The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rhetoric of choice clouds dangers of harvesting women’s eggs for cloning > Comments

Rhetoric of choice clouds dangers of harvesting women’s eggs for cloning : Comments

By Renate Klein, published 30/11/2006

Women should not be sacrificed to the vested interests of the biotechnology industry.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
For many years many men were harvested for their sperm, and this harvest of sperm went towards increasing the financial gain of the IVF industry. There were IVF companies actually listed on the stock market.

But not once did any feminist complain about the harvesting of men’s sperm for financial gain. So why are feminists now so vocal about the harvesting of women’s eggs for financial gain.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 30 November 2006 10:57:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For goodness sake, please explain how it is difficult to harvest sperm? Does harvesting sperm involve the man taking hormones that cause the testicles to swell to the size of a grapefruit? Does it make the man sick for days or weeks? Does it involve invasive surgery?

If men are somehow suffering from donating their sperm (which I doubt very much!) then this is a mens issue, for men to address. Women already take on so much of mens work in domestic situations for example, without taking on mens health and social issues as well.

But by all means, if you can make a case for how devastating sperm donation is for men, I'm sure there will be women who will be only too happy to support your position.
Posted by Elka, Thursday, 30 November 2006 11:23:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article. Good to see this issue actually being raised in a serious manner, and the liberal arguments of 'choice' being analysed.

To HRS: Sperm donation is nothing like harvesting eggs. As Dr Klein has explained, egg donation involves taking a cocktail of various potentially quite dangerous hormones over a period of time, and then an invasive procedure. If sperm donation required men to take hormones and then have say a catheter put up their penis to extract the sperm, i doubt very many would have so generously donated (but if this was the case, and society expected men to sacrifice their health anyway, then I would certainly have a problem with it). Likewise, if egg donation simply required masturbation and then collecting the 'juices' from outside the body, then organisations such as Hands Off Our Ovaries wouldn't have a problem with it. As Dr Klein has clearly explained, it is the fact that egg harvesting is *dangerous to the health of women* that is the issue.
Posted by ms polly, Thursday, 30 November 2006 11:33:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scientists will not butcher women to get their eggs. If you truly believe that they intend to harm women then you are delusional. Safety is their foremost concern.

Women cut themselves apart with cosmetic surgery and they tamper with their hormones ALL THE TIME. That is their choice and we let them make this choice.

Women can do whatever they want with their bodies. You have no right to tell other women what they can and can't do.

This article represents everything that is wrong with political allegiances. Get over it. If you think about what they are choosing in society now or that you can control what they do, you should rethink your place in a Democracy.

This is terrible, just terrible...
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 30 November 2006 12:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elka,
If you don’t have an interest in male health, then you don’t have an interest in 50% of the population.

If women are indignant about being treated as a commodity, then there are also many men who are also indignant about being treated as a commodity.

There are IVF companies that offer a reduction in the cost of a woman’s IVF treatment if the woman donates eggs at the same time. Both men and women are being harvested and treated as a comodity, and I think that there are many men who are now quite indignant about the way they are being treated by IVF companies, and also by feminists.

Because men have donated sperm there is one famous feminist (Germaine Greer) who has said that men are now “surplus to requirements”, and another famous feminist (Maureen Dowd) who has said that men “have no more value than ice-cream”. Neither feminist was opposed by any feminist organisation anywhere in the world, so why should men have much regard for feminists.

If you research it, you will begin to see that it may not be necessary in the future to have an egg or have sperm to create a human life form. With future developments in genetic engineering, a human life could be created from a single cell from any part of the body. That technology does not need to involve eggs or sperm. All that is necessary is a single cell and the right chromosomes, so I would think that the companies behind genetic engineering have to be very closely monitored and controlled.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 30 November 2006 12:15:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS,

It is not that I am disinterested in mens health, i have a husband and two sons. But you were suggesting that because feminists raise a womens health issue, they must therefore raise mens health issues in the same way, at the same time. If feminists don't do this well then, they "don't care" about men according to you. Men have a voice too, that is why I would think it fair for men to speak up about their own health issues, women can't do absolutely everything for you. Certainly if men did speak up about some issue that was degrading to them or exploitative, women would then have the opportunity to speak out in support, I certainly would.

However I'm yet to see men being supportive of women in this regard.

You mentioned feminists who have said stupid things. I can only speak for myself, I don't support dehumanising attitudes towards men and would refute any woman who did this. The author of this article is Renate Klein, has she said such things? Unless you can say this for sure, then it is unfair to claim that she holds the same view as Greer or Dowd just as it would be unfair for me to claim that you think the same as men who beat their wives for example. Its called stereotyping and it distracts from the issue doesn't it?

"If you research it, you will begin to see that it may not be necessary in the future to have an egg or have sperm to create a human life form."

Well that sounds scary. Its time to stop screwing around with human life before we completely lose our humanity.

There are a number of ethical issues with this debate, womens health is just one, unfortunately it continues to be swept under the carpet by people using "choice" to justify absolutely everything. Clearly, not all choices are acceptable in society otherwise our laws would be meaningless.
Posted by Elka, Thursday, 30 November 2006 12:40:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Times like this I wish we could ditch issues of feminism and look at it from a broader perspective.

While this will largely affect women, there are plenty of men - fathers, husbands, sons, who still care for the women involved.

This shouldn't be approached from a feminist angle, rather, an ethics one in general.

I'm willing to accept there are dangers involved in harvesting women's eggs, and these need to be addressed.

But I simply can't countenance the notion that because there are risks, we should ban it altogether.

I'm sorry, that's not a solution. In most instances, it's using the circumstances to fulfil a particular ideological agenda.

In the circumstances where this is not the case and the concern is entirely motivated by health risks, then perhaps measures to protect women from opporunism would be more appropriate, instead of ultimately, robbing people of the choice to contribute to science.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 30 November 2006 2:35:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Scientists will not butcher women to get their eggs. If you truly believe that they intend to harm women then you are delusional. Safety is their foremost concern".
Well, Steele, introduce me to your leader, take me to your world...cos you obviously don't live in mine.
In my world whether you are a man or a woman there are groups of people happy to exploit you to the max.
All I want to say is thank you to Renate for an interesting and informative article.
Posted by tillietee, Thursday, 30 November 2006 2:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where is the evidence that women are being forced to donate eggs, or that women are somehow incapable of making an informed choice?

Why do radical feminists talk down to women and regard them as incapable of making their own decisions?

The emotive appeals in this article remind me of controversial claims made by some about the 'dangers' of RU 486.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4014
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 30 November 2006 3:53:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No woman has lost her life due to OHSS in Australia.

Centre for the Study of Mothers' and Children's Health, La Trobe University, Carlton 3053, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Risks associated with IVF and related assisted reproduction technologies include complications of ovarian stimulation, surgical procedures and pregnancy itself. Serious complications are uncommon but may be potentially life threatening. The aims of this study were to compare the mortality rates of women who received IVF treatment, with the mortality rate in the general female population, to determine the maternal mortality rate following IVF conception and to establish whether any deaths had occurred as a result of treatment complications. METHODS: Deaths were identified in a cohort of 29 700 Australian IVF patients by record-linkage with the National Death Index and a cancer registry. RESULTS: The all-cause mortality rates in IVF patients (treated and untreated) were significantly lower than in the general female population of the same age. In treated women, 72 deaths were observed and 125 deaths were expected giving an age-standardized mortality ratio of 0.58 (95% confidence interval). Two maternal deaths were identified in the 42 days of the puerperium. Complications of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome could not be directly related to any of the deaths identified in this cohort.

Hey girls guess what, you are more likely to die if your ovaries are not stimulated.

I note the use of the word "choice" is this a snide comment on pro-choice?

Consent is the only word.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 30 November 2006 4:11:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Renata,

thanks for responding to my article, though I must take issue with a number of your claims.

1. I do not 'dismiss" concerns about risks to women. I argue that women are entitled to learn about these risks - including ones that can not be precisely quantified (a problem not specific to egg donation))- and to make their own assessment about whether or not they wish to participate. If egg donation is as dangerous as you say, then this information will surely lead thinking women to reject participation. Or perhaps some may decide that however risky, they wish to undertake it to contribute to the curing of a disease from which they or others they love suffer. I'm afraid I do not see how the continued imposition of your assessment of what the risks are, and how every woman must evaluate them, gets us past the problem of paternalism. A paternalism that says you think egg donation is so risky, that other women shouldn't be allowed to do it. This paternalism, as you know, is one you share with the pro-life women with whom you are now in bed.

2. Renate, I have not distorted the simplistic or patronizing nature of WFA's arguments against allowing women the freedom to choose or reject egg donation at all. They are all there, including the distorted use of Carol Gilligan's work on female morality, in WFA's contribution of the Senate inquiry. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/leg_response_lockhart_review/submissions/sub80.pdf

WFA claims that "social and cultural expectations of feminine self-sacrifice which
impact on women" means that women will be "exploited" if they are given a chance to decide for themselves if they will be an altruistic donor (page 9). I f I had called this claim simplistic, it would be going easy on it. It's also offensively essentialist and uses outdated sexist and essentialist notions of "what women really are" as a justification for handing the state control over women's reproductive lives and choices. (page 9)
Posted by Leslie Cannold, Thursday, 30 November 2006 8:54:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
3. I have no sectarian interests. I belong to no political party, am not a practicing member of any religion, and have no formal or fiscal relationships with companies commericalising stem cells cures. I disclose all my unpaid work as an activist and for pro-choice orgs on the front page of my website: a link to which can be found on my profile page.

4. I neve said you are not a feminist though we both know your philosphy - and that of Finnrage - has been intellectually discredited because it discounts individual autonomy, a key principle of modern bioethics. I do agree that women with long histories as anti-choice activists and members of extreme anti-choice religious sects should disclose this when they claim that their concerns about egg donation (or IVF which they also oppose) comes from a "feminist position".

I don't say that the fact these women have such affiliations proves they are not adequately independent. I can't say with certainty where their opposition to women having choices about egg donation comes from. But these affiliations certainly suggest the possibility that these affiliations are behind their views, rather than concerns about women's well-being. Readers deserve a chance to consider that possibility. The fact that WFA works so hard to stop me disclosing this information, and to stop others disclosing facts like that their main campaigns are those opposing RU486, opposing transparency in advertising of pregnancy counselling services and opposing stem cell research, increases my certainty that they at least do think this information - were they to disclose it - would shape the way people read their arguments.

5. Re: your claim that women who donate eggs are currently being denied real informed consent. A professor friend of mine just did a literature search to see if there was any oz or international data on women's egg donation consent experience. He found zip. So can you please post full details of the "recent journal article" you claim shows consent in this country is poor.
Posted by Leslie Cannold, Thursday, 30 November 2006 9:06:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can someone please answer me the following question.

Isn't the procedure for harvesting eggs to which the author of the article refers, the same procedure used for women on the IVF program?

If it is, then I assume that those against harvesting (apparently) for health impact reasons and based on a concern about the quality of consent, also apply those judgements to those on the IVF program.

I also suspect those health impact reasons/reasonings/objections would apply to a range of drugs and treatments which women take for a variety of conditions. If it doesn't then I find it curious.
Posted by lia, Friday, 1 December 2006 12:28:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I remember when organ-transplants were first being discussed and exactly the same objection was raised, ie that poor people would be exploited by the rich. This has actually come to fruition with healthy people in poor countries selling their kidneys etc.

I think this shows 2 things: one that the concern is well-founded and 2 that banning the procedure is not the remedy. If we had blanket banned organ donation then none of the organ transplants that have occurred over the last 4 decades would have proceeded and I dont think any reasonable person would want that to be the case.

It is true we have to be on-guard against exploitation of this procedure but it is the exploitation that is the problem not the procedure and so it is the exploitation that should be targeted.
Posted by Rob513264, Friday, 1 December 2006 2:06:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Renate I have to say that most young Australian women are educated enough to be able to understand the intricacies of egg gathering and able to make an informed decision about whether they want to put their bodies through it.

I am sure over time the procedure for harvesting eggs will become less invasive and who knows, in a number of generations it might be routine for women's eggs to be harvested at age 18, when they are at their healthiest, for later implantation when the woman is socially set up for parenthood.

Medical science allows us to lessen the effects of what nature dealt us and I have no qualms with using technology to make me a more effective member of society.
Posted by billie, Friday, 1 December 2006 8:13:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elka,
I don’t think feminists such as Germaine Greer or Maureen Dowd can be called stupid, as this only lessens their responsibility for the many discriminatory and maligning remarks they have made about the male gender in the past.

Other feminists such as Leslie Cannold could also think about the number of times they have made maligning or discriminatory remarks about the male gender.

I have read of claims from various feminists regards a range of issues, but I have rarely seen an instance where these claims have been fully verified. In this article a feminist is claiming that women are being placed at significant risk if they donate eggs, but I somehow disbelieve this because the monetary value for human eggs is not that great for doctors to risk the possibility of litigation.

The big problem for feminists is how they can oppose the harvesting of eggs from women, while saying nothing about the harvesting of sperm from men.

I don’t accept the IVF industry as there are so many children who could be adopted, and I don’t accept the harvesting of eggs from women or the harvesting of sperm from men because I don’t like what some of the biotechnology and genetic engineering firms are doing with eggs and sperm after it has been harvested.

The author is an academic feminist who also represents the organisation “Hands Off Our Ovaries”, but this organisation could be called “Hands Off Ovaries and Gonads”.

I might then be interested in supporting such an organisation because it wouldn’t be so gender biased.
Posted by HRS, Friday, 1 December 2006 11:30:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie, you write, "Renate I have to say that most young Australian women are educated enough to be able to understand the intricacies of egg gathering..."

They may be educated enough, but one must ask, to what standard of social and moral education have they been educated?

Indeed they have been educated, but are they intelligent enough to make self-informed decisions?

I recall reading an article where some young women were dropping out of (Sydney?) university - making educated informed decisions - and joining the ranks of high class Sydney prostitutes.

As some have pointed out above, despite education, some women continue to make misinformed decisions determined by need and circumstance, or corruption and coercion due to moral ineptitude.

It's not as black and white as some, like Cannold, would have us believe.

If educated women are open to abuse through beckoning calls of wealth through prostitution, then why not egg donation?

It's a good debate. There's no answer. It's the ongoing debacle of feminist-Marxist liberalism vs patriarchal-conservative moralism.

If I had a daughter, I know whose side I'd be on. And am anyway.
Posted by Maximus, Friday, 1 December 2006 5:18:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus,
I don’t think there would be much choice under a Marxist-feminist system. Most Marxist systems have offered very little choice. Either you do as you are told, or you would receive a machine gun bullet.

Under a feminist system, I would think that either you do as you are told, or they would get some gullible and easily lead male to shoot you with a machine gun bullet

There are now feminists who are opposing the harvesting of female eggs, but I somehow doubt that there is much physical risk to a woman when harvesting eggs. The risk of litigation is too great for doctors to perform an unsafe operation.

But the secret of why so few feminists have not previously opposed the harvesting of male sperm, is of course that many feminists want male sperm so that single women or lesbian women can have babies through IVF, without the need for a husband or without the need of having a father to the children.

So now feminists can’t fully oppose the harvesting of male sperm, because the harvesting of male sperm is very much a part of the philosophy of many feminists.
Posted by HRS, Saturday, 2 December 2006 1:59:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But the secret of why so few feminists have not previously opposed the harvesting of male sperm, is of course that many feminists want male sperm so that single women or lesbian women can have babies through IVF, without the need for a husband or without the need of having a father to the children."
That's a great point. People should not listen to feminists because they are inherently sexist and that prejudice leads to discrimination in debates on important issues.
Posted by Steel, Saturday, 2 December 2006 5:02:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the harvesting of male sperm requires a surgical and invasive process and the taking of fertility drugs, then I might consider opposing it.
To be honest, i don't oppose voluntary egg donation either, as long as the women involved are fully informed of the risks.
It is exceedingly hard to take some of the "men are hard done by" camp seriously when they try to equate the degree of difficulty of male sperm donation ( a wank with a dirty magazine will achieve it, I believe. Probably quite pleasurable, if a little embarrassing) to the degree of difficulty of egg harvesting. Or when they do the same with male circumcision (a nasty little operation that I would certainly have resisted if I'd had sons - but my husband was dead keen on - we had the fight, but fortunately had daughters, but which leaves little if any permanent damage, and certainly doesn't prevent sexual pleasure -just ask my husband) with female circumcison ( a cruel and disfiguring procedure that in extreme cases both destroys the capacity for sexual pleasure, indeed, rendering it agonisingly painful - and can make childbirth both more agonising and potentially more deadly.)
men are hard done by, often, particularly in the limited range of emotions they are allowed to show and the rigid straightjacket of "acceptable" masculine behaviour, and they are often shortchanged as fathers and husbands. I think it is appalling men are expected to put women first on a sinking ship, or that they used to be the only ones compelled to risk their lives in combat. that was discrimination, pure and simple. But they weaken their case when they use spurious examples and comparisons.
Posted by ena, Tuesday, 5 December 2006 1:27:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ena,
Your attitude towards male sperm donors would be representative of the attitude of many feminists I believe, and it is the main reason why men should never donate sperm. I won’t even bother quoting what you have said about male sperm donors, as such language is only fit for a male maligner.

I don’t believe the physical risks to women when donating eggs would be all that great, as doctors would not risk the possible litigation by carrying out an unsafe procedure. But I certainly would not be supportative of women donating eggs, because eventually those women will be regarded as having no more value than male sperm donors.

I also don’t like what biotechnology and genetic engineering firms do with eggs and sperm after it has been harvested. For example: - mixing human sperm with animal eggs. Next they might decide to mix human eggs with animal sperm.
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 5 December 2006 4:20:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy