naturally evolved?

    Any evolutionary biological explanation for your position of "original ruin"? Or are humans originally sinful, and only God, Country, and Civilization can drive the evil out of them?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A query: What have you eaten today? Was it something you hunted, killed, and/or butchered yourself? Was it something that you gathered in the forest?

  • Tony||

    Did you drive on government roads today?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I dunno, have you stopped beating your spouse?

  • nope||

    Government roads are almost always, the only road, with no other option. However, it is perfectly legal, and in some areas even encouraged, to hunt and kill animals. Analogy fail.

  • sevo||

    "Did you drive on government roads today?"

    Shithead, do you have anything that would fool someone into believing you had thoughts today?

  • ||

    It's MY fucking road cause it was built using MY fucking money. Idiot

  • derp derpers party||

    The "encroaching civilization" = some cattle herders, one of whom Nisa marries. Oh noes!

  • White Indian||

    More than that. Read the book.

  • ||

    WI: You might want to read Steven Pinker's terrific new book which cites reams of paleo-anthropological evidence showing that pre-state tribal societies experienced vastly more violence than people living in state societies. Title: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

  • crickets||

    *chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp*

  • White Indian||

    Thank you. Got it, Ron.

    It' a good read, but he's skewing the data, and apologizing for civilization. You can sell lots of books telling how grand civilization is and how great it's going to be.

    My analysis of violence pre-agricultural city-State and post agricultural city-State includes:

    • the violence done by police
    • incarceration (1 in 37 adults in the United States)
    • Implied violence behind tax collection

    Since libertarians also speak against the implied threat of violence by the agricultural city-State, you can't drop it when its convenient in apologizing for the agricultural city-State.

  • ||

    WI: with due respect, I do not think that you are being objective about the data Pinker extensively cites. BTW, Pinker goes into great detail about the numbers of people killed by governments and as a percentage they pale in comparison to the violence of primitive non-state societies. Read it fairly and perhaps data will change your mind.

  • White Indian||

    I've read Pinker's books (they're valuable) and have them in my library.

    He's skewing the data on violence.

    A good summary of how follows:

    Here's the thing. The data Pinker (and others) have been using over the last few years for "hunter-gatherers" includes mostly, or at least in large number, groups that are not hunter gatherers, such as the Ya̧nomamö or various groups in New Guinea .

    These groups have exceptionally high rates of violence. There is not valid argument to force them into a hunter-gatherer category, and for some (but not all) they were hunter-gatherers not too long ago. But this is where the Evolutionary Psychology way of thinking about human behavioral becomes embarrassingly wrong...

    Pinkers New Book Has A Fundamental Flaw ...
    by Greg Laden | September 19, 2011

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregla.....undame.php

    Like I said, there is money to be made selling books that make people feel good about their "just-so stories" of the dominant culture, and I think that's what Pinker did. Even if not, he's skewing the data.

  • White Indian||

    I've read Pinker's books (they're valuable) and have them in my library.

    He's skewing the data on violence.

    A good summary of how follows:

    Here's the thing. The data Pinker (and others) have been using over the last few years for "hunter-gatherers" includes mostly, or at least in large number, groups that are not hunter gatherers, such as the Ya̧nomamö or various groups in New Guinea .

    These groups have exceptionally high rates of violence. There is not valid argument to force them into a hunter-gatherer category, and for some (but not all) they were hunter-gatherers not too long ago. But this is where the Evolutionary Psychology way of thinking about human behavioral becomes embarrassingly wrong...

    Pinkers New Book Has A Fundamental Flaw ...
    by Greg Laden | September 19, 2011

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregla.....undame.php

    Like I said, there is money to be made selling books that make people feel good about their "just-so stories" of the dominant culture, and I think that's what Pinker did. Even if not, he's skewing the data.

  • White Indian||

    I've read Pinker's books (they're valuable) and have them in my library.

    He's skewing the data on violence.

    A good summary of how follows:

    Here's the thing. The data Pinker (and others) have been using over the last few years for "hunter-gatherers" includes mostly, or at least in large number, groups that are not hunter gatherers, such as the Ya̧nomamö or various groups in New Guinea .

    These groups have exceptionally high rates of violence. There is not valid argument to force them into a hunter-gatherer category, and for some (but not all) they were hunter-gatherers not too long ago. But this is where the Evolutionary Psychology way of thinking about human behavioral becomes embarrassingly wrong...

    Pinkers New Book Has A Fundamental Flaw ...
    by Greg Laden | September 19, 2011

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregla.....undame.php

    Like I said, there is money to be made selling books that make people feel good about their "just-so stories" of the dominant culture, and I think that's what Pinker did. Even if not, he's skewing the data.

  • White Indian||

    By the way, Mr. Bailey, thanks for the friendly, courteous debate. It's what I've sought here and thought I could find here.

  • wuzzle-wazzle||

    As opposed to people like Jared Diamond or Charles Mann - both of whose books routinely dominate the best-seller list. You just don't like that books exist which interrupt your narrative.

  • wuzzle-wazzle||

    The US has abnormally high incarceration rates, they can't alone be the representative of all OECD nations. Not to mention that "incarceration" is just the "city-state" method of punishment - hunter-gatherers had punishment as well. Further, Pinker didn't include "implied" threats for any of the subjects studied. Why would he include it only for modern states?

    Your link is absurd, Pinker doesn't just focus on one tribal group, he looks at tons of paleo-archaeological data. At the very least, his data is no more "suspect" than Mann's, who just decides that the high-counters are automatically right.

  • White Indian||

    I've got Jared Diamond's and Charles Mann's books, and have quoted them here extensively.

  • etc||

    What about women selling live fetuses to be extracted for cyborg development?

    That would be awesome. I would gladly halve the cost of one my own fresh, genetically standard fetuses for such a worthy cause.

  • ||

    Do women have the right to make choices over their own bodies, including their own reproductive systems, yes or no?

    Add prostitution and pornography to the list if you really want to see pro-choice progressives lose their mind. Exchanges between consenting adults are terrible, killing unborn children comes right after life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    "[K]illing unborn children comes" Biased much?

  • ||

    Only if their choices lead to an immediate and tangible benefit, ie, a child born to a couple incapable of conception without benefit of a viable oocyte.

  • kilroy||

    Too much stupid in this thread already.

  • ||

    It's like 90% retard troll posts. I think someone got some new meds for herself!

  • White Indian||

    What's retarded is holding these two libertarian beliefs simultaneously:

    1. The State makes life worse.
    2. Life got better under the city-State.

    Got contradiction?

  • Metazoan||

    I'm beginning to think WI is like the herps- it only pops up now and then, but you've got it for life :(

  • Ska||

    Worst thread ever.

  • Fluffy||

    Getting $0 for something = not exploitation

    Getting lots of $ for something = exploitation

    Why doesn't this apply to auto workers, too?

  • ||

    I'm in favor of anyone selling any part of their body they want. Well, maybe not my wife, but we could discuss it!

  • Zeb||

    If there was ever a troll to ignore it is this primitivist dipshit. He has one trick and does it poorly. Please stop encouraging him to shit on every thread.

    Back to the topic at hand. Are there really no feminists with enough imagination to be outraged that a bunch of old men are trying to tell women what they can do with their own bodies?

  • ||

    Executive director of the Boston-based women’s health group, Our Bodies, Ourselves, Judy Norsigian agreed, “I do have some very serious concerns about such wholesale solicitation of young women for their eggs at such very attractive prices.”

    I believe it has something to do with the fact that the voices of feminism, including the quoted Judy Norsigian here, are too old to produce eggs. I wonder how much of their gatekeeping is motivated by a latent bitterness at the fact that they are no longer young enough to be sought as egg producers.

    I think this is also true of the most strident campaigners against pornography. Locally, we have groups who protest "bikini barista" espresso stands, where the baristas are nubile co-eds who wear bikinis or less. The faces of the protestors always seem to be of older and/or otherwise unattractive women who phrase their disgust as either (1) protection for the children, of course, or (2) an abhorrence of "exploiting" these poor young girls. It's bitterness and insecurity.

  • White Indian||

    What's dipshit is holding these two libertarian beliefs simultaneously:

    1. The State makes life worse.
    2. Life got better under the city-State.

    Got contradiction?

  • ||

    1) Not drinking water can kill you
    2) Drinking water can kill you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)

    What to do, what to do...

  • White Indian||

    Government is as essential to human existence as water and oxygen*?

    * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

  • ||

    Hey, if you can do false dichotomies, so can I...

  • White Indian||

    I'm not making false dichotomies.

    Libertarians simultaneously excoriate the State and then praise the State.

    It's contradictory, mainly because they have the mistaken notion that the State can somehow be divorced from the agricultural city-State.

    It can't.

    Invasive and occupational State aggression is integral in making the agricultural city-State work like it does.

    "Agriculture creates government." ~Thomas Manning, Against the Grain, p.73

  • ||

    I'm not making false dichotomies.

    Yes you are; absolutely no state/govt. on one end, oppressively micromanaging, high-taxing & redistributive on the other end.

  • JMW||

    It's almost as if there's some kind of no-man's-land in between the extremes!

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    I'm a feminist, and I don't like this law (or sleep).

  • wayne||

    Ron Bailey, has PGP ever actually taken a DNA sample from you? I got accepted as a participant a few months ago, and they are finally sending me a saliva kit, due to arrive in a week or so.

  • ||

    Yes - sent my samples in a few weeks ago.

  • ¢||

    Getting $0 for something = not exploitation

    Getting lots of $ for something = exploitation

    Why doesn't this apply to

    MIC CHECK

  • ||

    Ronald Bailey argues that limiting what people can do with their own bodies is real exploitation.

    Fixed it for you.

  • sevo||

    White Indian|10.11.11 @ 6:59PM|#
    "Thanks, derp."

    Folks, if you offer food to them or even leave it out, vermin *will* be attracted.
    Promise; the result is vermin shit. Every time.

  • White Indian||

    Even common courtesy upsets sevo.

  • Chaos Punk||

    Women can sell their eggs people who want to make babies. Why can't they sell them to researchers who want to save lives?

    Women can sell their eggs to people*

  • ||

    Marcy Darnovsky sez: “This new form of research cloning, like the old one, still represents a highly speculative approach to stem cell research,”

    Isn't all research speculative to some degree or another? Isn't the claim that this research is "highly" speculative her biased political opinion?
    -------
    (A)...many opponents of egg buying argue that poor women would disproportionately subject themselves to this risk.
    -or-
    (B)...many opponents of egg buying think that poor women are just too stupid to make this decision on their own.

    I think (B) is a more accurate description of reality.

  • Doctor Whom||

    I've dealt with people like that, and (B) is just how they think. I pointed out as much to one such person, and while she got upset, she couldn't explain why I was wrong.

  • SaqibImran||

    A Break through in the Medical History I must say but I don't think any Women can sell her eggs and not even See what comes from her Eggs Impossible the Spirit world will be destroyed I think the Reason is A Mother or Baby Combines through there selves moral from the spirit world so Its difficult to keep them apart or put them in any other Women Body....!!!

  • ||

    Finally, someone says what we've all been thinking.

  • JMW||

    Wat?

  • ||

    "Why can't they sell them to researchers who want to save lives?"

    Since when do libertarians care about good intentions?

  • Haunted Taint||

    OK, this is the thread that's spurred me to hack regex support into the INCIF name filter.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement