Are a woman's frozen eggs less viable than if those eggs are fertilized and preserved as embryos?

Good question. I was interested enough to go and have a look at this and it seems that fertilised eggs – embryos – are much easier to freeze/thaw than unfertilised eggs. It’s to do with the formation of ice crystals. I am supposing that the UF eggs are that much smaller than an embryo which has already multiplied several times so the ice crystals affect it to a greater extent. So at the time in the case that you mention, this was the only available method.

Now there is a new freezing process called Vitrification which more successfully freezes unfertilised eggs. So if this was happening now, this method could be offered. And, given the facts of this case, should be

Thanks for the info. That’s really interesting, especially considering what women have to go through to have their eggs extracted vs. a man giving a semen sample.

The case I referred to will eventually be decided by a judge who will hopefully take into account that this woman literally risked her life for those five embryos.

Since Estrogen contributes to tumor growth that’s no exaggeration because prior to extracting the eggs a woman must undergo a series of Estrogen shots to stimulate ovulation in order to facillitate the egg collection. But she really wanted children.

Her lawyer pointed out that the document they both signed was 10 full pages of legalese (and how many people read through every single line of it before signing?)

But this is not the only case like this and I just see them increasing, human nature being what it is.

I know previously freezing embryos was much more successful than freezing eggs. I don’t know how far the technology has advanced in freezing eggs, but I know it’s better than it was years ago.

My husband and I signed papers for IVF and even back then, over ten years ago, the part about what to do with the embryos was pretty clear. We were given several choices to think through and check off. I’d be pretty sure when she signed she realized both she and her husband had rights to the embryos. What she didn’t predict is that she was going to divorce the man she was desperately trying to have kids with.

I believe saving them is usually done to protect against losing a partner, presumably to death or disability, from preventing the surviving spouse from having the children they agreed together they want. In this case, the parents would want an embryo.
I can’t imagine what kind of wording could prevent this woman from using these embryos. The life was started while they were married. That would fall under community property, or custody; depending on who the judge turns out to be. Ex husband would have no case on grounds that she cannot have access to his sperm, because that is past tense. His sperm was surrendered when the eggs were fertilized. Once fertilization took place, there was no longer sperm or egg. They are now individuals. If she wants to bring life to one or more of these individuals, nurture and love it(them), there should not be any contractual stipulations which could stand in her way. What she needs is a right to life attorney appointed by a judge to represent the interests of the child(ren).

@Here2_4 Well, obviously her contract does have a stipulation or it would not have become the legal matter that it is.

It might, but that doesn’t mean it can hold up. That is why we go to court over contracts every day. I have friends who rent, and they lived with rules for over three years they found out wasn’t even legal for the landlord to have included in his contracts. Lots of clauses get tossed when challenged and scrutinized anew.

She is obviously going to try. I don’t think embryos outside the body qualify as life to be protected under the law in the way you hope, but I don’t know the laws very well. Embryos at that stage are potential life I guess. The embryo is a bunch of undifferentiated cells that can legally be used for research. There is no heart cell, or brain cell, it is all equal cells. Nothing will come of that “life” if not transferred to a woman’s womb.

According to these folks, life begins at conception. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/wdlb/ One of their attorneys should be able to help with a case like this.

According to the Catholic church life begins at conception and that is why the Catholic Church is against IVF. That makes sense to me.

A lot of the other Christian sects say life begins at conception, but are ok with deep freezing that life or creating it knowing statistically the life has a much higher chance of dying than become an actual viable baby. That doesn’t make as much sense to me. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process in my opinion.

Where the law stands on it exactly I don’t know, but since embryonic research is legal my guess is the law doesn’t protect embryos, but it might simply be there is lack of law.

Perhaps the ex husband does not want the child born to a mother who is infirm or may die an early death. Perhaps the ex husband does not want to be in a situation where he may legally be obligated to provide child support. Perhaps he does not want a situation where he is conflicted between a child he did not want at the time of birth, yet he is now in a new relationship with a different woman.

This will be an interesting dilemma for the courts.

Thanks all. Interesting discussion.

All I know about the relevant facts in this case (it was on the news last night, TV) is that the husband’s objection is monetary as he doesn’t want to be hit for child support. No other factors were brought up.

She says that she wants no financial or any other support from him. She doesn’t even see any reason for him to be involved in the child’s life at all and is willing to sign legal papers to that effect.

She already has a lawyer who did most of the talking in the interview.

It’s good to know that there has apparently been a recent development of a better method for ensuring the viability of unfertilized eggs (according to the first respondent to this Q).

I think any woman would be wise to just freeze her own eggs so that she has complete control of future decisions.

Let’s face it, women are the ones who have to go through the most difficult hurdles to extract and preserve their eggs. A guy just has to masturbate, basically. Not much difficulty there.

Hopefully, the judge deciding this case takes that into account.

I just see more and more cases like this potentially looming on the horizon as technology has outpaced the laws in this and similar instances and divorce continues to be increasingly common.

I think if the ex husband just wants to be able to get out of child support, and she is willing to agree then the law should be fine with it, but I don’t think it’s that easy. Just think, a baby can be given up for adoption with a signature, but a man can’t give up his biological child for adoption to the mother and be let out of financial responsibility. That’s basically how the law works. Although, with sperm donation the bio-father isn’t financially obligated. My guess is it will be worked out.

The eggs are viable only after they have graduated from medical school.
—My Mom.