Egg Ban Cracked

Kerry Howley | February 22, 2007

Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will henceforth "allow" women to donate their eggs for research. Donors' payments will be capped to ensure the purity of their motives, but compensation aside, consider that allowing women to donate for free is still somehow controversial.

Critics say the risks are as yet undetermined, and women shouldn't be allowed to put themselves in danger even if their motives are wholly charitable. It's a line of argument you rarely see applied to, say, patriotic men joining a volunteer army. The implication is that women are uniquely vulnerable, tempted not just by cash but by their own adorably feminine altruism.

I sold a batch of ova for some highly questionable motives last year.

Comments

KoWT|2.22.07 @ 11:50AM|#

I think the cover pic for the "ova for sale" issue was Reason's best cover ever

at least until the "authoritarian war on the nipple?" issue comes out

|2.22.07 @ 12:04PM|#

It's a line of argument you rarely see applied to, say, patriotic men joining a volunteer army.

That's a damn good point. The two can only be reconciled if one uses "Whatever the state wants" as a standard for determine what actions are and are not acceptable.

VM|2.22.07 @ 12:14PM|#

So, what, KoWT - you're still bummed that FHM is out of business, and the swimsuit issue just doesn't do it for you this year?
(keed keed)

It is important to this citizen that a women does have autonomy over her reproduction. Included in that autonomy is the ability to decide if one does wish to donate. That is a cornerstone of individual liberty.

Number 6: exactly! Perfectly phrased to show how absurd the one position is!

wayne|2.22.07 @ 12:23PM|#

Oh, come on. If you girls are allowed to endanger yourselves, the next thing you know there will be a bunch of young men getting hurt to pull you out of your jam.

You keep those eggs where God intended them to be, sweety. When we want them fertilized, we will do it the old fashioned way.

|2.22.07 @ 1:14PM|#

This only goes to show how far away we are from getting the free market in organs that we so desperately need.

Ah well, in another couple of decades they might figure out that human cloning thing, and we can grow all the ova and kidneys we want like sea monkeys.

KoWT|2.22.07 @ 1:17PM|#

FHM is done?
I did not know that.
Bet that bummed my son out.

A big part of the charm of the cover in question lies in the conceptual continuity. My opinion of many self-styled libertarians goes like this: "navel gazers" (said w/ contempt)

Then, at navel gazer central, wow....whatta navel.

I've since moved on.

Here's my favorite image of the moment:

https://home.comcast.net/~stevedallas/firefoxkitten.jpg

on topic:

That we're debating whether or not women should be "allowed" to sell or donate their eggs is a sign of our nanny state times.

VM|2.22.07 @ 1:30PM|#

mercy!

"That we're debating whether or not women should be "allowed" to sell or donate their eggs is a sign of our nanny state times."

QFMFT!

|2.22.07 @ 3:20PM|#

QFMFT?

VM|2.22.07 @ 3:37PM|#

Quoted For Muther Fuckin Truth

Not to be confused with "KMFDM" the industrial techno band!

Abbreviation via Dhex, aka "the man!"

|2.22.07 @ 7:43PM|#

Preventing women from putting themselves in danger should hardly surprise you. In medical trials, for example, first stage human trials almost always use male subjects. Only when basic safety is proved will they move on to permitting female subjects.

Does anybody really think that the general ho-hum response of the public to testing things on military men would have been so ho-hum were women the subjects? I sure don't.

Moonbat feminists often argue it's wrong to use female test subjects, even in cases where the item is meant exclusively for women, because it "harms women". Never mind the future benefits made possible by the testing, let alone why such a moral principle doesn't apply to *male* test subjects (we all know the answer to that one).