> 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 discussin

> 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