The Ethics of Egg Freezing

What's wrong with women resetting their biological clocks?


“My parents want me to have this as a gift,” say many of the patients of fertility specialist Dr. Daniel Shapiro, the medical director of Reproductive Biology Associates in Atlanta. The gift is financial support for retrieving and freezing their daughters’ eggs.

More and more American women are waiting until they are older to have children. Why? Because they are building their careers and waiting for Mr. Right. But what if Mr. Right fails to come along before age 35? As the biological clock ticks along the chances of having biologically related children steeply diminish. Some women are now taking advantage of "fertility insurance" by having fertility clinics retrieve and freeze their eggs. The new trend for would-be grandparents to pay for this new fertility preserving procedure was reported in mostly approving terms last week on the front page of The New York Times. 

While many women put off childbearing as their careers develop, others are stuck waiting for their relationships to reach the next level, thanks to the fecklessness of modern men. Many women in their late 20s and early 30s are in long-term relationships with men whom they think will eventually father their children. The relationship doesn’t work out and the women find themselves without a partner in their mid-30s or later. 

Demographic trends over the past 50 years also must also be taken into account. Before the advent of the contraceptive pill in 1960, the median age for marriage for women and men was 20.3 and 22.8 years respectively. In 2010, the median age for marriage had risen to 26.1 and 28.2 years. In addition, the average age of mothers at first birth has increased [PDF] from 21.4 in 1970 to 25.2 in 2009. The most recent vital statistics report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted [PDF] that in 2009 the “rate of 39.1 births per 1,000 women aged 15â€"19 was the lowest ever reported in the nearly seven decades for which a consistent series of rates is available.” On the other hand, the birthrate for women aged 35-39 was 46.5 births per 1,000 women. In fact, more children were born to women over age 35 than to women under age 20.

Every advance in assisted reproduction comes with ethical questions, and this one is no different. First, should it be done at all? In her 2009 article, "Egg Freezing: A Breakthrough for Reproductive Autonomy," North Carolina State University philosopher Karey Harwood notes that infertility occurs when a normal biological process is impeded by disease or defect. Thus assisted reproduction techniques are used to treat the illness of infertility.

However, women who decide to have their eggs frozen are not infertile. They are making an “elective” or “social” choice to take advantage of egg freezing. Does this make any ethical difference? No, argues Harwood. She points out that contraception and non-therapeutic abortion are both “elective” and do not treat an illness. “The analogy to a contraceptive pill is apt because both egg freezing and the pill can effectuate delayed reproduction,” writes Harwood. “Because egg freezing may be reasonably interpreted as another form of family planning, it can be considered a legitimate exercise in reproductive autonomy.”

In addition, freezing eggs gets around the moral assertion that frozen embryos are persons since uninseminated eggs do not have two sets of genes derived from parents. Of course, using frozen eggs later to create embryos via in vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques for implantation into a woman’s womb is likely to run into that objection eventually. Standard IVF techniques often involve producing extra embryos that are frozen as backups to be used if those initially introduced into a woman’s womb fail to implant or if patients later desire additional children. Consequently, there are often frozen embryos leftover once IVF treatments have been completed. Using frozen gametes, both eggs and sperm, means that people using this assisted reproduction technique might not have to make decisions about what should be done with any leftover embryos.

In addition, to the above ethical arguments, some ethicists deploy three other objections to this new way to extend women’s fertility; (1) false hope, (2) harm to children, and (3) inappropriate commercialization.

The biological clock ticks relentlessly away so that typically a woman’s fertility (defined as probability of getting pregnant during a year) falls from 86 percent at age 20 to 52 percent at age 35. Thereafter it drops ever more steeply to 36 percent by age 40 and 5 percent by age 45.

The claim that egg freezing as a kind of “fertility insurance” engenders false hope in women who aim to preserve and extend their fertility rests chiefly on two concerns. The first is women may overestimate the real chances of having a baby using this technique. If the relevant standard is the success rate to other IVF techniques, then recent data from several clinics indicates that the rate of live births using frozen eggs is comparable, about 1 in 3 cycles results in a live birth.

The other issue is that women who hear of the technique will wait too long before taking advantage of it. Clinical evidence strongly suggests that the chances of having a baby is greater for women who choose to freeze their eggs before age 35. This is because eggs frozen after that age do not grow and implant as readily. Older eggs are far more likely to have flaws that prevent them from developing into babies than younger eggs do. 

Another ethical concern is that children born from frozen eggs are disproportionately at risk for various physical and mental harms. Already some 2,000 children may have been born using frozen eggs. Preliminary indications are that rate of birth defects among such children is comparable to that of children born by means of conventional IVF techniques. For example, a 2009 study looked at 936 live births from frozen eggs and reported, “Compared with congenital anomalies occurring in naturally conceived infants, no difference was noted.” Of course, since the technique is so new, researchers need to keep an eye on children born using this technique to see if any deleterious consequences arise in the longer term.

The final set of ethical objections centers on claims that this technique furthers the medicalization and commercialization of women’s bodies. Of course, it is women who are choosing voluntarily to take advantage of this technology. They must believe that it can benefit them and further the development of their life plans. Providers of this service do get paid (the whole process can cost as much as $20,000 out of pocket), but so too do lawyers, teachers, car mechanics, plumbers, and everybody else. There is no compelling ethical reason to believe that fertility specialists should not be fairly compensated at market rates for their services.

Some ethicists argue that egg freezing amounts to an illegitimate technological fix to some of the persistent problems of sexual inequality. In this case, the ethical thing to do is to change workplaces so that there is less conflict between bearing children and women’s careers. In addition, public policy should be steered in directions that would encourage women to avoid the problem of age-related infertility simply by having children at younger ages. However, the case of France suggests that contemporary attempts to shift public policy in directions friendly to childbearing and rearing may have limits. In pronatalist France, the average age for first childbirth is 29.9 years, and despite all sorts of social programs aimed at easing the burdens of child rearing, French women have a lower labor force participation rate than do American women.

On the other hand, egg freezing actually promotes equality between the sexes. Oxford University philosophers Imogen Goold and Julian Savulsecu correctly point out, [PDF], “Men already enjoy the choice of when they have children. Women should have the opportunity to enjoy the same choices as men, if we can provide them, unless there are good reasons not to.”

Instead of dismissing egg freezing as a mere biomedical work-around, it should be celebrated as another way in which technological progress is reducing and ameliorating inequalities between women and men, reproductive and otherwise.  

Ronald Bailey is Reason magazine's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

NEXT: Ronald Bailey on the Upsides of Egg Freezing and "Fertility Insurance"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Suggestive sexual imagery sells even articles about frozen eggs.

    I swear that’s a shaved guy wearing a bra.

    1. Yep, the arm veins and the hands are the giveaway. He does have (mandatory, I guess) nice pecs though.

      1. If it is a dude, he’s been on hormones for a while. Never seen a dude with hips that curve in above the waistline.

      2. Clearly, it’s Madonna.

  2. While it does make it fairer for the over 35 female crowd, it still won’t stop the feminists from fighting against prostitution, pornography and mail-order brides. Nor will it slow them in their quest to up the age of consent to middle age. Not to mention sexbots (which is the only thing that will make it fairer for 15 year old boys). They’ve already preemptively started pushing for anti-sexbot laws in Canada for fuck’s sake.

  3. dame juevo

  4. I still think that with 200 million orphans in the world that adoption may very well be the way to go for people in these situations.

    1. What you think about what other people should do in their situation is irrelevant.

      1. I never said “should”, but with the sheer amount of orphans int he world and the health risks associated with such techniques that adoption may be a good adoption. Too bad it can be so expensive though.

        1. That was terrible. I guess I was wrong on the defects part, although I may need to do more research. I meant to say adoption may be a good option for such couples.

  5. “While many women put off childbearing as their careers develop, others are stuck waiting for their realtionships to reach the next level, thanks to the fecklessness of modern men.”

    Google defines fecklessness as “worthlessness due to being feeble and ineffectual.”

    Thats a bold statement Mr. Ronald Bailey. It goes both ways.

    1. This.

      The only way to win the game is not to play. Did the collective works of matthew broderick teach you nothing, Bailey?

    2. Nate D: FYI – 2nd definition is “unthinking and irresponsible.”

      1. It is neither unthinking nor irresponsible to not want to get married or have children.

        1. Coeus: the context suggests that some might reasonably consider it “irresponsible” to let a woman assume for many years that one might be the father of her children.

          1. They may consider it so, but it doesn’t make their opinion reasonable. Outside of the guy outright lying about wanting to have kids, the burden of responsibility resides with the one who wants to change the current situation, not maintain it. The very real financial consequences of fathering children in a relationship are by themselves plenty of reason to opt out.

            Perhaps the fecklessness lies in women who want kids staying with men who don’t? I’m not really sure why the default has to be “man fathers children and provides for them at the whim of the woman”. And don’t say tradition, since women traditionally had no choice at all in the matter.

      2. I think you wrote an interesting article. I just recently was diagnosed with cancer. Chemo left me infertile. Prior to chemo my wife and I saved samples. Now we have to determine the fate of 18 fertilized eggs. Moral dilemma! Back to the topic, I think it would be fair to say that both young men and young men are unthinking and irresponsible. Young people today have no sense of masculinity or femininity. The role of a man and a woman. I wouldn’t put the current state of failing relationships on the shoulders of men. At least not entirely.

    3. How long until the Democrats offer a plan to force insurers to provide free feck to feckless men?

  6. I await the inevitable government mandate for insurance to cover egg-freezing.

  7. “it should be celebrated as another way in which technological progress is reducing and ameliorating inequalities between women and men, reproductive and otherwise.”

    I simply do not understand the unspoken premise that eliminating inequalities between the sexes is and/or should be the goal of technological progress.

    Bailey’s irrational worship of scientific/technological progress has allowed him to ignore any moral system that opposes his ends without rational reflection on his own motivations.

    1. box_man: Actually I rationally “worship” the liberating possibilities made possible by technological progress. Progress enlarges the choices that all people, men and women, get to make with regard to their life plans – that is the kind of equality that I believe deserves celebrating.

  8. Another ethical concern is that children born from frozen eggs are disproportionately at risk for various physical and mental harms.

    And then in the same paragraph:

    “Compared with congenital anomalies occurring in naturally conceived infants, no difference was noted.”

    I’m confused. Which is it?

    1. TAO: evidence that the concern is currently unwarranted.

  9. My younger siblings were put on ice for later when my brother and I were conceived through IVF.

    Science is awesome.

  10. “…waiting for Mr. Right.” If Mr. Right has been paying attention, then he is most likely avoiding marriage. The advent of no-fault divorce (NFD) coupled with draconian, one-sided child support and alimony laws make marriage a hazardous proposition. While NFD may in some cases be the best choice, its overuse has made many men very wary of tying the knot.

  11. “Men already enjoy the choice of when they have children.”

    All of the men, all of the time? I call bullshit.

    1. And apparently doing so makes them feckless. Odd that this new technological ability doesn’t make women feckless.

  12. Welcome to the Armani Sunglasses collection.

    Armani sunglasses feature luxury and elegant designs made of the highest quality acetate and metal alloys.

    Armani sunglasses feature luxury designs inspired with a sport look and feel and are made of the highest quality acetate and metal alloys.

    Choose Cheap Sunglasses online!

  13. some great article you made some clear points there great post

  14. prime articles on this website you have mentioned appreciate it for posting excellent blog post

  15. respect to post author i certainly love this site like this blog

  16. i’ve a link to my page keep working splendid job thanks for finally talking about this

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.