Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?

[Anonymous]

Clueless

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Old men breeding have a much higher risk of having autistic kids and other maladies. Sorry...you missed the boat.

this is false, its the old women (past 35) that cause the greatest risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Old men breeding have a much higher risk of having autistic kids and other maladies. Sorry...you missed the boat.

this is false, its the old women (past 35) that cause the greatest risk.

There is no proof whether maternal or material advanced age is a higher risk. Both are over 50%, some studies state 80% risk for autism. I was 27 and my exH was 38 our child was born autistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Old men breeding have a much higher risk of having autistic kids and other maladies. Sorry...you missed the boat.

this is false, its the old women (past 35) that cause the greatest risk.

There is no proof whether maternal or material advanced age is a higher risk. Both are over 50%, some studies state 80% risk for autism. I was 27 and my exH was 38 our child was born autistic.

*maternal or paternal. The downside is both are bad

[Anonymous]

There is a chance you would have SN child, you should target a type B partner who can chill. Otherwise, you will be dragged into a controlling, helicoptering existence well into your offspring’s adulthood. Heed the PP’s examples of how different scenarios can play out if your well-laid plans go left. You have a lot to think about OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP, you really are too old at 47. Most guys caught this clue train at least by 40.

You might be able to find a poorer woman who needs to be financially supported (you don't have to go to Russia, you can just go to West Virginia etc ...) who is willing to take the risk.

Most women who can have kids and who want to have kids are already trying by their 30s, so most age appropriate women you want to meet will already have kids or be dealing with infertility.

You might be able to find a single woman nearing 40 who wants to give having kids one last try, but there is no guarantee.

He doesn't say if he's loaded. If he is a multimillionaire then maybe he can get a woman in her late 20-early 30s. But it will be a marriage with many power imbalances and high divorce risk

Usually women under 30 are trying with men in their early 30s

If he has $3m+, he can find a quality 30-35-year-old woman. Most women in their twenties will blow him off because they have time on their side and they'd prefer a similarly aged partner, all else being equal. There is no rush to settle yet. Women in their early thirties want to start a family ASAP, and a rich guy in his 40s is a perfectly fine option.

[Anonymous]

I personally think so - - but it is just my personal opinion.

If you have a strong desire to parent, then you shouldn’t have to give up your dream of doing so.

Just know that parenting takes up a ton of mental ➕ physical energy.
So make sure you are healthy & have a lot of energy because kids will deplete yours!
Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP, you really are too old at 47. Most guys caught this clue train at least by 40.

You might be able to find a poorer woman who needs to be financially supported (you don't have to go to Russia, you can just go to West Virginia etc ...) who is willing to take the risk.

Most women who can have kids and who want to have kids are already trying by their 30s, so most age appropriate women you want to meet will already have kids or be dealing with infertility.

You might be able to find a single woman nearing 40 who wants to give having kids one last try, but there is no guarantee.

He doesn't say if he's loaded. If he is a multimillionaire then maybe he can get a woman in her late 20-early 30s. But it will be a marriage with many power imbalances and high divorce risk

Usually women under 30 are trying with men in their early 30s

If he has $3m+, he can find a quality 30-35-year-old woman. Most women in their twenties will blow him off because they have time on their side and they'd prefer a similarly aged partner, all else being equal. There is no rush to settle yet. Women in their early thirties want to start a family ASAP, and a rich guy in his 40s is a perfectly fine option.

$3m wouldn't have "cut it' for me, personally. More like $10M +
And OP needs to be ready to part with half of it in 10 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a chance you would have SN child, you should target a type B partner who can chill. Otherwise, you will be dragged into a controlling, helicoptering existence well into your offspring’s adulthood. Heed the PP’s examples of how different scenarios can play out if your well-laid plans go left. You have a lot to think about OP.

What plans?
Op only mentioned wanting a family. Zero mention of what he intends to do for or with this new family. He might even have zero understanding of what it takes to raise a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally think so - - but it is just my personal opinion.

If you have a strong desire to parent, then you shouldn’t have to give up your dream of doing so.

Just know that parenting takes up a ton of mental ➕ physical energy.
So make sure you are healthy & have a lot of energy because kids will deplete yours!
Lol.

How strong can this desire possibly be if he’s 47 now and just conjuring up this big happy family life idea now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Old men breeding have a much higher risk of having autistic kids and other maladies. Sorry...you missed the boat.

this is false, its the old women (past 35) that cause the greatest risk.

There is no proof whether maternal or material advanced age is a higher risk. Both are over 50%, some studies state 80% risk for autism. I was 27 and my exH was 38 our child was born autistic.

Do you know what anecdote means, nutter?

[Anonymous]

It’s not too late but you’ll just be an older parent. Wiser but less physical energy. Has it’s trade offs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Old men breeding have a much higher risk of having autistic kids and other maladies. Sorry...you missed the boat.

this is false, its the old women (past 35) that cause the greatest risk.

There is no proof whether maternal or material advanced age is a higher risk. Both are over 50%, some studies state 80% risk for autism. I was 27 and my exH was 38 our child was born autistic.

*maternal or paternal. The downside is both are bad

Stop posting false equivalencies. Older men and older women do not face the same reproductive biology or the same risk profile.

Women are born with all the eggs they will ever have. Those eggs age from birth onward, which is why fertility declines over time and why miscarriage and chromosomal abnormality risks rise significantly after 35 and especially after 40.

Men continuously produce new sperm throughout life. Paternal age can modestly raise risks for certain conditions, but it is not remotely the same biological issue as aging eggs.

And the comparison becomes even more ridiculous when people ignore that many women cannot naturally conceive in their late 50s, while many men still can father children.

Bottom line: men make new sperm, women rely on eggs that have aged since birth. Totally different biology, totally different risk model.

[Anonymous]

Not technically, but it's very unfair to the kid

[Anonymous]

Does your company have a Bangkok or Manila office?