read this article on the Washington Post.
There is this couple, aged 30. They want to have kids in the future but are not ready yet. At the same time they are afraid of the risks of infertility and genetic problems arising from pregnancies over 35.
So they decide to get an IV and freeze their embryos. They want the possibility to implant the embryos „produced“ by their 30 year old egg and sperm to be transplanted to their financially and emotionally stable selves in the future.
They call it „preservation IV“ as opposed to „desperation IV“ and then they go on about how superior their thinking is (and I really get the impression that they look down on people who do IV because they can’t get pregnant naturally. I mean, „desperation IV“?).
Now they have all the choices to get babies naturally, but they also have a „baby-backup“.
Apart from my instant dislike for this self-righousness of the article’s author (she had a certain tendency to look down on people who need an IV and to praise her own IV as mature as she didn’t need it) I had trouble with the whole concept. What do you think of it?
Judging reproductive choices of others isn’t my cup of tea usually.
But „baby-backup“? You’re keeping your options open so you’re just deep-freezing a few embryos because maybe you are going to have one of them implanted. Oh, and you have five because if you miscarry you can just take another one. And if you get pregnant without an IV later on in your life you don’t need the back-up, wonderful. What do you think this is, some kind of joke?
PS: Rationally I wonder how I can think this strange. It is a proven fact that getting pregnant gets more and more difficult, especially after 35. And I think normal IVs ok. … still… this idea seems so weird to me. What do you think?