Pericles, if you look up the hands off our ovaries campaign you will read more about the potential harm of ovary hyperstimulation. Many women suffer through it for ivf, at least at the end of that, there is hope that she will have a baby. With cloning, there is no benefit for her, the possibility of her eggs helping someone is decades away if it is exists at all. Adult stem cells have proven more useful in treating diseases and there have already been applications for them. Why they keep flogging this unethical dead horse I don't know. That is probably why the author of this article has brought up the profit motive, although her main concern is the health of women who would be exploited by this technology. Just because some women may "choose" this, doesn't mean that they are not being exploited.

Elka

Please do not repeat the mantra of "Adult stem cells have proven more useful in treating diseases and there have already been applications for them." It is just untrue.

Hematopoietic stem cells have been used, I have had a transplant using them, other than that please tell me where "adult" stem cells have been used.

Adult stem cells make stuff related to where they come from.

Only this month, motor neurones have been created using embryonic stem cells.

From what I read from the article and your response why is IVF legal?

I also come from an academic background (formally Melbourne University). I am from a non-English speaking background and I take great exception to any feminist that professes to speak on behalf of *all* women as if they were a homogenous group, and as if they were so weak and so unthinking as to be unable to make informed decision.

This commentator speaks of bodily integrity as if it were unproblematic and not more appropriately discussed by reference to different contexts.

Furthermore, Hawthorne's objection to the commodification, ownership and control of women's bodily products (eggs) applies equally to those people (such as Susan Hawthorne) who want to speak universally for women and prescribe what women should be doing with their bodies.

I find Hawthorne's stance unfortunately paternalistic, even though I would think/hope it is borne out of a care and respect for the human life of a woman. If this is what lies behind her concern, then surely Dr Hawthorne might understand that it is that same (selfless) care for human life that may be the motivating force behind the decision of women to donate their eggs. I find such selfless sacrifice for one's fellow man to be touching and inspiring.

For the sake of intellectual consistency, it would be interesting to know of Dr Hawthorne's stance in relation to organ donations.

I too am sickened by the commercialisation of bodily products (eggs). If the commercialisation/commodification of body products is the *real* concern of Dr Hawthorne, then perhaps her attention/efforts would have been better served campaigning in favour of state funding and control of such activities. In such a campaign, she would have my support.

As her article stands, it is unclear whether her real issue is with women having the rights over their bodies (even though she may not agree with their choices) or whether her gripe is with the commercialisation of body products.

Ok, feminists have to start to stfu already. This type of bs is bordering on insanity. Here's some ethics for you: Don't murder your babies.

Dear S. Hawthorne, I would suggest that a woman has a right to choose whether or not she donates her oocytes for therapeutic cloning research. I find your position ill considered, restrictive and, in my opinion, immoral as you would both prevent women from having this choice and hold back a potentially lifesaving field of medical research.

Regards,
Roger Moorgate, PhD
Administrator, The Reproductive Cloning Network
http://www.ReproductiveCloning.net

Roger is correct. One can choose. No different than being an organ donor.

Surprised science didn't pick up more on stem / undifferientated cells as far back as the 1970s. The indicators were there.