Ivy League woman's egg $50,000. Ivy League man's sperm, $1200

Comments

6 comments posted
My biology is rusty ...

Regarding the price issue: Also, isn't it possible for a man to generate more sperm than for a woman to generate eggs, thus driving down the cost of sperm?

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 6 March 2006 - 6:11pm
In Arizona, that egg is worth a prison term

After all, Arizona has made donating an egg a felony:

On a voice vote, the House of Representatives said that a woman who sells her eggs could be sent to prison for up to a year and fined up to $150,000. The same penalty would apply to any organization or doctor who made the purchase.

Lawmakers also gave preliminary approval to a companion measure requiring that before women even donate their eggs, they be informed of medical risks. Here, too, legislators refused to warn men of the potential legal and ethical risks of donating sperm, including the possibility that a child born from the donation could seek them out and demand support.

Rep. Bob Stump, R-Peoria, said both measures are necessary to protect the health of women.

Where would Arizona women be without the Big Stump to "protect" them?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 March 2006 - 6:22pm
Sperm seeking support

Actually, if the sperm is donated to a sperm bank, or if it is donated to a surrogate family, AFAIK, the child cannot later seek support from the father b/c the adoptive (intended) parents are considered the child's parents for all intents and purposes.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 6 March 2006 - 6:36pm
But can he date his sister?

Since it is anonymous, it is possible that two children who are biologically related could meet and end up dating - or more. This scenario is not all that far fetched given that there was a sperm bank in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where a number of children were produced and who are now the age that they might meet.

Though the law gets us out of this one, biology doesn't.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 6 March 2006 - 6:52pm
Not so fast

The courts have already broken that barrier with women claiming rights to children they gave up for adoption. Adopted children have rights to learn their family medical history. You never know what might happen down the line, legally.

After all, these politicians are in orgiastic frenzy writing laws relating to reproduction. The government seems to claim ownership on all human reproduction these days.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 March 2006 - 7:55pm
Protectionism = Arizona legislative sexism

Once again, men want to control women's bodies. Whether it is in the bedroom or the legislature, the Arizona legislature - the majority men along with women who play the male power game - are denying women a CHOICE! But ironically this time it is under the guise of protecting a woman's "health."

Notice that the ban is not on harvesting eggs. The ban is on selling them. Yet in the 1942 case, Skinner v. Oklahoma it would seem the right to reproduce is guaranteed.

What a strange landscape - in South Dakota demanding raped women they must bare a child against their will, while in Arizona telling others that they cannot sell their eggs.

Already penny wit has threatened to sue Matsu for gobs of money if she fails carry the child to term. To get just compensation she goes from the "dollar" of consideration to the going rate of $50,000 for her egg. But now the Arizonans are going to fine her $150,000 that. Matsu can't win for losing.

I think at bottom, what troubles men is that once they leave their seed, women are "uppity" and seem to want to make their own decisions and this gets men where they live. They are outraged that someone will tamper with "master's property."

Protection, prosmection. It's all about male insecurities. You don't need to be Sigmund Freud to know a clear case of vagina envy when you see it.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 7 March 2006 - 9:44am