[John Galt2]

Extreme amounts of hamsterization in this article, thought I would share the humor on a random Tuesday with the boys. My comments in red/brackets, I bolded the highlights.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/19/we-have-a-b...e-my-eggs/

Quote:

Whether they haven’t yet met the right man, want to concentrate on their careers, or are married and looking to delay motherhood, a growing number of New York women are now opting to freeze their eggs.

Fertility clinics in New York report a 100 percent increase in demand for elective egg-freezing over the past two years.

Dr. Alan Copperman, director of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at Mount Sinai Hospital, says so-called “oocyte cryopreservation” — as opposed to the more proven practice of freezing inseminated eggs, or embryos — is the largest-growing segment of his practice.

“The demographic in New York City was ready for this technology because there are so many career-minded women in their 30s who someday want a family,” he tells The Post, citing a doubling in the number of women having the procedure since 2012 and a quadrupling in the figures since 2010.

Progressive companies such as Facebook and Apple are now offering elective egg-freezing as an employee benefit. [Oh yes, Sheryl and Company will do anything to keep the young slaves, err, ladies in the office working 80 hour weeks]

But the procedure is far from a sure thing — with the rate of a frozen egg actually yielding a baby between just 2 and 12 percent for women ages 38 and under.

So why shell out tens of thousands of dollars to go ahead with the treatment? Here, four local women reveal their motivations for putting their eggs on ice.

‘I’m focused on my career’

Elizabeth Higgins Clark, 30, of Hillsdale, NJ [she looks great...for 42]

When Elizabeth Higgins Clark read that the upper age limit for egg donors in the US is 32, it made her angry.

“I was a little outraged that sex education at school is all about how not to get pregnant and avoid diseases, but doesn’t cover how a woman’s fertility decreases dramatically in her 30s,” says the New Jersey-born actress, who froze her eggs in the spring of last year with RMANJ at the age of 29. [Yes Liz, our schools should teach little future cat ladies all about how your eggs will dry up]

“I thought, ‘If I have trouble conceiving when I’m older, why wouldn’t I want to be my own egg donor?’ ”
Having a baby in the next few years is definitely not in the cards because Higgins Clark wants to concentrate on her acting career, a profession notoriously tough for moms because of the long hours and travel involved.

“My feelings were moving in reverse of my body, which was aggressively moving toward [needing to have] kids,” says Higgins Clark, who now lives in Los Angeles. [That is mother nature talking to you sweetie, you better listen up]

She decided to act fast and have her eggs frozen at 29 because she “didn’t want to make the decision out of fear” in her late 30s.

Now the eggs she froze last spring are 9 months younger than she is.

“I wish I’d done it at 22, because the younger you are, the more eggs they can get in a single harvest,” adds Higgins Clark. “A lot of women who are in their late 30s have to do multiple and expensive rounds in order to create enough eggs.”

‘I wish I’d done it at 22, because the younger you are, the more eggs they can get in a single harvest.’

The actress says it was awkward telling her parents about her choice, but they were fully supportive and even helped financially.

“The whole thing cost $10K (plus an annual $1,000 for storage of the eggs), and my father split the cost with me,” she says, explaining that he is keen to eventually become a granddad. [Still taking money from daddy!]

As for the procedure, the hardest part wasn’t so much the thrice-daily injections of hormones for nine days or the mood swings, but the soreness and pain after the retrieval under general anesthetic.

But Higgins Clark recuperated at her family home in Hillsdale, NJ, and was back on her feet again within a couple of days.

Now 16 of her eggs have been frozen and are kept in storage at RMANJ’s facility in Basking Ridge, NJ, ready for the day when she decides to have them thawed and inseminated.

“There is not a ton of research out there, and I know there’s a chance that it won’t work, but my doctor, Dr. Michael Drews, said he thought those 16 eggs would be enough to give me two healthy babies,” says Higgins Clark. “I’m trusting that that’s the case.”




‘I haven’t met the right man’

Tai Beauchamp, 37, of lower Manhattan

As a successful TV personality and entrepreneur, Tai Beauchamp appears to have it all — striking good looks, a lively personality and an exciting career.

But the one thing missing from the 37-year-old’s life is a man with whom to have children.

“If I had to do it over again, although I have very few regrets in my life, I’d have dated a lot more strategically when I was 28,” she admits. “I put my personal life on the back burner and thought meeting a guy would ‘just happen.’ But nothing in life ‘just happens.’ ”

Suspecting that she was unlikely to meet Mr. Right any time soon, and with her biological clock ticking, the Type-A businesswoman had 10 of her eggs frozen at Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey (RMANJ) in August 2013. Storage costs $1,200 a year.

“Around the age of 29, I decided that 35 would be the age where, if I didn’t already have a husband, I’d freeze my eggs,” she says. “It’s an insurance policy because my goal is to have a child naturally.” [Honey, you've had literally 20 years to have a baby "naturally"]

Beauchamp, who is currently dating [still on the cock carousal], claims that the men she has told have been supportive.

‘It’s an insurance policy because my goal is to have a child naturally.’

“I don’t announce it on the first date or e-mail them a memo,” she laughs. “But if the conversation comes up about family planning and having children, I’ll tell them.

“Their reactions have been positive, as it really takes away pressure from them and off the relationship.” [Sweet, this dumb broad is 37 and STILL wont want to lock me down!]

As for the $14K egg-freezing procedure, she describes the experience as being “emotional” and “like a typical menstrual cycle feels for a woman, but times 15.”

“The most uncomfortable thing is having swollen fallopian tubes and ovaries,” she recalls. “It’s not a decision to be taken lightly, as there are definitely health risks.

“But the entire process is one of the most empowering things I’ve ever done. It’s liberating. As a woman, you need to take whatever steps you need to ensure your desires are met.”



‘It’s my insurance policy for baby No. 2’

Jacqueline Klosek, 41, of Manasquan, NJ

Klosek would like to have a second child and has frozen her eggs in case she has difficulty getting pregnant again.

Playing with her adorable 16-month-old baby Kayla, attorney Jacqueline Klosek is looking forward to the time when she can give her daughter a brother or sister to join in the fun.

But at the age of 41, Klosek doesn’t have any of the usual worries about her biological clock and whether she will be able to conceive as easily as she did with Kayla.

That’s because she froze her eggs — and also a number of embryos fertilized by her partner, Tom Lozinski — when she was 38, as a safeguard in case she struggled to get pregnant naturally.

“I was 37 and at a routine OB-GYN appointment when my doctor asked what I was thinking of as far as children were concerned,” recalls Klosek, of Manasquan, NJ. “It was weird, because the subject honestly hadn’t dawned on me, and I’d put thoughts of having children on the back burner.” [Really, you never even thought about it?? Tom, you god damn beta, stop enabling her!!]


But knowing that she wanted to have kids some day — though not imminently, partly because Tom is four years younger than she — Klosek consulted RMANJ about egg-freezing.

“They explained that, medically, it would be better if they froze some of the eggs after fertilization with Tom’s sperm as embryos and [left] the others unfertilized,” she says. “I guess [the option to freeze unfertilized eggs] was an insurance policy in case things didn’t work out with Tom.” [Tom, you're killing me bro]

Klosek went ahead with the $25K procedure and ended up with three embryos and 12 eggs, which are now being kept on ice at the clinic, ready to be thawed when needed.

Nonetheless, when she turned 40, Klosek started trying naturally for a baby with Tom and got pregnant with Kayla the very first month.

“We are very grateful for our beautiful baby, but I don’t regret having the egg-freezing procedure,” she concludes. “You never know what the future might hold in terms of your fertility, so it’s given me peace of mind.”

‘I want to be a mom in my 40s’

Annie Scranton, 34, of Manhattan

Annie Scranton doesn’t want to become a mother until she’s at least 40.

“I’ve just always seen myself as an older mom and, fortunately, since I live in New York City, it’s common for women to have their first baby after 40,” says the high-flying owner of Pace Public Relations.

The 34-year-old, who got married last August, froze her eggs at NYU Fertility Center in January 2012 while engaged to her husband, Michael, 32, a TV producer. [Michael, you in the same bridge club as Tom?]

“We’re very much a team, but I’d say this was a very personal decision,” says Scranton. “I’d made up my mind to do it long before we’d gotten together.

“We didn’t have a serious sit-down conversation about it. One day, I pretty much said, ‘I’m going to freeze my eggs,’ and he said, ‘Cool!’

“He knows that I found it empowering and something that levels the playing field a bit between men and women. Men can have babies well into their 70s, and it’s not really fair biologically.

“Also, we’re only recently married, so it’s good that we can spend time with just the two of us.”

She chose to freeze her eggs — rather than embryos created with Michael’s sperm — because it “seems a little too sci-fi to literally keep babies on ice.” [Or because you will frivorce Michael, take your cash and prizes, and get some high quality alpha sperm]

In common with many women who undergo the procedure, she sees it more as an insurance against infertility later in life and will try to get pregnant naturally before thawing the supply.

“I wasn’t getting younger and, luckily, I had the financial means to go ahead with it,” adds Scranton of the $12K process. “But the doctors were very up front that there’s not a guarantee that it’s going to result in a baby.

“That being said, they were confident that the procedure would result in a good, healthy number of viable eggs.”

One of Scranton’s biggest supporters was her mom, who started researching the subject of oocyte freezing when her daughter was 27.

“She is very up on trends, and when Maria Menounos did it years ago, she said it was something I should look into.

“I wasn’t in that head space at the time, but as soon as I hit 30, I was making plans.”

This is our culture gentlemen, enjoy the decline.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Good luck with that!

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

Heh...some man must be making some serious bank marketing the fuck out of this.
Also, I'd just like to point out that in addition to being expensive, the technology is imperfect.
You could take a woman's eggs at 28, and freeze them for 8 years, and then make a baby with them....but the freezing and unfreezing process does something, and the quality of the baby suffers, more birth defects, retardation, etc etc. You don't magically get a baby that's the same as if a fertile 28 year old got knocked up naturally.

[freeuser]

Quote:

“But the entire process is one of the most empowering things I’ve ever done. It’s liberating. As a woman, you need to take whatever steps you need to ensure your desires are met.”

Quote:

“He knows that I found it empowering and something that levels the playing field a bit between men and women. Men can have babies well into their 70s, and it’s not really fair biologically.

It´s incredible how fucking stupid these bitches are.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Several issues aren't addressed. This is what happens when you have a cheerleader writing the article, not a reporter. Hey! I was a reporter once. Here's what I think needs to brought into this discussion:

1). Most men won't go for this.

I think these women's boyfriends are exceptions. Most normal men who meet women with frozen eggs will run for the hills. Guys already fear "baby rabies." But when a woman has invested $10K in future offspring, that's baby rabies on steroids. The pressure will be immense, and there will be the implicit threat of "I sunk a lot of money into this, so you better man up! NOW!" Women have no qualms about making husbands and live-in boyfriends responsible for their debt (i.e. credit card, college loans), and this will be no exception.

And how many women will come to sue men who date them long-term but won't fertilize their eggs? They'll consider it a wasted investment.

2). Elder parenting is irresponsible.

The second issue not addressed is "elder parenting" and how it puts kids at risk in a lot of different ways. No one can guarantee they'll live until 80. If women intend to have kids unnaturally up to age 50, we're going to see a lot of orphaned high schoolers in the future.

Also, bodies start to break down after age 50. It won't be easy for these parents to run after a 5-year-old. And by the time the kid is 18, the parents will be pushing 65, and the kids will be driving them to an array of doctor's appointments. It'll be like when your folks had your grandmom come to live in their house because she was frail -- except in this case, the grandparents will be your mom and dad.

3). Problems with the kid.

I saved the worst for last. Studies have shown IVF-conceived babies have an increased risk of premature birth and developmental abnormalities. Have enough studies been done on births from frozen eggs to assure the children will have healthy lives? And is that a risk most men will want to take?

[Sonsowey]

I wonder how many people who freeze their eggs actually end up doing IVF at some later date, vs. how many just never do it.

Obviously if you're 40 and putting off having a baby, it seems like it's probably just never going to happen. This is probably just a way that a lot of women can allay their inner anxiety about never having kids.

[Foolsgo1d]

Quote:

As a successful TV personality and entrepreneur, Tai Beauchamp appears to have it all — striking good looks, a lively personality and an exciting career.

But the one thing missing from the 37-year-old’s life is a man with whom to have children.

When will they stop saying this shit.

I must have read 1000s of these "empowered" yet 'I don't have a man' lines.

[tallandblonde]

Empowered = I missed my window in the sexual market place to find a man.

[turkishcandy]

Quote:

Progressive companies such as Facebook and Apple are now offering elective egg-freezing as an employee benefit.

How is this profitable for companies? Are middle aged women so indispensable employees that it's worth paying their egg-freezing just to keep them in the cubicle for another decade? Why not hire another young money-crazed broad? Is there a scarcity of employees in the US? If this is about paternity leave, what does it matter if they take it 10 years earlier or later?

[jariel]

[Pride male]

Dont put all your eggs in one basket.

[Shortest Straw]

(01-20-2015 11:50 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

I wonder how many people who freeze their eggs actually end up doing IVF at some later date, vs. how many just never do it.

Obviously if you're 40 and putting off having a baby, it seems like it's probably just never going to happen. This is probably just a way that a lot of women can allay their inner anxiety about never having kids.

^ This

She'll freeze her eggs at 30, enjoy life through 50, then finally give up on storing the eggs and stop paying the bill.

Forget about egg viability; parenting is a physically demanding task, and at 50, she'll wonder whether she wants to be 70 with a kid in college.

[El Chinito loco]

(01-20-2015 11:43 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

3). Problems with the kid. [/b]

I saved the worst for last. Studies have shown IVF-conceived babies have an increased risk of premature birth and developmental abnormalities. Have enough studies been done on births from frozen eggs to assure the children will have healthy lives? And is that a risk most men will want to take?

Just imagine if IVF birth really catches on we'll see a whole generation of sickly, waifish, mentally stunted kids born from NYC shrews. The "special education" type programs will be packed with these helmet wearing retards. The taxpayers will probably end up footing the bill in various ways with public healthcare costs, educational needs, lost productivity etc.. Many will be pampered hard growing up and will become a net burden on society in various ways.

They are literally creating IVF untermenschen from the toxic wombs of selfish cunts.

[Soma]

(01-20-2015 09:22 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:43 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

3). Problems with the kid. [/b]

I saved the worst for last. Studies have shown IVF-conceived babies have an increased risk of premature birth and developmental abnormalities. Have enough studies been done on births from frozen eggs to assure the children will have healthy lives? And is that a risk most men will want to take?

Just imagine if IVF birth really catches on we'll see a whole generation of sickly, waifish, mentally stunted kids born from NYC shrews. The "special education" type programs will be packed with these helmet wearing retards. The taxpayers will probably end up footing the bill in various ways with public healthcare costs, educational needs, lost productivity etc.. Many will be pampered hard growing up and will become a net burden on society in various ways.

Already exists. It's called Williamsburg.

[Paracelsus]

I thought there was a study around that basically indicates it's not the age of the egg, it's the age of the uterus that counts. The egg can be young and good, but if the uterus is so fucking worn out that it can't hang onto the egg, you're still not going to get pregnant -- not to mention that the nutrient system if you do get pregnant at 40 is twice is old. We're unlikely to ever see a comparison between the viability of a 40 year old's placenta versus that of a 20 year old, but I don't see how exactly women expect one part of their biology to remain pristine and age-20 when the rest of the body has fundamentally changed, from hormone production right through to muscle mass.


In one sense the children of 20 year old mothers are starting out with a genetic and in utero advantage: they have nine months of a uterus and placenta working at full efficiency compared with the unknown efficiency of a reproductive system twice as old.

[Onto]

Like anything, successful sales/marketing must hook into an underlying psychological desire.

In this case the desire is to "freeze" time and stay young forever. The writer of the article, while perhaps not on purpose, was able to pick up on it when they wrote:

"Now the eggs she froze last spring are 9 months younger than she is."

[dog]

Women's ignorance about their own fertility is absolutely astounding. They would rather pay big money into what will eventually be a multi-billion dollar industry for a sub-ideal pregnancy, birth, nursing, and childhood instead of facing the "awful" truth.

This reminds me so much of every female-driven diet and exercise fad. Expensive, fighting nature, and with unsustainable results that are worse than doing it the traditional tried-and-true way.

Just goes to prove yet again the old maxim: there is more money to be made in lying to people than telling them the truth. Better to turbocharge the hamster than slow down its wheel for even a moment.

[infowarrior1]

(01-20-2015 10:28 PM)dog Wrote:  

Women's ignorance about their own fertility is absolutely astounding. They would rather pay big money into what will eventually be a multi-billion dollar industry for a sub-ideal pregnancy, birth, nursing, and childhood instead of facing the "awful" truth.

This reminds me so much of every female-driven diet and exercise fad. Expensive, fighting nature, and with unsustainable results that are worse than doing it the traditional tried-and-true way.

Just goes to prove yet again the old maxim: there is more money to be made in lying to people than telling them the truth. Better to turbocharge the hamster than slow down its wheel for even a moment.

Quote:

The average age of women becoming mothers has risen in the United States, and in the last 20 years, a few women have even entered motherhood in their 60s.

By implanting embryos produced by in-vitro fertilization using egg cells donated by younger women, women who have passed menopause can become pregnant and give birth.

A new study of 101 women age 50 and older who had children using donated eggs reveals that pregnancy at this age carries about the same risks as similarly induced pregnancies in younger women. The study is the largest one to date looking at pregnancy in post-menopausal women.

"These women do really pretty well," said Dr. Mark Sauer, senior author of the article and chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Columbia University Medical Center, where all the women in the study received IVF.

"If they're well-screened and well cared for, they really should do O.K.," Sauer said.

The study found women over age 50 had similar rates of complications, such as gestational diabetes and preterm labor, as women under age 42 who became pregnant after receiving donated eggs.

And although the older women had slightly higher rates of high blood pressure, that difference was small, and may have been due to chance.

The study is published in the February issue of the American Journal of Perinatology.

Pregnancy at older ages

While Sauer said the results of the study were surprising in terms of how well older mothers did, he noted that the women were highly screened and highly motivated.

"These are smart, educated, well-off people that are doing this," he said, and pregnancy after 50 is not common — the 101 cases in the study were collected over a decade.

One 49-year-old woman in the study died while pregnant (she was included in the study because she would have been 50 at the delivery). She had concealed from the doctors that she smoked three packs of cigarettes a day, which the doctors said likely contributed to her heart attack.

In general, carrying a pregnancy is much easier for an older woman's body than producing the egg needed to conceive one.

"The uterus is a very different organ than the ovaries," Sauer said.

Under a microscope, Sauer said, the uterus changes very little with age. Given adequate hormones, an older woman's uteruscan sufficiently nourish a growing fetus.

Eggs, however, are a different story.

A 2009 study from the Sackler School of Medicine in Tel Aviv concluded that age 43 seems to be a cutoff point for IVF with a woman's own eggs, which is viable with only 5 percent of women at that age. While individual cases have been reported of natural pregnancy at older ages, the very fact of their publication suggests how rare such events are.

Sauer said celebrities who have given birth in their late 40s almost certainly used donor eggs, though they may not be acknowledging it. This may be preventing greater public acceptance of egg donation, he said.

In fact, a major challenge in infertility treatment is convincing women in their 40s and older to use donated eggs rather than their own, Sauer said. With donated eggs, the success rate is about 50 percent.

But how old is too old, and who decides?

Public attitudes towards older women having children have changed since research on such cases was first published.

Dr. Richard Paulson, who worked with Sauer in the 1990s on research at the University of Southern California and is currently the director of USC Fertility, said he has noticed a shift in acceptance.

"I think society has become comfortable with [alternative] parent situations," Paulson said.

Sauer believes women should have a choice as to when they have children, but said he understands the concerns.

It was in Sauer and Paulson's research group at USC that a 63-year-old woman became pregnant in 1996. Paulson said she misrepresented herself as 10 years younger.

"We tend to require ID now," Paulson said, noting that many IVF clinics restrict whom they give donated eggs to, with a cut-off age of 50 or 55.

Fifty-year-olds can expect to live another 30 years, and so will be able to raise their children.

"I lose my own personal comfort zone when you get over 60," he said, citing the physical, emotional and financial cost of raising a child, particularly for someone entering retirement.But the doctors agreed that age alone should not be a deciding factor in whether a woman should be treated.

"Of course IVF should not be denied solely based on age," said Dr. Sherman Silber, in Saint Louis, Mo., director of St. Luke's Hospital's Infertility Center.

Paulson said the new study provides more reassurance to doctors offering a reproductive option to older women.

"It points out that it is a relatively complicated pregnancy…but as you can see, most of them get through it just fine," he said.

"But before doing donor-egg IVF on a woman in her late 40s or 50s, you should ascertain that she has a good family support system to take care of the child if she should die before the average age for women in the U.S. of 84," Silber said.

On fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/02/03...udy-finds/

[Deluge]

On the bright side, at least this technology will slow down our descent into Idiocracy.

[Checkmat]

[CRR]

Problems go beyond just the age of being a mother.

Bottom line is career women plus natural female hypergamy is a recipe for disaster.

As has been discussed, the biggest mistake women make is thinking that their job increases their SMV like it does for a man.

A bunch of late 30s/early 40s career women, so impressed with themselves, remain flabbergasted that they can't meet a man with a job better than hers who is also of high physical desirability due to her supposed increased SMV. To these women, they are better marriage material than a younger, more physically attractive woman because of their 'success' and 'maturity'.

The problem is, and I cannot repeat this enough, women don't get to choose what men are attracted to. A desirable single man in his late 30s/early 40s (fit, earning good $, etc.) who decides to settle down can choose the following:

A woman in her physical prime (mid-20s) who will be more focused on raising children.

Or

A woman past her physical prime who is more focused on her career.

Who is he going to choose?

Articles like this encourage women to make terrible decisions because they completely fail to consider the free will of men to choose to mate with whom they wish.

[Easy_C]

The problems with this have already been discussed and torn apart, so no point in beating a dead horse.


Why do you all think so many companies sponsor this? It's not because they care that much for their employees.....it's because they need good, submissive wage slaves and this is a good psychological trap to keep women in those jobs as they pat themselves on the back for being "independent" women.

And women make much better wage slaves than men do. They're generally more zealous in enforcing stupid workplace policies, less likely to get aggressive if pushed too far, less likely to strike out in favor of a better deal, better at drinking the company kool-aid, and less likely to become competition by starting their own businesses.

You didn't think all these diversity hires, egg freezes, etc were out of the goodness of their hearts did you?

[Paracelsus]

(01-20-2015 10:35 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Quote:

The average age of women becoming mothers has risen in the United States, and in the last 20 years, a few women have even entered motherhood in their 60s.

By implanting embryos produced by in-vitro fertilization using egg cells donated by younger women, women who have passed menopause can become pregnant and give birth.

A new study of 101 women age 50 and older who had children using donated eggs reveals that pregnancy at this age carries about the same risks as similarly induced pregnancies in younger women. The study is the largest one to date looking at pregnancy in post-menopausal women.

"These women do really pretty well," said Dr. Mark Sauer, senior author of the article and chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Columbia University Medical Center, where all the women in the study received IVF.

"If they're well-screened and well cared for, they really should do O.K.," Sauer said.

The study found women over age 50 had similar rates of complications, such as gestational diabetes and preterm labor, as women under age 42 who became pregnant after receiving donated eggs.

And although the older women had slightly higher rates of high blood pressure, that difference was small, and may have been due to chance.

The study is published in the February issue of the American Journal of Perinatology.

Pregnancy at older ages

While Sauer said the results of the study were surprising in terms of how well older mothers did, he noted that the women were highly screened and highly motivated.

"These are smart, educated, well-off people that are doing this," he said, and pregnancy after 50 is not common — the 101 cases in the study were collected over a decade.

One 49-year-old woman in the study died while pregnant (she was included in the study because she would have been 50 at the delivery). She had concealed from the doctors that she smoked three packs of cigarettes a day, which the doctors said likely contributed to her heart attack.

In general, carrying a pregnancy is much easier for an older woman's body than producing the egg needed to conceive one.

"The uterus is a very different organ than the ovaries," Sauer said.

Under a microscope, Sauer said, the uterus changes very little with age. Given adequate hormones, an older woman's uterus can sufficiently nourish a growing fetus.

The bolded bit to me is the important part. I do appreciate the fill-in of information which goes against my arguments further up - but I also have doubts that you can just turbocharge part of a body with injections and not have unintended consequences elsewhere. These three words indicate quite fiercely that an older woman's body is not naturally producing the correct chemical compounds to sustain a fetus on its own, that it takes (presumably significant) amounts of hormone supplement.

Consider how some people on the weightlifting forums advocate against whey supplements for protein because it basically smashes your liver with a massive dose that ultimately is damaging, when you can get the same, correct protein dose just by eating correct quantities of meat. Shit, look at the "successes" muscle building with steroids and all their side-effects. Ultimately your best and safest chance of conceiving and carrying to term a pregnancy is to have a young egg and a young uterus.

And these studies remain obsessively and myopically committed to the single question of whether or not you can actually shit a live kid out of your vagina. They don't talk about the side-effects on the kid or any longtitudinal studies conducted to see what the educational or physical outcomes are for these kids.

They even brush over that preterm risks for older women are higher. That's a really stupid minimisation, too, because the potential complications for preterm births are huge. If a baby's born before about 35 weeks or so, you have a high chance of at least even a mild dose of cerebral palsy in the child. That's for life. If the kid's born before 30 weeks, it's often intellectual retardation (In PC World, it's called "developmental delay", of course) lung problems, and blindness.

[zombiejimmorrison]

Freeze those eggs ladies, while smart men go overseas and get young hot women.

[HeyPete]

I want to get a job at one of these clinics. Just a janitor or something and do this.