I'd donate my eggs if I weren't so freaked out about the possibility of what all of those high doses of hormones in such a short period of time might do to my body. I've never even taken birth control.

In some ways I think the advances in fertilization have really undermined the pro-life community's abortion argument. If you follow their argument to it's logical conclusion, you'd have to be anti-IVF if you're going to be logically consistent. So, for that reason I'm in favor of egg donation.

It's just such a complicated and obtuse issue that I don't think there really can be a simple answer to your question.

A girl I lived with a few years ago donated her eggs...and she definitely did it for the money. She tried to convince me to do it, but I didn't think that it was worth the hassle and the health risks. After I watched her go through the process (which had some pretty creepy side effects...plus the ridiculous amount of hormones in her body definitely made her, uh, colorful personality a little harder to handle), I knew I'd made the right choice.

And I also feel weird about women's eggs being commodities. It seems to lead to the whole baby-making machine idea. Even women who don't want children now or ever can still do their part to procreate. And because the money is pretty good (and better if you can convince people you come from some sort of high-quality gene pool) women in need of money are definitely more likely to put themselves at risk by undergoing the procedure.

Basically, it all rubs me the wrong way.

I'm planning on donating eggs sometime within the next few years. It's not for the money, I am not in any kind of serious debt. My mother used to work as a gynecologist and performed a lot of in-vitro fertilization procedures and helped women get pregnant in many different ways. She's friends with a lot of the women that she helped get pregnant and I know how thankful those women are. It's such a big deal to these women to be able to have a child and I know how much happiness that brings them, and if I'm able to help them have a kid then I'll do it. To me, reproductive choice means being able to have kids when you want to have kids, whether that means getting an abortion when you want one or getting IVF when you want it.

I would've donated my eggs were it not for the hormones and the fact that I'm black. Most people in the area were after white women's eggs.

I don't understand why this is such a big morality issue for feminists. Men donate their sperm all the time and get paid for it. I know it's a lot less but let's be real, it's far easier to get sperm than to get eggs thus that's why there's more money involved. But no one complains that men are being exploited by donating sperm. It is because it is so easy and men don't have to take hormones? I don't see how donating eggs makes a "commodity" of women and donating sperm doesn't make a commodity of men.

Doesn't donating eggs go AGAINST the idea that women are baby-making machines? It deflates one of the traditional arguments against women having careers, that if they "delay" having children, they will never be able to later.

Sometimes it is eerie how spot-on this blog is to my own personal life. I was just researching egg donation on the internet last night, and yes, it was for the money. I could wax all charitable and say it is because I have family members who have had a difficult time getting pregnant, but I'm all for honesty today. It sucks having two degrees in English that are pretty much worthless. And it sucks working for attorneys who aren't that bright and don't pay enough (not that all attorneys aren't bright, but mine is not).

However, the process looks to be a bit much in terms of work. I don't know that it's worth the $3,000 I saw advertised to undergo all of that.

What I did find interesting was that each website prioritizes the mental health issues. I wonder if it is the same for sperm donors. I'm not implying that it isn't because I haven't looked, but I wonder. But then, the thesis is also going to my head in terms of women being infantilized and treated as unable to make their own decisions...

I don't see how it makes women's eggs commodities anymore than sperm donation does the same for men's sperm. Egg donation is riskier, more complicated, and more invasive, so it makes sense that it would be more well-compenated--I'd have big problems with the two procedures being compensated at the same rate.

Three years ago, when I was new to the US, I was very poor and looked into this, even got a complete information kit and did a telephone interview. I figured I was young, smart and pretty - turned out I wasn't good enough, nor did I want to subject my body to what was apparently necessary.

As one poster said above, of course there's money involved as the procedure (and the prelude to the procedure) is so invasive and requires such a huge time commitment. Personally, I think very few people would be willing to do this without monetary compensation.

What really put me off about the whole egg donor thing is, a whole culture has arisen around this. It's gone to the level where these people who can't have children want to create a baby, as if it's a character in their novel. They want to choose race, social and class background, education level of the mother (why should that matter?), test scores, skin color, hair type, eye color, height, ancestry, family history ...and they want to know everything about your family as well. And they want family pictures - in my case, this last by itself was impossible as I had left everything behind when I ran away from home.

For one thing, if you can't have a child, live with it or adopt from a third world country. It can't be more complicated or more expensive than IVF is. And secondly, how many parents get to choose to have 'perfect' children? This is unhealthy no matter how one looks at it.

In a free society, such choices must exist and that's ok - all involved are free agents. I don't like to think that anyone can regard my eggs as potentially someone else's property - recalls The Handmaid's Tale. But then, I don't want men to ever have the idea that my body is theirs to use if the price is right - but that doesn't mean I'm against prostitution.

My comment is in response to Jessica's question about the socio-economic implications of egg donations, and in response to UltraMagnus's comment/question about why this raises more of a moral and political issue for women than for men (re. sperm donation) --

-- I am definitely unsettled by the economic and political factors that are in play where egg donation is concerned. On an individual choice level ("I want to help a friend get pregnant," etc.) it doesn't seem any more or less probelmatic to me than various kinds of organ donations for transplants. But where it gets tricky, and sketchy, is that most of the time with egg donation, choice is a loaded term. When large lump sums are involved, the majority of women who are going to "choose" to pump themselves up with unhealthy levels of hormones in order to take on this somewhat invasive process are overwhelmingly going to be low-income and working class women. Women who are wealthy or even simply comfortable are not likely to choose to put their bodies, and their mental states, at risk in this way just to be good humanitarians. And so, the burden of this form of reproductive choice (IVF) for some (wealthier) women will fall on other, financially less stable women, who may suffer ill health effects in exchange for compensation.

As for your question, UltraMagnus, re. egg donation and sperm donation -- there is no equal comparison between the two because sperm donation involves simply beating off into a sterile cup for a few minutes, for moderate compensation. Nothing physically or medically invasive is done to the man. Whereas egg donation can be physically painful, can involve health risks and is a long, drawn out process.

PS: I also meant to mention that I have also considered egg donation solely because I've been struggling financially while building an underfunded non-profit, and I haven't been to a doctor in more than five years. The money involved with egg donation is no joke -- but I decided that I couldn't put my body through it.

I am a ridiculously pragmatic person and very libertarian. So if people want to, I say, go for it - so long as they are aware of the health risks. Given the health risks, I think the minimum should be upped.

As for pragmatism/women in need doing this - generally, egg donors who get paid really well are intelligent, pretty, well-spoken young women. They are not the kind of people who I would really worry about - i.e. those not able to properly assess the risks and those without any other means of earning good money. If we were talking about women who really didn't have the brains to find well-paying jobs, I would worry about exploitation, but I do think it's hard to exploit people at the top of society who are willing participants.

As I said, I'm overly pragmatic.

Maybe slightly OT, but what creeps me out is the possible eugenic implications of some classified ads that seek out donors of a certain age, weight, height, and with certain lifestyle characteristics.

I understand wanting young women in good health, but I feel that this toes a certain ethical line...

PS. Paying women sure beats the alternative - which is to hope that women will do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

If you didn't pay women thousands of dollars, it would be nearly impossible to get donated eggs. For couples that want to go that route, it would be effectively closed to them.

A friend of my family who is gay had a baby last year through an egg donor and a surrogate mother. Watching what he went though to get his son has definitely made me consider donating my eggs, not just for the money, but because parents like him are barred from adopting children. If I ran across a family who was unable to have children or adopt and they asked me personally, I think I'd say yes. My family is somewhat infamous for our fecundity, I have no problem with sharing the love.

The money is tempting though, there was an ad in my Unversity's newspaper a few weeks ago soliciting for an egg donor who was "intelligent, attractive, athletic and tall" and I'm 3 for 4 there (only 5' 4", boo). The amount of 'compensation' not including medical expenses (all paid) listed in the ad was... impressive, but I didn't call. Now, when I've graduated and those student loan bills start coming in, that might be a very different decision. It's definitely a factor that would make some women make that choice more out of desperation than anything else.

FYI, Feminist Review: many pro-lifers that I know are not anti-IVF, but do support laws that would deal with the "orphan" embryos that women don't want. I think one pro-lifer suggested a time period by which the woman would have to use them, or they would be put up for "adoption." (Cryopreserved embryos have a shelf life, hence the time frame.)

Quotes are used because it's such a weird situation - you usually don't carry your adopted children!

Like Genny, I've known people who are unable to have children on their own and this is a needed option for them and it's wonderful that there are women willing to provide this kind of donation. Just like it's wonderful that there are men willing to provide their kind of donation. I don't get caught up in the reasons they do it, whether purely as a donation or because of the need for the money.

To the Apostate above and the comment that those unable to conceive naturally should just "live with it" and not try something like this, I completely disagree. If egg donation is one way that you may be able to have a child when otherwise you cannot, I say go for it if that's something you want. Some women want to experience pregnancy so this is an option when otherwise able to conceive. IVF is also not possible for all women if their eggs are no longer viable. IVF costs for a single try are a minimum of $15,000 depending upon where you live and depending upon your age, the odds are not in your favor. International adoption for single women and people who are gay can also be difficult as more countries are closing down that option to them. US adoptions can be extremely long in waiting and incredibly expensive. In other cases for those seeking a child, adoption is preferred or IVF is possible. My point, it isn't just about the cost. It needs to be a choice by that woman or family as to which she's willing to use and the more options the better in my opinion.

As far as attempting to choose characteristics of a child through either egg donation or sperm donation, let's be realistic here, genetics is all a crapshoot. Just because you have an egg donor who's blonde, or a certain height, etc. etc. doesn't mean that's what the child is going to be and any sane person going into it knows that.

I support egg donation and I think the rates should be a minimum because it's incredibly invasive for the woman. She's not getting paid enough in my opinion for what she's doing. It's an incredible gift for someone seeking a child.

Jen Dzuira, featured in the article, also periodically posts in what she calls her "Egg Donation Blog", wherein she reflects, in a variety of amusing and philosophical ways, on her choices to donate. Interesting reading.

http://eujenics.blogspot.com/

Like many others on here, I've considered it, but I've been scared off by the intensive and invasive medical procedures. Also, because I have such strong feelings about having my own children, I feel like I wouldn't want to consider doing anything that might put that at risk, even if that means I'm too old after having kids to be considered. That would have to come first.

I have the same reservations about 'choosing perfect children' as many others, but I do feel like I'd rather have people choose for high intellect/overall health level than blonde hair and blue eyes.

Some women want to experience pregnancy so this is an option when otherwise able to conceive.

Sorry...typo above...meant when otherwise "unable" to conceive.

"As for your question, UltraMagnus, re. egg donation and sperm donation -- there is no equal comparison between the two because sperm donation involves simply beating off into a sterile cup for a few minutes, for moderate compensation. Nothing physically or medically invasive is done to the man. Whereas egg donation can be physically painful, can involve health risks and is a long, drawn out process."

And I pointed that out in my post jpozner, that's why women are paid far more for their eggs than men are for their sperm and someone else has pointed out that the costs SHOULDN'T be equal. Women should be paid more.

But I still don't see the difference between a woman who goes to the sperm bank wanting sperm from a well educated, attractive (if that's possible to discern) smart, tall, blue-eyed white male, and a couple who wants an egg from a well educated, attractive (ditto), smart, tall(ish), blue-eyed white woman. Are we going to start picking and choosing who is allowed to create the kind of family they want? What about a gay couple who wants a specific kind of baby and they seek out a specific kind of egg or a specific kind of woman to inseminate?

I can't get mad at white people for not wanting my eggs the same way an anonomous sperm donor can't get mad at a women for not choosing his sperm.

People have that right to choose and women have the right to sell their eggs. It's not like people are trying to sugar coat the risks involved. You know there will be hormones you know there will be injections. I took one look at the brochure and decided it wasn't for me but there are women who go through it because the really do need the money and I'm not going to blame them for trying it, nor will I blame the system.

There is a market for reproductive tissues for both men and women and each are paid accordingly. The only thing we can blame is God/Nature for designing it to be either difficult or easy to obtain each.

I had a friend decide to “donate� her eggs a few months ago after seeing an ad in our local alternative paper. She’s white, very educated and classically pretty. She is also a large woman. Not unhealthy just a solid plus size (maybe a size 16). She did a phone interview and the clinic really wanted her for an in person interview because she is so well spoken and had all the right credentials/background. At the interview the staff barely hid their distain for her weight and the interviewer talked to her for only about 5 minutes after he saw her. The add for “donation� disappeared from the paper for about two weeks and when it returned the add changed from healthy non-smoking women to healthy non-smoking non-obese women. It shook her confidence for a long time and made me want to go head butt everyone involved.
As an adopted child I’ve always had a problem with IVF. There are wonderful kids that need homes. I’m one of the lucky ones who’s parents really didn’t care if they had a perfect white baby. I’m white but my brother is of Mexican heritage and there has never been a difference of how we were viewed. We were loved and wanted equally. The screening process for selling eggs is very rigid and for me has always struck me as elitist and racist.

Why don't these women buying up eggs just adopt? Is having a c-section that high on rich women's to-do-before-dying lists?

The whole thing seems fetishistic and masochistic to me.

First of all, I'd like to say that IVF can be done with donor eggs or with a woman's own eggs, so we're discussing three related-but-separate issues. The first is the ethics of reproductive technology, the second is the ethics of egg donation, and the third is the ethics of eugenics.

"For one thing, if you can't have a child, live with it or adopt from a third world country. It can't be more complicated or more expensive than IVF is."

I think this "live with it" is an awfully harsh and thoughtless response to people struggling with infertility. IVF - especially with donor eggs - is indeed expensive, but if it takes on the first try, it can easily be less expensive than international adoption. Technology has given us the ability to prevent pregnancy, and thank the gods for that. It has also given us the technology to facilitate it, and I can't judge anyone who chooses that route.

JPozner, what you say about the burden on low-income women would only make sense from a public policy perspective (and here I include not just legislation but also social action) if there was no choice. For example, if a woman's choice to donate eggs were bad for society, or even bad for her in ways that are so glaring that egg donation becomes comparable to heroin injection, then it'd make sense to rail against egg donation.

Likewise, Thirdwave, to argue that there's something wrong about egg donations from any perspective but this of individual parents who choose to adopt white eggs rather than nonwhite people, you need to show that the two things are alternatives. In other words, you'd be right about the social implications if parents who couldn't find eggs adopted children instead. However, since it's likely that parents who can't find eggs just don't have children, there are no negative social implications here.

“but if it takes on the first try, it can easily be less expensive than international adoption.�
Yes, it is probably cheaper than international adoption, which is something I also don’t understand (is it a sign of status?) as there are plenty if children in need of adoption in this country (a large number of whom are black and people don’t adopt black kids as often due to racism).

“However, since it's likely that parents who can't find eggs just don't have children, there are no negative social implications here.� What makes you say that Alon? How likely is it?

I wouldn’t try to argue that soliciting egg donation should be banned but there are some things really narcissistic and racist about the way it is done.

I should make it clear that I don't want to legislate against people who want to take the IVF route to have children.

More power to them.

I personally dislike kids and never want to have any and don't understand why anyone does, and this is exacerbated in the case of IVF because it's so painful, risky, emotionally difficult, etc.

But of course I don't intend to suggest that anyone should be forced to 'live with it' or forced to adopt, if that's not what they want to do. I just have a somewhat low opinion of them for not choosing those options, is all, just as I have a low opinion of an impecunious mother choosing to have a child only to neglect it and starve it rather than having an abortion. Which of course, doesn't mean I support forced abortions or don't think absolutely anyone who wants to have a child can have one.

Since I'm not advocating anything, and simply expressing an opinion, there's no need for arguing against what I said.

I donated eggs while in grad school--twice in 1992 and once in 1996. I got paid *way* less than they are paying now, but at the time it was a very good experience. I learned a lot about my reproductive system. The first time I did it out of altruism, because I'm a science fiction geek and thought it would be neat to do, and the next two times were for the money. Athought I did get creamed on taxes, because I got paid as a contractor with a 1099 rather than with a W2.

I even got interviewed to be in a book about reproductive health! That was really cool!

I do think about the possible children. I figure anyone who got it done at that time was probably wealthy, and so I like to think about them at a private school that will foster creativity and imagination.

And if the kids ever tried to track me down? It would be interesting, but I'm not the parent. The people who raised them--those are the parents. Those are the people who wanted a child that much.

It is definitely a personal decision, and though the money comes in handy, it still is a big commitment, and giving yourself shots in the hip and thigh. Not for the needle-phobic!

"They want to choose race, social and class background, education level of the mother (why should that matter?), test scores, skin color, hair type, eye color, height, ancestry, family history ...and they want to know everything about your family as well."

Don't a whole bunch of people out there want to know all that about the other genetic parents of their kids even if they plan to conceive their kids via sex instead of IVF?

"But I still don't see the difference between a woman who goes to the sperm bank wanting sperm from a well educated, attractive (if that's possible to discern) smart, tall, blue-eyed white male, and a couple who wants an egg from a well educated, attractive (ditto), smart, tall(ish), blue-eyed white woman."

...or a white woman who wants a smart, tall, blue-eyed white male lover and wants to become well-educated herself before having unprotected sex and getting pregnant?

"As an adopted child I’ve always had a problem with IVF. There are wonderful kids that need homes."

Great point!

"Yes, it is probably cheaper than international adoption, which is something I also don’t understand (is it a sign of status?) as there are plenty if children in need of adoption in this country (a large number of whom are black and people don’t adopt black kids as often due to racism)."

Just curious, what about international adoption of black American children?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html

And if the kids ever tried to track me down? It would be interesting, but I'm not the parent. The people who raised them--those are the parents. Those are the people who wanted a child that much.

Thanks so much for pointing this out, Bethy.

I'm of the opinion (probably harsh, but I guess that's who I am in many ways :)) that if someone really and truly could not love a child who wasn't their biological spawn, as much as a child from an orphanage, purely and only because of biology, that person isn't fit to be a parent. Frankly, I'm a little disgusted at the lengths we go to in our society to create our own genetic spawn when there are already too many mouths to feed in this world. It's irresponsible and narcissistic. If I ever marry someone, it will be someone who doesn't insist on spawning his own offspring -- I have no particular desire to ever be pregnant (especially since pregnant women's bodies become social property) and I intend to adopt. I hate hate HATE it when you see TV shows, etc., where an adopted kid talks about his/her "real" parents as though the PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY FUCKING RAISED YOU AND LOVED YOU are somehow less "real" because of a few strands of DNA. Yucky yuck yuck.

IVF and the politics of egg donation have always made me feel uncomfortable. It seems like what feminists fight against; the idea that there can be true choice within a system that offers large sums of money to do things people wouldn't otherwise do. It seems like prostitution in a way- there are some women who would do that in exchange for money, but in the absence of a pressing need, there would be far fewer of them. This egg donation seems to take girls who are between a rock and a hard place in society- they need to be college educated to get a good job, but are then stuck with student loan payments until they are in their 40s. I hardly believe anyone would do this for purely altruistic reasons.

Plus, I am one of those terrible people that thinks that if you can't have biological children, maybe that is a sign that you shouldn't. Of course, I am also in favor of changing many of the laws around adoption, to make it easier, but there should be a less of a idea that biology is more important than actually raising the child.

Adoption is not open to everyone. I've personally known some great people who were denied adoption based on sexual orientation, in one case, and mental health history in another. Later these people went on to become loving and responsible parents through IVF/surrogacy. Furthermore, as it currently stands adoption is a process that leaves applicants feeling out of control, confused, emotionally, and sometimes financially drained. The control issue is huge.

Interacial adoption confers additional problems in America. You're niave if you think otherwise. AS open as a person might to be to loving a child of any race, that person still has to consider what life will actually be like for their family, including the adopted child. Its not fair to make a child a political pawn as you attempt to single-handedly change our fucked up society. Personally, I think that a loving home and, unfortunatly, having to deal with racial prejuedices (from both whites and blacks or whatever other race) is a better option than the foster-care system in America. But its taken me a lot of soul searching and research into the matter in order to come to that conclusion. Another family might come to a different conclusion. Espeacially if they live in a rural area.

A lot of our culture's problems come into focus when discussing the issue of egg donation and IVF. That doesn't mean that the procedures themselves are bad for women. And it certainly doesnt mean that egg donation or paying for an egg are the wrong choice for every one.

Egg donors know the risks and they benefit from the risks that they take. For some people the health risks don't seem as bad as the stress and struggles of being in debt.
I do think adoption should be encouraged, esp. interracial adoption. However, its just not possible or preferable for some people.

tankerton, to be clear, I'm absolutely opposed to denying adoption on idiotic grounds like sexual orientation. Mental health MIGHT be a valid reason for stricter scrutiny -- I don't think it would be responsible to place a child with, say, a paranoid schizophrenic. But anyone with a stable home and reasonably stable mental health (I mean, as much as the average person) should be able to adopt.

However, I am simply unable to fathom a legitimate reason that having a biological child is "preferable." I used to think I wanted, really really wanted, my own bio kid, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized I could not come up with a good enough reason to insist on my own DNA being passed down, when there are already more kids than loving homes with room for them. At first it was a little hard for me to accept that adoption might simply be a more responsible choice for me... but the more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea. To reference another post today, it's kind of like Courtney suggests -- the way we love and the way we live our lives shows our ideals. I've been able to get to a place where I'm comfortable living my ideals, and frankly, I'm pretty damn proud of that. But, of course, I'm not suggesting that people for whom adoption isn't a possibility for one reason or another "shouldn't" have bio kids... I just think that there's a disgusting social stigma against adoption and I can't express how wrong, wrong, wrong this is. If anything, adoption in many cases is a better idea than biological reproduction.

Please, I welcome any suggestions why an inherent preference for bio kids might be legitimate. But the only reasons I can come up with are unpalatable and selfish to my thinking.

I'm not sure of your point about interracial adoption. I understand that when you adopt a child of a different race, you absolutely need to be aware of all of the implications. But -- and forgive me if I'm reading your comment wrong -- you seem to imply that this should be a reason not to adopt a child of a different race. But it seems to me the flip side of this proposition is that an interracial couple should not have biological children, but should adopt a child of the race of the parent more likely to be the primary caregiver. And I think the reasons this is problematic are painfully obvious. As for making your kids political pawns, every parent who has ever lived does this, period. Unless you raise your kid in a vacuum and teach him/her absolutely no values of any sort whatsoever, your kid is, in some sense, a kind of political pawn. To single out race as somehow worse than any other kind of pawnage (and to, imho, much worse and more racism-intensifying effect) is a bad, bad idea.

"As for making your kids political pawns, every parent who has ever lived does this, period."

True, bringing a child into the world on purpose is a big vote for the status quo - it's essentially saying "the conditions I live in are good enough for my child too." OTOH, not all parents have done that (some were forced to give birth, some adopted kids who already existed instead of making more kids, etc.).

I'm not at all implying that people should not consider interracial adoption. But there were a lot of comments on this thread that were very damning of people who use reproductive technologies with some people commenting that the infertile should "get over" and adopt, esp. adopt some of the many black children who need homes in America. My point was that its just not so simple. Sadly, adoption is not available to everyone. The foster care system in the US is awful and I wish that all the children in there, a majority of whom are minority, could find good permanet homes. But interracial adoption is not the always a good idea, esp for people who live in areas with really high racial divisions and prejudices, such as the deep South (where I grew up).
I just really didn't like that "get over it" attiude that I kept reading on this thread. I was trying to make a point, which maybe didn't come across right or maybe some of you just don't agree with. Adoption is a really personal issue for me. I would like to adopt and not specify race or gender. However, I live in one of those "blue islands in a sea of red" in the South. Very different from New York or Portland. For someone like me to adopt a black child that would mean exposing the kid to some really horrific racism that is entrenched in the region. Like I said, I've done lots of reading and soul searching because I don't want to bring a child into a bad situation (not my home, or even my town, but my state). Trust me, I hate that the world is like this but it is. I would like to just do what I feel is right (love a child - any child) and also prove that such love is possible and say fuck you to the racists (at which point that becomes political). But I've got to consider the kid's feelings too. In the end I've decided that a mother's love, even in a bad social environment, is better than the foster system, which is still playing out in a bad social environment. However, if (god forbid) I still lived in my hometown, I would have made a different choice.

I might to respond some more later. If I'm unclear its because I'm upset.
I really didn't want to imply that people should not adopt children of a different race. I just wanted to say that, unfortunatly, its complicated and not a good idea for every single infertile family in the US.

Personally, I'm creeped out by what women are forced to go through in order to donate their eggs--but what truly upsets me is the money issue, for all the class issues that have been raised already. It is for precisely those reasons, as I understand it, that one isn't allowed to purchase organs, and I'm not sure why eggs should be different, seeing as the invasiveness of the procedure is far more akin to organ donation than to sperm donation. I konw that there are many people who aren't opposed to purchasing organs, which would be consistent, at least, but I am not one of them.

"bringing a child into the world on purpose is a big vote for the status quo - it's essentially saying "the conditions I live in are good enough for my child too." "

I disagree, Mina. There are a number of things that bringin a child into the world on purpose could mean, from "I have faith that as a society we can improve our world and make a future worth living in" to "I love children and want to raise them."

If no one has mentioned it already, there are a half million children in foster care at any given moment.

Not all are available for adoption. But a large percentage of those who are will never find adoptive parents, at least in part, because many infertile couples want "designer" babies, more than actual children who might be the "wrong" color, from "doubtful" parentage.

And the health risks for the young women donating eggs aren't minimal, and I speak as someone who was treated with hormones for a health problem -- and have suffered more from thehormonal side-effects than my original complaint.

It also strikes me as a nasty class problem as well:

The wealthy and the upper, upper middle class have money to burn on designer babies, the middle class shrinks and their daughters, faced with the burden of overwhelming college loans become baby farms.

"I disagree, Mina. There are a number of things that bringin a child into the world on purpose could mean, from 'I have faith that as a society we can improve our world and make a future worth living in' to 'I love children and want to raise them.'"

I was thinking of how little sense it makes to know what a place is like, bring a child there, and then complain that the place isn't good for the child.

"It is for precisely those reasons, as I understand it, that one isn't allowed to purchase organs, and I'm not sure why eggs should be different, seeing as the invasiveness of the procedure is far more akin to organ donation than to sperm donation."

Speaking of egg donation resembling organ donation, can eggs be taken from dead people the way organs and sperm can?

I used to work in a fertility clinic. I had to quit because I felt I was doing something immoral.

If a woman is using donor eggs, it is usually because she is old and her eggs are no good. Otherwise, the woman herself goes through that procedure and her own eggs are harvested and mixed with her husband's (or a donor's sperm), and the embryo is transfered into her uterus.

There are over 6 billion people on the earth. Our oil-based economy and agriculture are precarious at best.

Sure, it's a woman's choice to have or not have children, but sometimes there are broader issues than feminism.

The quest for a baby at all costs is absolutely ridiculous. Adoption needs to be made easier. Take care of the children that are already here and suffering. Don't make more to your exact specifications. We're talking human beings here, not slipcovers for your couch.

Mina, in my Philosophy of Medicine class last semester we talked about the idea of mining dead men for sperm. My prof said that the first case happened (I think) 25 years ago, and the dead man was 17, and his parents wanted grandchildren. Since then, most of the cases have been dead husbands. The most disturbing case was a woman who used a donated egg and her mentally handicapped unable to consent brother's sperm, to have a baby at a fairly old age.

I always hate hearing about these types of things because it seems like genetic rape. After all, these dead men probably didn't consent to have children, and if they did, it was probably under the assumption they would be alive when it happened. Yuck.

I haven't heard of women being mined for eggs after death, but it sounds possible.

I have so many different aspects of this discussion I want to address! For now I'll pick one:

I want to know what people feel about the economic/ethical implications of adoption. Adoption, even within one's own country is an incredibly expensive endeavor. There is basically a whole industry that you could easily see as selling children. Is that really any better or worse than selling one's own eggs? At least in the case of eggs, the woman who sells them gets money.

Meanwhile in the adoption industry children are sold (and their value differs based on race... a serious issue in itself) and the money goes to who? An adoption agency? What do they do with all that money? (I don't know, so if any one does, please, enlighten me).

You also can't ignore the race/class/ethics issues with international adoption. Just take a look at the uproar over madonna's recent adoption as an example.

I'm not sure where I stand on all of this myself. I just know that there are as many ethical issues to consider with adoption as there are with having one's own baby, or using someone else's eggs/sperm for IVF and that I am very curious to read what you all think.

Well, my comment has nothing to do with the topic, but I had to respond to this:

"I hate hate HATE it when you see TV shows, etc., where an adopted kid talks about his/her "real" parents as though the PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY FUCKING RAISED YOU AND LOVED YOU are somehow less "real" because of a few strands of DNA. Yucky yuck yuck."

You think that your adopted child should not be allowed to go through an identity crisis, to want to meet their biological parents?

They may say "real" parents because they're teenagers and they feel isolated and want to hurt you.

They may say "real" parents because they don't know how else to express it.

I am fully in support of adoption and feel somewhat the way you do - I do not intend on having children, but would consider adopting later in life.

I believe of course that the parent who raises the child is the real parent.

BUT it's totally unfair to try and tell your child they are not allowed to explore that part of themselves, especially if they're from an international adoption - not saying that's what you'd do, but the "real parents" issue comes up a lot more with international adoptions

Adoptions period can be impossible depending on your citizenship status, too. I have a friend who has undergone several IVF rounds (with her own embryos) and has tried the adoption route, but can't. She isn't a citizen here (although green carded) so she's barred from adopting locally, and she doesn't intend to live in her home country in the near future so she's barred from adopting there.

I kind of like that eggs are commodities. In our society everything else is. When you're young, you have so few things to sell- few skills, a thin resume. Jobs where you sell your body pay much better and are usually easier than the legitimate jobs available to young men and women.

While I wouldn't sell my own eggs (mostly cause I'm scared of needles), when I was broke I certainly thought of it. And, as a broke chick, I thought it was better to have options for making good cash then to be confined to retail and food service in the name of protecting me from exploitation.

L3J -

A short list of some of the things they spend the money on -

1. Medical care for the mothers who choose to give up their children for adoption - sometimes they pay for almost all pre-natal care, if the mother has decided early that she'll give up the child; sometimes they only pay for the birth care, if the mother decides at the last minute.

2. Care for the child before its adoption, as well as the children who are not immediately adopted, or may not be adopted for quite some time - some children are less 'desireable' than others.

3. Investigation into the background and compatibility of potential parents, a home study

4. Travel expenses (for borth parents, agency representatives, and the child itself)

5. Legal fees - lots of these.

6. Appropriate counselling for all parties involved

7. For international adoption, obviously there's a whole passel of new expenses - visas (EXPENSIVE!), translations, documents, and legal fees in both countries...

I'm sure you're getting the idea. Most adoption agencies have a lot of expenses, if they are caring well for their babies and the birth mothers, and really taking care to place the children appropriately.

Many posts have contrasted having a baby with donated eggs (selfish, difficult, commodifying) with fostering or adopting an already existing child (altruistic, easy, noncommercial). I wouldn't dispute that more people should help children, but it's not that simple. Adoption is quite complicated and very expensive. Foster care is unstable -- you could take care of a baby and be told that it would be available for adoption, then a few years later it's given back to its mother, now off drugs. Also, foster kids often have special needs. I have a single friend who wanted to foster-to-adopt. She was offered only HIV-poz babies. That is a lot for someone to take on. Most people aren't saints. She ended up adopting a chinese baby girl.
As for making adoption 'easier," what that means is making it easier for the state to sever the parental rights of the mother and/or father. I would think feminists would have a problem with that, since most of these mothers are poor and do not want to give up their children. There have been terrible miscarriages of justice.

I know people who've said they'd adopt instead of having their own genetic kids, for all the noble reasons. Not one has done it. I think it is more a fantasy. When people finally get down to making a family, if they can have the genetic connection they go for it.
And yes, it seems vain and frivolous to have so many criteria for an egg donor, or a sperm donor. but you know, people don't choose their real-life partners blindfolded. The same preferences that would lead women to reject obese egg or sperm donors lead them to reject obese men as partners.
Not too many Phds have babies with high-school dropouts, not too many tall women marry men significantly shorter than themselves etc.

Fenris, to clarify, obviously we can't tell kids how they're allowed to feel. That's inhuman. But kids feel this way because they're raised in a society that values biological heritage way too highly. If kids weren't made to feel "weird" or "lesser" because they were adopted, I suspect the bizarre quest for the "real" parents would lose its appeal. I'm not blaming the kids, I'm blaming the grown-ups. If grown-ups could get over their obsessive need for mini-mes, the kids wouldn't care that they were adopted and wouldn't feel they're "missing" something by not being raised by their bio parents. So that's all I meant by that statement.

The quest for a baby at all costs is absolutely ridiculous. Adoption needs to be made easier. Take care of the children that are already here and suffering. Don't make more to your exact specifications. We're talking human beings here, not slipcovers for your couch.

Marcy, I could not agree more.

some cat, I agree that very few people show the requisite nobility involved in adopting (not to mention, as many here have pointed out, adopting isn't easy by any means).

But what I want to know is if there is any truly legitimate reason for preferring biological offspring. The only one I can think of is having reliable medical histories available, but this seems a weak reason to me in light of the advances in medical technology and the far greater problem that, again, we're simply not sustaining the people already on this planet, so it seems highly selfish and insensible to add to the sum total of needs on this planet when we could instead help take care of the existing needs that are not being met.

TLF, I can't really comment on whether or not it's a "legitimate" reason, but I can say that I deeply desire to experience pregnancy and childbirth. I think it's an amazing capability that many women have, to create and give birth to a new human being, and I want to go through it. It's a process I've always been fascinated by (and I considered becoming a midwife at one point), and I want to know what it feels like.

I react very badly to the term "selfish," because my desire to have children seems less like a fancy for a new SUV or pair of shoes and more like my sexual orientation. I could pretend that I'm not attracted to women (to fit in), or I could pretend that I'm not attracted to men (to up my radical feminist street cred), but to do either would be deny an essential part of my being. Not having a baby feels like it would be much more like that to me than like anything else.

That said, I decided a while ago that if I had fertility problems, I would not do egg donation or surrogate motherhood, unless the other woman in question was a friend or relation who offered, because of my discomfort with the exploitative dynamics we've discussed. After my first kid, I would definitely look into adoption, but it's not as easy a process as all that.

Of course, that's easy for me to say now; my feelings could change if I actually find myself in the situation.

Law Fairy, there is a *profound* difference between your bio kids and adopted kids, but it is not love.

My mother is adopted. She worshipped the ground her father walked on, and he her. Had a few more problems with my grandma, a control freak of sorts, but there was no question about the mutual love. She loved her baby brother (their bio kid -- they conceived unexpectedly five years after adopting under the assumption of infertility), and he her. Certainly the mutual love and respect seemed far greater than what was in my father's family, which was all biological.

But she never felt like she really belonged. And five years after her parents died, she began searching for her bio-family. And she's found both sides, the father and mother's sides. The father has some problems and the mother is dead, but in both cases the extended family -- the siblings, the cousins -- are very warm and accepting toward her, so she's been lucky.

And she is *like* them. She's stunned to see pictures of her bio-mom, looking just like her. She's filled with joy when they tell her about how her bio-mom used the same turns of phrase. She doesn't love these people like she loved my grandparents -- she couldn't possibly. And they don't replace my grandparents in any way. But the joy and happiness she feels at meeting the people whose genes she carries is amazing to see.

I, myself, have two stepkids I have raised from the age of 2, and two bio children. I love my stepchildren dearly, certainly no *less* than the bio kids. And yet I look at my baby girl and I see my own face, and my mother's face, and I melt inside in a way I never did when looking at my stepdaughter. (Who, by the way, I call my daughter -- I am only making the distinction now because it pertains to the point, but in our lives it never comes up.) I see my brother's behavior in my son, and I feel a sense of belonging, of continuity, that I did not feel with the others.

We are hardwired at a fundamental level to want to see our genes replicated. The people who are most like us are the people who are most like us. Adoption is a fantastic choice, a loving and beautiful thing to do for a child who needs you, but demanding that people who can't get pregnant adopt is like demanding that people give away all their money to the poor and live like monks. We can honor those who make that choice, but expecting others to do something so un-humanly selfish is, well, stupid and cruel. Expect people to act like people, not saints. The amazing thing with humans, from an evolutionary perspective, is not that we prefer our own kids but that anyone adopts at all.

So when you tell people that they probably shouldn't have kids if they can't love any child equally, you are saying the same thing as if you were saying you shouldn't get married if you couldn't love any old person well enough to marry them. No. That is not how love works. Having a child is a tremendous burden and we do it in part to replicate our genes. Choosing a donor who's as much like ourselves as possible probably helps a lot psychologically; my kids' bio-mom is ethnically similar to me (we're both white, short women with brown or reddish-brown hair, hazel eyes and a lot of Irish Catholic in our backgrounds) and has superficial mental similarities (she's a geek, she manages databases, she likes comic books.) Her bio-kids don't look or act too dissimilar to my bio-kids, so we all look as much like a family unit as any full biological unit does. And while *I* was happy to do without pregnancy, I realized after my infants were born that the experience of caring for very tiny babies and breastfeeding them is wonderful, and I miss not having seen the infancy of my older two. I can certainly see how some women might include pregnancy in what they want to experience from their child-rearing.

You raise good points, law fairy. Still, many people really like the idea of carrying on their genes, of mingling their genes with their partners, of carrying on their family history, of having kids who look like them and have some mixture of the family traits. They like the idea of making a baby from scratch, rather than getting one already baked. and they may find pregnancy and childbirth exciting also.
As for the flip side, adopting is not a simple business. It requires lots of work, time, money and patience with bureaucracy. Beyond that,rightly or wrongly adoption is generally seen as more risky than reproducing, whether it's the birth parent taking the child back or the long-term effects of the birth parent's drug/alcohol use, or attachment problems from early emotional trauma or deprivation, as with some Russian and Romanian adoptees. There aren't that many white babies available for adoption, and cross-racial adoption carries a lot of political baggage. I knew a woman who adopted two African girls from an orphanage. You might think she did a wonderful thing, giving a great life to two girls who very likely might not even have survived to adulthood and who would be desperately poor if they did, but her left-feminist-academic community criticized her for taking them out of their culture! A lot of black Americans aren't too keen on cross-racial adoption either. As for international adoption, some of those Cambodian or Guatemalan orphans have parents. I'm just saying there is a lot of slippage between supply and demand in the adoption world. It's not like a dickens novel, where a kindly person can take in a poor orphan off the street.
As for your last point, about using up earth's resources, this might be a reason why an ecologically-minded person wouldn't have ten children, but most americans only have one or two.

I meant to say "un-humanly selfless." Sorry for the mistake.

As for making adoption 'easier," what that means is making it easier for the state to sever the parental rights of the mother and/or father. I would think feminists would have a problem with that, since most of these mothers are poor and do not want to give up their children.

I don't see how lowering the income, mental health history, and sexual orientation standards (within reason, etc. etc.) required to take in a child that has already been put up for adoption is making it easier for the state to sever the birth parents' rights. Unless you were talking about adopting from foster care?

As someone who has donated eggs (to gay friends who didn't have the option of adopting!) I have to say that it wouldn't have been worth it for money. Even if I got $10,000 for being tall and smart and from a family of nonagenarians, that would still probably translate to something around minimum wage, when you factor in the shots and the ultrasounds and the this and the that. Not to mention the discomfort and the agreed-upon lack of intercourse with my lovely then-fiance.

However, it's 100% worth it to me to see my friends being incredibly great fathers to wonderful, interesting kids who look eerily like me. I take credit only for the green eyes and the tall--the wonderful and interesting are because of their amazing dads.

"Still, many people really like the idea of carrying on their genes, of mingling their genes with their partners, of carrying on their family history, of having kids who look like them and have some mixture of the family traits."

...well, some seem to like the idea of passing on their genetic traits until the kids grow old enough to show these traits. Hence the way some adolescent girls get pressured to starve themselves, bleach their skin, electrolyze/laser/shave/tweeze/wax/at least hide their faces and arms and legs, get nose jobs, etc. by the same people who gave them the genes for their curvy figures, dark brown skin, thick body hair, prominent noses, etc. in the first place.

Oh, and another thing I noticed during my time working at the fertility clinic...a lot of the husbands weren't quite on board with the whole thing. I think they were going along just to be agreeable. It was clear that these women had what we childfree like to call "baby rabies." The men were just giving in to keep the peace.

Whenever I see a marriage where one partner is passive, manipulated, and coerced into doing things, whether it is the man or the woman, it makes me sad.

If these people can't agree on having children, what are they doing?

I think one of the problems is our pronatalist society that tells women that their ultimate destiny lies in breeding.

This might sound angry. I am trying not to, but I see a lot of parallels between how our culture views women and sex, and how our culture views women and babies, and I do not think that feminism in general has done enough to unpack the toxic assumptions of motherhood as we have done with sexuality, leading to feminists saying things that are really quite appalling and that they would be horrified to hear in a different context.

I think that what people do not understand is that the desire for a child is fundamentally similar to a sexual orientation. If you do not want a child, you cannot imagine wanting one, any more than a heterosexual woman can imagine wanting sex with a woman. If you do want one, you cannot imagine not wanting one, any more than a lesbian can imagine *not* finding women attractive.

If you are just having a child to go along with a partner, you may discover that you like it -- many people are "bi" in terms of child-desire, and will fall in love once they have one. But if you strongly feel that you don't want a child, of course, you will never be happy with one any more than a closeted married gay person will be happy. By the same token if you *do* want a child you will never be happy without one.

It is not society telling women that they have to breed that makes women want children. As a feminist since the age of 3, I have always felt far more pressure from feminism, which I identify with and absorb into my decision-making process and sense of self, and the pressure I felt was *not* to have children. Both feminism and the larger culture told me that mothers aren't human, that we disappear into our children, that we are dehumanized, disrespected and looked down on. The larger culture tells women we should have kids anyway, just as it tells us that wearing makeup and high heels makes us a consumable object but we should do it anyway. Feminism reassures women that we have the power to fight back against this dehumanization, but often takes the quick and dirty route by saying "it's ok not to do the thing our culture will dehumanize you for!", not "it's ok to stand up for your humanity even if you do do that thing!"

So I felt very strongly that having children was dangerous, that it makes you turn into a non-person, and feminism offered me little reassurance or support. But I wanted kids. I wanted kids and I wanted my own biological kids, and if you don't understand it, well, then you just don't. Maybe you'll change as you age and maybe you won't. The point I am trying to make is that telling women their desire for children is "baby rabies" and telling them they should just suck it up and adopt or have no children if they can't have kids, is very much akin to lesbians telling straight women that they only want men because the culture tells them to. I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree that the heteronormativity of the larger culture is not a good reason to recommend to women that probably they're all really lesbians anyway and a good fuck from a good woman would solve all their problems with having to deal with men. Yet the child-free often seem perfectly willing to assume that women want children because the culture brainwashed us into it, and that it's okay to demand that women live a life without children just because the larger culture tells women who *don't* want kids that they should have them.

Let me be clear, I am sympathetic to the desire not to have children. I don't share it, but I know that not only is having children incredibly hard work, but it gets no respect (lionization and pedestalization, but no respect; ours is a pro-mother culture the way conservatives respect women with purity balls, which is to say, not). If you do not feel that you *must* have children to be happy, you should not, and to hell with anyone who tries to pressure you into having them. But if other people feel that they must have children to feel happy, you should STFU and wish them well, not tell them that no, they don't really want kids, they were just brainwashed by the patriarchy, and aren't they evil for wanting their own child when there are so many homeless crippled AIDS orphans in the world. (This, in fact, is exactly akin to the Nice Guy syndrome, "it's unfair that women get to have sex with whoever they want and not Nice Guys like me! Nice Guys like me *need* sex and there are so many women out there who *could* be having sex with me, but they're trying to go out with alpha male jocks instead, and that's very selfish! They should love the people who *need* love, not the people they do love!" Do not tell people who they should turn their fundamental biological drives of love toward on the basis of who needs it. That is wrong.)

As for men being reluctant to be fathers, I think that what is going on with men is that, just as women are socialized by culture not to want sex, men are socialized not to want children. Just as sex is something women "are" and men are supposed to crave, babies are something men give women, not something men are supposed to want for themselves. And just as this is total bullshit and without social pressure to pretend not to like sex, women turn out to want it too, men do want to be fathers. It is certainly wrong to trick a man into being a father, but if he consents reluctantly -- "oh, all right, if having a baby will make you happy" -- he may be fighting anti-fatherhood social pressure. He may want a child but can't admit it to himself. He may be terrified of what society says his role to that child is supposed to be -- that of a distant ATM who hands out spankings and gets respect but no love? Can he handle the responsibility of winning the bread for a baby? (These issues exist equally for women, but as the gender told to have babies, we are encouraged to work out these issues since we are five. Men are not.) He may fear being cut out of the mother's life. It is, however, very likely that if he consented to fathering the child (and most men consider marrying a woman to be tacit consent unless they specifically said no kids), he will love and want that child once it's born. The work for equality still has much work to do to let men own their desire for children the way women are being encouraged by feminism to own our desire for sex.

Alara, I wonder if you've read Adrienne Rich's Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution? It's an early second-wave feminist exploration and defense of motherhood, and I've found it very resonant and moving.

Great post, Alara.

"But if other people feel that they must have children to feel happy, you should STFU and wish them well...This, in fact, is exactly akin to the Nice Guy syndrome"

Yeah, that's a pretty good comparison. If people only had sex when they want to have sex (instead of also being raped), the world would be a better place. Likewise, if the only people who had 8 children were the ones who want to have 8 or more children (instead of people who want 2 or 3 or 0 children also having 8 children), the world would be a better place too (especially for children!). If you do want to have sex but nobody else wants to have sex with you, they still don't owe you sex. Likewise, if you do want to have a child but nobody else wants to have unprotected sex with you or donate gametes to you or give birth to someone for you to adopt, they still don't owe you a child.

*claps for Alara* Well said, on both your long posts. Thank you.

One interesting choice I learned of recently was that a family friend chose to be sterilized after the birth of her first child. She and her husband are fairly certain that they want more children but the experience of pregnancy and childbirth are something they are willing to forgo in favor of adoption. They realize that adoption is difficult and that this may actually mean they will only have one child. I don't know if I could or would make the same choice, but it is an intriguing middle ground between "I want biological children and pregnancy" and "everyone should adopt."

Re: the actual topic of this thread, like apparently many of you, I considered egg donation when I was in college and again in law school and was very tempted by the fact that, as a person who met all the "desirable" criteria except height, I could have gotten what seemed like an obscene amount of money for it. I ultimately dicided not to because of the health risks and because, frankly, the fact that someone was willing to pay an obscene amount of money to perpetuate the white privilege that I have but not for another equally intelligent but physically different (not unhealthy) person's genetic material.

My now-husband donated his genetic material for profit (actually, for rent money) while he was in college, and ended up stopping because of similar concerns. Neither of us have a problem with the idea of our biological material being cared for by someone else, though.