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

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Yes. Old men breeding have a much higher risk of having autistic kids and other maladies. Sorry...you missed the boat.[/quote]

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

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. 
[/quote]

*maternal or paternal. The downside is both are bad[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics