First off, only a small percentage of women qualify for the really big bucks of myth; to qualify at all a woman must be between 21 and 30, not have traveled (mad cow), and be healthy. Genetic disorders, depression, a family history of cancer or diabetes, and even piercings and tattoos can all be deal-breakers. And of that population (whose family members have, apparently, never visited a doctor), only those with excellent SATs are double-digit desirable.

Then, it's a time commitment: the competitive application process is involved and prolonged, and the actual donation requires a number of appointments over several months. And then there are the health risks. As Nerve describes it,

The most hazardous side effect, Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS), is a complication occasionally seen in women who take certain fertility medicines that stimulate egg production. The symptoms of OHSS can include bloating, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, excessive weight gain, shortness of breath, and sometimes kidney or liver failure. In addition, during the procedure, the patient is in immediate danger, as a careless doctor can puncture the donor's bowel, bladder, or blood vessels. And while the long-term physical effects of egg donation have not been well studied (the practice has only existed for about twenty-five years), some evidence suggests an increased risk of ovarian cancer and early menopause. Women can only produce so many eggs in their lifetime.

Which is not to say that no one should do it - many women apparently talk about the altruism of the gesture and the satisfaction of helping increasing numbers of applicants have a family, to say nothing off paying off debts - simply that porn and a cup, this isn't. For a long time doctors have worried that the sky-high potential payments have made donors cavalier about the risks of the procedure. Indeed, this is the rationale behind Great Britain's policy of setting a £250 cap (incidental costs and earnings lost) on such payments. However, the increasing demand - and the open-secret practice of couples going abroad for eggs - is causing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, a watchdog, to review their policy. (None of it an issue for those of us with diabetes genes or bad math scores, of course - our eggs, like Veruca Salt, don't make the cut.)

Fall Harvest [Nerve]

Related: Women May Be Paid For Eggs: Fertility Watchdog [Telegraph]
Egg And Sperm Donation Rules To Be Reviewed [Independent]

Kanazawa's thesis about "modern" feminism is that it seeks to deny any and all differences between women and men, a thesis he indicates is demonstrated by the phrase, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are men." Um, actually, the axiom is — as any actual proponent of modern feminism knows — this:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

But, you know, there's no reason to learn anything about what modern feminism seeks to accomplish before indicting it, right?

First, Kanazawa argues that feminism seeks to deny biological differences, which he then argues are stacked in favor of women anyway.

However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.

Does he provide a citation that more men then women end up with no biological offspring? Of course not! Evidence is for scientists!

Kanazawa also hilariously argues that men are the weaker sex.

It is also not true that women are the "weaker sex." Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men's average life expectancy is shorter than women's. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.

Hmm, I recall reading that the leading cause of death among infants and kids — and particularly among boys — are accidents... and, well, I see that's still the case.

Kanazawa's next argument, such as it is, is that men are just in control of everything because they have to be in order to get laid. The world, in effect, revolves around women's ability to provide access to their sexual and reproductive organs.

It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don't control these resources, because they don't have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

Is it just me or is Kanazawa starting to sound a little bitter?

Kanazawa — like Ross Douthat before him — asserts that feminism is just making women unhappy. Of course, he's just rehashing the talking points from the same study at Douthat did without reading it or bothering to understand what it really says but — again — why would a scientist want to read science papers when he can just rely on an abstract to make a point that feminism has forced women to content with divorce and single parenthood when we were ever so much happier being barefoot and pregnant?

Anyway, Dr. Kanazawa — whose upcoming book is apparently about how smart guys don't get laid — is just trying to do women a service, as long as they make sure they don't age, consider themselves his equal or want gender equity in the work place. That's just immoral and unnecessary.

Why Modern Feminism Is Illogical, Unnecessary, And Evil [Psychology Today]

Related: Cheris Kramarae [Wikiquote]
Child Health [CDC]
Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa [London School of Economics]

Earlier: Feminism Makes Women Unhappy, And Other Tall Tales

The sperm, created by exposing stem cells to "a special cocktail of growth factors, nutrients and retinoic acid, a derivative of vitamin A," have a head and tail, a special combination of proteins needed for fertilization, 23 chromosomes, and the ability to swim — just like ordinary, ball-produced sperm. However, sperm biologist Allan Pacey (who obviously got his job by losing a game of MASH) is skeptical. He says,

The quality of the images is not of sufficiently high resolution and I would need more data. They are early sperm, but functional tests would be needed to know exactly what has been achieved.

But the most obvious "functional test," using the sperm to fertilize an egg, is exactly what journalists and scientists alike assure us will not happen. Apparently identifying a deep-seated fear triggered by this research, four different news outlets report that the sperm breakthrough doesn't mean scientists will soon be creating human beings in a "dish." EurekAlert quotes lead researcher Karim Nayernia, who says,

While we can understand that some people may have concerns, this does not mean that humans can be produced 'in a dish' and we have no intention of doing this. This work is a way of investigating why some people are infertile and the reasons behind it. If we have a better understanding of what's going on it could lead to new ways of treating infertility.

Despite Nayernia's assurances that the sperm will be used to study male infertility and not to create a race of dish-people (and the fact that UK law prohibits the created sperm from being used in actual fertility treatments), critics are concerned. Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics says,

This is an example of immoral madness. Perfectly viable human embryos have been destroyed in order to create sperm over which there will be huge questions of their healthiness and viability.

It's taking one life in order to perhaps create another. I'm very much in favour of curing infertility but I don't think you can do whatever you like.

The idea that curing male infertility is okay but producing embryos "in a dish" is not may speak to an anxiety underlying much of the coverage of this breakthrough: what if artificial sperm meant women could reproduce without men? Though they are quick to quote Nayernia's "dish" reassurances, none of the articles mentioned this anxiety explicitly, perhaps because of a lucky loophole: at this point, only male stem cells can be used to create workable sperm. So men are safe, for now. But as soon as we figure out how to make sperm from our own lady cells, we're going to send all the men to Siberia and use "dishes" to create what we really want — babies!

We expected Slate's William Saletan to be all over this issue, and he probably will be. But today his column deals with a more important question: "Does God want you to masturbate?" The answer: hell yeah, but only because it improves men's "sperm quality" — perhaps protecting them from stem-cell-induced obsolescence.

Scientists Create Human Sperm from Stem Cells [Time]
Scientists Claim Sperm 'First' [BBC]
Human Sperm Created From Embryonic Stem Cells [EurekAlert]
Scientists Claim Breakthrough In Growing Human Sperm From Stem Cells [Guardian]
Experts Query Sperm Creation Claim [Mirror]
Wank Thyself [Slate]

The embryos in question came from Saddleback Memorial Hospital in Laguna Hills, where a fertility clinic was shut down in 1995 after revelations that it had repeatedly impregnated women with the wrong embryos. Anderson was the only one who stepped up to take the now-homeless embryos — he says, "I thought it was the right thing to do." That meant he was saddled with the task of tracking down the owners of each embryo, and giving them a choice: keep them frozen for a fee, donate them to medical research or to an infertile couple, or discard them.

More owners are choosing to donate to research now that stem cell issues are receiving more attention. Donating to another couple is the least popular option. Many embryos, however, remain entirely unclaimed — since Saddleback had many international clients, lots of embryo owners have been impossible to track down. Anderson says,

At some point, it just gets ridiculous. In a perfect world, when a couple is done with having all their children, they would make a decision. The farther and farther we get from that, the less likely they are to make a decision. I wish there was a way of making a disposition on a lot of these embryos that have been abandoned.

It is legal to destroy embryos abandoned for five years or more, but doing so would be "a public relations nightmare" according to bioethicist Lori Andrews. She says, "we have no agreement over the social or moral status of the embryo. We need to be more forward-looking in terms of the policies and regulation."

Dr. Anderson's quandary highlights the difficulty of knowing what to do with something that isn't a child, but that people feel deserves more consideration than a vial of blood or a clump of skin. It's fortunate that we have the technology today to create embryos like the ones Anderson is storing, but unfortunate that we haven't quite figured out how we should treat them. Also unfortunate: frozen embryos aren't the only issue to inhabit this still somewhat uncharted moral middle ground.

One of these issues is egg donation. Though women can make a fair amount of money donating their eggs to infertile couples, they couldn't be paid to give up their eggs for research — until now. New York State has decided to allow payment for research-destined eggs, opening the door for more study into cloning stem cells for individualized therapies. The move may help people with currently untreatable diseases someday get well, but due to many people's discomfort with cloning, at least one bioethicist is already predicting a backlash.

Then there's the issue of surrogacy, which is apparently becoming more popular among single men in India. The Times of India tells this story:

A 28-year old expat Gujarati, who stays in the US, met with a serious accident and was hospitalized for two years battling paraplegia. Left with a certain disability, the young man expressed his feeling that he did not want to marry as he was too conscious of his handicap but would love to become a father.

"His parents approached us and using his sperms a surrogate just delivered a boy. Fatherhood has given the young man a new purpose in life," said Dr Patel. Infertility specialist Dr Falguni Bavishi of Ahmedabad has also been approached by a single man from Canada to help him become a father. He had got his sperms frozen and will get a baby with the help of a surrogate.

The wording of the article is somewhat off-putting (the headline is, "Single men hire wombs in Gujarat to become fathers"), and it's sad that the young man's disability (it's possible that the paper is coyly referring to impotence) makes him feel he cannot marry. At the same time, it's good to be reminded that men, as well as women, sometimes want to have a child without a partner. And while surrogacy gives rise to a whole set of moral and economic questions (will it, for instance, create an underclass of poor women bearing rich people's children?), it's hard not to be happy for the man who can now realize his dream of being a father. All three stories reveal that we still have a lot to work out when it comes to reproductive technology. At the same time, one reason we have these problems is because people are able to have children who never would have before. And this, despite all the difficulties attendant on it, is exciting.

Life On Ice [Newsweek]
Single Men Hire Wombs In Gujarat To Beecome Fathers [Times of India]
New York Approves Controversial Egg Donor Payments [New Scientist]

Researchers at the University of Parana, Brazil, studied 90 married couples' DNA and compared them to 152 randomly-generated control couples, EurekAlert explains. They looked for differences in couples' major histocompatibility complex (MHC), a genetic region found in most vertebrates that is related to the immune system. After comparing the couples MHC dissimilarities, scientists found that there were greater differences in the real couples than the virtual couples. "If MHC genes did not influence mate selection," said Professor Maria da Graca Bicalho, "we would have expected to see similar results from both sets of couples. But we found that the real partners had significantly more MHC dissimilarities than we could have expected to find simply by chance."

Other studies have shown that in humans and other vertebrates females prefer mates with dissimilar MHC. The genetic region is known to influence mating selection by creating a preference for certain body odors, like those found in sweat. Other research suggests that face structure may be influenced by MHC as well.

Scientists believe their findings, which were presented yesterday at the European Society of Human Genetics, reveal an evolutionary strategy to produce healthy offspring. According to the Telegraph people with more MHC variations in their immune system can recognize and cope with infections more easily. It may also be related to the evolutionary impulse to avoid incest. Previous studies have shown that couples with similar MHC genes had longer intervals between births, which may mean that they suffered undetected early miscarriages.

Professor Bicalho said that while people like to think that they chose their partner based on their similarities, "our research has shown clearly that it is differences that make for successful reproduction, and that the subconscious drive to have healthy children is important when choosing a mate."

Another scientist who conducted similar research on human leukocyte antigens, which also influence the immune system, turned her findings into a dating service that matches people based on their DNA. The Times of London reports that last fall Croatian geneticist Dr. Tamara Brown created GenePartner, a dating service that matches couples by analyzing their DNA samples. Brown says that people can't be matched solely on their genetic compatibility, but a good biological match means a greater likelihood of "forming an enduring and successful relationship; having a satisfying sex life; higher fertility rates and healthier children."

Opposites Attract — How Genetics Influences Humans To Choose Their Mates [EurekAlert]
Sexual Chemistry Found In Genes Causes 'Opposites To Attract' [The Telegraph]
DNA Dating: Has Science Unlocked The Secret Of A Perfect Match? [The Times of London]

The study examined completed questionnaires of 80 egg donors from around the U.S. All of the women participating had been paid for donating their eggs, with payments ranging from $1,100 to $7,300. In the questionnaires, two-thirds of women rated their feelings about the entire experience (including the months of no booze, no smoking, no sex) as one hundred percent positive. The other third was not so certain.

The most common negative feelings women reported on the survey were frustration that the donation process was anonymous, and feeling that they had been underpaid (considering the physical side effects reported, which include ovarian cysts, fertility problems and weight gain, its not hard to understand why a woman would feel underpaid receiving $1,100 for the unrestricted access to her fallopian tubes). Seven of the women who responded said that they were still curious to know exactly what happened to their eggs, and whether any children were brought to term with their DNA. Two donors “developed ongoing concerns that a child that they bear and raise might, by chance, meet and develop a relationship with her donor offspring.” Although two women out of eighty can hardly be considered representative of the general population of egg donors, it is interesting that a significant number of respondents aren’t thrilled with their choice.

Another important factor that is often ignored is the economic aspect of the transaction. The survey did ask about the monetary compensation, however, it did not mention any correlation between the happy donors and the well-paid donors. While they reported that some women claim they were not motivated purely by altruistic reasons, and some (the more honest ones?) admit that money was their sole motivation, the article did not provide numbers for these respondents.

In last months Wall Street Journal, “Annie,” a 29-year-old lawyer, said that she chose to donate her eggs not because she needed the money, but because she “thought it was a great thing to do to help people.” Unfortunately, her admirable act did leave her “heartbroken” when the baby conceived with her egg died in utero. The second couple who received her eggs wanted an anonymous arrangement, so Annie does not know whether or not there is a baby on the way. Annie says that although she will probably donate again, being an egg donor "is something to seriously think about, and not just go into for the money. You have to ask yourself, once this process is over and there's this baby out there, how are you going to feel? Think about it — a lot."

Egg Donation: Most Donors Satisfied [CBS]

Related: Women Line Up To Donate Eggs [WSJ]

Earlier: Do Women Really Become Surrogates For Purely Altrustic Reasons?

It reminded me of this passage from the hotly debated Alex Kuczynski piece in the New York Times Mag:

In our experience with the surrogacy industry, no one lingered on the topic of money. We encountered the wink-nod rule: Surrogates would never say they were motivated to carry a child for another couple just for money; they were all motivated by altruism. This gentle hypocrisy allows surrogacy to take place. Without it, both sides would have to acknowledge the deep cultural revulsion against attaching a dollar figure to the creation of a human life.

One could debate whether or not pure altruism exists (I generally lean towards no), and obviously reproductive motivations are multifaceted. But it seems to me that while "doing something good for families" might be a perk of being a surrogate or donating your eggs, the main motivation is money. And hey, according to the Journal, you can get $25,000 for your eggs if you're "100% Jewish with ... High SAT Scores... Attractive, at Healthy Body Weight and Free of Genetic Diseases." If the economy keeps going the way it is, at those prices I may be putting my eggs on the market.

Ova Time: Women Line Up To Donate Eggs — For Money [WSJ]
Her Body, My Baby [NY Times Magazine]

Earlier: Writer, Socialite Explains Her "Mad Desire" For A Baby Through Surrogacy

Jamie didn't want surgery, but when she heard about the less invasive Essure, a metal coil that creates scar tissue in the fallopian tubes, she was intrigued. She did a lot of research, especially on post-sterilization regret, which for young women seems to be greatest if you've already had children. Then she met with a doctor who she feared would turn her away because of her age. He did ask her a lot of questions (including the rather offensive, "What if you met a billionaire who wanted to have kids with you?"), but he eventually approved her for the procedure.

I drove her to the appointment and waited at the clinic while she had the device inserted. I won't say it wasn't a weird experience — the clinic also did cosmetic surgery, so it was kind of a palace, and I sat there reading Vogue while my friend got screws shoved up her reproductive organs. For her part, she says it didn't hurt at all. They did have to dilate her cervix and pump her uterus full of water, so she came out a little nauseous and tired, but in good spirits.

The real fallout came when she told her parents. Her mom cried, and asked why she couldn't "just let her life unfold" the way other people did. Up to that point I'd been totally on board with Jamie's decision, but her mom's tears gave me a twinge of doubt. I wondered if I'd helped her carry out a choice she'd later regret.

But Jamie tells me she doesn't even think of it as a choice. When a gay friend of hers found out about her parents' reaction, he told her it sounded a lot like coming out. She was revealing "an important fact about who she was, that couldn't be changed, and her parents didn't want to accept it." She believes the desire not to have children can be something innate, as basic as the urge to procreate. On the question of kids, she says, "sometimes the answer is just no."

Her parents aren't the only ones who disapprove. Even the nurse at the clinic assumed Jamie was "done having kids," and was taken aback when Jamie explained that zero was enough for her. Jamie says most people see not wanting kids as a function of youth, not a deeply held conviction. When I asked how she felt about explaining her sterilization to people, she told me this: "Does it need to be defended? No. But people will feel entitled to an explanation, and you can get mad about that, or you can think of something to say." Which seems pretty good way to think about any big decision in your life, especially if it sets you apart from what people think of as normal.

*Not her real name.

Every now and then, though, Aubert wonders: What if his first girlfriend had not aborted? How would his life look different? He might have endured a loveless marriage and, perhaps, a sad divorce. He might have been saddled with child support as he tried to build his legal practice. He might never have met his wife. Their children — Christine, Kyle, Roch, Paul, Vance — might not exist."I wouldn't have the blessings I have now," Aubert said. So in a way, he said, the two abortions may have cleared his path to future happiness.

"That's an intellectual debate I have with myself," he said. "I struggle with it."

In the end, Aubert says his moral objection to abortion always wins. If he could go back in time, he would try to save the babies.

But would his long-ago girlfriends agree? Or might they also consider the abortions a choice that set them on a better path?

Aubert looks startled. "I never really thought about it for the woman," he says slowly.

Changing Abortion's Pronoun [LA Times]

One study showed a 98 percent success rate in couples using a hormone male contraceptive, Bremner said. Side effects include weight gain and acne.

However, there's one small problem: The doctors are having trouble getting pharmaceutical companies on board.

"It's taking normal young men without a disease and testing a drug in them for years — that's an issue," he said. And men aren't the ones at risk of getting pregnant, which carries its own hazards, and which justified testing contraceptives in females.

Breakthrough In Male Birth Control Remains Elusive [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]

Worrisome! But luckily, despite our unremitting student-loan statements, our eggs are loooong past their sell-by date. (A fact not helped any with all the booze, nicotine and nose-candy we've consumed over the past decade or two. And speaking of nicotine and blow, doesn't that above illustration of a lab vial totally look like a cigarette or a bloody, coke-filled plastic straw? Just saying! ). Luckily, we say, because just reading about the procedure made our uterus cramp up.

The process of egg extraction is time consuming, and it is not comfortable. For some women, it can be painful. A woman first has to take medications to stop her menstrual cycle and then daily hormone injections for several weeks to stimulate her ovaries to produce a crop of mature eggs at once.

The drugs may cause bloating, weight gain, moodiness and irritability, and there is a risk of a rare condition called ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome that can cause life-threatening complications, blood clots and kidney failure.

The egg extraction itself is a surgical procedure in which a thin needle is inserted through the vagina into the ovary to retrieve the eggs and liquid from the follicles. Risks include adverse responses to anesthesia, infection, bleeding or the inadvertent puncture of an organ.

So basically, rich couples are paying young, cash-poor women a measly $4,000+ to endure what essentially sounds like a drawn-out fusion of PMS, progesterone overdose and 1st-trimester abortion. Hey mom! Look how far we've come!

As Demand For Donor Eggs Soars, HIgh Prices Stir Ethical Concerns [NYTimes]

• Scientists may someday make sperm cells out of human bone marrow, thereby totally negating the need for men to help make babies. Oh, and the babies that would result from this special sperm? All girls. [Salon, BBC]
• In other baby news, a woman in California has given birth to the first baby conceived in the U.S. via a frozen egg and a frozen sperm. [CNN]
• India has wisely dropped its requirement that female civil service workers chart their menstrual cycles on medical forms. [BBC]
• A conservative group is suing the FDA over the agency's approval for Plan B, saying it was politically motivated. And some feminists agree. ]
• 3-year-old girls: Future Feminists of America! [Alas, A Blog]
• One woman in the Times' obits today: Dakota Staton, 76, immensely-talented but under-appreciated jazz vocalist. [NYTimes]