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.
> 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.
IVF in Italy is included in universal health care already, regardless of age.
If the government is going to pay for IVF for 40 years old women it would be cheaper if those women had eggs frozen at 20 because overall you would succeed with fewer embryo transfers.
Of course that's not the only policy needed, we need affordable house for families, schools, decent parental leave for both parents.
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.
yeah, what the fuck? This comment section is utterly fucking insane.
Doesn't that just make it a cheaper policy to implement, since very few will take advantage of it?
It's not only hard and painful, but potentially damaging to the woman's body and could leave them with permanent hormonal issues.
So, no. It's not a good policy.
Then it's not a very good population policy.
It still might end up as yet another thing we do to women's bodies.
To be clear: I agree that it's not great policy to pressure women into doing this (which, arguably, making egg-freezing free would tend to do), bodily autonomy concerns chief among them. It's also not great policy to withhold this as an option from poor women while allowing rich ones access to it (the status quo). The third option would be to ban it, but that has obvious problems too most notably that womens' reproductive health is already surveilled and politicized enough without adding another new crime to police for around it. Allowing it in certain circumstances (a "medical waiver" or similar) just reproduces that same issues as banning it, and would probably be just a waystation on the way to a full ban.
I've yet to see a good proposal for how to regulate or handle this as a society, so my best guess is that we keep the status quo (it's expensive so only rich people can do it) for the foreseeable future UNLESS it becomes some kind of culture war issue for MAGA, which seems honestly pretty likely. Presumably they would want to ban it, but allow exceptions for certain cases that amount to "but is the patient a married white woman with acceptable politics?" in a more legally palatable form.
Thanks for bringing in some common sense.
I went through it with my wife too and expecting a 19 y/o women to go through the IVF process as an insurance policy is a bit insane to me. In our modern, western society, this is age is still solidly childhood with not much definitive thoughts of future family, marriage, etc.
Governments need to make COL more affordable, birth rate will go up naturally
Calling 19 "childhood" is crazy. Most teens have an understanding of what they want their life to look like.
It is crazy but it’s also quite true. People eschew true adult responsibility for much longer these days. It’s a macro trend.
I know there’s a lot of “whys” but not getting married, not having kids, living with parents, etc all compound to remaining a child in some sense and this is continuing well into the 20s and even 30s for a large portion of the demographic.
When it comes to 19 y/o women the fact most internet people would find it gross that 1) highly fertile and 2) desired by old men - is a reality. We tell old men these women are too young yet also won’t admit it’s because they are in some sense still children.
but as someone in my 30s, it’s kind of true…looking back.
I can only speak as a man. I spent my late teens thinking with my penis instead of my brain. Things worked out well for me by pure luck.
Most teens have no real experience with “real” relationships or what makes a great life partner. This is CRUCIAL when parenting. They’re also not thinking about a stable career so they can actually support a baby. Never mind the money…most jobs in the U.S. have garbage health insurance, unless your employer is great.
Many people THINK they know what their life should look like. Then again most teens think they have life figured out lol. A tale as old as time…
I would say mid 20s is an ideal time from a maturity perspective. The best time depends on the person obviously. You can’t plan falling in love. :)
At least with people in my circle of the US, it feels like there's an increasing infantilizing of people (frequently themselves, I'm a bit guilty of this), particularly in regards to things like marriage and raising a family. Yet, by 19 you'll have either made decisions for yourself or someone else has for you, that will likely put you on track for your entire future career direction (education, interests, college choice, maybe even enlisted in the military).
You don't need to have given "definitive thought" to your entire future to not be a child anymore.
We definitely need better COL but I'm not convinced it's is the main factor for low birth rates as most countries living in poverty have very high birth rates. I think its a cultural difference that values earlier marriage and heavy family involvement in raising children which, the latter, reduces the stress of having to parent by yourself.
I think there’s a middle ground where in the US many people would be having kids around 30 if they could afford it. Our recent past reflects that. Even the number of kids have been reduced as the cost has become too high, so it’s not parenthood or responsibility alone people are avoiding. Comparing to poverty situations introduces a whole plethora of variables. Kids are seen more as assets than liabilities, as they will care for you in old age and/or can contribute to the household after the first dozen or so years. This is not really a comparison to the rich nations.
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.
We, in the US, don't even have universal day care, or hundreds of other sensible things that would make child-rearing easy/less expensive. Jumping straight to "let's cover expensive IVF programs" is... well a big leap.
Of course, there are too many “learing” centers draining resources…
Then I look forward to DOGE funding more pro-family benefits by eliminating those cases of wasted resources. /s
yup, and that's most likely it's going to be happening automatically.
funding can just be awarded to centers actually performing the work they're paid for, you know.
Because (1) it's not risk free, (2) it is painful, (3) it is quite costly over the longer term (4) you wouldn't want a 'pro-family' government to have access to a mountain of unfertilized eggs.
Because infertility may not be the only reason behind people not procreating in 2026?
At least with people fighting with infertility, they want to have children, so helping them have children is more straightforward list of actions than convincing people who don't want kids to have them.
This is a peak silicon valley tech bro mentality view.
Instead of doing what the body is natural designed to do lets go fully against it because of the current environment.
[dead]