[timcederman]

For most folks in this position, particularly with 4 young children, cryogenics is not exactly at the top of their priority list.

Cryogenics might be an interesting "hail mary" for someone without a dependent family, but it seems crass suggesting it in this context.

[rbanffy]

If someone has the resources, it may be a last-ditch attempt to elude death. It's very unlikely someone frozen today would be able to watch his or her children grow - we don't have the technology to revive a frozen person and we don't know if it's even possible.

Then, I understand the odds are probably better if I'm frozen while alive, with minimum damage to brain tissue. It would be a hard choice to give up my last few couple hours with my family in order to undergo an uncertain procedure on the slim odds of getting resurrected decades from now.

This hits home hard for me. My father found out he had terminal cancer when my mother was 3 months into pregnancy. In the late 60's he didn't even know I was a boy. Medical science couldn't give him anything better than a less painful death. He never heard me cry and never got to hold me in his arms. He would be no better now if he were frozen when he died - he'd still be dead and would remain so for at least a good couple decades. I'm 46 and, with luck, I'll have another 46 years to live. He died at 40.