[HN Gopher] The optimal age to freeze eggs is 19
___________________________________________________________________
The optimal age to freeze eggs is 19
Author : surprisetalk
Score : 61 points
Date : 2026-03-09 14:38 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lesswrong.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lesswrong.com)
| Teever wrote:
| > Lastly, the stem cells we're planning to use to make these eggs
| accrue mutations with age, and we don't currently have a good
| method to fix these before making them into eggs. These mutations
| will bring additional risk of various serious diseases, only some
| of which we currently have the genetic screening to detect.
|
| I've always found this one fascinating. Somehow human cells age
| and humans get old and die but humans can somehow make an
| entirely new creature through reproduction where that is reset
| and most of the defects from the parent are gone as well.
|
| How does that work and what stumbling blocks exist that prevent
| us from replicating it?
| pbh101 wrote:
| Isn't that what stem cell therapy is?
| strangefellow wrote:
| I don't know anything about this subject, but I thought it was
| just natural selection that effectively filtered out the 'bad
| eggs', as it were. On that same note, I've worried about the
| effects that modern medicine might have in short-circuiting
| evolution/natural selection. Would love to hear from someone
| with qualifications to speak on this matter.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| Modern medicine absolutely short-circuits natural selection.
| If you have an older sibling who was delivered via C-section
| chances are you wouldn't exist.
| shrubble wrote:
| That's not true for the USA however.
|
| The large award for a medical malpractice trial was the
| reason for doctors pushing for a C-section if there's any
| possibility of a complication. (Sometimes called defensive
| medicine.)
|
| Most people point to the cases won by John Edwards, trial
| lawyer and vice presidential candidate as the reason for
| the great increase in C-sections. His case wins include 30
| trials at which he won at least $1 million dollars each.
| DanielHB wrote:
| In my generation (80s-90s) pretty much everyone in Brazil
| that was born in a hospital was born through C-section.
| Only recently did the practice of defaulting to c-section
| is beginning to fade.
| rendall wrote:
| Modern medicine is part and parcel of natural evolution.
| There is no short-circuiting of evolution. That's not a
| thing.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| We're were photocopying photocopies. But I guess if you're
| taking two copies and tracing a third that is based on them but
| doesn't actually have to be a facsimile, it gives nature more
| flexibility?
|
| Like I'm not sure it actually works this way but I can intuit
| why it's possible, given the new life doesn't have to be an
| exact replication.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Naturally the reset happens before most cells have grown, part
| of the trick in doing it with grown humans is doing so without
| destroying existing tissue or causing cancer.
|
| It's almost like trying to change the flavor of a cake after
| it's been baked. Significantly easier to swap out ingredients
| before it's that far in the process.
| colechristensen wrote:
| There are a bunch of mechanisms in sperm/eggs for better
| protection/repair/removal by suicide than in any other tissue.
| It makes sense that these evolved to be the best in these cells
| compared to any other. Also other tissues might have
| significantly worse problems having cells kill themselves
| instead of continuing to operate with a corrupted genome.
| gopalv wrote:
| > Somehow human cells age and humans get old and die but humans
| can somehow make an entirely new creature through reproduction
| where that is reset
|
| I think the eggs aren't dividing as you age (you are born with
| them, so to speak) and the sperm is held "outside" the body.
|
| One is in original packaging and the other is produced in a
| "cooler" enviroment by the billions with a heavy QA failure of
| 99.9999%.
| arjie wrote:
| If you're curious what it's like for a couple of normies doing
| IVF, I wrote down our experience here to the degree I remembered:
| https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/IVF
| WarmWash wrote:
| If I'm understanding that right, it cost $25k per run, and you
| did 3 runs, so $75k total? Or was it $25k for the full thing?
| Did insurance cover anything?
| arjie wrote:
| Our IVF clinic has a publicly available price sheet[0] so
| that is correct (thought he prices are higher now): $75k
| total for us. My wife and I are relatively old. Friends who
| were approximately 10 years younger collected some 50 eggs on
| a single cycle. There is a drop-off in egg -> embryo but the
| women with the 50 eggs are likely going to end up with more
| usable embryos than us.
|
| Insurance coverage is broader now. When we did it, we used
| cash pay but nowadays where we live in California there is SB
| 729 that means most big insurance plans will cover IVF.
| Personally, I think that's a bit regressive. Older, more
| established couples like us are benefiting from what will be
| primarily paid into by younger couples. But if pre-
| implantation testing becomes widespread (a good thing, imho)
| then IVF will be more widespread so perhaps this is a
| forward-looking policy. Still, expanding the child tax credit
| and raising it to 10x what it is would be good, I think.
|
| 0: https://springfertility.com/finance/
| conductr wrote:
| Didn't read that account but I went through it with wife. The
| egg collecting / embryo creating process is the expensive
| part, so depends on how many times you have to do that
| process. The re-implantation was significantly cheaper, so
| also depends on how many times you have to do that part but
| at least its less costly.
|
| We ended up doing 1 extraction and 2 implantations. If I
| remember it was roughly ($15k-20k) then (~$5k * 2). This was
| about 8-9 years ago. We had no fertility issues and had other
| reasons for doing IVF, but if you do have fertility issues
| it's more risk the extraction and embryo process will fail
| and need repeating.
| morkalork wrote:
| I went through this with my partner and it cost around CAD
| $30K all-in. Thankfully it was 100% covered by insurance (for
| the drugs) and by a provincial program (for the procedure).
|
| The drugs for stimulating follicle growth cost around
| $500/day and the first cycle didn't result in enough mature
| follicles to be worth attempting the egg harvesting. In the
| second attempt, the duration was extended after a scan to let
| more develop. Every extra day, is an another $500.
|
| If it weren't for the government program we were seriously
| looking at going to one of the many clinics in Mexico
| offering these services.
|
| We weren't so lucky with the numbers though; here's
| significant attrition at every step and if you aren't
| starting with a good number it can look like: 5 follicles > 4
| mature eggs > 2 embryos > 1 child
| tonymet wrote:
| how were the adverse effects during the hormone / endocrine
| therapy for her?
| arjie wrote:
| This is a common question we get. I will ask her again and
| add it there, but she described:
|
| * feeling bloated during the process (and feeling heavy in
| the stomach)
|
| * the discomfort of the actual injections (there are two
| daily)
|
| * pain post-retrieval that was reminiscent of cramps
|
| One of our other friends who had many eggs retrieved on a
| single cycle actually got ovarian torsion which is supposed
| to be outrageously painful.
| tonymet wrote:
| thanks for sharing that's helpful. I've heard similar to
| more moderate ill effects from the therapy
| bigtex wrote:
| This video on YT explains the not much talked about side
| effects and risks that can come from egg retrieval.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAMrwAGR3GA
| tonymet wrote:
| thanks . yeah i had a close family member do the same and
| it was a pretty long and painful process. it was > 10
| years ago but I think the concerns are still similar.
| tonymet wrote:
| The video was helpful and addressed many of the clinical
| and ethical concerns I have. Can you consent to a
| procedure that has a 30+ year impact? Are these
| treatments completely safety tested if long term studies
| are not being done? What are the ethics of making women
| take health risks for money, especially when health is
| increasing in value, and money is losing its value
| the_real_cher wrote:
| It's wild that in the year 2026 modern science can't recreate a
| SINGLE cell (which is what a human egg/ovum is).
| jokowueu wrote:
| it's possible to convert stem cells or skin cells into
| functional egg cells (ova) in lab settings, though the
| technology remains experimental and not yet ready for routine
| clinical use
| the_real_cher wrote:
| I'm always reading about amazing stuff like this with modern
| medicine. Things that work great in lab settings: cures for
| cancer, organ scaffolding, regrowing teeth, etc etc.
|
| Never hear about it again after the initial news.
| njarboe wrote:
| Lots of tech gets discovered, is heavily patented, and then
| 20 years late,r when that large first round of patents
| expire, people start working on and developing the tech.
| bonsai_spool wrote:
| > Never hear about it again after the initial news.
|
| Perhaps it is because you're not a specialist--all of these
| things are still worked on.
| DANmode wrote:
| Are you looking for an explanation,
|
| or a fix,
|
| for this?
|
| (The fix is to consume less popular science types of
| sources.)
| greygoo222 wrote:
| "Regrowing teeth" started human trials last June.
| Development takes time.
|
| And there is no single cure to cancer.
| peddling-brink wrote:
| Trees are high technology. I'm not sure we'll match that even
| in 100 years.
| arjie wrote:
| Well, that seems a bit reductive because nothing can create a
| single cell right now. All cells are self-copied-and-divided.
| _Omnis cellula e cellula_ , as they say. There is no cell
| constructor anywhere. Both Nature and Artifice use the same
| device to make more cells: a previous cell.
| benlivengood wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium describes
| the closest we've gotten; synthesizing the DNA and swapping it
| into an existing cell which then propagates the synthetic gene
| line.
| ravenstine wrote:
| I honestly don't look forward to the day that we can do that.
| It may redefine our very existence more so than even
| automation.
| greygoo222 wrote:
| That's exactly why I look forward to it!
| DanielHB wrote:
| To encode all the atomic data and relative position of a single
| human cell probably would take a good chunk of all the hard
| drives in the world. A cell is not like a silicon chip where
| 99% of it is just repeating the same patterns.
| ekjhgkejhgk wrote:
| It wouldn't be wild if you understood how complex cells are.
| yosefk wrote:
| The optimal age to have children is way before you need to rely
| on frozen eggs (one reason among many being that this process
| doesn't always work)
| morkalork wrote:
| My parents and my spouse's parents were all in their late 30s
| having children, now we're in the same position due to
| infertility and now finally going through IVF. We're happy it's
| working but at the same time it's sad knowing they'll grow up
| never really knowing their grandparents.
| conductr wrote:
| The grandparent situation is sad af. It's also pretty sad
| being a mid-40s year old dad that doesn't have the energy to
| keep up with their kid. I pitched a little league game
| yesterday and it wiped me out. Also, the fact I (and you)
| will not know our grandchildren very well also is quite sad.
|
| If my son has his first kid the same age I had him, I'll be
| in my 80s when that kid is starting little league (or that
| age). Then, factor in the fact that I don't know of any men
| in my family that have lived past 80 and it gets really grim.
| They were all heavy smokers and drinkers I remind myself with
| fingers crossed.
|
| The most sad part for me, is I realized by delaying
| parenthood - I was just being selfish - and the net result is
| I minimized "shared time on earth" with the person I love the
| most. It's easy to say I wouldn't have been a good parent or
| I wanted X job/income first, but it's all just excuses and
| selfishness.
| morkalork wrote:
| >by delaying parenthood - I was just being selfish.. I
| minimized "shared time on earth"
|
| Exactly. My advice to anyone is not wait. If we hadn't, we
| would have found out sonner that we needed to go through
| that process. It's not a "wake up and schedule an
| appointment tomorrow" kind of thing, it's a treatment of
| last resort and you can burn years trying, going through
| evaluations and alternatives first.
| conductr wrote:
| Yeah I give same advice, if you know you want kids and
| found your partner just start soon. We didn't have many
| fertility issues just weeding out some unfortunate
| genetics, but I've seen people try for years and it's
| really taxing on both the individual and relationship.
|
| The stuff we weeded out was on my wife's side and the boy
| ended up being my clone. We joke about it as if we weeded
| out all of her genes. Even small things like his cowlicks
| and how his teeth are coming it are exactly like mine
| which I never would have expected to even be possible (I
| never gave it much thought tbh)
| greygoo222 wrote:
| If you had kids earlier, you wouldn't get more time with
| the specific person you love that is your son, you'd get
| more time with a different son. No doubt you'd love your
| counterfactual son too. But you shouldn't feel bad for
| having done any wrong by your real kid. This is the only
| timeline he could exist in.
|
| Bit of a thorny philosophical argument, maybe, but
| reasonable in this case.
| conductr wrote:
| Have considered that as well but shared time with that
| person would have been more and I would be none the wiser
| to the actual timeline, so I feel it's appropriate to
| treat them as the same "child" instead of theoretical kid
| vs actual kid and how I'm happy I waited because this kid
| is so cool, pretty sure I would have felt the same
| towards the other kid (who knows maybe not but even if he
| was a jerk of a kid I'd assume a delayed child would have
| also been a jerk too)
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It's also the optimal age to have children. Fertility is highest,
| the woman is likely healthy and strong, lowest risk of
| complications.
| stavros wrote:
| It's also the optimal age to not have children! You're still
| figuring out your life, probably no stable partner or job, time
| to do some stuff you'll regret later, etc.
| delfinom wrote:
| Biological optimal vs societal optimal.
| umeshunni wrote:
| I would reframe it from
|
| > Biological optimal vs societal optimal
|
| to
|
| > Biological optimal vs personal optimal
| like_any_other wrote:
| "Societal optimal" should really include consideration of
| whether that society can sustain itself.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yes, I was only speaking biologically.
|
| "Figuring out your life" was not a thing when humans evolved.
| wredcoll wrote:
| Aside from the part where you have to raise them, sure.
| jliptzin wrote:
| If everyone had kids at 18-20, then the grandparents could
| take care of the grandkids while in their 40s while the
| parents build their careers from 20-40, then start taking
| care of the grandkids as the cycle repeats
| bad_haircut72 wrote:
| Peoples 40s and 50s are their most productive years. We
| would be better off just letting people take 10 years off
| in their twenties - but most people would just party party
| party (what they do anyway)
| znpy wrote:
| Given two parents, there are four grandparents. Sharing
| the load across six people is much better than sharing
| between two.
| mfitton wrote:
| And then you end up raising your grandkids instead of the
| kids you gave birth to. It's not something that comes
| without cost. And what if you don't particularly trust your
| parents to raise kids? I suppose you would have no idea
| whether you did or not, because they would not have
| parented you...
| znpy wrote:
| It really seems you have no idea what you're talking about.
|
| I have a couple of friends married for about 4-5 years, with
| a 4-years old son and a one year old daughter. They both have
| graduate degrees and stable jobs. They are near 40 years old.
|
| Man, they are two zombies. They are drained. They push
| forward for the immense love of their kids but it's
| incredibly evident they're drained.
|
| And the thing is... having kids at almost 40 should really be
| discouraged. They simply don't have the same energy they had
| when they were 20, of course. Heck, i'm 33 and it's evident
| to me I don't have the same energy as when I was 23.
|
| This modern idea that one should postpone having kids is
| incredibly stupid, I hope at some point society will self-
| correct somehow.
| davidelettieri wrote:
| Having done IVF with my wife I think this is the most underrated
| fertility advice available today.
|
| I don't understand why governments of countries with increasing
| average age and low birth rate don't pay for this for all women.
| This is one the best pro-family policies that can be implemented.
| CrossVR wrote:
| That money is better invested in providing affordable family
| housing. Even if IVF is available no one is going to actually
| have kids if you do nothing to make it economically sustainable
| to start a family.
|
| Do we really want to rely on IVF to solve the fact that people
| can only afford a family home once they're well into their 40s?
| It's insanity if you ask me.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > This is one the best pro-family policies that can be
| implemented
|
| Hard disagree on that. You're coming from an angle of someone
| who wanted to have kids and do it in a mathematically optimal
| way. A lot of people see egg freezing as a way to delay having
| kids until they're older, which can become a disincentive to
| raising families when they're young and healthy enough to do
| it. If you want a pro-family policy, you should be spending the
| money on _people with families and their children_ , not on a
| tool that is used to delay having children in common use.
|
| Another huge problem with this proposal is that freezing eggs
| is only a small part of the cost. The cost of IVF later in life
| could push into six figures depending on how many rounds are
| needed. If we're talking about pro-family policies that can
| cost upwards of $50,000 to $100,000 per family, there are many
| more effective places to spend that like on childcare options.
| drakonka wrote:
| Most 19 year olds probably wouldn't opt into injecting
| themselves twice a day for weeks and dealing with the side
| effects of the injections, then the subsequent extraction
| procedures (likely for multiple rounds) even if it was paid
| for. Which is reasonable, considering most women who want
| children will have them without IVF and don't need to go
| through any of that.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Thanks for bringing in some common sense.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| Doesn't that just make it a cheaper policy to implement,
| since very few will take advantage of it?
| fweimer wrote:
| It still might end up as yet another thing we do to women's
| bodies.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| To be clear: I agree that it's not great policy to
| pressure women into doing this (which, arguably, making
| egg-freezing free would tend to do), bodily autonomy
| concerns chief among them. It's also not great policy to
| withhold this as an option from poor women while allowing
| rich ones access to it (the status quo). The third option
| would be to ban it, but that has obvious problems too
| most notably that womens' reproductive health is already
| surveilled and politicized enough without adding another
| new crime to police for around it. Allowing it in certain
| circumstances (a "medical waiver" or similar) just
| reproduces that same issues as banning it, and would
| probably be just a waystation on the way to a full ban.
|
| I've yet to see a good proposal for how to regulate or
| handle this as a society, so my best guess is that we
| keep the status quo (it's expensive so only rich people
| can do it) for the foreseeable future UNLESS it becomes
| some kind of culture war issue for MAGA, which seems
| honestly pretty likely. Presumably they would want to ban
| it, but allow exceptions for certain cases that amount to
| "but is the patient a married white woman with acceptable
| politics?" in a more legally palatable form.
| projektfu wrote:
| Then it's not a very good population policy.
| m00x wrote:
| It's not only hard and painful, but potentially damaging to
| the woman's body and could leave them with permanent
| hormonal issues.
|
| So, no. It's not a good policy.
| conductr wrote:
| I went through it with my wife too and expecting a 19 y/o women
| to go through the IVF process as an insurance policy is a bit
| insane to me. In our modern, western society, this is age is
| still solidly childhood with not much definitive thoughts of
| future family, marriage, etc.
|
| Governments need to make COL more affordable, birth rate will
| go up naturally
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| We definitely need better COL but I'm not convinced it's is
| the main factor for low birth rates as most countries living
| in poverty have very high birth rates. I think its a cultural
| difference that values earlier marriage and heavy family
| involvement in raising children which, the latter, reduces
| the stress of having to parent by yourself.
| conductr wrote:
| I think there's a middle ground where in the US many people
| would be having kids around 30 if they could afford it. Our
| recent past reflects that. Even the number of kids have
| been reduced as the cost has become too high, so it's not
| parenthood or responsibility alone people are avoiding.
| Comparing to poverty situations introduces a whole plethora
| of variables. Kids are seen more as assets than
| liabilities, as they will care for you in old age and/or
| can contribute to the household after the first dozen or so
| years. This is not really a comparison to the rich nations.
| greygoo222 wrote:
| Calling 19 "childhood" is crazy. Most teens have an
| understanding of what they want their life to look like.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| At least with people in my circle of the US, it feels like
| there's an increasing infantilizing of people (frequently
| themselves, I'm a bit guilty of this), particularly in
| regards to things like marriage and raising a family. Yet,
| by 19 you'll have either made decisions for yourself or
| someone else has for you, that will likely put you on track
| for your entire future career direction (education,
| interests, college choice, maybe even enlisted in the
| military).
|
| You don't need to have given "definitive thought" to your
| entire future to not be a child anymore.
| conductr wrote:
| It is crazy but it's also quite true. People eschew true
| adult responsibility for much longer these days. It's a
| macro trend.
|
| I know there's a lot of "whys" but not getting married, not
| having kids, living with parents, etc all compound to
| remaining a child in some sense and this is continuing well
| into the 20s and even 30s for a large portion of the
| demographic.
|
| When it comes to 19 y/o women the fact most internet people
| would find it gross that 1) highly fertile and 2) desired
| by old men - is a reality. We tell old men these women are
| too young yet also won't admit it's because they are in
| some sense still children.
| alistairSH wrote:
| We, in the US, don't even have universal day care, or hundreds
| of other sensible things that would make child-rearing
| easy/less expensive. Jumping straight to "let's cover expensive
| IVF programs" is... well a big leap.
| znpy wrote:
| Of course, there are too many "learing" centers draining
| resources...
| zzrrt wrote:
| Then I look forward to DOGE funding more pro-family
| benefits by eliminating those cases of wasted resources. /s
| stavros wrote:
| I don't see a very big reason mentioned: You might not need it at
| all. Sure, the optimal age to freeze might be 19, but if 80% of
| women are done with children by age 30, why would you have every
| woman spend the equivalent of buying a small car on something
| they're overwhelmingly not going to need?
|
| Waiting to get a good balance of "your eggs are still reasonably
| healthy" and "if you haven't had kids until now, it'll probably
| be a while still" is probably the reason behind the current
| advice.
| fweimer wrote:
| Apparently the harvesting procedure typically (but not always?)
| involves general anesthesia. That alone is never entirely risk-
| free. In this context, the temporary loss of bodily autonomy
| could be particularly problematic. All that comes on top of the
| required hormone treatment. It's not a trivial procedure.
|
| On the other hand, it may be a useful tool to resist
| expectations to become a mother until it becomes socially
| acceptable to say no. So it might be important even if the eggs
| are not getting used.
| greygoo222 wrote:
| There's no way it's a worthwhile investment to invest
| thousands of dollars and take on significant risk and
| discomfort just for a tool to "resist expectations." You
| should invest that in a therapist. Or moving to a different
| state.
| Aurornis wrote:
| This is an article that you need to read critically, beyond the
| headline.
|
| Even a few paragraphs down they say this:
|
| > The optimal age to freeze eggs varies depending on the source
| and metric, but almost all sources agree it's sometime between 19
| and 26.
|
| So there's some heavy bias inserted already into the title.
|
| The next chart shows a peak around 19, but if you read the fine
| print it's not a chart about eggs at all. The subtitle says it
| shows:
|
| > probability of getting pregnant for couples not on birth
| control
|
| Not the quality of eggs frozen. They're saying one thing in text
| and showing a chart of something else. If you can't imagine why
| couples in their early 20s might have a higher rate of pregnancy
| than couples in their 50s then you might want to think a little
| deeper about the factors that go into that.
|
| The writeup then goes into polygenic embryo screening, which then
| jumps to improving IQ by selecting embryos, which gets to their
| final argument which is that it's easier to collect more eggs
| when younger. So freezing a lot of eggs when you're younger
| allows for more boosting of your child's IQ through genetic
| screening based on a company called Herasight's data. Herasight
| has been widely criticized for overselling their abilities. Also,
| why do so many rationalist writeups end up back at a conversation
| about genetics and IQ?
| rsynnott wrote:
| Well, the website is called lesswrong.com, and not correct.com.
| tonymet wrote:
| Employers encouraging egg freezing by offering egg freezing
| benefits is an abysmal conflict of interest. Employers reap
| tremendous medium-term benefits and the woman bears all of the
| long-term risks -- in this case the biggest risk of all .
|
| Employers should be required to pay for future maternity
| disability care insurance e.g. 2-3 years of maternal leave fully
| paid, elective at any time, even after they separate from the
| company. Also disability compensation in the event that fertility
| fails. e.g. $500k / missed fertility .
|
| That would reveal the true success rate of the procedure. If
| employers or fertility clinics believed it to be a deterministic
| process, the risks for the employer would be low.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Since having kids is so tiring in the early years and often lead
| to a divorce, it is better to have them early when you are still
| fresh and handle better the lack of sleep, divorce early and then
| enjoy part time parenthood when you are still youngish.
|
| I feel I am a better parent now that I am sharing custody of my
| kids and can better balance personal life and hobbies and
| parenthood.
|
| A cheaper option would be to find someone looking for kids with
| no romance and agree on having shared parenthood.
| bena wrote:
| I have to ask, what's the custody split?
| prmoustache wrote:
| 50/50
|
| The main downside is relocating is impossible until your kids
| reach adulthood if you want to keep it that way so that is
| something to consider.
| kleiba wrote:
| I had my kids late in life and I always thought my life
| experience was a bonus when it came to raising the kids and wrt
| keeping it together with the wife.
| bdangubic wrote:
| Same and feel the same (in addition to financial stability)
| but oh so often I wish I had my kid earlier in my life
| UncleMeat wrote:
| I'm vastly happier having had kids in my 30s rather than my
| 20s. Greater emotional and financial stability as well as a
| strong foundation for my marriage were boons.
| ytoawwhra92 wrote:
| Rather than accept divorce as an inevitability, there is also
| the option of discussing the possibility with your partner and
| making a mutual commitment to do what it takes to stay happy
| together.
|
| Which is much easier with the added emotional maturity and life
| experience that comes with age.
|
| Not to mention if you chose your partner after the age of 25.
| Traster wrote:
| This article is answering a different question to what it is
| asking. It's asking "What is the most effective strategy to
| freeze your eggs if you're absolutely certain you will need to".
|
| The reason women freeze their eggs in their early 30s is because
| they still have a good chance for it to be effective _and_ they
| now have a strong idea they 'll need to. You don't have that
| second piece of information at age 19.
|
| Or to be specific: What is the size of the cohort of women you
| are expecting to freeze their eggs at the age of 19, who will use
| those frozen eggs. How many of them will give birth to children
| without the help of IVF, and how many will choose never to have
| children.
|
| I think this article is a good example of rationalism. Which is
| basically getting very mathsy about 1 specific very of the data,
| without viewing the data in the context of the decision that is
| being made.
|
| For example, what is the percentage of women you expect to freeze
| their eggs at age 19, who you then expect to be unable to afford
| the $500 every year to keep those eggs frozen over the next
| decade?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-09 23:01 UTC)