4 ms·

Why I Froze My Eggs

26 points by murtali 13y ago

acadien 13y ago
Embarrassingly enough I expected this to be an article about chicken's eggs.
rayiner 13y ago
It should be noted that the success rate of frozen eggs is not great. The data is all over the place, but generally, implantation and pregnancy rates are substantially less than a coin flip.
OmarIsmail 13y ago
This line from the article is what stood out most to me "And it's a buzz kill on dates when you feel compelled to ask the guy sitting across from you, clutching his craft beer, "So do you think you might want kids someday?"" Is that really the case? I mean if your intention of dating is to meet someone that may eventually turn into a lifelong partner, knowing if their stance on children is congruent with your own definitely seems like something you'd want to hash out pretty darn early.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  your intention of dating is to meet someone that may eventually turn into a lifelong partner That's not really typical.
  - klipt 13y ago
    I think it's pretty common in certain crowds, for example geeky grad students. And if you're looking for something serious, wouldn't you want to filter out people who just want to use you for a fling?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      It also depends on age and gender. The "biological clock" is not a myth. Women entirely unconcerned about long-term prospects at 22 often do a 180 by 27. The first time I met my now-wife (24), she said in no uncertain terms she didn't want kids. After two years of dating, kids suddenly became super important to her and panic started to set in about possibly not being able to have them.
  - ZirconCode 13y ago
    It should be though, shouldn't it?
  - skylan_q 13y ago
    I agree that it's not typical. And given that it's not typical, people aren't really serious about starting families and having children. If someone was serious about this sort of thing and actually wanted this, they'd start asking very soon if not right away.
  - ISL 13y ago
    Can you back up that assertion? On a per-capita basis (not per date, as casual dating may be more common), I'd guess that many (>60%, to put a number on it) of those in the dating market have at least some notion of a 5+ year future in potential dates. My friends and I have generally looked for partners, not flings. A great long term match can be really worthwhile.
    - sillysaurus 13y ago
      Can you back up that assertion? Those who look for flings date more. Most men who date are looking for flings. Thus, it becomes more likely that most who date are looking for flings. See Jaynes's book "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science"
      - ISL 13y ago
        Hence asking about per-capita, not per date, numbers. :).
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        sillysaurus 13y ago
        Well, most men are looking for flings (biologically). Some women are looking for flings. Whether or not most people are looking for flings depends on whether (A + B) / dating_population is > 0.5. I would suspect it is, but statistics to the contrary would be an interesting discovery.
      - illuminate 13y ago
        "Those who look for flings date more. Most men who date are looking for flings." Most dates don't turn into anything serious, but I doubt most men who bother to date are looking for a "fling", your definition of "date" may just be overbroad.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It should be noted that the author is in Manhattan, which has a totally ridiculous dating/marriage scene. A small overall disparity in gender ratio can be magnified into a large disparity in the dating population when you bear in mind that most people are paired up at any given moment. So take NYC's overall gender ratio (53% female, 47% male). If you assume 80% of people are in a relationship at any given instant, the actively single pool is actually 1.5 females per 1 male. Women basically have zero leverage in the Manhattan dating scene, which means that it really is difficult to bring up things like kids, because most men here seem to think of kids as something that they'll get around to in their 40's if ever. Hence an article on egg freezing.* *) Which I think is great--I think we need more "home grown" kids in the U.S. and if egg freezing gives people a way to do that, then great.
  - klipt 13y ago
    She could move to Silicon Valley and take her pick...
  - kevination 13y ago
    The reality of the NYC dating scene might be more complicated, as documented by Jonathan Soma (you can just read the findings if you don't like enabling Java): "The switchover from extra men to extra women starts at 35-39 for most big East Coast cities, but doesn't hit New York until 40-44" http://www.xoxosoma.com/singles/ http://www.xoxosoma.com/singles/
    - sudont 13y ago
      One thing I've never gotten is that there are more women than men (USA), but men have much higher rates of being unattached. Is this a case of men having multiple partners, or am I misunderstanding the math?
      - klipt 13y ago
        The main reason there are more women is that women live longer. This also means that most of the "extra" women are over 70. If you break the population down into age groups (e.g. 0-10, 10-20, etc.) most younger groups have more men than women. Combine this with the fact that younger women tend to pair up with older men, and you get more unattached men in the younger groups (but more unattached women in the older groups).
- murtali 13y ago
  Her point seems to be that by doing it, she isn't burdened by that question. The idea of freezing your eggs is still way too cost prohibitive for most women. This is unfortunate because it leaves only the "Sheryl Sandberg"s of world- wealthy and educated to take advantage of this opportunity.
teuobk 13y ago
Perhaps it could be advantageous for men to freeze their sperm at a young age, too. There is some evidence that the older the father is at conception, the more likely his child is to have autism. There's also at least one study that suggests that the link can skip a generation: if a man is relatively old when he has a son, then his grandson is more likely to have autism. (That said, conflicting studies exist, and more research is required.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/grandfathers-age-linked-to-autism/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/grandfathers-age-li...
- illuminate 13y ago
  I would tend to take most knowledge on what causes autism with a shaker or two of salt at this point in time.
wsj_misanthrope 13y ago
What's really impressive are the comments. If you ever wondered about readers of the wsj, this should cinch it.
klipt 13y ago
From what I've read, fertility starts declining at 35, so if you're going to freeze eggs, probably best to do it before then.
drfrank 13y ago
I wonder what a woman that spends $50,000 to freeze her eggs in her mid thirties would say about a man who spends $50,000 in his mid thirties on a sports car.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Because having and raising children, which creates a huge positive externalize in society, is the same thing as a sports car, which is a luxury good for personal consumption?
  - klipt 13y ago
    A luxury sports car could be a signal used to attract mates, like colorful plumage on a bird. So he might also be spending that 50k on having children (albeit indirectly).
    - illuminate 13y ago
      Men buy them for themselves, not to "haul in the babes."
      - klipt 13y ago
        In the same way that women put on makeup for themselves. However, the desire to be attractive "for ourselves" is baked into our genes precisely because it helped our ancestors attract members of the opposite sex too.
        illuminate 13y ago
        For all the midlife crises, it doesn't really help someone who's not already confident/sexy/rich, though. It's an expensive accessory, like a watch. Makeup is a fair analogy, in that men like to impress other men with their cars and (most) women don't bother being made-up everyday for men.
  - skylan_q 13y ago
revelation 13y ago
At age 36, with no kids and no marriage, she had to obliterate her savings to fund 50k? I feel like some part of her "big life plan" went south. It's rather troubling she mentions having insurance cover this procedure...
claudius 13y ago
Did someone take into account the kids? My dad turned 60 recently, and the mere thought that he will be a pensioner before I make any considerable amount of money and likely senile/needing full-time care by the time I turn 35 is…weird.
- diego 13y ago
  I don't understand your comment. How old are you? Would you rather take care of your aging dad (assuming that's necessary, which is a big "if") between 35-45 or between 50-60? Does it even matter? Why is that thought weird? Would you rather not exist?
  - claudius 13y ago
    I’m 22 now and I would rather prefer to deal with all the problems caused by old age when I’m 50 or 60. More importantly, I wouldn’t mind having more than about ten to 15 years left with him.
    - diego 13y ago
      My dad died last year at 71. I never had to take care of him, he was a relatively healthy guy and his death was unexpected. I enjoyed my time with my dad, and I have no regrets. Seize the day, and don't waste time worrying about things that may never happen.
    - svachalek 13y ago
      Lifestyle and genetics have a lot to do with things, but people are living longer and healthier lives these days... I don't consider 75 to be that old anymore. I have an uncle who's 80 who gave up scuba diving not long ago, one in his 70s who's president of his local school board, another who's over 70 and still lifting weights at the gym.
montecarl 13y ago
There is a better option that allows you to have as many children as you want whenever you want: adoption. Why bring in more children into the world when there are already so many that are unwanted?
- philwelch 13y ago
  We're mammals. Do you really think that's a satisfying answer?
  - montecarl 13y ago
    I will certainly acknowledge that there is a biological imperative to reproduce. However, I think we should work together to promote adoption of children. I don't see any logical reason to think of adoption of an infant any differently than spawning your own. Its safer for the adoptive mother's health and most certainly an improvement for the infant. Other than the pregnancy and birth process being replaced with lots of paperwork and interviews, it is a very similar experience. In both cases you end up with a child of your own to love and care for.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      Yeah, I think adoption is much better, too. Unfortunately most people aren't wired that way.
- namenotrequired 13y ago
  'so many'? Demand for adoption children is currently higher than the supply.
  - drkevorkian 13y ago
    Demand for babies is much higher than supply. Once they're toddlers or older, that trend quickly reverses.
    - 13y ago

26 points by murtali 13y ago

Embarrassingly enough I expected this to be an article about chicken's eggs.

It should be noted that the success rate of frozen eggs is not great. The data is all over the place, but generally, implantation and pregnancy rates are substantially less than a coin flip.

OmarIsmail 13y ago

This line from the article is what stood out most to me "And it's a buzz kill on dates when you feel compelled to ask the guy sitting across from you, clutching his craft beer, "So do you think you might want kids someday?"" Is that really the case? I mean if your intention of dating is to meet someone that may eventually turn into a lifelong partner, knowing if their stance on children is congruent with your own definitely seems like something you'd want to hash out pretty darn early.

sillysaurus 13y ago
your intention of dating is to meet someone that may eventually turn into a lifelong partner That's not really typical.
- klipt 13y ago
  I think it's pretty common in certain crowds, for example geeky grad students. And if you're looking for something serious, wouldn't you want to filter out people who just want to use you for a fling?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    It also depends on age and gender. The "biological clock" is not a myth. Women entirely unconcerned about long-term prospects at 22 often do a 180 by 27. The first time I met my now-wife (24), she said in no uncertain terms she didn't want kids. After two years of dating, kids suddenly became super important to her and panic started to set in about possibly not being able to have them.
- ZirconCode 13y ago
  It should be though, shouldn't it?
- skylan_q 13y ago
  I agree that it's not typical. And given that it's not typical, people aren't really serious about starting families and having children. If someone was serious about this sort of thing and actually wanted this, they'd start asking very soon if not right away.
- ISL 13y ago
  Can you back up that assertion? On a per-capita basis (not per date, as casual dating may be more common), I'd guess that many (>60%, to put a number on it) of those in the dating market have at least some notion of a 5+ year future in potential dates. My friends and I have generally looked for partners, not flings. A great long term match can be really worthwhile.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    Can you back up that assertion? Those who look for flings date more. Most men who date are looking for flings. Thus, it becomes more likely that most who date are looking for flings. See Jaynes's book "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science"
    - ISL 13y ago
      Hence asking about per-capita, not per date, numbers. :).
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - sillysaurus 13y ago
        Well, most men are looking for flings (biologically). Some women are looking for flings. Whether or not most people are looking for flings depends on whether (A + B) / dating_population is > 0.5. I would suspect it is, but statistics to the contrary would be an interesting discovery.
    - illuminate 13y ago
      "Those who look for flings date more. Most men who date are looking for flings." Most dates don't turn into anything serious, but I doubt most men who bother to date are looking for a "fling", your definition of "date" may just be overbroad.
rayiner 13y ago
It should be noted that the author is in Manhattan, which has a totally ridiculous dating/marriage scene. A small overall disparity in gender ratio can be magnified into a large disparity in the dating population when you bear in mind that most people are paired up at any given moment. So take NYC's overall gender ratio (53% female, 47% male). If you assume 80% of people are in a relationship at any given instant, the actively single pool is actually 1.5 females per 1 male. Women basically have zero leverage in the Manhattan dating scene, which means that it really is difficult to bring up things like kids, because most men here seem to think of kids as something that they'll get around to in their 40's if ever. Hence an article on egg freezing.* *) Which I think is great--I think we need more "home grown" kids in the U.S. and if egg freezing gives people a way to do that, then great.
- klipt 13y ago
  She could move to Silicon Valley and take her pick...
- kevination 13y ago
  The reality of the NYC dating scene might be more complicated, as documented by Jonathan Soma (you can just read the findings if you don't like enabling Java): "The switchover from extra men to extra women starts at 35-39 for most big East Coast cities, but doesn't hit New York until 40-44" http://www.xoxosoma.com/singles/ http://www.xoxosoma.com/singles/
  - sudont 13y ago
    One thing I've never gotten is that there are more women than men (USA), but men have much higher rates of being unattached. Is this a case of men having multiple partners, or am I misunderstanding the math?
    - klipt 13y ago
      The main reason there are more women is that women live longer. This also means that most of the "extra" women are over 70. If you break the population down into age groups (e.g. 0-10, 10-20, etc.) most younger groups have more men than women. Combine this with the fact that younger women tend to pair up with older men, and you get more unattached men in the younger groups (but more unattached women in the older groups).
murtali 13y ago
Her point seems to be that by doing it, she isn't burdened by that question. The idea of freezing your eggs is still way too cost prohibitive for most women. This is unfortunate because it leaves only the "Sheryl Sandberg"s of world- wealthy and educated to take advantage of this opportunity.

teuobk 13y ago

Perhaps it could be advantageous for men to freeze their sperm at a young age, too. There is some evidence that the older the father is at conception, the more likely his child is to have autism. There's also at least one study that suggests that the link can skip a generation: if a man is relatively old when he has a son, then his grandson is more likely to have autism. (That said, conflicting studies exist, and more research is required.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/grandfathers-age-linked-to-autism/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/grandfathers-age-li...

illuminate 13y ago
I would tend to take most knowledge on what causes autism with a shaker or two of salt at this point in time.

wsj_misanthrope 13y ago

What's really impressive are the comments. If you ever wondered about readers of the wsj, this should cinch it.

klipt 13y ago

From what I've read, fertility starts declining at 35, so if you're going to freeze eggs, probably best to do it before then.

drfrank 13y ago

I wonder what a woman that spends $50,000 to freeze her eggs in her mid thirties would say about a man who spends $50,000 in his mid thirties on a sports car.

rayiner 13y ago
Because having and raising children, which creates a huge positive externalize in society, is the same thing as a sports car, which is a luxury good for personal consumption?
- klipt 13y ago
  A luxury sports car could be a signal used to attract mates, like colorful plumage on a bird. So he might also be spending that 50k on having children (albeit indirectly).
  - illuminate 13y ago
    Men buy them for themselves, not to "haul in the babes."
    - klipt 13y ago
      In the same way that women put on makeup for themselves. However, the desire to be attractive "for ourselves" is baked into our genes precisely because it helped our ancestors attract members of the opposite sex too.
      - illuminate 13y ago
        For all the midlife crises, it doesn't really help someone who's not already confident/sexy/rich, though. It's an expensive accessory, like a watch. Makeup is a fair analogy, in that men like to impress other men with their cars and (most) women don't bother being made-up everyday for men.
- skylan_q 13y ago

revelation 13y ago

At age 36, with no kids and no marriage, she had to obliterate her savings to fund 50k? I feel like some part of her "big life plan" went south. It's rather troubling she mentions having insurance cover this procedure...

claudius 13y ago

Did someone take into account the kids? My dad turned 60 recently, and the mere thought that he will be a pensioner before I make any considerable amount of money and likely senile/needing full-time care by the time I turn 35 is…weird.

diego 13y ago
I don't understand your comment. How old are you? Would you rather take care of your aging dad (assuming that's necessary, which is a big "if") between 35-45 or between 50-60? Does it even matter? Why is that thought weird? Would you rather not exist?
- claudius 13y ago
  I’m 22 now and I would rather prefer to deal with all the problems caused by old age when I’m 50 or 60. More importantly, I wouldn’t mind having more than about ten to 15 years left with him.
  - diego 13y ago
    My dad died last year at 71. I never had to take care of him, he was a relatively healthy guy and his death was unexpected. I enjoyed my time with my dad, and I have no regrets. Seize the day, and don't waste time worrying about things that may never happen.
  - svachalek 13y ago
    Lifestyle and genetics have a lot to do with things, but people are living longer and healthier lives these days... I don't consider 75 to be that old anymore. I have an uncle who's 80 who gave up scuba diving not long ago, one in his 70s who's president of his local school board, another who's over 70 and still lifting weights at the gym.

montecarl 13y ago

There is a better option that allows you to have as many children as you want whenever you want: adoption. Why bring in more children into the world when there are already so many that are unwanted?

philwelch 13y ago
We're mammals. Do you really think that's a satisfying answer?
- montecarl 13y ago
  I will certainly acknowledge that there is a biological imperative to reproduce. However, I think we should work together to promote adoption of children. I don't see any logical reason to think of adoption of an infant any differently than spawning your own. Its safer for the adoptive mother's health and most certainly an improvement for the infant. Other than the pregnancy and birth process being replaced with lots of paperwork and interviews, it is a very similar experience. In both cases you end up with a child of your own to love and care for.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Yeah, I think adoption is much better, too. Unfortunately most people aren't wired that way.
namenotrequired 13y ago
'so many'? Demand for adoption children is currently higher than the supply.
- drkevorkian 13y ago
  Demand for babies is much higher than supply. Once they're toddlers or older, that trend quickly reverses.
  - 13y ago