Rendered at 19:37:23 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
davidelettieri 28 minutes ago [-]
Having done IVF with my wife I think this is the most underrated fertility advice available today.
I don't understand why governments of countries with increasing average age and low birth rate don't pay for this for all women. This is one the best pro-family policies that can be implemented.
drakonka 5 minutes ago [-]
Most 19 year olds probably wouldn't opt into injecting themselves twice a day for weeks and dealing with the side effects of the injections, then the subsequent extraction procedures (likely for multiple rounds) even if it was paid for. Which is reasonable, considering most women who want children will have them without IVF and don't need to go through any of that.
Aurornis 9 minutes ago [-]
> This is one the best pro-family policies that can be implemented
Hard disagree on that. You're coming from an angle of someone who wanted to have kids and do it in a mathematically optimal way. A lot of people see egg freezing as a way to delay having kids until they're older, which can become a disincentive to raising families when they're young and healthy enough to do it. If you want a pro-family policy, you should be spending the money on people with families and their children, not on a tool that is used to delay having children in common use.
Another huge problem with this proposal is that freezing eggs is only a small part of the cost. The cost of IVF later in life could push into six figures depending on how many rounds are needed. If we're talking about pro-family policies that can cost upwards of $50,000 to $100,000 per family, there are many more effective places to spend that like on childcare options.
zzzeek 1 minutes ago [-]
> but when later life arrives they realize the viability of eggs was only one part of a lot of factors that go into the choice.
so what? people who have frozen eggs can now have kids whereas if they did not, they could not (not nearly as easily at least)
> Another huge problem with this proposal is that freezing eggs is only a small part of the cost. The cost of IVF later in life could push into six figures depending on how many rounds are needed.
needing lots of rounds of IVF is much more likely if egg quality is low. eggs that were frozen at a younger age tend to be a lot more viable
> If we're talking about pro-family policies that can cost upwards of $50,000 to $100,000 per family, there are many more effective places to spend that like on childcare options.
I'll agree with you on that, daycare, healthcare and education are much better investments at the governmental level
but I still agree with parent poster this is the most "underrated fertility advice available today"
CrossVR 18 minutes ago [-]
That money is better invested in providing affordable family housing. Even if IVF is available no one is going to actually have kids if you do nothing to make it economically sustainable to start a family.
Do we really want to rely on IVF to solve the fact that people can only afford a family home once they're well into their 40s? It's insanity if you ask me.
21 minutes ago [-]
butterbomb 19 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
stavros 14 minutes ago [-]
I don't see a very big reason mentioned: You might not need it at all. Sure, the optimal age to freeze might be 19, but if 80% of women are done with children by age 30, why would you have every woman spend the equivalent of buying a small car on something they're overwhelmingly not going to need?
Waiting to get a good balance of "your eggs are still reasonably healthy" and "if you haven't had kids until now, it'll probably be a while still" is probably the reason behind the current advice.
arjie 2 hours ago [-]
If you're curious what it's like for a couple of normies doing IVF, I wrote down our experience here to the degree I remembered: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/IVF
WarmWash 22 minutes ago [-]
If I'm understanding that right, it cost $25k per run, and you did 3 runs, so $75k total? Or was it $25k for the full thing? Did insurance cover anything?
arjie 11 minutes ago [-]
Our IVF clinic has a publicly available price sheet[0] so that is correct (thought he prices are higher now): $75k total for us. My wife and I are relatively old. Friends who were approximately 10 years younger collected some 50 eggs on a single cycle. There is a drop-off in egg -> embryo but the women with the 50 eggs are likely going to end up with more usable embryos than us.
Insurance coverage is broader now. When we did it, we used cash pay but nowadays where we live in California there is SB 729 that means most big insurance plans will cover IVF. Personally, I think that's a bit regressive. Older, more established couples like us are benefiting from what will be primarily paid into by younger couples. But if pre-implantation testing becomes widespread (a good thing, imho) then IVF will be more widespread so perhaps this is a forward-looking policy. Still, expanding the child tax credit and raising it to 10x what it is would be good, I think.
Didn't read that account but I went through it with wife. The egg collecting / embryo creating process is the expensive part, so depends on how many times you have to do that process. The re-implantation was significantly cheaper, so also depends on how many times you have to do that part but at least its less costly.
We ended up doing 1 extraction and 2 implantations. If I remember it was roughly ($15k-20k) then (~$5k * 2). This was about 8-9 years ago. We had no fertility issues and had other reasons for doing IVF, but if you do have fertility issues it's more risk the extraction and embryo process will fail and need repeating.
yosefk 36 minutes ago [-]
The optimal age to have children is way before you need to rely on frozen eggs (one reason among many being that this process doesn't always work)
morkalork 12 minutes ago [-]
My parents and my spouse's parents were all in their late 30s having children, now we're in the same position due to infertility and now finally going through IVF. We're happy it's working but at the same time it's sad knowing they'll grow up never really knowing their grandparents.
SoftTalker 35 minutes ago [-]
It's also the optimal age to have children. Fertility is highest, the woman is likely healthy and strong, lowest risk of complications.
stavros 13 minutes ago [-]
It's also the optimal age to not have children! You're still figuring out your life, probably no stable partner or job, time to do some stuff you'll regret later, etc.
delfinom 2 minutes ago [-]
Biological optimal vs societal optimal.
nightski 10 minutes ago [-]
There is not an "optimal age". It entirely depends on the individual.
wredcoll 10 minutes ago [-]
Aside from the part where you have to raise them, sure.
jliptzin 5 minutes ago [-]
If everyone had kids at 18-20, then the grandparents could take care of the grandkids while in their 40s while the parents build their careers from 20-40, then start taking care of the grandkids as the cycle repeats
20 minutes ago [-]
Teever 2 hours ago [-]
> Lastly, the stem cells we're planning to use to make these eggs accrue mutations with age, and we don't currently have a good method to fix these before making them into eggs. These mutations will bring additional risk of various serious diseases, only some of which we currently have the genetic screening to detect.
I've always found this one fascinating. Somehow human cells age and humans get old and die but humans can somehow make an entirely new creature through reproduction where that is reset and most of the defects from the parent are gone as well.
How does that work and what stumbling blocks exist that prevent us from replicating it?
gopalv 44 minutes ago [-]
> Somehow human cells age and humans get old and die but humans can somehow make an entirely new creature through reproduction where that is reset
I think the eggs aren't dividing as you age (you are born with them, so to speak) and the sperm is held "outside" the body.
One is in original packaging and the other is produced in a "cooler" enviroment by the billions with a heavy QA failure of 99.9999%.
strangefellow 2 hours ago [-]
I don't know anything about this subject, but I thought it was just natural selection that effectively filtered out the 'bad eggs', as it were. On that same note, I've worried about the effects that modern medicine might have in short-circuiting evolution/natural selection. Would love to hear from someone with qualifications to speak on this matter.
xyzzy_plugh 59 minutes ago [-]
Modern medicine absolutely short-circuits natural selection. If you have an older sibling who was delivered via C-section chances are you wouldn't exist.
shrubble 52 minutes ago [-]
That’s not true for the USA however.
The large award for a medical malpractice trial was the reason for doctors pushing for a C-section if there’s any possibility of a complication. (Sometimes called defensive medicine.)
Most people point to the cases won by John Edwards, trial lawyer and vice presidential candidate as the reason for the great increase in C-sections. His case wins include 30 trials at which he won at least $1 million dollars each.
DanielHB 34 minutes ago [-]
In my generation (80s-90s) pretty much everyone in Brazil that was born in a hospital was born through C-section. Only recently did the practice of defaulting to c-section is beginning to fade.
b112 24 minutes ago [-]
In Canada, we've long since moved last such barbarisms.
Our G-sections are far superior, and healthier for all involved. Another example is our use of Z rays over X rays, another Canadian invention, and with the smaller wavelength, it's just safer.
rendall 29 minutes ago [-]
Modern medicine is part and parcel of natural evolution. There is no short-circuiting of evolution. That's not a thing.
Waterluvian 2 hours ago [-]
We’re were photocopying photocopies. But I guess if you’re taking two copies and tracing a third that is based on them but doesn’t actually have to be a facsimile, it gives nature more flexibility?
Like I’m not sure it actually works this way but I can intuit why it’s possible, given the new life doesn’t have to be an exact replication.
pbh101 2 hours ago [-]
Isn’t that what stem cell therapy is?
colechristensen 1 hours ago [-]
There are a bunch of mechanisms in sperm/eggs for better protection/repair/removal by suicide than in any other tissue. It makes sense that these evolved to be the best in these cells compared to any other. Also other tissues might have significantly worse problems having cells kill themselves instead of continuing to operate with a corrupted genome.
micromacrofoot 2 hours ago [-]
Naturally the reset happens before most cells have grown, part of the trick in doing it with grown humans is doing so without destroying existing tissue or causing cancer.
It's almost like trying to change the flavor of a cake after it's been baked. Significantly easier to swap out ingredients before it's that far in the process.
nQQKTz7dm27oZ 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
the_real_cher 1 hours ago [-]
It's wild that in the year 2026 modern science can't recreate a SINGLE cell (which is what a human egg/ovum is).
ekjhgkejhgk 24 minutes ago [-]
It wouldn't be wild if you understood how complex cells are.
DanielHB 27 minutes ago [-]
To encode all the atomic data and relative position of a single human cell probably would take a good chunk of all the hard drives in the world. A cell is not like a silicon chip where 99% of it is just repeating the same patterns.
arjie 1 hours ago [-]
Well, that seems a bit reductive because nothing can create a single cell right now. All cells are self-copied-and-divided. Omnis cellula e cellula, as they say. There is no cell constructor anywhere. Both Nature and Artifice use the same device to make more cells: a previous cell.
Trees are high technology. I’m not sure we’ll match that even in 100 years.
ravenstine 28 minutes ago [-]
I honestly don't look forward to the day that we can do that. It may redefine our very existence more so than even automation.
jokowueu 1 hours ago [-]
it's possible to convert stem cells or skin cells into functional egg cells (ova) in lab settings, though the technology remains experimental and not yet ready for routine clinical use
the_real_cher 1 hours ago [-]
I'm always reading about amazing stuff like this with modern medicine. Things that work great in lab settings: cures for cancer, organ scaffolding, regrowing teeth, etc etc.
Never hear about it again after the initial news.
bonsai_spool 20 minutes ago [-]
> Never hear about it again after the initial news.
Perhaps it is because you're not a specialist—all of these things are still worked on.
njarboe 50 minutes ago [-]
Lots of tech gets discovered, is heavily patented, and then 20 years late,r when that large first round of patents expire, people start working on and developing the tech.
I don't understand why governments of countries with increasing average age and low birth rate don't pay for this for all women. This is one the best pro-family policies that can be implemented.
Hard disagree on that. You're coming from an angle of someone who wanted to have kids and do it in a mathematically optimal way. A lot of people see egg freezing as a way to delay having kids until they're older, which can become a disincentive to raising families when they're young and healthy enough to do it. If you want a pro-family policy, you should be spending the money on people with families and their children, not on a tool that is used to delay having children in common use.
Another huge problem with this proposal is that freezing eggs is only a small part of the cost. The cost of IVF later in life could push into six figures depending on how many rounds are needed. If we're talking about pro-family policies that can cost upwards of $50,000 to $100,000 per family, there are many more effective places to spend that like on childcare options.
so what? people who have frozen eggs can now have kids whereas if they did not, they could not (not nearly as easily at least)
> Another huge problem with this proposal is that freezing eggs is only a small part of the cost. The cost of IVF later in life could push into six figures depending on how many rounds are needed.
needing lots of rounds of IVF is much more likely if egg quality is low. eggs that were frozen at a younger age tend to be a lot more viable
> If we're talking about pro-family policies that can cost upwards of $50,000 to $100,000 per family, there are many more effective places to spend that like on childcare options.
I'll agree with you on that, daycare, healthcare and education are much better investments at the governmental level
but I still agree with parent poster this is the most "underrated fertility advice available today"
Do we really want to rely on IVF to solve the fact that people can only afford a family home once they're well into their 40s? It's insanity if you ask me.
Waiting to get a good balance of "your eggs are still reasonably healthy" and "if you haven't had kids until now, it'll probably be a while still" is probably the reason behind the current advice.
Insurance coverage is broader now. When we did it, we used cash pay but nowadays where we live in California there is SB 729 that means most big insurance plans will cover IVF. Personally, I think that's a bit regressive. Older, more established couples like us are benefiting from what will be primarily paid into by younger couples. But if pre-implantation testing becomes widespread (a good thing, imho) then IVF will be more widespread so perhaps this is a forward-looking policy. Still, expanding the child tax credit and raising it to 10x what it is would be good, I think.
0: https://springfertility.com/finance/
We ended up doing 1 extraction and 2 implantations. If I remember it was roughly ($15k-20k) then (~$5k * 2). This was about 8-9 years ago. We had no fertility issues and had other reasons for doing IVF, but if you do have fertility issues it's more risk the extraction and embryo process will fail and need repeating.
I've always found this one fascinating. Somehow human cells age and humans get old and die but humans can somehow make an entirely new creature through reproduction where that is reset and most of the defects from the parent are gone as well.
How does that work and what stumbling blocks exist that prevent us from replicating it?
I think the eggs aren't dividing as you age (you are born with them, so to speak) and the sperm is held "outside" the body.
One is in original packaging and the other is produced in a "cooler" enviroment by the billions with a heavy QA failure of 99.9999%.
The large award for a medical malpractice trial was the reason for doctors pushing for a C-section if there’s any possibility of a complication. (Sometimes called defensive medicine.)
Most people point to the cases won by John Edwards, trial lawyer and vice presidential candidate as the reason for the great increase in C-sections. His case wins include 30 trials at which he won at least $1 million dollars each.
Our G-sections are far superior, and healthier for all involved. Another example is our use of Z rays over X rays, another Canadian invention, and with the smaller wavelength, it's just safer.
Like I’m not sure it actually works this way but I can intuit why it’s possible, given the new life doesn’t have to be an exact replication.
It's almost like trying to change the flavor of a cake after it's been baked. Significantly easier to swap out ingredients before it's that far in the process.
Never hear about it again after the initial news.
Perhaps it is because you're not a specialist—all of these things are still worked on.