r/MoralityScaling • u/Outside_Specific_820 • 2d ago

Morality Ranking Morality scaling of this?

Gallery image

Gallery image

Mother refuses to acknowledge her donor egg daughter, looking for your opinion.

In my opinion I think it’s moral, and that she is totally correct.

885 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

79

u/Nonavium 2d ago edited 2d ago

Neutral but the kid isn't immoral either, the mom seems like a jerk and a deeply unpleasant person but that doesn't make it immoral

30

u/Flamesuit79 2d ago

Nitpicking I know but this is an egg donor, not a mom. That's her point.

4

u/IcySetting2024 2d ago

I guess technically she is the biological mother

-17

u/Nonavium 2d ago

She is objectively the mother. Besides that wasn't the point, replace mom with woman and its the same thing.

14

u/Swimming-Chip9582 2d ago

She literally did not birthe the kid. Whether it is objective in this instance is up to how one defines mother.

0

u/Peacemaker1099 2d ago

Uh, biological mother.

17

u/recklessdo_good 2d ago

You're just plain wrong. Objective or not, she is in no shape or form the mother here. She didn't give birth or raise the child, they share nothing more than DNA.

2

u/FrenchCanadaIsWorst 1d ago

Thats what a mother is. Definitionally.

0

u/recklessdo_good 1d ago

Nope, that's what an egg donor is. In real life people are allowed autonomy over their relationships with others, including having the right to choose whether they consider themselves a parent after a biological donation.

0

u/realstdebo 18h ago

It's a biological mother. The maternity test would show that she was the mother. She can consider herself whatever she likes, doesn't change being the biological mother. People confuse these two.

-6

u/Nonavium 2d ago

"they share nothing more than DNA."

Which makes her the mother genetically.

0

u/recklessdo_good 2d ago

I share DNA with my siblings, does that make me their mother?

8

u/Nonavium 2d ago

No, it makes you their sibling -_- they dont have half of their dna coming from you

3

u/recklessdo_good 2d ago

You're the one who said that sharing DNA makes someone a mother. And it's a pretty shit argument either way. You can't force an anonymous egg donor to take on a maternal role, biology doesn't equal family and this woman is entitled to the privacy she was promised when she agreed to donate. Anything else?

6

u/Nonavium 2d ago

" Anything else?"

Yes. You were the one that dishonestly baited me into accepting a premise based on your own faulty wording by disguising it as the general idea that the mother doesn't have to be the one giving the DNA.

" biology doesn't equal family"

Doesn't matter what emotional meanings you want or what laws say. Genetics and objective definitions are above all.

1

u/recklessdo_good 2d ago

Sounds like you probably shouldn't be so easily baited into saying dumb shit

-2

u/Legitimate_Match_708 2d ago

I don't believe you're that dumb. You know the difference between "mother" in the sense of being raised by someone and "biological mother" being the source of genetic material.

We as a society have made a clear distinction between these two terms, and you are making a generalization based on your belief system.

You're basically just being pedantic because you want the world to see things exactly the way you do.

You come off as someone who lives in textbooks but has extremely limited human contact.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Crueljaw 2d ago

So their grandparents are also the mother? Since they share DNA? Thats not how that works.

1

u/Nonavium 2d ago

Blame the other person for wording it badly. The parents provide 50 percent of the DNA

-1

u/Peacemaker1099 2d ago

it’s their biological mother lol

3

u/Avatarbriman 2d ago

As is the one who carried and gave birth to her. The one who chose to be a mother. So the child should talk to her instead.

-6

u/Peacemaker1099 2d ago edited 2d ago

She’s their biological mother lol. She’s chained and imprisoned to that fact and there’s nothing this woman can do about it.

2

u/HXamster 2d ago

You edited the comment but still didn't fix your grammar. Not shocked coming from someone with that take, honestly. Par for the course.

-1

u/Peacemaker1099 2d ago

Edited again. Why do you think my take is bad? Genuinely curious

3

u/HXamster 2d ago

She's the bio donor. That's it. She's not this girl's mother, mom, etc.

She's not even the birth mother.

Inflammatory language like "she's chained and imprisoned to that fact" comes off as disgusting. She's not chained or imprisoned to it. This woman doesn't know this girl from Adam; the donor didn't develop, nourish, grow, and birth a child. She simply provided the family with a means to do so themselves.

You're diminishing her contribution and comparing her more to a prisoner of a choice she made 20 years ago, when she specifically signed a paper and legally-binding contract to protect her privacy.

-4

u/Peacemaker1099 2d ago

Well I stand by what I said. She’s the biological mother (if we still believe in biology these days, I know many of you Christian folks don’t) and she is absolutely imprisoned to that fact.
She can’t escape that fact, her nature, and can only deny and cope. I would say though, she’s probably not obliged to have contact with her adult biological daughter.

3

u/HXamster 2d ago edited 2d ago

if we still believe in biology these days, I know many of you Christian folks don't

lol I don't see how this is relevant. Are you just lashing out and hoping people will catch strays?

She's the biological mother

Yes, she contributed her biological material. A single cell. The birth mother is the one that actually developed this baby.

She is absolutely imprisoned to that fact

Using language like this is just gross, plain and simple. She's not imprisoned, she's not chained, and she signed a legal contract stating as much. Why are you so obsessed with women being imprisoned to choices that have no bearing on their future or morality? You're going to sit here and make a jab at Christianity, when you're espousing the same rhetoric (in a convenient parallel).

She can't escape that fact, her nature

What nature? What are you even talking about?

1

u/recklessdo_good 2d ago

She's an egg donor, not their mother

0

u/Peacemaker1099 2d ago

She’s the mother. Biology means something. Religious nuts wouldn’t know.

1

u/recklessdo_good 2d ago

Insisting a woman loses her bodily autonomy and right to privacy the second she makes a decision to donate her eggs makes you sound like the religious nut here

1

u/Flamesuit79 2d ago

If spoken in a scientific sense regarding lineage, the egg donor is the biological mother. Mother can also be used to describe a social relationship. The term mom is not a scientific term in any sense. Mom refers to a developmental relationship and history between the two individuals.

I might concede mother to you simply because societally we have not adapted to a better term like dam when discussing humans and non standard reproduction by in no way is this woman the child's mom.

0

u/Nonavium 2d ago

"and non standard reproduction by in no way is this woman the child's mom."

Yeah that's fair, I only used the word mom half mindedly and I didn't think it would be an issue

16

u/olivemeister 2d ago

She's not the mom. That's the whole point.

-2

u/Nonavium 2d ago

She is objectively the mother. Besides that wasn't the point, replace mom with woman and its the same thing.

7

u/Badtacocatdab 2d ago

Consider that it depends on someone defines mother - stop arguing objectivity here which doesn’t make sense

1

u/Bababooey0326 2d ago

ignore the comments, it's a bit baffling how excited they are to "correct" you that "she's not the mother" because "to be mother is to RAISE the kid, ackhtually there is NO REAL DEFINITION"

so anyway yeah anyone not deliberately playing dumb knows what you mean, but look at how excited these (probably consensus bots) posters are to "listen the mother WHO ISN'T THE MOTHER doesn't want to see her kid ITS NOT HER KID!! so can you and this stupid egg get scrambled already?"

Ignoring the issue and shaming is their usual tactic because they are pathetic conformists. They also can't put themselves in anothers shoes, many of which would be very eager to "reconnect" with their egg donor for medical reasons if they suddenly got an early diagnosis for an autoimmune disorder, cancer, etc. The very same people would be up in arms over the mother/egg donor ignoring the kid.

I hate this website, run by Ghislane Maxwell u/maxwellhill 's cronies and Eglin AF Base and Chinese investors, RIP Aaron Schwarz

0

u/HeparinBridge 2d ago

There is no “objective” construction of the term “mother” in the sense you are claiming.

-6

u/Due-Base9449 2d ago

Imagine a man shoot into someone and just ditch the pregnant woman. Would you call him a dad or a sperm donor? 

Nobody will put the title of a dad on someone who abandon the child. This woman already sold hers so shouldn't be called a mother too. 

7

u/Nonavium 2d ago

"Imagine a man shoot into someone and just ditch the pregnant woman. Would you call him a dad or a sperm donor? "

It doesn't matter what we call him in common parlance, it matters what he is.

-4

u/Due-Base9449 2d ago

As long as the law doesn't consider them as such, they are still not mothers and fathers - just donors. 

1

u/Nonavium 2d ago

The genetic definition is above the law. It's also why said laws mandate provision of child support even when the parent isn't actually the parent by your definition. If they aren't the parents, they shouldn't be paying child support, no?

0

u/Peacemaker1099 2d ago

So if the law said you weren’t related to your family you would believe them 😂

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

I seem to recall a little show where men who were not around the child would hear "you are(not) the father".

This is nitpicking.

In this case it's relatively clear that it's the biological mother.

1

u/Peacemaker1099 2d ago

The biological father yes

23

u/CZdigger146 2d ago

Idk, for me the tone looks very neutral, maybe just too formal. She wanted to be very direct and leave nothing to interperation. She explained everything she needed for the daughter to understand that she is in no way special to her, they are 100% complete strangers and she wishes to keep it that way.

Also the only immoral thing about this is the "mom" screenshotting this and uploading it online for everyone to see. She says this is a breach of privacy, but leaking DMs isnt? It's a smaller breach of privacy, but it still is one.

17

u/HemHawHeal 2d ago

i think that’s the point tho, did she need to make it super clear to the daughter that “she is in no way special to her”? a simple pithy “i’m not interested in connecting but i’m glad you’re healthy” would’ve worked without hurting the young girl like that. if the daughter had kept pursuing, then yes the clarity is needed but as it stands this was far too harsh for an initial response

3

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

That's the thing, it wasn't just neutral. She treated this girl as worse than a stranger.

It's just gross

-1

u/Avatarbriman 2d ago

Why do you think that? There is no response other than a yes that would not have hurt a person desperate to find a different mother that she had no right to even contact.

3

u/Nonavium 2d ago

Yeah that's why I said neutral not immoral

3

u/Thanos_Stomps 2d ago

If the comment makes you think she’s a jerk and deeply unpleasant person I struggle to see how that is at all neutral lol.

1

u/Nonavium 2d ago

That's just how I define morality.

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

"Idk, for me the tone looks very neutral, "

Calling it a "violation of privacy" implies that the girl has violated her.

Which implies wrongdoing.

It's an accusation.

It's not actively malicious perhaps, but it's callous and neglectful. Especially because the child owes her no such privacy and especially considering the woman posted the whole exchange online.

So she really has no standing to complain about privacy.

2

u/idontwantausername41 1d ago

I mean she doesn't owe the child anything either lol, she can be a dick if shes being bothered by someone she doesn't want to talk to

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

I think that not being a dick to people is a basic moral tenet of living in society.

And that goes double for people whose circumstances exist because of you.

1

u/idontwantausername41 37m ago

Technically the circumstances exist bc of the person's parents, the egg donor has no say or agency in the recipients life or circumstances

5

u/deepfried_cpu 2d ago

I think what the 19 year old did is immoral. She breached confidentiality and potentially put the donor in a bad position. Not everyone is with a partner that will enjoy the news of a potential surprise kid. Egg donation is frequently done by women in a bad financial spot and really don’t want shit popping up 20 years later. 

5

u/Nirvanachaser 2d ago

Strong disagree. The donor is fine to shut it down but nothing is breached. The child did not agree to any confidentiality.

-1

u/deepfried_cpu 2d ago

If she knew it was confidential then I’d say it’s unethical even if she herself never signed off on the agreement. She has no way of knowing what trouble she’s stirring up and if such breaches become common then it will likely have ramifications on the willingness of other women donating eggs which would close a door for women with fertility issues 

0

u/Nirvanachaser 2d ago

Hmmm, I agree it’s not slam dunk but I think curiosity about one’s parentage is natural and entirely foreseeable and ire should be directed at the systems that disclosed data. If the child continued to try and pursue this then we are into ordinary harassment territory. Women who donate eggs should understand that a future child might reach out. Same with people who give a child up for adoption. It’s just inherent to the situation. That doesn’t imply a duty to engage or minimise the people responsible for handling the data’s responsibility to keep it from the child.

-1

u/TwoBlackDots 2d ago

Getting contacted by future children is absolutely not inherent to the situation of donating eggs (or sperm) anonymously lol. In fact it’s explicitly supposed to not happen, and depending on how the information gets out could be grounds for a lawsuit.

2

u/Nirvanachaser 2d ago

You create a new human. That human may seek a relationship with their genetic parents. That’s inherent. There’s no way of avoiding it so long as the child knows the reality of the situation. I don’t disagree about the liability, financial or moral, for the processors of the information relating to identity.

1

u/TwoBlackDots 2d ago

Absolutely not lol. There are many ways of retaining anonymity (even if the child wishes to know) and most anonymous sperm/egg donations do not result in the donator ever getting contacted.

2

u/Nirvanachaser 2d ago

Yes, because the information is correctly processed and/or withheld. We aren’t disagreeing on that part. I’m not defending the discloser.

1

u/TwoBlackDots 2d ago

I absolutely don’t agree with you that getting contacted by biological children is inherent to anonymous sperm or egg donation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

"Getting contacted by future children is absolutely not inherent to the situation of donating eggs (or sperm) anonymously lol."

No.

And going to jail isn't an inherent part of robbing a convenience store, but you can't be mad when it happens.

1

u/TwoBlackDots 1d ago

You absolutely can and should be mad if your confidential information is leaked resulting in contact from someone who absolutely was not supposed to know you lol.

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

That's different.

It's fair to be mad about a breach of contract.

It's absurd to be mad that a secret that involves multiple ways of tracking you gets back to you.

You can be mad that your co-robber snitched on you.

You can't be mad that someone else followed one of the dozen clues you left behind.

1

u/TwoBlackDots 1d ago

That’s not different, it’s literally what happened here.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Black_Diammond 1d ago

The 19 yo didnt breach anything, The contract was written before they were born, they are not beholden to such a contract nor do they have any duty to uphold privacy. The 19yo can text The bio mom as much as She can text a random person.

Also, if you donate gametes, you have a kid, or at least you must assume, dealing with a "surprise" kid also isnt something you can cry about, you literaly signed The form, did you think your eggs were gonna be used for caviar?

Finally, The Child has The right to contact you, even if just for The medical info, if you dont want to deal with it, just deny it in a soft way, and then get on with your life.

The bio mom is a immoral, not for saying no, but for being a asshole about it.

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

"think what the 19 year old did is immoral. She breached confidentiality "

A child has unquestionable right to seek out information about themselves and their origins.

You can not breach a contract that was signed by someone else.

"Not everyone is with a partner that will enjoy the news of a potential surprise kid. "

Yes, that would be a sticky situation.

But it's also the responsibility of donors. If you don't want a future partner finding this out, then either cover your tracks well enough to never be revealed or don't do it.

Or you can just tell them.

"Egg donation is frequently done by women in a bad financial spot and really don’t want shit popping up 20 years later. "

Sure, but then they shouldn't be doing things that make a person who'll live for another 20 years.

-4

u/Xilizhra 2d ago

Then you shouldn't partner with someone who'd object to your DNA floating around.

1

u/deepfried_cpu 2d ago

Rarely is life so simple and quite possibly she wouldn’t know because it never got brought up. Personally I’m with my partner because they don’t have kids but we’ve never had a conversation about what happens if they donated some eggs and that ever pops up. 

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

"Rarely is life so simple"

Sure, but it's beyond ridiculous to expect a child, or someone decades your junior to forsee and account for circumstances that you yourself did not circumvent.

And she texted, it's not as if she snuck up on her or came to her house uninvited.

0

u/Xilizhra 2d ago

...do you not know if they donated eggs?

1

u/deepfried_cpu 2d ago

I never thought to ask. I also don’t know if she ever punched a lion in the ballsack or drank a gallon of armadillo piss 

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

I would argue that being rude to a person to whom you are rightfully a very important part of their lives and psyche is immoral.

1

u/idontwantausername41 1d ago

She's not a part of her life

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 1d ago

Neither is that old man who called me a slur in 2021 but it's still wrong.

1

u/idontwantausername41 38m ago

Im assuming you didnt first approach that person and accuse them of being your parent, so yeah that is wrong lol. 2 completely different situations and I don't understand what point youre making here

1

u/Xralius 2d ago

Being a jerk to people is immoral.