Gillian E. St. Lawrence is a writer who contributed an interesting piece on egg preservation last week to the Washington Post.
At 30 and 32, she and her husband decided to do IVF and preserve the embryos so they can become parents later when they are ready.
"Most couples resort to in vitro only after years of trying unsuccessfully to get pregnant, a process I think of as Desperation IVF. Instead, we chose to preserve the advantage of our current youth and fertility. I call it Preservation IVF."
A part of me wants to knock this choice, but the rest of me -- the large majority -- feels like this is kind of genius.
My husband and I were 28 and 29 when we got pregnant for the first time. We were certainly not too young and were adults by any standards, but still there is a part of me that often wonders if we should have waited. Even now, five years later, Rob and I will sometimes think of all that we could have done if only we had waited ...
Part of the reason we did not wait is because we knew we wanted children and we wanted them while we were still young-ish and highly fertile.
According to the Post article, 90 percent of a woman's eggs are already gone by age 30. So, in that respect, our decision worked well. Still, it seems pretty incredible to be able to have the babies you would have had at 30 later when you are 39 and you have had the chance to really establish your career, travel together, get the brownstone and generally live.
Sure, it is also nice to know that at 39, my children will be 11 and 10 and I will be past the baby stage as I enter my 40's, but it would also have been nice to have that freedom. What a gift! If we could prolong our fertility and eliminate the biological clock? Sounds good to me.
Would you consider this?
Image by the_girl/Flickr