Should a woman have her eggs frozen for her career?

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5319384.stm What happened to the simple life?

Basicailly the link is saying that a fertility expert is saying if a woman wants to delay having a family she should get her eggs frozen in her 30's. Now OK that makes sense, the egg taken from a 30 year old is less likely to have any potential abnormalities.

What im wondering is... what the hell is going on here? Before embryo freezing this wasnt even an option, the biological clock ticked away and you either took your chance or not.

What if you had them frozen and then they were not viable for conception and it was too late?

You know, its a bold statement i make here but.. if you want to go career path (and i mean be top of your league) maybe you just shouldnt have kids? It seems people who are hugely career orientated barely spend any time at home anyways, and even when they can semi-retire they dont, they become obsessed and their families pass them by. I can say that for men too, if you arent gonna be home until 11pm then sleep then go back to the office, why have kids? Its not like the world needs populating

I think your right there.. if you choosing carreer then do it.. if you choosening family do that.. theres not really a happy medium for women.. and to sound really sexeist.. women that want kids should have them younger then look after them.. while the man should work, on a carreer etc..

Ive seen many of businesses lose good women bosses because they have decided to go off and have kids at 40.

It's kinda like saying you can't have an abortion though don't you think, who are we to tell someone what they can and can't do with their bodies and their eggs? If the technology is there then people will use it.

I understand what you are saying about if they don't have the time or they don't want to make the time for a family then why have one anyway but the bodies need to procreate is a powerful one.

Chances are though they will be so wrapped up in the careers that they won't stop to have those kids.

i say let it be the choice of the person who wants this option

I agree with Treebee - personally I don't think that we should interfere with nature like that.

Yeah im not judging anyone, its merely my opinion that if you want kids then the role of mother and father is much more important. Im not saying they shouldnt have the right to have kids any time and its thier bodies, thier choice, thier lives.

I just think, the child doesnt ask to be born, its purely the parents instinct to reproduce. I dont see how someone can be very involved in that child's upbringing if they are constantly at work.

Its my "opinion" though which is only worth something to me

Okay.... now comes uber mommy machine here. I fully believe that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, but there are limitaions. We have biological clocks for a reason. At 40 or 50, our bodies are not built to have a baby, and you are putting yours and the baby's life at risk by having it. You want a career, and then later in life have time for a family, you should adopt. We need more of that anyway!!!

well see I can see the point you are making treebee about it being their choice,but you do have to wonder if at a later date they decide hey I do wish to have kids then would the even be able to get their eggs unfrozen?I mean the article stated that four women did so and three of them had babies after unfreezing them.I'm in no way condeming their choice,but isn't it right for scientists to find out if a case study if it's a logical solution for many women rather than just a few?It really makes you wonder though.I think it'd be great if it could work for every woman that is career oriented and later after financial stability or finding the right guy or whatever the reason wants to haev children doesn't have to worry about downs syndrome or miscarriages.Now this is just my opinion though so don't think too highly of it.It's just one view.

I think adoption would be a better option at that age. Why are people so hung up on the kids being their own blood? I'd understand convenience if they were younger, the adoption process is difficult...but if you're going to those lengths to have a child just so it's related to you, it's going to be just as inconvenient as adopting, and at least with adopting, you're making a positive difference in the life of a baby that's already been born.

I think it is a huge blow to the child to have parents that were too old to have them in a normal fashion. I agree that we have clocks for a reason, and not just health reasons.

My folks are in their 60's now and I feel kind of put out just by that. I always had the oldest parents everywhere I went. My parents could easily be my grandparents. So, now one less generation will get to meet them before they kick the bucket than would have if they'd had me in their 20's. It's sad.

My son's dad's dad was quite a bit older, too. His dad died when he was only 21. So now there is no one to guide him as he becomes a man. My son will never know his grandfather. It's just sad.

I think kids deserve to know that if all goes well they have their parents for a long time. I mean, I know people die all the time, but you shouldn't be planning on dying when your kids still need you.

trust love

look inside

not above

i think all ladies should have their eggs scrambled before they turn 40.

i have a whisk