Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Women Increasingly Freezing Their Eggs To Pursue Their Careers

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the getting-your-ducks-in-a-row dept.

Biotech 342

Lasrick (2629253) writes "Really interesting piece by Emma Rosenblum about women freezing their eggs in order to take 'biological clock' pressure off while they pursue careers: 'Not since the birth control pill has a medical technology had such potential to change family and career planning. The average age of women who freeze their eggs is about 37, down from 39 only two years ago... And fertility doctors report that more women in their early 30s are coming in for the procedure. Not only do younger women have healthier eggs, they also have more time before they have to use them.'"

cancel ×

342 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Making a Safer World... (5, Funny)

Anna Merikin (529843) | about 5 months ago | (#46806545)

...for procrastinators.

Re:Making a Safer World... (-1, Flamebait)

xanthines-R-yummy (635710) | about 5 months ago | (#46806747)

Not sure if joking or trolling, but you're an asshole either way. Attending to career so they can provide well for the child doesn't seem like procrastinating to me. It sounds like good and reasonable planning.

Re:Making a Safer World... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806819)

Yeah, cause 60-year-olds make great parents for teenagers.

Re:Making a Safer World... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807003)

Yeah, cause 60-year-olds make great parents for teenagers.

Why do they need to parent, if they did it *right* they can pay for someone else to do that.

(tongue->cheek)

Re:Making a Safer World... (4, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 5 months ago | (#46807253)

Sadly, not tongue in cheek. Nowadays many parents view that parenting like many other business tasks can be outsourced.

It's a major problem with modern schooling for example. Traditionally schools were mainly about providing education. Now they are widely expected, especially by older parents to provide at least partial parenting.

This is causing a large amount of friction in many countries that are seen the phenomena of older parents.

Re:Making a Safer World... (5, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#46807419)

Yeah, cause 60-year-olds make great parents for teenagers.

I am not quite 60, but I had my kids late in life. I may not have the energy of a 30 year old, but I am financially secure, and can take as much time as I want to spend with them. Every school day, my kids and I ride our bikes to and from their school. Number of 30 year old parents that do the same: 0. After school, I coach a robotics club. Number of 30 year old parents that participate: 0. Parenting takes energy, but it also take time. If you don't have the latter, the former doesn't matter.

Re:Making a Safer World... (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 months ago | (#46806833)

Yeah, but freezing your eggs doesn't freeze the rest of your aging. As somebody with 3 kids, I'm glad that I had kids young, because I would not have the energy to deal with kids when I was 50 or 60. There's people who are having babies when they are 45. I would not want a teenager in the house when I'm 60. I guess everybody is entitled to their own way of doing things, but it takes a lot of energy to raise kids. Also, I'd like to point out that kids cost exactly as much to raise as you want them to. Sure you could buy $200 shoes for your kid, but they definitely don't need any of that stuff. My kids get plenty of enjoyment from going out for a walk in the woods, which is free, and don't need to go to amusement parks all the time to be entertained.

Re:Making a Safer World... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 5 months ago | (#46807061)

Sure you could buy $200 shoes for your kid, but they definitely don't need any of that stuff. My kids get plenty of enjoyment from going out for a walk in the woods, which is free, and don't need to go to amusement parks all the time to be entertained.

That's really only a half-truth. Kids cost either A) the net of the salary the parent gave up to stay at home to raise them or B) the price of the daycare so that the parents can continue to work. The presumption that there is a careerless, stay-at-home parent by default is rather quaint, so A is usually a pretty high number. If you live in a particularly populous area, the cost of B will be rather high if you want your kids to be in a well-staffed facility (and who wouldn't want that?) So, there is a specific and considerable cost to having kids, and backend-loading the cost after your earnings have risen is a very attractive proposition, especially for people who are accustomed to a pretty high standard of living, i.e. a roomy house, vacations, driving a "newer" car, etc.

Re:Making a Safer World... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807269)

The presumption that a job is more important than raising your children is a modern abomination, and has fucked up 3 generations of children who are now aggressively fucking up the planet through their all-consuming greed. (" i.e. a roomy house, vacations, driving a 'newer' car, etc.")

Re:Making a Safer World... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807327)

The presumption that a job is more important than raising your children is a modern abomination

How long has the abomination called "Don't have kids you can't afford" been around to prop up the necessity of a job?

Re:Making a Safer World... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807389)

Or C) the parent that stays home to raise them never had a salary to give up. If you never had it, it's not terribly hard to give it up and do without it. This is the route my wife and I chose. We had our first child in our Junior year of college and our second in my last year of graduate school. Our oldest is now almost 17 and my wife has stayed home with our seven children ever since she graduated from college. It turns out that its really not as expensive to raise children as people claim.

Re:Making a Safer World... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#46807429)

Sadly. most parent with two working parents and a child in day care would be better off with one working parent, cost wise.
I've seen that a lot.

Re:Making a Safer World... (1)

jma05 (897351) | about 5 months ago | (#46807245)

Yes, but something tells me that these women would not be wanting to have 3 kids like you, perhaps just the token kid to be a parent at all... or at most two. You can do that at a grandparent age.

At a later age, I also imagine that a parent would be a bit more wise about being a parent... and generally have a better understanding about how to deal with people, kids or otherwise. A more emotionally mature household might also effect kids differently.

I am just speculating of course. I wonder what the stats are on fertility rates of parents who start late and take this route. I also wonder what the performance stats of kids are when raised by older parents. I know autism risk goes up, among other things... but that's for unfrozen eggs of natural late motherhood. We know that kids of young parents (as in teen mothers) don't do as well, intellectually, as those from older parents. Does that relationship taper off? or does it continue linearly?

Re:Making a Safer World... (2)

InvalidError (771317) | about 5 months ago | (#46806911)

They may be able to support their kids economically but at 50+ years old, they may have a hard time with the stamina to keep up with teen-aged kids.

If I had kids, I would prefer dealing with them in my 30s while my own health is still unlikely to become a problem.

Re:Making a Safer World... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806965)

It's stupid. get your kids out of the way when you are young. It's already proven that the genetic stock of a male sperm is severely deteriorated as you get older. best time to sire your kids is in your 20's because they are out of the house in your 40's and you get to live a great life with your spouse kid free, unless you are one of those nutjobs that has 3 or more and dont know what birth control is.

Re:Making a Safer World... (4, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 5 months ago | (#46807297)

Actually, it's not quite that bad for men. While the quality of sperm is known to start to deteriorate eventually, male sperm is far less susceptible to this problem than female eggs.

That and the fact that we know that male sperm quality has been dropping fairly steadily over last century or so. Age doesn't appear to protect against that (i.e. quality of sperm of younger men is also going down), and we're not really sure what's causing it.

Re:Making a Safer World... (2)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#46807063)

No one gets to "have it all". You have to prioritize in life - what will your priorities be?

We're living in a NIMH mouse utopia, I fear, and extinction due to losing the social ability to breed is coming for us.

Re:Making a Safer World... (1)

jcr (53032) | about 5 months ago | (#46807451)

Lighten up, Clarence.

-jcr

Re:Making a Safer World... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807445)

Seriously You're telling me I am the only one who noticed that this news bit comes right after "Venus's crust heals too fast for plate tectonics?" I am going to have nightmares now..

    Really Seriously now, I love that this technology is equalizing women's options with men in terms of having options as to when and where they choose to reproduce as opposed to being slaves to their biology. On the one hand it is nice to pee standing up, but let's be serious, they gave up a lot for the ability to have multiple orgasms. Women deserve an equal chance, and I for one welcome our Cougar tastic frozen egged Hyperorgasmic OverLadies! (Though the phrase sounds like some long lost White Zombie B-side track... doesn't it?)

Happy Monday from The Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806547)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Useless without a surrogate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806561)

It's not just the eggs that deteriorate as women age. Test tube babies are going to become more and more common as parents decide to wait longer to have kids.

Re:Useless without a surrogate (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 5 months ago | (#46806811)

It runs both ways. I'd be interested to see if any men are buying these stored eggs... I know their is a market for them. Then contributing their own sperm and hiring a surrogate to bring it to term. Its not a great deal different from the women that have been going to sperm banks.

Re:Useless without a surrogate (5, Insightful)

popo (107611) | about 5 months ago | (#46807437)

It's only one particular class of humans on earth that is waiting longer. The uneducated, the religious and the poor (which are often one and the same group) are actually having babies at an increasing rate, starting at a younger age.

The global effects of "waiting" on overall population are actually very small when measured against the overall metrics of global population. It's a big world out there. The effects on demographics and culture are actually profound though -- but they are opposite to the intent of those who wait: Populations are dumbing down precisely because the educated have decreased their rate of reproduction.

What is good for the individual family, may be fatal for the society.

Obligatory (5, Informative)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 5 months ago | (#46806563)

Re:Obligatory (5, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#46806691)

And people still assert this is in spite of decades of the Flynn Effect. There's an important genetic component to intelligence, but everything we've see recently suggests fetal development, nutrition, and education make such tremendously larger difference that the "idiocricy effect" could at most be considered a momentary blip.

Human beings are smart. Given good conditions, they tend to be really smart. And we're all incredibly genetically similar.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806775)

Also [despair.com]

Therefore the "idiocricy effect" as you called it is merely a consequence of population density, not individual capability.

Re:Obligatory (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#46806877)

The failure of design by committee has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with the nature of conflicting interests and compromise. An individual can still be smart sitting in a crowded room, and in fact, when that happens we call them "Lecture halls"

Worth pointing out (1)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about 5 months ago | (#46807271)

The grandparent post ("And people still assert this...") cites actual data. The parent post cites a movie and a demotivational poster. Which is the better argument?

Re:Obligatory (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806857)

everything we've see recently suggests fetal development, nutrition, and education make such tremendously larger difference that the "idiocricy effect"

Except for twin studies which indicate a heritability for IQ between .7 and .8:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

So, you know, there's that.

Of course environment has an impact. It's similar to height in that regard - malnourish a child and they won't grow into their genetic destiny. But to therefore suggest that height isn't strongly heritable is just absurd.

Re:Obligatory (5, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 5 months ago | (#46806927)

If both your parents are morons then the likelihood of you receiving good fetal development, nutrition, and education are slim to none. There are exceptions but the reason they are called exceptions is they are RARE! That said growing up extended family would frequently commented on how much I was like my grandfather (he died when I was an infant) because I had his smarts (He taught himself chemical engineering and was part of the development of polymers). My take on our society is today's typical highly intelligent couple are too self absorbed to embark on a life of selfless giving by having children. Of those that do have children a large percentage offload the actual parenting to paid support so they can continue to be self absorbed while patting themselves on the back for having pro-created. Having said all that I believe a child raised by morons that love the child has a far superior life to a child raised by intellectuals or affluent parents who see the child as a trophy or burden.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807307)

fetal development, nutrition, and education make such tremendously larger difference

Sources?

Environment is only a dominant factor at the low end - if you deprive a child then it won't fulfill its genetic potential. At the top of the distribution, human intelligence is strongly limited by genetic factors.

Look up the research (twin/adoption studies, GWAS, the current BGI study of high-IQ individuals). Read Steve Hsu's blog. You can't create a von Neuman or Einstein by making your kids eat their Wheaties; if you could, there'd be a lot more of em.

I realize the belief that IQ is all environmental is both emotionally and politically gratifying. But look up the research. It's simply not true.

Obligatory to Obligatory (1)

jma05 (897351) | about 5 months ago | (#46807331)

Still can't use them later (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806577)

You still can't use them later, if you wait until your 40s when your career really has taken off, you're all dried up in there, and can't use the eggs.

It's not a doll (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806601)

Babies are people, not toys that you lay away for.

Re:It's not a doll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806661)

Abort! Abort! Abort! Every sperm is sacred!

Re:It's not a doll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806755)

more like, "my mercedes and corner office come first"

Re:It's not a doll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806779)

Timely article is timely: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb... [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:It's not a doll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807403)

Great article. Up until the part at the end where they're pushing the anti-promiscuity pro-fidelity agenda. What's fidelity gonna do to you? Promiscuous and always there is a lot better than faithful and alienated. She was a virgin in her 30s, so what does the sexual liberation have to do with anything in her case? It's the same case as here on Slashdot: our work keeps away from mating, and no amount of fidelity or promiscuity will change that. But hey, look at the mountain of cash I spent on my toys :) _MY_ toys.

Re:It's not a doll (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806805)

Congratulations, here's your prize for speaking out against... well, I'm not really sure, but here it is anyway!

Why in the world would you care in the slightest what any woman does with her own body and/or offspring? Things that are 100% out of your control -- and damn well should be -- are things which aren't worrying about. Go find something productive to do, like worrying about yourself.

Re:It's not a doll (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806813)

You are correct, babies are people, not toys. Sadly, we've gotten so far from civilised it's not even laughable. The fact a woman wants to freeze her eggs for future use is indicitive her primary role is to marry and raise a family. Society has simply gotten worse since the 50s. Let's not start a flame war, here, lads. I'm speaking of general societal mores and norms concerning the traditional family. There once was a time when a chap could work a job and pay for his mortgage, food, a nice family coupe, and even have a bit left over to save for family holidays and a little time down the pub with mates. Sadly, this is gone. Both man and woman now have to work and for what? The women I know work to place their children in care whilst they work. Stupid, really. Call me old fashioned, and yes, I am, but the good old days are far behind us. Internet and technology are nice, but they don't replace, even remotely, good family, good morals, and time down the pub with mates over darts and cigars (no sadly illegal whilst in public).

Re:It's not a doll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806955)

The fact a woman wants to freeze her eggs for future use is indicitive her primary role is to marry and raise a family.

More sexist garbage. It's indicative that she wants to wait before having kids. Marriage is a mere title; absolutely irrelevant.

Re:It's not a doll (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about 5 months ago | (#46807211)

Society has simply gotten worse since the 50s.

We are in a record low murder, abortion, teen pregnancy, and violent crimes, and that's going as far back as records go, and that includes the early 1900s for some of those statistics. We're in a much better time, we just have more FUD around us with easy access to sensational news.

Re:It's not a doll (1)

kanweg (771128) | about 5 months ago | (#46806887)

So, you must be happy that they want to have their baby when they have time for it, not squeezed in a too tight time schedule because of some biological clock ticking.

Bert
Who can only hope that you know the difference between an egg and a baby

The difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807377)

You don't barbecue an egg.

Re:It's not a doll (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 5 months ago | (#46807315)

Babies are continuation of your genetic line, which is your concern and your concern alone first and foremost.

Re:It's not a doll (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#46807477)

Nope. Continuation of the species is you first and foremost concern, even if you don't realize it.

Re:It's not a doll (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 5 months ago | (#46807485)

I'd rather see people put eggs in storage than risk having problem babies. Studies in the last decade have shown that people that have babies after 35 are at much higher risk of having autistic kids. The only 4 autistic kids I know are from parents that opted to have kids after 35 (coincides with the studies).

Before my argument can even start making sense the following question needs to be answered: Does freezing your eggs and sperm reduced your chances of having an autistic kid if grown in an aging body?

The idiocracy is coming (1)

carlhaagen (1021273) | about 5 months ago | (#46806653)

Just wait.

Re:The idiocracy is coming (0)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#46806729)

I'm pretty sure it's already here, and has been for some number of years.

Re:The idiocracy is coming (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#46807285)

People have been getting smarter and more educated for as long as we've been keeping records.

100 years ago, people would line up around the block to pay a nickel to see deformed animal fetuses in jars.

Reading the Headline... (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | about 5 months ago | (#46806717)

...wondered, "Why is Slashdot posting cooking and preparation of eggs as 'women's work'? And why would that affect woman's career? Kinda sexist if you ask me..."

Don't delay too long (5, Insightful)

Chelloveck (14643) | about 5 months ago | (#46806735)

For purely financial reasons both men and women probably want their kids to be out of college and self-supporting before they retire. That kind of means you really want to have them by the time you hit your early 40s.

Re:Don't delay too long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807343)

Retire?
What is this word you speak of?

im not even sure where to start with this. (5, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 5 months ago | (#46806749)

Oocyte cryopreservation has been available since 1986 with success rates of nearly 90%. Its commonly used for women with cancer or history of early menopause.

my biggest issue is that the article is predicated on the condescending notion that without this technology, women are forced to forego their careers and simply bare children instead. There are plenty of women who do not want children. Its also worth noting that the spike has very little to do with the success rate of cryopreservative technologies but instead:

with increased media attention and an unlikely celebrity spokeswoman. In a 2012 episode of Keeping up With the Kardashians, Kim, post-divorce, consulted with a fertility doctor about freezing her eggs.

given this recent advocation and the fact that fertility is a 4 billion dollar industry in the united states, its difficult to say women are intentionally choosing this rather expensive procedure not covered by insurance by their own volition and without the assistance of businessweek articles. like gout, antidepressants, and erectile dysfunction medications, expect cryopreservation to start making its commercial debut on television in the near future.

Re:im not even sure where to start with this. (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 5 months ago | (#46807029)

There are plenty of women who do not want children.

If you could be so kind, sir, as to point me in the right direction, I would be eternally grateful.

Re:im not even sure where to start with this. (1)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#46807201)

Maybe if ED drugs worked better we wouldn't have ads about cryopreservation..

Re:im not even sure where to start with this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807421)

my biggest issue is that the article is predicated on the condescending notion that without this technology, women are forced to forego their careers and simply bare children instead.

Have the father stay home with the kids.

Or foregoing kids altogether (5, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 5 months ago | (#46806751)

My husband and I decided (long before we got married) we didn't want kids. We have three nieces and a nephew between us. That's plenty of kidlet time when we need it, and it gives their parents a break. (Turns out I'd have difficulty getting pregnant anyway so I'm glad we already decided on our route before I got my hopes up only to have them dashed.)

People may consider it selfish of us, but I'm not sure I want to bring any more human beings into this already over crowded world.

Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 5 months ago | (#46806797)

I respect your decision not to have kids, but I don't know if overcrowding is the counterargument. Overpopulation is more a problem in 3rd world countries where people still have big families as a traditional counter to high mortality rates.

Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (1, Insightful)

trparky (846769) | about 5 months ago | (#46807183)

It is projected that within the next fifteen to twenty years, if global population growth rates don't slow down we will simply not be able to grow enough food to feed the world's population. Global famine will be a result. Already we're seeing the effects of over-fishing, fish populations are at the lowest seen in years. The giant water aquifer under the Great Plains of the United States (sometimes referred to as the Breadbasket of the World) is losing water, we're taking out water faster than nature can replace it.

So yes, even we in the United States, need to start worrying about over-population.

Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807465)

See if you can find this to watch: Don't Panic - The Truth About Population [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 5 months ago | (#46807185)

I view humans as humans, regardless of country or ethnicity. Too many first world countries also put an enormous strain on the environment, with our love of conflict minerals and cheap imported goods.

Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 5 months ago | (#46807381)

This is actually a very solid argument. While those who suffer the most from overpopulation are in poor third world countries, those who cause this are predominantly in first world, as every single person in first world consumes a very large amount of resources in comparison, and requires a pretty heavy pillaging of third world ecology to maintain their level of life.

I can't say I totally agree with your reasoning, but I can understand the logic. And well, if you do both have nieces and nephews, you could argue that your genetic line is more or less continuing regardless of your actions.

Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807079)

It also allows you to be smug and self-righteous at parties. Its so much fun to bitch about the "breeders"!

Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 5 months ago | (#46807143)

Meh, not so much. Many of my same-aged friends are having kids (or had them and they're ranging from a few months to 10 years old in one particular teen pregnancy case). I went through my smug "child-free" stint a long time ago, and now I just appreciate the hard work they are putting into raising their families and am grateful I only have cats to deal with at the same time.

Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (5, Insightful)

lorinc (2470890) | about 5 months ago | (#46807127)

My wife and I are in the same situation, and I never understood the selfishness argument. Why is it selfish? To whom? What harm does it bring and to what?

The more I have this discussion with family and friends, the more it turns out to be pure jealousy towards us better enjoying our life. Most of them didn't expect it is that hard to raise children, and especially the many things you have to give up due to the lack of time to do it.

Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (3, Insightful)

asylumx (881307) | about 5 months ago | (#46807321)

My wife and I are also on this band wagon, and not only do I not think it is selfish, but frankly I think some of the people I know with 5 or 6 kids are actually the selfish ones because they seem to think the rest of the world should praise them for their efforts raising a big family. Yes, raising a child is work, but if you didn't want the job you didn't have to have the child. Don't complain about the crappy hours and poor pay -- instead go get a better paying job with decent hours and then pay for daycare.

Ug.

Not Selfish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807345)

Awaiting birth child after 5 years of infertility so I've given this issue much thought. Having a child is really the ultimate act of selfishness. Nothing consumes more resources than a 1st world child; your own resources and other peoples. A breeder is literally creating another person just to satisfy their biological desire, it is hard to imagine something more selfish.

Breeders are literally creating a near copy of themselves. Why not adopt? There are many orphans out there who would love a home? Our species does not have a dwindling population, so let's not solve a problem we don't have. If $country has a declining population, then just open up the immigration flood gates and let the populations equalize. Or do you only want to be surrounded with people who look/act/think like you?

Fundamentally people want to have their own biological children. They dress it up in all sorts of justifications.

When I think honestly about the years and tens-of-thousands of dollars I've spent trying to have a biological child, I must admit that I do it only out of a selfish desire to fulfill a biological imperative.

Re:Not Selfish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807383)

Awaiting birth child after 5 years of infertility...

Congratulations on your new baby. I deleted the rest of your comment because it is all nonsense.

Old School! (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 5 months ago | (#46806845)

I found the old fashioned way of making babies far more enjoyable.

Re:Old School! (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 5 months ago | (#46807385)

You go around beating women on the head with a club and dragging them into your cave?

Does it really make that much of a difference? (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 5 months ago | (#46806861)

Are the eggs viability all that different from "young egg" to "old egg"?
Isn't a huge factor simply the age of the mother?

Is planting a 'frozen young egg' in a relatively elderly 50 year old uterus really going to be that much more successful?

Re:Does it really make that much of a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807025)

Egg viability is MUCH higher in a younger woman than an older woman. By your 30s, chances for genetic defects are already much much higher, and by 40, your chances of defects are gigantic. Conversely, a young donor egg in an older mother is just a question of science; no biological issues come into play that arent resolved through modern science. Older eggs however, can not be made healthy; they will always just be older eggs with unfortunate deficencies.

That being said, young donor or not, if you are in your 50s having a kid, you better be in amazing shape and have a much younger partner, because raising that kid will be challenging for many different reasons.As mentioned, having a teen age kid when you are 60 or 70 is hugely different from 30 or 40....

why not just have a baby earlier? (2)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 5 months ago | (#46806881)

I'm in my 40s now (and male for perspective), but when i was in high school, i had it drilled into my head that having a baby in your late teens / early 20s was one of the worst mistakes you could possibly make.

Well, here i am 20 years later and now i feel like it would be an even bigger mistake to have a kid. I've got to keep active in my middle age. my regular exercise schedule is staving off the onset of old age. I'm pretty sure that as soon as i get a kid, BAM! i'm 10 years older and thats a virtual age of 50s. Plus, kids are super expensive. Sure, i've got a good health plan, but babies would still be a huge expense and i've got retirement to save for. When i was 20, i was so much less financially responsible, i never would have noticed a kid sucking my money away.

Looking back, i think it would have been far better to have had a kid at 20. Really, my college education was a waste. At that age i lacked any sort of focus or purpose. i think i probably needed a kid to give me something to work for. I've met enough people my age who had their kids early on and went on to have successful careers and awesome families that i'm starting to think our society has it's priorities backwards when it comes to the right time to start a family. It's far better to do that stuff when you are 18 and 20 and think you can overcome anything.

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (4, Interesting)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46806943)

yep, i'm also 40 and have 2 kids

best to have kids in your mid 20's right after college and buy a home around the same time. by the time you hit 40 your kids are ready to be kicked out of the house and as you start to make more money you will have time for real entertainment like nice vacations instead of the 20s deal of going to bars all the time

and when you get to your 40's you start to feel like chilling out a lot more instead of always having to have small kids tug you everywhere and take your attention

i see a lot of parents in their mid to late 40's now with newborns and i'd hate to be that age and having to wake up at 6am on weekends to watch the kid

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 5 months ago | (#46806981)

yeah. thanks for fueling my regrets :/

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46807017)

mostly my first kid since he would wake up at 4:30am almost every day as a baby and toddler. i was on like 4 hours sleep for a year
the second kid wasn't too bad

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807311)

I tried living on 7 hours of sleep for a few months. I started having anxiety attacks, I couldn't focus at work, I would fall asleep behind the wheel during my 5 minute commute, I almost fell down a stairs several time because I would suddenly feel dreadfully tired and about pass out, went to the Emergency Room a few times because I would randomly lose feeling in a large portion of my body for hours at a time.

On 8 hours of sleep, I feel perfectly well. I don't think I would survive a year with only 4 hours.

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46807391)

eating right and keeping healthy helps too

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807287)

i see a lot of parents in their mid to late 40's now with newborns and i'd hate to be that age and having to wake up at 6am on weekends to watch the kid

I'm male, in my 50's

Had two boys in my 30's. Two girls in my 40's. We'd have more now but it's not possible.
No regrets at all. It's great having young kids to goof around with.

As for freezing/thawing/implanting/don't need a man anyway, good luck.

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806989)

Plus, kids are super expensive.

That hasn't been my experience at all. If you don't raise them to be "consumers," then they're not really all that much more expensive than a normal person that you live with. I simply stopped buying unnecessary garbage and spend time with my kids. They have no need to be "consumers," and to prevent them from being brainwashed by advertisements, there is no cable.

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46807041)

yep

only expensive if you're always going to toys r us for the overpriced crap that gets lost in 2 days. a few things in there lasted me a few years but most of it the kids get bored of pretty fast.

electronics are the best. no mess, they last for years and grow with the kids
ipad and xbox are pretty good and pay for themselves over and over with the lack of crap you end up buying from toys r us.

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 5 months ago | (#46807129)

>only expensive if you're always going to toys r us for the overpriced crap that gets lost in 2 days
only expensive if you're always allowing them to pursue their interest in competitive horse riding.

There fixed that for you.

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807229)

yep

only expensive if you're always going to toys r us for the overpriced crap...

...or they have the slightest chronic medical problem.

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (1)

Globe199 (442245) | about 5 months ago | (#46807433)

"only expensive if you're always going to toys r us for the overpriced crap that gets lost in 2 days"

False. We almost never buy our three-year-old anything unnecessary. She has plenty of toys, but they were all gifts from relatives. We go to the library a lot.

And now for the killer. We spend $1000/month on daycare/preschool for her. Toys R Us doesn't hold a candle to that.

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (1, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46807013)

You are correct. having a kid at any age is a huge mistake if you want to do things with your life that is outside the raising a child idea. To some people raising children IS Their career, and more power to them. to Others, it's retarded to blow that time and money that children require to just have them because of societal or parental pressures.

Then you have the nutjobs that think they HAVE to have kids so they have a LEGACY... If you really want to raise children for the right reasons, go do it, but all these people need to STFU to people that dont want to have kids, and dont think it's important to devote 100% of your resources for 18-25 years to raising one.

Re:why not just have a baby earlier? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 5 months ago | (#46807337)

Really, my college education was a waste.

Good luck affording a house for you and your children to live in without one. 30 years of dual incomes and financialisation have placed a home firmly outside the reach of most single income households, and at this stage quite a few double income households.

Make no mistake, no mistake whatsoever. These women are not pursuing abstract "careers". They are perusing the income and job-security needed to buy and live securely in a family home. And like the rest of us, they are losing.

This happened in Japan beginning in the 1980s. The birth rate there has plummeted. If you don't produce affordable, aspirational accommodation, people will not settle down.

Soft Eugenics (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806901)

Women delaying having children does one thing, it selects out their genes for people who decide to ultimately have lots of children in their prime. A "strong, independent, woman TM" not having children while she's of a fertile age will not be able to carry her genes onto another age. I also doubt that the majority of these SIW types will be able to afford the $6,500 and $15,000 costs of freezing and then the added costs of finding a surrogate and artificial insemination. So congrats feminism, you've selected yourself out of the gene pool in at least two or three generations.

Which is fine, they can always raise someone else's unwanted offspring. Everyone needs a loving family. It just won't be your genes you're helping raise to another generation.

Mod me down, but no amount of "nah nah nah" head burying in sand will change this fact.

Re:Soft Eugenics (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 5 months ago | (#46807457)

There is a counter argument to that. Most of these women are the smarter, more viable types carrying better genes. If they are selected out of the gene pool, it's to overall detriment to human evolution in short term.

Overall, genetic selection hasn't been very suitable for human species after we have uplifted ourselves from animal level of intelligence. That method of selection is simply not well suited to select most viable members of that kind of a species. Your issue is one of the better examples. We need people to get more intelligent to progress as species, and yet those who are the most intelligent are in fact getting selected out of the gene pool because they don't breed nearly as much as those who just blindly follow their animalistic instincts.

Re:Soft Eugenics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807461)

So congrats feminism, you've selected yourself out of the gene pool in at least two or three generations.

I like where you're going with this - on one hand, trying to blame genes for political stances; on the other, refusing to acknowledge what that means - that you cannot be disparaging without being an idiot, because genes.

It just won't be your genes you're helping raise to another generation.

I also like how you're implying this is some sort of horrific thing that people should actually care about.

Please see the middle class errosion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806915)

People want to be in the middle or upper class, but they know single incomes are almost impossible now so build the nest egg(college money) prior to kids vs trying after. Oddly I'd love to see the rate of autism related to older bio material.

Jeez (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46806995)

Yay! Because every child should have the opportunity to have 60-70 year old parents when they graduate from high school! Yay! Score for selfishness and social irresponsibility! Yay!

FTFA: "typical profile" (4, Interesting)

tomhath (637240) | about 5 months ago | (#46807007)

LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized

Apparently it isn't so much about not wanting to have babies earlier, it's more about "all the good men are married or gay". Once a person (man or woman) is out of school it becomes increasingly difficult to find a spouse; moving into higher income brackets makes it much more difficult - mostly you need to wait for the mid-life crisis to free some up through divorce.

Title should read "Affluent Women" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807161)

This isn't something that people who work for minimum wage do.

Makes Sense to Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807197)

With the average cost to raise a child at around $250K in the U.S., it makes sense that people would want to wait until they are more financially stable before taking on such a significant financial responsibility. Trying to make ends meet with the expense of children might mean financial stability will never arrive. I certainly wouldn't want to raise children without the means to give them a good life and education.

I'm 31 and have yet to find my first girlfriend. With single women my age becoming scarcer by the day, I'm worried I might not meet the right one for quite some time, if ever. Perhaps my future wife (if she exists), will have the foresight to freeze her eggs. More realistically, though, I'll probably die wifeless and childless.

Well .... (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about 5 months ago | (#46807219)

Talk about an off-site backup!

Parenting is a marathon, not a sprint (3, Interesting)

enjar (249223) | about 5 months ago | (#46807251)

I am turning forty this year, and already have two school aged kids. They can feed themselves, wipe their own asses, go to bed on their own and bathe themselves. They also can clearly communicate (sometimes too clearly!) their needs, wishes, desires, aches, pains, etc. Even still, they are damned tiring to have around and suck up a lot of time, too. I can only imagine the sheer living hell that would be having an infant at this point in my life. I'd either need the mom to be some twenty something trophy wife with a pile of twenty something energy, or someone who made a pile of money so we could hire a nanny, because I can't imagine a forty something woman who works a full day and is a high achiever coming home and being Super Mom. I know I barely scrape by some days on the parenting scale after a big day at work.

I do keep in shape (which helps keep the energy up) and I do love my kids, but I see people with infants and it makes my vasectomy turn into a happy memory. You have to pick priorities in life, and I know by making the choice to have kids, I've likely shut more than a couple doors career-wise since things like business travel, relocation and ability to take "risky" (e.g. startup) opportunities are kind of off the table now, or there is a whole bunch more at stake than before.

Good idea before surgery, bad idea otherwise (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 5 months ago | (#46807293)

Putting off having kids is not as easy as you think.

My sister did have a kid in her late 40s, but the viability of female eggs is actually not that high.

You're far better off having kids and doing what First World Nations do, which is have women with kids not suffer in their careers.

Sure, that'll work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46807341)

You won't be too old to chase toddlers around if you wait until you're 45 to have kids. That will totally work. They'll love how you're able to help them move out into their first apartment when you're 65 years old. You should still be able to carry the refrigerator for them. I'm sure they'll appreciate that you'll probably die when they're in their 30's instead of in their 50's like less selfish parents. But, above all, I'm sure they'll understand paying all those prices so you wouldn't have to be inconvenienced by them.

Good luck to them (2)

ErichTheRed (39327) | about 5 months ago | (#46807455)

As a parent who got a late start due to some biological issues, all I can say is "Good luck." Even with frozen eggs, it's very hard getting and staying pregnant. My wife and I are only in our late 30s, and it took a huge amount of medical intervention to get our two kiddies here.

Plus, the other thing to consider is that having kids is definitely a young man's game. I'm doing all right, but having a 3 year old and 1 year old is extremely tiring, as I'm sure it is to a 25 year old, but that just goes up as you get older and have more responsibility at work, etc. Free time doesn't exist anymore, and I'm not going to get that back for a very long time if I keep doing this right.

I guess I kind of understand why people wait. If my wife and I had kids when we were 24/25, we would probably be broke now and in perpetual debt. Having kids later allows you to save a little bit, build up a cushion and actually be able to provide them a decent life without taking out 4 mortgages and 20 credit cards. The problem is that waiting too long to find a mate (i.e. being unattached into your late 30s) puts you in a disadvantaged pool of single people. Lots of single women I talk to who haven't found anyone yet say the quality really drops off -- and they cite immaturity of the man as the reason. Past the mid 30s, you either get the permanent single guys hopping from one club to another on the weekend or the unmarryable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?