Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Women Increasingly Freezing Their Eggs To Pursue Their Careers

Posted by samzenpus on from the getting-your-ducks-in-a-row dept.

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.'"

52 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Making a Safer World... by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...for procrastinators.

    1. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Making a Safer World... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Making a Safer World... by InvalidError · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:Making a Safer World... by lgw · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, 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.

    6. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, 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.

    7. Re:Making a Safer World... by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    8. Re:Making a Safer World... by Bengie · · Score: 2

      The reduced parent to child time is quite detrimental to their development. There is a statistical significance in IQ, schooling, confidence, interests, and opportunities for children watched by their parents instead of day-cares. Unless the parent is a welfare stay at home type, there is a lot of good reasons to take the opportunity cost of not having two incomes, assuming it's even an option.

    9. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:Making a Safer World... by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    11. Re:Making a Safer World... by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      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, and can donate the rest to women who can't produce their own. (The pregnancy odds at 35 are around 20%, so with a dozen embryos you should be able to have two or maybe three children.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    12. Re:Making a Safer World... by unimacs · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had my son when I was 35 and my daughter when I was 39. My son is 14 now, a bit taller than me and he can beat me playing one on one. But I can still win too and probably would most of the time if I had much in the way of basketball skills. But I'm 5' 8" and I knew early on that it wasn't going to be my sport.

      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.

    13. Re:Making a Safer World... by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly this attitude is becoming so common people don't even recognize it's wrong. Take day care. As an institution, it was designed as a last-resort option for single mothers who were forced to work due to poverty. It was supported to large degree by charitable organizations. Now it's a booming business and caters to career women who think it's ok to stop being a parent when your kid is 24 months old. I can't imagine why people would deliberately stick their children into what is basically a part-time orphanage before they can even speak. Unless they were so poor they literally couldn't feed their kids without it.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    14. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dear 20-something:

      It's pretty unlikely that a 60-year-old would be in a walker, or on heart meds. You're thinking of someone in their 80s.

      I know everyone over 30 looks the same to you, but we're not.

    15. Re:Making a Safer World... by almitydave · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    16. Re:Making a Safer World... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      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.

    17. Re:Making a Safer World... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Obligatory by Johann+Lau · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    1. Re:Obligatory by i+kan+reed · · 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.

    2. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Obligatory by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      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"

    4. Re:Obligatory by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    5. Re:Obligatory by brit74 · · Score: 2

      And people still assert this is in spite of decades of the Flynn Effect.

      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...

      There's even been some reports that IQs have begun declining in developed countries. (I wouldn't put too much stock in this just yet, but it might be a good indicator that the Flynn Effect is a relic of the 20th century.)

      Scores on cognitive tests have been very widely reported to have increased through the decades of the last century, a generational phenomenon termed the ‘Flynn Effect’since it was most comprehensively documented by James Flynn in the 1980's. There has, however, been very little evidence concerning any continuity of the effect specifically into the present century. We here report data from a population, namely young adult males in Denmark, showing that whereas there were modest increases between 1988 and 1998 in scores on a battery of four cognitive tests–these constituting a diminishing continuation of a trend documented back to the late 1950's–scores on all four tests declined between 1998 and 2003/2004. For two of the tests, levels fell to below those of 1988. Across all tests, the decrease in the 5/6 year period corresponds to approximately 1.5 IQ points, very close to the net gain between 1988 and 1998. The declines between 1998 and 2003/4 appeared amongst both men pursuing higher academic education and those not doing so.

      http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe...

      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.

      Or maybe we should treat the Flynn Effect as a momentary blip.

      So, what's going on? One possibility is that, in poorer countries, a substantial portion of the population is failing to get sufficient nutrition and stimulation to their children. This would have the effect of creating a portion of the population which is cognitively harmed - thus reducing the average intelligence of the population as a whole. As you get better nutrition across the entire population, you see the average IQ increase - but only because the bottom segments of society are improving (not because everyone is improving).

      This would explain why poorer countries are continuing to see Flynn-effect improvements, but developed countries saw it's effect in the mid-20th century but isn't seeing any improvements lately (because the poverty that was harming childrens' brain development isn't happening anymore in developed countries).

      Whatever the case, it's time to stop relying on the "Flynn Effect" as some kind of prediction that our future will continue to be bright. Here's an analogy: in the 20th century, we saw the average height of Japanese people increase significantly. This was due to better nutrition (protein, in particular, during childhood is important). We can also say that height is a strongly heritable trait. At this point, I think we should just accept that the Flynn Effect has topped-out in developed countries.

      I don't think questions about declining IQs based on genetics is a bad question to ask, and I don't think 'trust the flynn effect' should be treated like it's an adequate answer. I realize I could be opening a whole can of worms, though, with this comment, becau

  3. It's not a doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    1. Re:It's not a doll by Bengie · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Don't delay too long by Chelloveck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    1. Re:Don't delay too long by Algae_94 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kids being out of college and self-supporting is becoming a myth for many people as well.

  5. im not even sure where to start with this. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  6. Or foregoing kids altogether by sandytaru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by lorinc · · 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.

      --
      Video of some good progressive thrash music
    3. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by asylumx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by jma05 · · Score: 4, 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.

    5. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Megane · · Score: 2

      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 reduce the value of a large family, and having children at a later age reduces the replacement rate.

      You not having kids isn't going to help the planet. People in India and China having fewer kids makes a much bigger difference.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  7. why not just have a baby earlier? by shadowrat · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by alen · · Score: 4, 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

    2. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      >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.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  8. FTFA: "typical profile" by tomhath · · Score: 4, 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.

  9. Parenting is a marathon, not a sprint by enjar · · Score: 3, 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.

  10. Good idea before surgery, bad idea otherwise by WillAffleckUW · · 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.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  11. Re:Useless without a surrogate by popo · · 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.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  12. Good luck to them by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Seumas · · Score: 2

    Christ, what male wants children and decades long financial burdens that badly?

  14. It is jealousy by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, 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.

  15. Logical Jumps of Conclusion by SarahD'Onofrio · · Score: 2

    Lets look at logic. Everyone made the jump that this meant having kids in 50. Having kids at 35 with the eggs you could have had at 30 is also a viable option here. This is saying hey, I can freeze my eggs NOW because I want to have kids in case something happens where I can't later in life, and I may as well use the younger, healthier eggs. So, this could mean "I want to have kids at 35-40, but I should freeze my eggs before most diseases start showing up around 30" I'd also include this isn't a "Selfish" decision. If me working for 5 more years means that I can have the white picket fence house with the perfect school neighborhood for my child and the best early education, then why wouldn't I? The "costs" can also be in 5 years I'll have $50,000 college bond put away from my child that will effectively double by the time he or she is 18. That would be my reason for delaying kid, I want to know before I even have one the education money is saved away. So does that mean having the child at 30 and potentially risking giving my baby any education he or she wants? Or does this mean I say, hey, I can give me some time and know when I have this child I have her future secured away and I can just enjoy my time with her. Additionally, I'd like to add if this article was "Men freezing sperm to avoid putting off fatherhood until they are older because the sperm they produce when they are younger is better" what would your thoughts be? Would it be men embracing the role of eventually becoming a father until they satisfied their career? Typical male putting career first? I would like to see that data for how we'd react and what jumps we would make.

    1. Re:Logical Jumps of Conclusion by Shados · · Score: 2

      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 thing to do, anyone who wants kids and the pretty house will HAVE to do this.

  16. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Idiocracy. It's coming true.
    (Captcha: Unwanted)

  17. The good ol' days were a historical anomaly by Xaedalus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What you are referring to is the post-World War II era of twenty years that applied really just to the United States, Britain, and a few other select nations. The rest of humanity's history is very similar to the present: both parents working and trying to find low-cost alternatives for child-care, education rapidly approaching unattainable levels of cost for all but the very elite, and a resurrection of the landowner/landlord aristocracy. We're moving to a form of Feudalist Capitalism, only instead of lords and mandarins, we have Corporations and oligarchic republics. Even during the Industrial revolution, we STILL had aristocracies, merchants, and peasants. It was just that technology was redefining who was who. Right now the entire planet is reverting back to the *standard* way of life, the way it used to be before World War I. We just happen to have higher living standards and better technology to assist us.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  18. guys save young sperm too by peter303 · · Score: 2

    For should they want to reproduce in middle age. A few conditions like autism are blamed on aging fathers. And/or chemo or trauma ends sperm production.

  19. Adopt by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    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.

  20. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 2

    Intelligence is actually fatal for mating. The mating instincts are part of our monkey-brains, and if our monkey-brains are too civilized, then we actually have problems tapping into the instincts that assist reproduction.

    This is where alcohol steps in to save the human race, and thank goodness for that.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0