Women should freeze our eggs at 30 to use at 40

[TheDullWitch]

Fertility expert says it's the way to stop disappointment conceiving in 40s here

So the scenario is....

"I know what I'll have for my 30th birthday present, I'll have a big pile of fertility drugs and feel like crap for weeks and have my eggs frozen which then have a 25% chance of surviving deforsting and then have IVF with them when I'm 40 with a 25% of that succeeding"

Or....

"feck it, I don't even like kids! Let's just blow the money on drugs and drink!"

Well, that's what I would have said, given the choice!

If I had the foresight at 30 to freeze my eggs I would have had the foresight to shag the postman and get pregnant and not wait for Mr Right (Or even Mr CLose Enough).

But say you don t have a partner by 32ish? Might be tempting. And this generation of 30-soemthings are so accustomed to plastic surgery and "treatments" of various types, they are less bothered about medical interventions. Also the age of having your first child is just getting older and older, as it does in affluent societies.

If I had the sense not to have a partner at the age of 32, you can be sure I wouldn't want some screaming, wriggling little piglet either!

Having been through IVF I laughed out loud at the silly moo from Cosmopolitan who was on BBC news talking about this. She had written a piece about it so was an 'expert'. She clearly had no understanding of what is involved and also the realistic chance of it actually working i.e. very small. No but it's all about giving women "choice" and letting them "have it all". Utter nonsense IMO

The chance of IVF working is around 25% but goes down with age. The chance of frozen embryo transfer working is around 17% - the frozen egg scenerio has hardly been used and it thought to be a lot less.

Yay Iota and Blu, the product of one of my ageing 39 year old eggs (and while we're talking, a 37 year old sperm) started Year 5 today

katierocket - she also has no conception of what is involved in over-production of eggs. It would be like an IVF cycle up to and including egg collection (which in my case had to be done under general anaesthetic), visits to clinic, scans, injections, hormones all over the shop and lets not start discussing OHSS which I also had. It's not quite as simple as its portrayed on the good old media.

god no
all thso einjections etc
id i tell you abotu dhs cousin?
had a kid at 16 then was told on marrying at 30 she was in premature manopause
tried ivf three times
no good

marrigae plt under stress of it all

gto new bloke, was gettingacne from pill - decided to bin pill as she coudlnt get pg

and.................

youve geussed it!

i have killed it.

best thing for it really, put this thread out of its misery - none of us seem to think its a good idea in practice

suejoneziscalmernow - it's just laughable isn't it. Unless you've been through it you can have NO idea of what is involved. It's being portrayed as "pop into a clinic and have a few eggs frozen", HA!

it has always made me laugh when I hear it Katie, was quietly amused listening to Radio 4 this morning with two very earnest ladies discussing it. Sounded so simple - we shoudl go have our eggs frozen where-ever they work cos it sounds really easy compared to my stressful and nightmarish experience. I didn't even get pregnant as a consolation prize for suffering through the IVF [shock}

I guess the only advantage is that it saves having to have sex when one is a tired over-40

JOKE

If I read one more sententious article about how women just don't think about the risks of fertility roulette over 35 I am going to EXPLODE. Of course we bloody think about it. You can't get away from the solemn warnings about how you absolutely must procreate by that point or you'll definitely only be able to conceive by going through long drawn out treatment and oooh will probably have dreadful pregnancies and definitely not be able to give birth vaginally...

Believe me, it's tough enough being 35 and single yet again - that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach (mine, anyway) that you're just never going to be able to retain a man for more than a couple of years tops, and it's all your fault, and probably because you're just not attractive enough - without also knowing, because you're constantly being told it, that you won't have children either.

What is it at the moment with the media and mothers?

Either we're too young and obviously sponging off the state.

Or we're too old and obviously selfish cos we were only thinking of our career and are now whinging that we can't have kids.

Or we're the right age but crappy parents who are still selfish and insist on spoiling our kids who have become a menace to society.

And heaven forfend if you have too many kids, or not enough.

And those women who waste resourses wanting IVF treatment. And I've seen things somewhere about those who adopt.

Men obviously are being led astray by these horrible women as it seems to have nothing to do with them.

Honestly what exactly do they want us to do. Misogynistic rubbish is what it is. Look at all those stupid selfish women kinda thing .

There was a very good article in the Guardian a while back about the junk science tha the arts graduate in the media spout because they want "sexy" "human interest" stories.
It is a fact that womens eggs decay from the day they are born. Indeed we know of effects that mean even in the womb, a the quality of a girls offspring is being affected.

It is true that men's sperm is affected by thousands of environmental toxins, again making young fathers "better".

Bu these are what we right brained sexist scientific types call "numbers".
Some cpoices have a net positive effect. others negative. The artsgrad repsonse is to say "there are two everything" which is both false and useless.
Being rich is known to help you produce better kids. Overwhelming evidence, but never reported i the media.
Giveing access to abortion massively reduce crime rates, again trivial to prove, but require you know these evil fascist "number" things.

You can make better decisions about when to have kids, but you won't find the answers in any media source that treats homeopathy as it if were not a rip off for the uneducated, or astrology as if it were a science.

DC, oh do give your arts graduates/left/liberal/luvvies/media schtick a rest. It really is getting old. We KNOW there are numbers involved. Like, duh. But what we also know is that life is not as simple as 'numbers'. Just because you know that you likely be less fertile at 40 than you were at 20 (given that some people are infertile at 20 and other people are just as fertile in practical terms at 40 as a 20 year old)that does mean it is always wise for a particular woman to have a child at 20. And this subtleties are what some people on this thread wish were addressed alongside the haranguing about your beloved numbers.

I thought he'd posted on the wrong thread - didn't seem to have a lot to do with egg freezing

Also DC, I think you'll find that the person making the original statement is a doctor. OK, a female doctor, and yes it was filtered through the inevitably inadequate medium of a journalist who may once upon a time have acquired a degree in an arts subject, but that isn't the point.

Good posts Ilovecaboose, MI, Blu, SueJonez, oh, most of you actually.

It is ridiculous to present this as a viable option for most women imo. And to make out it's some kind of simple procedure. I think most women leave it because they don't wnt children or because they haven't met the right man. I think the idea that hordes of hard nosed career women put off children because they love their jobs so much is probably untrue.

Dc, ah, you've been reading Freakonomics or some such pop stats book I think. (I recognise the abortion comment)

I think it's outrageous.
Next thing we'll have artificial wombs and baby farming!

brave new world jools

Jools - I think they recently successfully did a womb transplant...