3 ms·

That isn't something this article discusses so that isn't actually a "TL;DR." Additionally cryopreservation itself can cause sperm damage (during initial freez

That isn't something this article discusses so that isn't actually a "TL;DR." Additionally cryopreservation itself can cause sperm damage (during initial freezing), which while often inconsequential for people e.g. undergoing cancer treatment or who would otherwise find themselves infertile before finding a partner, should be weighed if you're opting to forgo kids and view cryopreservation as a mitigation for age-based sperm damage. If you have the opportunity and ability to have kids before 45 then it is safest just to do so. Freezing and waiting because it is inconvenient isn't a risk free venture.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
The data shows people are putting off having kids longer, both men and women [1]. Damage to reproductive tissue from rapid freezing used in cryopreservation is inconsequential; here is a report of an embryo frozen for 25 years that was successfully used to bring a fetus to term [2]. $1k-2k is cheap insurance against the future, versus rushing to have children. It's not perfect, but as I said, it's insurance. If the thawed tissue can't be used for IUI procedures, there will be ample supply to use with IVF. Very similar to being cryogenically frozen, having any percentage of success is better than 0. This will all be moot in 5-10 years when technology is commercially available to generate reproductive tissue from adult cells [3]. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/14/462816458/average-age-of-first-time-moms-keeps-climbing-in-the-u-s https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/14/4628164... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42420864 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42420864 [3] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/14/scientists-create-sperm-eggs-using-skin-cells-fertility-ethical-questions https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/14/scientists-c...
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > Damage to reproductive tissue from rapid freezing used in cryopreservation is inconsequential Relative to what? > here is a report of an embryo frozen for 25 years that was successfully used to bring a fetus to term Loss of viability is only one metric by which damage can be measured. Something can be viable but the damage causes a less healthy child, just like age based DNA damage. Plus the embryo's age is a mislead showcase. Correctly stored embryos can last almost indefinitely (atmospheric radiation damage being the only limiter). The risks from cryopreservation is primary during the freezing process.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > Relative to what? Relative to not having the ability to reproduce at all in the future, or at an unknown diminished capacity. I'm not sure where your fearmongering is coming from, the science is proven that banking male reproductive tissue is safe for the donor and effective for bringing a fetus to term in the future when paired with a healthy egg. Ten years ago studies were done on young adults with cancer banking semen for future fertility use [1], and the success rate was 30% with IUI and 50% with IVF. Those odds are even better today with improved clinical cryopreservation methods (vitrification has shown success rates upwards of 90-98%). [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17647219 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17647219
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      > Relative to not having the ability to reproduce at all in the future, or at an unknown diminished capacity. That isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing opting to delay reproduction and using an imperfect means to do so. You're trying to conflate it with e.g. cancer victims or those who are losing their fertility, which wasn't your original proposition at all. When there is no alternative it is a huge improvement, when you're opting into it for no great reason, you have to examine the costs more closely. You've stumbled into contrasting age based DNA damage with Cryopreservation's damage. > I'm not sure where your fearmongering is coming from Science. The scientific literature has been clear on the DNA damage sustained during the freezing process for tens of years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopreservation#Risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopreservation#Risks

toomuchtodo 8y ago

The data shows people are putting off having kids longer, both men and women [1]. Damage to reproductive tissue from rapid freezing used in cryopreservation is inconsequential; here is a report of an embryo frozen for 25 years that was successfully used to bring a fetus to term [2]. $1k-2k is cheap insurance against the future, versus rushing to have children. It's not perfect, but as I said, it's insurance. If the thawed tissue can't be used for IUI procedures, there will be ample supply to use with IVF. Very similar to being cryogenically frozen, having any percentage of success is better than 0. This will all be moot in 5-10 years when technology is commercially available to generate reproductive tissue from adult cells [3]. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/14/462816458/average-age-of-first-time-moms-keeps-climbing-in-the-u-s https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/14/4628164... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42420864 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42420864 [3] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/14/scientists-create-sperm-eggs-using-skin-cells-fertility-ethical-questions https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/14/scientists-c...

Someone1234 8y ago
> Damage to reproductive tissue from rapid freezing used in cryopreservation is inconsequential Relative to what? > here is a report of an embryo frozen for 25 years that was successfully used to bring a fetus to term Loss of viability is only one metric by which damage can be measured. Something can be viable but the damage causes a less healthy child, just like age based DNA damage. Plus the embryo's age is a mislead showcase. Correctly stored embryos can last almost indefinitely (atmospheric radiation damage being the only limiter). The risks from cryopreservation is primary during the freezing process.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > Relative to what? Relative to not having the ability to reproduce at all in the future, or at an unknown diminished capacity. I'm not sure where your fearmongering is coming from, the science is proven that banking male reproductive tissue is safe for the donor and effective for bringing a fetus to term in the future when paired with a healthy egg. Ten years ago studies were done on young adults with cancer banking semen for future fertility use [1], and the success rate was 30% with IUI and 50% with IVF. Those odds are even better today with improved clinical cryopreservation methods (vitrification has shown success rates upwards of 90-98%). [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17647219 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17647219
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    > Relative to not having the ability to reproduce at all in the future, or at an unknown diminished capacity. That isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing opting to delay reproduction and using an imperfect means to do so. You're trying to conflate it with e.g. cancer victims or those who are losing their fertility, which wasn't your original proposition at all. When there is no alternative it is a huge improvement, when you're opting into it for no great reason, you have to examine the costs more closely. You've stumbled into contrasting age based DNA damage with Cryopreservation's damage. > I'm not sure where your fearmongering is coming from Science. The scientific literature has been clear on the DNA damage sustained during the freezing process for tens of years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopreservation#Risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopreservation#Risks