Women Increasingly Freezing Their Eggs To Pursue Their Careers 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.'"
Making a Safer World... (Score:5, Funny)
...for procrastinators.
Re:Making a Safer World... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, cause 60-year-olds make great parents for teenagers.
Re:Making a Safer World... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the kid follows the education of his parents, he'll be completely unfit for modern society.
Wow, what a heap of shit. Education and training are two totally different things. Education - the ability to reason, the fundamentals of logic and of scientific thought, of language, of history, of politics, of rhetoric - is timeless.
Re: (Score:3)
He's talking about practical ability, not innate. Human beings have the ability to juggle. Not everyone can juggle - it is a learned skill. As the internet has helpfully demonstrated, not all human beings have learned the skill of reasoning.
Re:Making a Safer World... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No problem. I just have several friends who are teachers, both by profession and by calling. This is one of their favourite talking points after they get a few drinks into them. The friction is there, and it's definitely increasing.
That's still anecdotal evidence. Even if these friends of yours have been teaching for the last 30 years, that's still not very reliable unless they've found a way to quantify that it's getting worse.
Note that you yourself agree that number has tripled over just 40 years. I find it strange that you would consider that tripling of demand for certain services that require heavy investment and long term preparation will not generate friction between consumers of said services and providers.
Nonsense. The article said the proportion of mothers 35 or older has tripled in the past 40 years. That doesn't represent a tripling of demand from schools.
Re:Making a Safer World... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Given you can pay for $5000 of your annual daycare expenses with completely pre-tax money, for the first child you would have to earn less than minimum wage (working full time) to make that true (assuming the US average center based daycare cost) so I don't think your experience is typical (based on median wage data). If you opt for an in-home care situation (i.e. at your neighbor's place who watches kids for the thrill) then you can probably find a spot for 2 kids on what amounts to a $15/hr wage. Two kid
Re: (Score:2)
You may have to consider several factors involved your statement. Speaking of that, there are many questions to be asked in order to understand how and why you said it. 1)Who paid for both of your education? 2)Where do you live? 3)What help did you get from the Government along these years? 4)Who else help your family during these years, or only two of you?, 5)How much did you claim your kids for tax deduction? and 6)What does your wife think about raising 7 kids?
Re: (Score:3)
1) Live near family (ie, grandparents) that can care for your kids and assist with transportation
This will bite you in the ass... just as soon as your kids are ready to start college (probably at your expense) your parents will be calling dibs on their bedrooms so that you can support them in return... while keeping your kids' tuition paid. It might be worth it, or might not.
You sound like my sisters, and my wife's brothers and sister.
In both cases, they tossed off any responsibility for any of our parents, who managed to all die off within 7 years. So it was my wife and I who cared for them.
Anyhow, the siblings were surprised when my wife and I got the lion's share of all the inheritances.
The irony is that I'd told all the parents that I didn't like dead people's money, and our siblings are all about money.
Perhaps your parents will end up feeling the same about you.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ar
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one's certainly less likely to physically beat their children at age 60 than at age 30.
Re: (Score:3)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
A few years ago he gave me crap about getting old so I challenged him to a race when he's 15 and I'm 50. That will be this coming FALL and he's a little worried. He's insisting on a 40 yard dash because he knows he'd lose any kind of endurance race. He'd better hope I slow down a lot in the next few months because the 40 will not be an easy one for him either.
Sadly enough many Americans in their 20's and 30's are in pretty crappy physical condition and it really doesn't take that much for a 50 year old to be in shape by comparison. Take care of yourself and you'll be fine in your 50's.
The other thing about teenagers that's important to remember is that they'd much rather be doing something with their friends than with you. That's not to say my son minds playing ball with his Dad, - but only if he's got nothing else going on.
I do wish that there was going to be a larger span of time between the time they finish college and the time I retire from work but honestly as far as active playing time goes, my kids got far more time from me that most kids get from their parents, - no matter what their age.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Making a Safer World... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at larger sample size, you will indeed see a correlation. However correlation for men is MUCH weaker than what your sample size suggests when polling across large population.
It's about right for women though. Perhaps the men in question also had older companions which compounded the effect?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Correction, not one but 5-25 eggs are released per cycle, depending on the number of active follicles. I didn't know this until we did IVF. The number of follicles that still release eggs at all goes down with age, and the average egg quality also goes down, especially over age 30.
If you're with an established partner and under age 30, but don't want kids yet, I'd encourage spending the ~$15k to freeze a dozen 5-6 day old embryos. When you're 35, you'll have a much better chance to have healthy children,
Re: (Score:2)
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.
My first guess is that increased quality of life has reduced selective pressure against those with poor sperm.
Re: (Score:3)
Kids aren't something to "get out of the way" - they're the most important thing in your life (if you choose to have them). I've already lived a great life with my spouse kid free, when I was young enough to enjoy it (and could focus what spare income we had on us) and now I'm ready to have a family. And now I have plenty of money and time to make the family the most important thing, not just something to get over with already.
Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the thing: the Flynn effect seems to be a real thing, but the Flynn effect seems to have stopped in the past decade or two in developed countries. "Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores[4] to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
There'
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
Obligatory to Obligatory (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/603/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's just a bunch of strawmen and a made up assertion: "people complaining about the decline of society are contributing more to it than anyone else" - oh yeah? Nietzsche, Erich Fromm and *thousands* others will still be read, and still have something worthwhile to say, when the last mirror of xkcd has blinked out of existence. Pah.
And you know, when I thought of "career" and "frozen eggs" I had to think of that particular bit in the opening of Idiocracy. If you think I was trying to claim freezing eggs w
It's not a doll (Score:2, Insightful)
Babies are people, not toys that you lay away for.
Re: (Score:2)
Babies are continuation of your genetic line, which is your concern and your concern alone first and foremost.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Continuation of the species is you first and foremost concern, even if you don't realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not. In nature, interspecies competition can be so harsh, it can wipe out the entire species in process of selection. Species can also diverge into two distinctly different species.
Priority is always placed on your own genetic line and line of those close to you genetically over that of entire species for aforementioned reasons among other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you are, by design, nothing but a strand of genetic information that is biologically created for a singular purpose - procreation as to advance evolution.
You may no like it, but that is the harsh reality. Even your intelligence which you use to deny evolution has evolved only because it allowed your genetic line to be better than competitors in the selection. Individualistic look at evolution fails for this very reason - when faced with evolution, single member of any species is largely irrelevant.
I
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
White cis straight dude detected (Score:2)
Seriously, if you were anything else, you wouldn't pine for the 50's.
The good ol' days were a historical anomaly (Score:5, Insightful)
The idiocracy is coming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And now the watch ads for the privilege of seeing Honey Boo Boo.
You're right, people in general have been getting smarter and more knowledgeable, I just found your example funny.
Reading the Headline... (Score:2)
...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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It would help too if more men shared in child rearing. Instead society still seems to think it's just the mother who has to give up the career.
And along that line, maybe there should be a way to freeze sperm too because as men get older there is evidence that sperm quality declines.
And along that other line, why are so many opposed to adoption?
But I digress.
Re:Don't delay too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids being out of college and self-supporting is becoming a myth for many people as well.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Maybe if ED drugs worked better we wouldn't have ads about cryopreservation..
Re: (Score:2)
I never really understood what was so taboo about adoption. Why the intense focus on fertility where there are unwanted children? Some couples spend more on fertility than an adoption would cost.
Or foregoing kids altogether (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bahhh, we can feed on the weak. When vegetation was scarce we went on to hunt animals. We just have to shifts to cannibalism.
On a serious note, I think 15-20 years is a little early to expect famine in 2nd and 1st world countries. There are plenty of changes we can make to increase the food output. Currently there are many types of food that are manufactured that don't make good use of space. Add eating normal portions to this and we could probably cut our food intake by 40%.
Re: (Score:2)
Famine is already a problem in many places around the world, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with "global population growth rates" is only in the developing world. As a society develops, birth rate naturally goes down. Right now Japan is facing a top-heavy population due to declining birth rate, and Europe is also below the replacement rate. I think the US is about flat, but because of immigration. The reason is that as infant mortality goes down (less need for "spare" kids), and as lifestyle options increase, children turn from an asset into a liability. Child labor laws also help redu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Ug.
Re:Or foregoing kids altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I thought that the opposite is true...that people who have kids are selfish (and I may yet be one among those selfish people - not decided yet)... since they are adding kids to a planet that can do with a lot fewer of them.
The "replenishment" argument has not made sense in centuries. Not having a baby is the most green thing one can do. Babies have bigger carbon footprints than *anything* else you can have and most probably (unless some revolution of green technologies hits soon) more than everything else you do.
Parents having children later in life also exerts some downward pressure on population growth, even if we retain fertility rates. So more power to those who choose this technology.
It is jealousy (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people who say "Oh it is selfish not to have kids," are jealous. Kids are a big commitment, you have to trade off a lot to have them, at least if you are going to be a good parent. Now there are benefits, of course, it can be extremely rewarding emotionally. But there are tradeoffs and some people don't like them. So they see childless couples and see all the extra money and time they have and get jealous, and thus hateful.
It is, in fact, not a selfish position. It is a very pragmatic one. If we are to have a sustainable future, we need population growth to level off. Now I suppose we could go about it all draconian like China and force people to have a certain amount of children. However a better solution is for people who don't wish to have children to not do so. That allows those that want to have more children to do so and yet maintain a consistent population level.
Re: (Score:2)
Old School! (Score:2)
I found the old fashioned way of making babies far more enjoyable.
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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?
why not just have a baby earlier? (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
eating right and keeping healthy helps too
Re: (Score:2)
If your commute is 5 minutes by car, then you need to fucking walk (or maybe ride a bike) instead!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
>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: (Score:2)
"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.
FTFA: "typical profile" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Well .... (Score:2)
Talk about an off-site backup!
Parenting is a marathon, not a sprint (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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.
Good luck to them (Score:3)
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.
Logical Jumps of Conclusion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It absolutely make sense to do. If I was a woman who wanted kids, I'd do this in a heartbeat.
The benefits however, are going to be short lived. Things that improve your economic situation only work when you're one of the few doing it. Like when women started having careers, a couple in that situation was way, way ahead of the curve financially. Now that its common though, that pretty little house in the perfect neighborhood is priced for couples where both have a career.
So once/if this becomes a mainstream
guys save young sperm too (Score:3)
Adopt (Score:3)
Adopt a child. That's what we did... there are an enormous number of children that desperately need a home or they will die... or worse, possibly end up in sex trade. It's a scary thing to do, and it's tough. But I love my son more than I could have ever possibly imagined. He doesn't look like me, isn't the same color as me, doesn't have the same hair as me... but he's my son. God damn, I'm glad I adopted. It's the most important thing I have done, or ever will do again.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Christ, what male wants children and decades long financial burdens that badly?
Re:Useless without a surrogate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Idiocracy. It's coming true.
(Captcha: Unwanted)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 nee