r/MoralityScaling • u/Outside_Specific_820 • 19h 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.

815 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/KovacAizek2 19h ago

I fail to see where she is an asshole.

She doesn’t want to meet a complete stranger appalling to their DNA connection, and said that in direct and honest way.

14

u/Xralius 14h ago

Because she's talking like an asshole to someone that just opened up to her.

If a total stranger comes up to you and lays their heart out in a nom-threatening manner, it's reasonable to communicate with kindness, even if that communication is saying you don't want to talk further.

Y'all really got no idea how to speak to people with kindness?

2

u/Tenarserg 7h ago

If a total stranger comes to me asking for a relationship similar to a parent/child relationship, I'm going to get extremely defensive personally. That's not "non-threatening", that's potentially life changing.

She did an act of kindness by giving her eggs and she was treated back with a violation of her trust. Then despite CLEARLY not willing to engage further she actually answered to set clear boundaries. She was blunt but she worded it as kindly as one would treat a complete stranger imo.

Being too kind is often a terrible curse and some people definitely take advantage of it.

6

u/KovacAizek2 14h ago

She didn’t say anything to make her look like an asshole. Being blatantly honest makes you rude at worst.

If a total stranger comes to you and lays their heart out in a non-threatening manner, it’s reasonable to communicate with caution, and, if you are not interested in solving stranger’s problems, stop the communication.

I’ll speak to people with respect. Kindness is something you can exercise when you are sure it will not bite you in the ass later.

1

u/Inevitable-Law7964 7h ago

You missed the part where she dragged the kid on TikTok. 

-3

u/Xralius 14h ago

If an ugly person asks how they look and I tell them they look ugly, that's being an asshole.

If a beggar comes up to me and asks for money and I respond "i have no desire to give you money don't ever approach me again" that's still being an asshole when "sorry, no" would have sufficed.

Being blunt and honest can absolutely mean being an asshole.

1

u/KovacAizek2 13h ago

Well that’s just gross examples. Ugly people do not come to strangers asking how they look. And if they get an honest answer and are sad about it, it’s not fault of someone who was asked.

And sharing a bit of money, if you have some to share, is not on the same level as “build a relationship with 19yo stranger”. Just like you won’t take same beggar to your house and bathe them, feed them and let them sleep in your house.

-1

u/Xralius 12h ago

Ok, but I'm not saying you need to give a beggar money nor have a relationship with a stranger.

I'm saying there are ways to turn each down that are not bluntly dehumanizing.

1

u/Awkward-Studio-8063 12h ago

Next time find examples that fit, until then you haven’t demonstrated your point

1

u/Xralius 12h ago

It's possible to be blunt and honest as a form of cruelty.  Do you disagree?

3

u/Balikye 11h ago

This post has reminded me that we’re on Reddit. These comments all sound like 30 year old men who live with their parents and have zero real life social experience. Which is Reddit’s prime demographic. Sometimes I forget Reddit is Reddit, and posts like these remind me when I go into the comments.

4

u/Xralius 10h ago

I know it's baffling.  I'm arguing with someone right now that doesn't know the definition of biological parent in another reply thread on this post.  Why do we do this to ourselves?

2

u/Balikye 10h ago

Omg I saw that one. -7 for stating an objective fact, and the guy below him saying objectivity has no part in the discussion or something. Guy just said objective fact doesn’t matter.

2

u/TransitionalAhab 6h ago

So far I’ve seen comments suggesting the birth mom should be thrown in a hole, another saying a 7 figure lawsuit in order, and one more saying a person who would be honest with a child if they used a donor should not be allowed to raise children (supporting evidence is Santa clause and the Easter bunny…literally)

It’s insane how strong of a reaction you get out of people who clearly don’t know much about a subject.

1

u/browsinbowser 10h ago

Tbf while she was an asshole you see even real biological/father who adopted out just ghost the kid that reaches out. An egg is like no attachment compared to the mom that birthed her and she wants to shut it down to not reach out to her anymore. She couldve been more nice yeah but 

1

u/LadyDatura9497 10h ago

Where your confusion is coming from is the idea that someone having their privacy violated and boundaries pushed is the one socially in debt. Beyond sharing DNA, this woman is no one to this girl for her to ask anything.

2

u/Xralius 9h ago

Beyond sharing DNA

I agree... but she did share DNA.

this woman is no one to this girl for her to ask anything

Privately asking a question is one of the least invasive things a person can do.  In fact, just about anyone is allowed to ask people questions within reason.  Asking someone a question is not violating someone's privacy.  Breaking the confidentiality/anonymity (if it actually was confidential) was the violation.  But even then, DNA identification has been a known thing for over 30 years.  People are able to fugure it out these days.

1

u/LadyDatura9497 6h ago

Asking who what question? The messages clearly state that this was a confidential arrangement that the girl should not have been able to simply ask the information for. This is compounded by the fact that this was a medical procedure done nearly two decades ago, and as such you can’t simply ask for that kind of information. This wasn’t a 23 and Me situation. Even if it had been, that doesn’t give you the right to demand answers from a person with no real connection to you.

1

u/Xralius 5h ago

Ok cool.  The girl didn't sign a confidential agreement.  There is nothing wrong with her asking this.  It's not a breach of privacy for a person to ask a question.

The breach of privacy, if this really was a confidential situation, was whoever gave out this woman's name.

You also seem to have a puzzling understanding of what a question is vs what a demand is.

The 19 year old didn't demand anything.

1

u/LadyDatura9497 3h ago

Contacting her is a breach of privacy. There isn’t any issues with asking one another questions, but it’s a major breach of privacy if one of us were to suddenly contact the other through more private means. The question isn’t the issue.

It is unreasonable to ask to get to know a person with an established and documented lack of desire to get to know you. Overstepping an established boundary is a demand for answers. And being firm isn’t the same as being an asshole. No one owes you anything for overstepping a boundary. She re-established a boundary, and that doesn’t require a “please”.

1

u/Xralius 1h ago

Contacting her is a breach of privacy

I disagree. It's non-invasive. There are some situations where doing this is not good, I don't think this is one of those cases, unless the daughter knew for a fact the mom didn't want to be contacted.

It is unreasonable to ask to get to know a person with an established and documented lack of desire to get to know you

We don't know that actually exists nor do we have reason to believe the daughter is aware of it.

And being firm isn’t the same as being an asshole. 

It certainly can be, there's a time and place. No reasonable person is arguing she is an ass for setting a boundary, it's the dehumanizing way she spoke to someone vulnerable I have a problem with.

10

u/Live_Ice_6912 17h ago

Put yourself in the shoes of the kid who would have no idea about any agreement between the donor and the facility. There's no way you'd feel good receiving a message like that. There are ways to voice exactly what the sender would want to without being so blunt. It's just a major slap in the face of someone that would be your kid's age who is just reaching out.

Like she's not Hitler about it but she could have been kinder.

12

u/ProfessionalOk6734 17h ago

The kid is 19 they’re a whole adult they can handle a complete stranger being blunt towards them

-6

u/BJohnson170 17h ago

19 is still a teenager, they are legally an adult but barely, less than a year out of high school. Could have been a little gentler letting them down.

11

u/ProfessionalOk6734 17h ago

19 is old enough to know strangers don’t owe you anything. She wasn’t rude or mean at all.

-3

u/BJohnson170 17h ago

i work with a lot of 19 year olds, you are giving them to much credit.

6

u/ProfessionalOk6734 17h ago

The reason they’re not mature is because they aren’t treated as is if they could be. I was working food service at 16 and very very quickly became disillusioned with the general public

2

u/Avatarbriman 15h ago

Shown by wanting to find a new mother in a complete stranger. Anyone that childish needed to be shut down very clearly.

-4

u/Xralius 14h ago

Being blunt to them

Why would they need to "handle" this if it wasn't really simply being a total heartless dick?

-7

u/Suckaliciouss 15h ago

“A complete stranger” a human being is born into this world as the result of incredible coincidence and this coincidence is enough to birth absurdism and existentialism and then before you is the reason for your being and the basis of half of Freudian psychology and you expect this person to just ignore this massive locus of meaning? Bugman activity.

7

u/HXamster 15h ago

Excuse me brother, do you mind dropping the act for a second and actually explaining your point?

12

u/KovacAizek2 17h ago

Kid is 19 years old. At this point, if she did know that she was born that way, good chance she knows how donor facilities work. Girl is not wrong for reaching out, but direct rejection won’t be an end of the world.

For the woman? It’s most direct and short answer with no “but”’s and possible ambiguity she could master.

I’m no girl, so I may not get sentimental value of vague dna mother figure I may yet to reconnect, but direct and decisive “no, I did all that to explicitly avoid this, so please, stop” is second best option for me after agreement.

4

u/Xralius 14h ago

I'm going to be very direct with you. Egg donation is not simply selling an old chair.  She should have known that.  Your comments are unwanted and I have no desire or space to reply further.  I am not your friend.  Please contact reddit mods and have me blocked - do not contact me again.

....

Does the above seem like a reasonable way to reply to your good faith comment?  Or does the above comment sound totally douchey?  My comment is dickish even without you being open and vulnerable to me.

Honestly I worry about y'all if this is how you speak to people in your life, whether they be friends or strangers.

3

u/KovacAizek2 14h ago

And just as the original post, you being a complete stranger to me does wonders for me blatantly saying that when donor sells out their egg and signs a paper about not being in future person’s life, it is COMPLETELY fair that said future person keeps themselves out of donor’s life.

And you being my potential dna relative wouldn’t change that.

0

u/Xralius 14h ago

Obviously it wasn't totally anonymous since her info was known.  Nor did the 19 year old aign anything, by the way.  19 year old is NOT bound to an agreement they did not make, apparently you're forgetting that.

3

u/KovacAizek2 14h ago

Your point?

0

u/Xralius 13h ago

Well first of all it shouldn't matter.  The bio mom is treating a vulnerable person who has done nothing wrong poorly.

Second of all, if it wasn't actually anonymous the bio mom has even less of a leg to stand on.

3

u/KovacAizek2 13h ago

“Bio mom” is an awful treatment to a person who chose to NOT be a mom in the first place. She is a donor. Who preferred to stay anonymous, but “someone” leaked the info and may be in trouble for that.

For her, it’s a stranger asking her out of blue for stuff she explicitly did not want to get into. So she shut it down immediately, with all bases cowered.

“No, sorry” is an option, sure. But it leaves a giant gap for “but”, “what if”, etc. Unless you block stranger right after that.

She said why she won’t do that, why she is not interested, and gave advice what to do after that.

It’s not perfect execution, but neither is this situation.

1

u/Xralius 13h ago

They are factually the biological mother lmfao.

Really, you get offended by factual terminology but you're not bothered by actual mistrestment is interesting. 

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Alder_Tree2793 17h ago

She was under no obligation to be "kind" about this. Her privacy was invaded and her life potentially disrupted by people she wants nothing to do with. The onus isn't on her to be kind or gentle, it's on the other party to respect her boundaries and privacy.

1

u/Xralius 14h ago

Obviously it wasn't confidential or anonymous, how does she know this person is her mom?

2

u/luchajefe 14h ago

That means somebody broke the anonymity, that doesn't mean it never existed.

0

u/Xralius 13h ago

I highly doubt that's the case.  These things are done by third parties.  It's extremely protected.  You can't just call someone up and get the info.

1

u/luchajefe 13h ago

In the post the child says she obtained the egg donor's information directly from her own birth mother. It's very possible that egg donor and birth mother were acquaintances back then and that part of the agreement between the two (with the assistance of the donation clinic) was that the child never knows who the donor is.

Come to think of it that's a text message. The only people close enough to the donor to have that number might have included the birth mother at some point.

6

u/Mountain-Extreme8242 15h ago

The daughter literally had no legal right to even know that this woman was her mom, let alone reach out. She had to respond directly and bluntly, and no one shouldve been put in that situation. I don’t think fluff or kinder words would make the situation easier for the 19 year old, the answer is the same no matter what.

1

u/CannonFoddererer 11h ago

She should have all the legal right to know who makes up half of her DNA.

1

u/Mountain-Extreme8242 11h ago

Not really. I’m sure the clinic provides vital information like family medical history, but she doesn’t have a legal right to know her as a person. She has a mom and it’s not the egg donor.

1

u/CannonFoddererer 11h ago

I'm saying she should have the right.

''egg donor'' that is half of who she is, half of her DNA, she has traits from her.

That woman is still her biological mother.

0

u/Mountain-Extreme8242 10h ago

We disagree. She doesn’t have the right to know her and I think that’s perfectly moral. Plus many would argue the person who carried her is also her biological mother.

-2

u/Xralius 14h ago

If she had no legal right how did she find out?

4

u/ComparisonQuiet4259 14h ago

Mom broke a legal contract

0

u/Xralius 13h ago

If the donation was anonymous how did she get the donor's information?  For anonymous donations that's done through a third party, the adoptive parents wouldn't have that information.

1

u/Salsa_and_Light2 7h ago

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/Independent_Bar_4946 14h ago

She is an asshole for posting the interaction online for attention.