Faced with a worrying decline in the birth rate and a rapidly aging population, the French government has decided to send letters to 29-year-olds to inform them about the natural decline in fertility and the possibilities of preserving their gametes. This measure, part of the so-called “demographic rearmament” initiative, is presented as an informative and preventative measure. However, beyond its health-related intentions, it raises several questions and serious bioethical concerns, which are analyzed throughout this article.

Starting in June, the French government will send informational letters to thousands of citizens turning 29, warning them about the age-related decline in fertility and explaining gamete preservation options. This initiative is part of a broader plan to combat infertility, launched following President Emmanuel Macron’s call for “demographic rearmament,” against a backdrop of a historic statistic: in 2025, there were more deaths than births in the country.

According to health authorities, the goal is not to pressure young people to have children, but to provide clear information about sexual health, contraception, and the biological limits of fertility. The central message is that, while the decision to become a parent is personal, the increasing trend of delaying first-time motherhood—currently around age 29—progressively reduces the chances of natural conception. The plan also includes expanding assisted reproduction centers and facilitating access to egg and sperm cryopreservation.

A medical… and social issue

From a scientific standpoint, it is true that female fertility peaks around age 25 and declines more rapidly after age 35. Age also influences sperm quality in men. However, the phenomenon of delayed parenthood is not solely due to a lack of biological knowledge, but also to structural factors: job insecurity, difficulty accessing housing, insufficient work-life balance, and economic uncertainty.

Some experts emphasize that addressing the problem solely from a health perspective could be limiting. The decline in birth rates in Europe is a complex phenomenon, linked to both cultural changes and material conditions. In fact, the French fertility rate—1.8 children per woman—remains above the European average, although insufficient to guarantee generational replacement.

Bioethics and reproductive autonomy

The measure raises important bioethical questions. To what extent is it legitimate for the State to intervene in such an intimate sphere as reproductive decision-making? Where does health information end and pressure begin? Although the Ministry insists that it is about expanding options, the very term “demographic rearmament” has drawn criticism for its ideological undertones and its possible association with a collective mandate.

From a bioethical perspective, the principle of autonomy requires that any public policy respect individual freedom without generating indirect coercion. Providing information about fertility can be considered a legitimate preventive action if it is carried out with neutrality and scientific rigor. However, public discourse must avoid transforming motherhood or fatherhood into a patriotic duty or an instrumental response to the State’s economic needs.

Furthermore, the promotion of cryopreservation raises other questions: Will it encourage excessive medicalization of reproduction? Will it generate unrealistic expectations about the future effectiveness of frozen gametes? Preservation does not guarantee a subsequent pregnancy, and its success depends on multiple biological and technical variables.

Population aging

Population aging poses real challenges to pension systems, the sustainability of the welfare state, and social cohesion. However, the response cannot simply be to shift demographic responsibility onto younger individuals. Intergenerational justice demands comprehensive policies that combine family support, work-life balance, and job security.

The French initiative reflects a growing trend in Europe: the attempt to combine health policies with demographic strategies.

Bioethical assessment: complete information, real freedom, and coherence in public policies

The French initiative stems from an indisputable scientific fact: fertility declines with age, and the risk of chromosomal abnormalities in gametes increases, especially after age 35 in women. From a preventative standpoint, informing young people about this biological reality can be considered legitimate and even prudent. Bioethics does not oppose truthful information; on the contrary, it requires it as an essential condition for making a free decision.

However, the coherence of the measure depends on how it is reported and what is omitted.

Gamete cryopreservation  is presented  as a technical solution to reproductive aging. However, this option is neither neutral nor simple. Freezing oocytes involves subjecting the woman to a hormonal ovarian stimulation process to obtain multiple oocytes in a single cycle, artificially altering a biological process that naturally matures a single follicle per cycle. Although the procedure is safe in most cases, it is not without risks: ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, hemorrhagic complications, or side effects resulting from the hormonal load. Ethically, any public policy that promotes this practice must also inform women about these risks and not just its advantages.

Furthermore, cryopreservation inevitably leads to future assisted reproduction. Even fertile couples who could conceive naturally would become dependent on techniques such as in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. These techniques, although widely used, involve embryo manipulation, the generation of surplus embryos, and lower success rates than natural conception. From a bioethical perspective, it is inconsistent to present assisted reproduction as a simple “biological insurance” without explaining that it also entails a lower overall probability of a live birth and greater obstetric and neonatal risks compared to natural conception.

This raises a central question: is a real expansion of options being offered, or is there a cultural shift towards postponing motherhood and fatherhood?

If the social, professional, ideological, and economic environment makes it difficult to have children before the age of 30—due to job insecurity, lack of work-life balance, and professional pressure—and the institutional response is to promote gamete freezing instead of addressing these structural conditions, then policy risks simply shifting the problem rather than solving it. And by shifting it, it risks exacerbating it. From the perspective of justice, the State should prioritize measures that facilitate parenthood at biologically favorable ages, rather than promoting technological solutions that medicalize reproduction.

It is also necessary to avoid a reductionist view of the human body as merely storable biological material. Fertility is not just a technical matter, but an integral dimension of the person. Turning reproduction into a deferred and technologized process can reinforce a utilitarian logic where biology adapts to the productive demands of the labor market, as already happened when large companies like  Apple and Facebook  subsidized egg freezing for their female employees to postpone motherhood.

From a bioethical perspective, three conditions must be met for this initiative to be morally defensible:

1. Complete, verified and balanced information, including medical risks, real success rates and limitations of cryopreservation.
2. Absolute respect for autonomy, avoiding ambiguous messages or projects that are difficult to implement.
3. Social coherence, replacing this measure with policies of reconciliation, job stability and support for the family.

If it is only communicated that freezing gametes prevents future chromosomal risks, but the risks associated with assisted reproduction and the overall decrease in the probability of success are omitted, then only a partial truth is being offered. And in bioethics, a partial truth is not enough to guarantee a free decision.

The real demographic challenge isn’t solved in the laboratory. It’s solved by creating an environment where men and women can have children during their reproductive years without incurring an unbearable professional or social cost.

In short, providing information is legitimate, but that information must be relevant, up-to-date, complete, and accurate. Resorting to medicalization—that is, using medical procedures to solve non-medical problems—is not the solution to the demographic winter threatening developed countries.

• Read the interview with Julio Tudela in Alfa&Omega

Julio Tudela. Cristina Castillo. Bioethics Observatory. Catholic University of Valencia