To think the canoeist is wrong for freezing her eggs so she can delay having kids until after the next Olympics?

[pagi]

Just caught the news about the canoeist who is 36. She's had her eggs frozen so she can delay having kids until after the next Olympics. She doesn't have a partner at the moment.

I'm not sure what I think she is - naive, maybe? I just don't think there's a great hope of IVF working at 40.

In my book, if you are single and want kids, and you're getting older, then you cross everything that you'll meet someone. You then uncross certain bits and hope for the best. It wouldn't occur to me to drop some eggs in the freezer, Olympics or no Olympics!

Perhaps my reaction is just a reflection of my post-motherhood lack of ambition which has been reduced to hoping to get through a week at work without falling asleep at my desk! Or maybe it's because I was told at age 30 that I was showing the signs of an early menopause and to try immediately if I wanted kids. I did, and I was lucky enough to have my son, but it does mean that you don't take motherhood for granted.

I hope she can do both. I wish her well.

I admire her driving ambition - more women could do with that without having someone (usually less ambitious and/or, whether they acknowledge it or not, misogynistic) try to extinguish it by reminding her of her biological clock. Men don't have to make these choices in their mid-thirties, but women have to because of their biology. If freezing eggs gives her a chance to prolong her fertility, then I am all for the technology.

"so used to her 'me, me, me' lifestyle that being ata baby's beck and call will be, um, interesting" - yeah right, becasue all of us had had such selfless lifestyles before the children

"imho - if you're putting a sporting event first now - before having kids - then what about when you have them? Sounds like her canoeing is the priority in her life. Children need an unselfish approach" but they only need an unselfish approach from when you concieve - you can't live your life based on a possibilty at some point in the future

Thank you, Kew. You said it all.

moer than most I understand her position (being an olympic hopeful myself of course)...

relationship breakdown in early/mid 30's leaving me with limited time to have children

unsuccessful fertility treatment and IVF for several years in my late 30's

finally adopting as a single.

To the outside world I must have looked like a career woman who had decided to put off having children until it suited me. The thought that had anyone "leaked" what I was doing and it had been picked over by people who hadn't been in my position making pious statement about my "me me me lifestyle" and needed to be more selfish would have resulted in a few people being battered to a bloody pulp with an ovulation tester kit.

Though in myself defence I could have relied on the IVF Drugs making me very emotional.

She may be taking a risk. Thats for her to decide.

I have had a similar story to kew but I was lucky enough to be able to conceive with donor sperm at 41. I wasn't a big time career woman - just made some duff relationship choices. I'm sure I looked like someone who was too focused to settle down to outsiders.

It's not selfish, it's sensible. I wish I'd frozen some eggs.

her choice.

If I had olympic potential I would probably do the same.

she puts her body & mind through a gruesome workout everyday of her life, surely she knows one thing or two about her own limitations
She can have both or at least try.

needed to be more less selfish - OOPS!

and freezing would have made no difference in my case - no problmes with my eggs (that they could see) even at 40.

Not wrong, but possibly idealistic. I read this, and I thought "I hope she realises that freezing eggs (as distinct from freezing embryos) does not have a great success rate, and there's no guarantee she'll be able to concieve a child with them in 4 years time". I'm sure she does know that though, it's just the way it was presented in the papers was very simplistic!

bramshott - the clinics are obliged to tell you the risks when you have eggs/embryos frozen (assuming she had it done in the UK). You don't just wnader in off the street and have it done.

I think the key points here are

1. She's currently single, and has been quoted as saying that if she were to meet someone before the Olympics she wouldn't rule out trying for a baby before 2012

1. I think some of the reports have been very simplistic, and sensationlist, designed to appeal to the readers who will think that putting her sport before anything else is making her foolish/selfish/silly/obssessed. Most of the reports I've seen haven't bothered to mention that she isn't just a canoeist, but that she's also a part-time Primary school teacher.

Have to say I take my hat off to anyone that can fit part time primary teaching with a rigorous training regime to enable them to compete at the top level!

KewC - It's different approaches - putting herself first or the chance to create a new life. She seems to rate the olympics before trying to have a child - to me thats putting the self first imho It's her choice & not a route I would take.

because its not what you would do cupchar doesn't make it wrong (which is what OP said).

I put myself first all the time before DS.

up to her really

so you think she should go down the sperm bank now and get pregnant? Would that be less selfish?

Why is it selfless to create a new life? You do it to satisfy a need in yourself - its one of the most selfish acts I can think of. There is no need in the UK for more children.

But cupchar, the only reason why you are saying she is putting olympic gold before trying for a child is because her biology dictates she will be significantly less fertile after 2012. Since there is technology which allows her to preserve her fertility to a certain extent (and assuming she makes an informed decision to take the risk of IVF not working), WHY do you need her to have her child before 2012 to demonstrate that she is not selfish?

Men are not bound by such biological windows. If a man in his mid-30s decided to train for the olympics and put off children (sensibly I would say) until he had time to concentrate on them after 2012, would you consider HIM to be selfish?

Yes, pro-creation is one of the most selfish acts you can do, though necessary for preservation of the human species.

It's her choice. It's not an exact science - what if she's told in 2013 - that it's now not poss to have a child but if she'd tried earlier it might bave been possible. If it was me I wouldn't have the confidence to say - I want a child but I'm waiting 5yrs. For a women of 36 it's a risk I couldn't take. If she was 26 then, imho, it wouldn't be so much of a risk (of course things can go wrong at any age). Men don't have this type of time factor.

I don't think anyone is denying she's taking a risk delaying it but if she doesn;t delay then she's either presumably just going to have to start sleeping with random men in the hope of gettinmg pregnant or go down the donor insemination route.

Both of those could equally attract cries of selfishness too.

Which would you have her do?

Maybe like me she is not going to ever get pregnant, what if she tried to get prgnant now for a few years and failed and lost her chance of an Olympic medal too?

ARGHHHHHHHH Cupchar

She has said he HAS NOT RULED OUT HAVING A CHILD BEFORE THE OLYMPICS IF SHE MEETS SOMEONE

(sorry for shouting) and that is of course presuming she has time to shag the "someone" between training and her primary teaching

cupchar, the only difference between you and her is that she is more ambitious and wants children less than you to the extent she is not prepared to go down the anonymous donor/sperm stealing route (which I assume you would do in her current circumstances). It is nothing to do with selfishness. Nothing about pro-creation is selfless or even necessary. If you still insist on using the word 'selfish', then I suppose all women who Choose not to have children are selfish as well?

thanks faq!

blueshoes just to clarify - imho people that choose not to have kids or don't have children aren't selfish.

Also, just to point out, ambition comes out differently in people. I have kids & am ambitious - I just put my kids before myself. Ok I'll get slated for saying this but it's what I do. I see the positive effect of this on them and I know there will be a day when they can do everything themselves and I can do all the things I thought important but will turn out not to be.

kewc - it's her choice - she's 36 & giving her main childbearing years to her sport is her choice. Hopefully it will work out for her but if I was her I couldn't take the risk - but then I don't have the mindset of an olympic hopeful.

cupchar, I have no truck with anyone putting children first. Just so I understand, would you say this olympic hopeful (not you) is selfish to go for olympic glory before children at this stage in life?

Do you have children Blueshoes? I have been responding on a what I would do basis - I do respect her choice as it's her choice.

It's interesting that the cost of the treatment is being met by a national newspaper though...