This is absurd

British couples who travel abroad for IVF treatment and buy other women’s eggs are engaging in a form of prostitution, a fertility conference was told yesterday.

Stupidity of the highest order.

Professor Pfeffer said that even using the term “donation” in relation to the exchange of eggs was inappropriate. “It sounds as though it’s a gift. But these women are not doing it for altruistic reasons — they are doing it for money. We shouldn’t talk about them as egg donors.”

Furthermore, she said, it raised questions for the child who was conceived. “What can you tell a child when half their genetic make-up came from a woman in Romania? A woman who was so poor that she was prepared to enter [into egg exchange]? What does that child think of its social mother, a woman who was prepared to exploit another woman?”

Who is exploiting who, dimwit?

The aim of life is to pass on one\’s genes. Humans are limited (most especially women) in how frequently they can do this. There\’s the nine months of the actual pregnancy of course, the few months before even the most aggressive can start another pregnancy and then there\’s the largest cost, the 20 odd years of raising the child until it can reproduce (umm, shorter than that in some cases of course).

So here we have a system in which all of that is by passed for these women. Their genes are passed on without any of these restrictions: they don\’t have to carry the pregnancy, they don\’t have to raise the child and yet they have won a prize in the great Darwinian lottery. A child that someone else is carrying almost all of the costs of.

They\’re also being paid for this: and you say that this is exploitation?

Seriously?

Good grief, does no one actually take Darwin seriously any more?

Would I be being exploited if someone was crazed enough to want to carry and raise a child from my sperm? Absolutely not: I would think that I was exploiting them and rightly so.

For I would get what is, we are told by the scientists, the aim of life, grandchildren, without the intervening 20 years of effort. This simply isn\’t exploitation.

The woman is a crazed lunatic.

14 comments on “This is absurd

  1. Of course the Left doesn’t take Darwin seriously (or, rather, it takes him very seriously indeed and identifies him as an existential threat: it wasn’t a snake-handling Xtian retard that dumped a jug of water on E. O. Wilson’s head.)

  2. ‘If I don’t approve of it, it must be stopped. To help pass the necessary legislation I will lie by calling this something it isn’t.’

    Professor Pfeffer is not stupid; she is evil.

  3. Pingback: This is absurd 168888 Lottery

  4. “The aim of life is to pass on one’s genes.”

    “For I would get what is, we are told by the scientists, the aim of life, grandchildren”

    Randy scientists might tell you such things, but science — as knowledge only of the empirical-mechanical world — does not. Aims, goals, purposes, etc, of any kind play no role whatsoever in empirical-scientific accounts. To say that life per se has an aim of any kind is to impute to it a teleological nature and a value, upon which science by itself is utterly silent. It ought to be obvious, however, that the claim, to wit, that the aim of life is to pass on one’s genes, is not a scientific hypothesis, since it is not in any way testable, verifiable, or falsifiable. Not even Dawkins — who is not the brightest star in the intellectual firmament — believes so.

  5. “Good grief, does no one actually take Darwin seriously any more?”

    It’s all a bit pick and mix, really. Disproving god’s existence? Absolutely fine. The some people beat others because they’re stronger, smarter or faster? Err no, that’s all down to society.

  6. Pingback: First Class posts on Saturday | Letters From A Tory

  7. I thought much the same when I read the article.

    But, being a bit old-fashioned, I would have written “Who is exploiting whom?”. And I would never start a sentence with the word ‘but’. Or the word ‘and’, for that matter. Or the word ‘or’.

    (Thus arriving swiftly at the parody singularity).

  8. Evolution obviously it gives humans a predisposition to raise children and to have sex to create them, but it seems unlikely that human responses have evolved to the point whereby someone gives one of their ova to a stranger for evolutionary advantage.

    So unless you are taking the perspective of a gene rather than of actual people I don’t see how it can be said that the donor is exploiting the recipient (not that I view the recipient as expoititive either).

  9. If someone used your sperm for fertilazation purpose – you would be paying child support surely?
    Giving/selling eggs is different I suppose.

  10. John Malpas,

    Sperm banks have a legal exception for child support, but private individuals don’t.

    Donating eggs is or course different because under our legal system women don’t have the same responsibility for their actions as men.

  11. In that article she declares that this is the first time in history that women have exploited the bodies of other women.

    Wet nurses employed by wealthy women who did not, or could not suckle their own babies.
    Madams who housed and ran the prostitutes in every town and city.
    Wealthy women who employed young women as servants, and forbade them to marry, or have children.
    Back street abortionists who accepted poor women’s money to kill the unborn.

    Throughout history, and all over the world, women of means have exploited their less fortunate sisters in all manner of ways.

    It seems to me that this is a ploy to take fertility out of the control of those who have it, and curtail their ability to derive benefit from their own good fortune. Because you see, these things should be administered by people with clipboards, following the guidelines, convening meetings, and taking their cut of the proceeds. Pretty soon that would be all of the proceeds.

  12. Pingback: Britblog Roundup N241 – Best of British | nourishing obscurity

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.