data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/017d3/017d3f19374a5aee76b15831566904f7d1a3da31" alt=""
Some of the arguments include the medical risks. Another equally discussed arument against the practice is the free market factor--the profits for the donor. Looking at this from a common sense standpoint, though, wouldn't one follow the other? If there is more risk (and there obviously is) in an egg donor, then they should receive more compensation in the case that there are undesirable effects. In addition, if the issue is the difference in compensation between sperm and egg donation, then shouldn't the emphasis be on balancing out those two factors instead of banning the female's freedom to donate?
There is also an issue since Americans cannot currently sell any other organs. But, again, how is the sperm not a part of the human body while the egg is? I guess I just don't see the differences between the two. I do partially agree that they should both be regulated in the same manner, making both just as valuable as the other.
And to be fair, there are some aspects of the practice that do blow me away. I am liberal, and I say if couples need help reproducing and choose to use this method, then that's their choice. But the ads for egg donors, like those that can currently be seen on Craig's List, are pretty astounding...calling for ivy league graduates and certain SAT scores. These are not variables that are predictable when using the natural methods of reproduction, so I do think that their a little inappropriate for fertility practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment