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][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]

Please go read up or consult what fertility specialists write on this before writing this nonsense. Advanced paternal age is as risky for abnormalities as advanced maternal age. Producing new semen doesn't mean that their "product" is as fresh at 47 as it was at 20 yo. It is proven that the number of genetic abnormalities increases in that new semen as the man ages. In other words, the new semen is "corrupt" with various DNA deviations, not necessarily healthy. it's also way slower than in younger age for men. These swimmers are full of genetic material and the material is old and deviant when it comes from an old man. IVF clinics are well aware of that - the semen speed in older men is very low, they are barely able to penetrate the eggs.

So scientifically speaking, there is no hard proof what's worse: advanced maternal or advanced paternal age. There is a theory that the "corrupt" male cells can still fertilize healthy eggs thus "infecting" them with a whole spectrum of genetic deviations related to father's older age.  These babies will be born, will appear healthy on the outside but will carry various mental disorders.

To the contrary, a "corrupt old" female egg most likely won't fertilize or will result is miscarriage thus risks of older mothers having unhealthy babies is not that high in reality.
[/quote]
+100

The risk of autism, Down syndrome and schizophrenia greatly increase as fathers age due to poor sperm quality. If you want to do this go the ivf route and have everything screened. [/quote]

Stop spreading false information to push an anti male narrative. Advanced paternal age and advanced maternal age are not medically equivalent, and pretending they are misleads women about real fertility risks.

Yes, male age can modestly affect sperm quality and slightly raise risks for some conditions. But female age has the far larger, well-established impact on fertility, miscarriage, IVF success, chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy complications. That is why fertility specialists focus so heavily on maternal age after 35 and especially after 40.

The Down syndrome claim is especially misleading. Maternal age is the primary age-related risk factor, not paternal age.

ACOG: https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/having-a-baby-after-age-35-how-aging-affects-fertility-and-pregnancy

CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/downsyndrome.html

And the obvious reality check: many women in their late 50s cannot naturally conceive, while many men that age still can father children. These are different biological systems with different aging curves.

Bottom line: male age matters some, female age matters far more in practical reproductive medicine. Stop pushing false equivalence to score ideological points.[/quote]

Male-factor infertility is 50%. [/quote]

That statistic is being misused. "Male-factor infertility is 50%" does not mean male age creates the same reproductive risk as female age, or that men and women contribute equally in every case.

What it usually means is male factors are involved in about half of infertile couples, either alone or together with female factors. That includes issues like low count, motility, varicocele, hormones, genetics, lifestyle, obesity, smoking, or combined infertility. It is not a statement that a 50 year old man equals a 40 year old woman biologically.

Female age remains the most powerful age-related fertility variable because egg quantity and egg quality decline over time, sharply accelerating in the late 30s and 40s. Men often remain fertile much longer, even if sperm parameters decline gradually.

So quoting "50%" here is a dodge. Male-factor infertility prevalence is not the same thing as age-related reproductive risk equivalence.[/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