[jakobe]

I find it odd that the only moral issue people seem to find with procedures like this is whether it is okay to kill an egg cell, or an early stage embryo.

These egg cells don't grow on trees. They must be harvested from human beings. Egg cell harvesting is a complex process, requiring the donors (young women) to take experimental drugs with possibly harmful long term sideeffects.

If we are using human egg cells for experiments, or at some point in the future, for curing old people, aren't we exploiting the young woman we take those egg cells from?

[pygy_]

AFAIK, they use the embryos left after a successful IVF (if the parents agree).

The sucess rate of an IVF is relatively low, and the procedure to extract the ova is complex, inconvenient and not risk-free.

Ovaries are overstimulated to produce more than one egg. They are all collected and fertilized, but, usually, only two or three are implanted at a time, to balance the low success rate and the non-null chance of multiple pregnancy (that's how octuplets are made :\).

If a successfull pregnancy occurs before running out of embryos, the mother/couple may donate the remaining embryos for research (that's how it works in Belgium, at least).

[Serow225]

Current practice from the doctors I've talked to in North America is to encourage people to implant one egg per attempt, with two eggs being allowed if the couple insists.

[riggins]

I really struggle to understand people who view prohibiting the use of embryos that would be thrown out otherwise as supporting 'life'.

[aganders3]

Well, all of the egg donors are adults with (presumably) the ability to make rational decisions. They should of course give proper informed consent and potentially be given due compensation, but in that case I don't think it's fair to call it exploitation.

e: I hate to complain about downvotes, but did totally miss your point here or something? I think this is a good conversation to have, and I was replying in good faith.

[meric]

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

There is a significant proportion of feminists who are against prostitution and pornography because it exploits women's bodies, and your statement can be used as a potential argument to dislodge their beliefs.

On the other hand, it is more unacceptable to suggest at times a person might not be always fully rational, and even more unacceptable to generalize this to a group of people. So your statement has brought up a contradiction in the beliefs of a subset of people, which you're not supposed to do.

[joeclark77]

They are being paid to become mothers to children who they will never know, who will likely die in miscarriages (implantation of IVF embryos is not very successful), and (per the WSJ article linked) may very likely be intentionally murdered by "scientists" to collect "tissue" (and citations, and grant money). These are young women, typically college students with poor earning prospects and lots of debt, being enticed with large amounts of money they may not feel free to turn down.

I'm sure that your comment is in good faith, and I'm not one of the ones who downvoted you. I only want to show you that, from this point of view, "informed consent" is not a good enough excuse for how these women are being used. (And I would also question whether these girls are truly "informed" about what's really going to be done to their children.)