They're Picking on Me Over at the Bioethics.Net Blog
One Summer Johnson takes exception to my SHS post suggesting that egg selling be banned. (Whimper). From his entry:
Somehow it seems unjust to me to ask women to undergo what all acknowledge to be a difficult, painful, and for some women risky process to donate eggs--whether for altruistic or other reasons--and at least not compensate her for her time and on some sort of model of "hazard pay".So explain this argument to me, Mr. Egg Man, why is it okay to ask women to undertake the health risks for no pay, yet compensation for time or effort would be so horrible as to recommending banning the practice?
That may be because he is a member of the buying class and apparently believes it is acceptable for women to risk their health and fertility so that cloning researchers can do their thing. Moreover, in an egg market, those who would sell would tend to be poor and those who would buy would be rich; but only the poor would suffer the health consequences. My intent is to avoid exploitation of the weak by the powerful. Seems obvious to me, but then, I don't have a Ph.D.
Labels: Egg Selling. Bioethics.Net
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:19 AM
22 Comments
22 Comments:
Bet he believes in legal prostitution, too. And buying organs from India.
As a woman, not a man, I am well aware of the health risks associated with egg donation, and I acknoweledge the potential for egg procurement organizations paying women to use sums that may result in undue inducement for some women.
However, my problem with your argument, Mr. Smith, was the logical inconsistency in the claim that egg donation using the very same medical methods was acceptable simply because no money changed hands while the health risks remained the same. In other words, altruism makes the health risks worth it, in your view.
In my view, these "weak" women as you describe them are being made more so by being stripped of their autonomous choice to decide to give their eggs to benefit science, society, or to improve their own financial situation, whatever the case.
Disempowering women in this way makes them even MORE weak. Bans on egg donation simply are not the way to go. Nuclear weapons, sure. Trans fats, go right ahead. But donating eggs for science or to infertile women or for any other reason is an infringment upon liberty that I cannot see sufficient justification for. Can you, Mr. Egg Man?
Sorry about the gender confusion (or is it sex confusion, I never get that right). Summer is a pretty name, actually.
My position permits women to have their own eggs extracted for use in IVF, allows others to help the infertile, and still others who want to help make families or biotech give their all if they wish. But it greatly hinders the potential for abuse and coercion, including by difficult life circumstances.
That being noted, your sarcasm doesn't make your position any more correct than it did the first time. Destitute and poor women are hardly as autonomous in these matters as you might be. Your smug feminist presumptions about empowered women making autonomous decisions don't work in a world where too many women are so downtrodden they will risk almost anything to get along. But don't take my word for it: I would suggest going to Keep Your Hands Off Our Ovaries to see the many arguments made by feminists against your position. To which I would add, we must also ban international egg sales to prevent biological colonialism. But I guess you would think a Bangladeshi women desperate to pay for a doctor could first sell her eggs and then her kidneys from her elevated position of empowered feminine autonomy.
Thanks for the clarification on my sex...and for the compliment on my name. I still think, the strong feminist arguments you cite notwithstanding, that there are strong arguments to be made for allowing for the sale of eggs for research purposes and for IVF, if the right price point can be set. Moreover, there is a fairness argument here, noted by others, but often overlooked: we allow men to be paid for their gametes, so why not women? Given, it is much easier for men to provide theirs--but from a gender equity standpoint, it doesn't seem fair to me that women shouldn't have the same opportunity as men to share their gametes for reproductive or scientific purposes. You are right that my argument assumes a certain empowerment among donating women--which is the only thing that would make such paid donations permissible in my view.
And yes, I do believe such informed donations are possible. I don't believe that dollar signs in the eyes of women obscure their ability to understand the risks of hormone treatment and egg retrieval.
As for Bangladeshi women, I don't believe Alan Trounson or any stem cell researchers in California will be taking excursions to Bangladesh to get their eggs for stem cell research...If researchers in other countries do, then we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.
Really it comes down to more govt. control over peoples lives. It seems Wesley doesn't feel poor people have the capacity to do whats best for themselves in light of someone dangling money in front of their faces.
Wesley is clamoring for govt control over our decisions making process on this issue, I think not because of safety but because its dealing with eggs.
Whats interesting is that I've never seen Wesley speak out against other forms of medical payola for poor people. There are all kinds of clinical trials that pay people to expose themselves to all sorts of potentially dangerous new drugs and therapies. Not a word from Wesley, that I've seen. Oh, but this has to do with eggs, so its bordering on the pro-life agenda, so he'll speak to pro-life related issues veiled by secondhand smoke.
Dark Swan, you obviously don't read this blog often. It's been a long standing theme of the blog to be against all kinds of medical proceedures/testing for pay and it constantly points out the threats of us 1st worlders using 3rd worlders as our personal organ farms.
I don't know if I can state it any more clearly than Wesley, but what your side is ignoring is the corrupting power of money that influences us all to do things that we'd rather not do. The more desperate our financial situation, the more willing someone is to do something they'd NEVER otherwise consider.
We've got all kinds of laws to prevent this kind of stuff: prostitution laws, indentured servant laws, labor laws, etc.. All of them recognize that just because someone is willing to do something for cold hard cash, doesn't mean we should let them.
Exactly. Why not "let" people sell themselves into lifetime slavery, if consent makes everything all right?
As a dedicated capitalist, I am always skeptical when the government interferes in free economic transactions that do not harm third parties and that are done with mutual consent.
No, that's a dedicated ideological libertarian. The two are not necessarily the same. A capitalist believes that anything that should be sold, should be sold by the free market. An ideological libertarian believes that everything should be sold. I also wish to point out how often dedicated ideological libertarians are concerned about sexually related "free transactions"--selling sex, eggs, nude dancing, pornography, etc. How often do you hear such a person really get up on his hind legs and rant about, say, the fact that in Washington State it is in essence illegal to sell homemade jam to the public? Somehow, that just doesn't get them really going. But let someone question the "right" to risk your life selling your eggs or to go into prostitution as a living--man the battle stations, folks, the socialists are coming.
"As a dedicated capitalist, I am always skeptical when the government interferes in free economic transactions that do not harm third parties and that are done with mutual consent."
If they are successful at using the donated ovum to create and then destroy an embryonic human being, then you bet there's a third party being harmed...
Why not "let" people sell themselves into lifetime slavery, if consent makes everything all right?
To equate a women choosing to sell her egg to slavery that shows you as a wannabee demagogue, try something closer to reality.
A housemaid wakes up everyday and does elementary chores, and gets paid, by your definition that makes them a slave, which obviously isn't true.
A housemaid isn't a slave just because they cant get themselves into a better economic situation. Thats the reality of life you ideologue.
If they are successful at using the donated ovum to create and then destroy an embryonic human being, then you bet there's a third party being harmed...
No, a pre-implantation embryo is not a person. Go ask your government.
Oh, the government gets to tell us what a person is? Thanks for telling me. I thought I was permitted to think for myself.
Um, no, nothing I said implies that a housemaid is a slave. I said that if consent makes everything all right, then selling oneself into slavery should be permitted, too. In other words, you can't wave consent like a magic wand. There clearly _are_ things people do consensually to sell things that they shouldn't be allowed to do. Like sell themselves into slavery. With that point established, we should stop saying, "These women consent to sell their eggs, so it must be okay." Because that doesn't necessarily follow.
I realize it's hard to get these little logical points, but it is possible if you try hard.
"No, a pre-implantation embryo is not a person. Go ask your government."
The government once considered Native Americans and African-Americans to be non-persons. Fortunately, a law does not trump biology. Biology textbooks and encyclopedia entries make it rather clear that human embryos are human beings...
Biology textbooks and encyclopedia entries make it rather clear that human embryos are human beings...
I say they are merely human organisms, every biological textbook will support that statement as well.
In fact Biology books don't really discuss what we are discussing, why?
Because its not science, we're talking its philosophy. Science describes the observation, philosophy decides what to do about it.
Oh, the government gets to tell us what a person is? Thanks for telling me. I thought I was permitted to think for myself.
My point exactly! Now you get it!
Get the govt. off my ass and let me think and do what I want. Quit trying to tell me that the govt should prohibit women from offering eggs for medical research if they want. Glad you came around!
I said that if consent makes everything all right, then selling oneself into slavery should be permitted, too
So how is being a housemaid different than selling yourself into slavery by your definition?
Both imply receiving a wage for a service.
One is just a better deal, just like being a CEO would be a better deal than being a housemaid. But anyone with a job is enslaved to their employer 40 hours a week.
In other words, you can't wave consent like a magic wand.
Here is the difference since you don't get it...
Slaves have no consent.
Women choosing to sell eggs do, so your analogy is way off target.
DS, as per your trollish usual, you are intentionally missing the point here. Lydia wrote:
There clearly _are_ things people do consensually to sell things that they shouldn't be allowed to do. Like sell themselves into slavery. With that point established, we should stop saying, "These women consent to sell their eggs, so it must be okay." Because that doesn't necessarily follow.
So how about addressing that instead of skittering off on your trademark smartass, self-serving tangents? Come on, try something new and thrilling like arguing in good faith for once. ;-)
There clearly _are_ things people do consensually to sell things that they shouldn't be allowed to do. Like sell themselves into slavery.
So how is a housemaid different than someone selling themselves into slavery?
If its so different then the answer should be easy for ya'll to explain.
"I say they are merely human organisms, every biological textbook will
support that statement as well."
DS, I actually DO work in education and have therefore seen plenty of (secular) science textbooks. The best you can say is that some of them don't mention when a human life begins; the rest explicitly state that fertilization is it. (Somatic cell nuclear transfer would give us a similar embryo to one created via fertilization -- unless you wish to argue that Dolly wasn't actually a sheep.) I'll be happy to quote from some if you'd like.
So in other words, DS, you want to continue with your tangent instead of addressing Lydia's core point. Well, I can't say I'm surprised.
Exactly. Why not "let" people sell themselves into lifetime slavery, if consent makes everything all right?...
In other words, you can't wave consent like a magic wand...
I said that if consent makes everything all right, then selling oneself into slavery should be permitted, too...
stop saying, "These women consent to sell their eggs, so it must be okay."
Hmmm, see a theme - a repeated point I addressed by saying "Slaves have no consent."
She keeps repeating the consent issue, why you so antagonizing to me for asking for an explanation of consent? Look whos being the troll Bernie...
Maybe you should Let her speak for herself, if you something substantial to add then lets here it, but dont attack me and tell me how to respond Thank you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home