I would do it. FWIW, we did IVF for both kids. Both (a boy and a girl) were conceived when DH and I were in our forties. DH has autism in his family but DS is fine.

Anonymous wrote:Won't want a boy if I have AMA because males are more susceptible to genetic diseases. I would rather have a girl.

I ended up with two healthy boys, but I would have chosen a girl, if I’d been choosing.

Anonymous wrote:Are you using IVF? If you’re not, the older your DH gets the more likely you are to have a boy because those are the faster swimmers and the others don’t endure as long.

Incorrect, older men have more girls

Anonymous wrote:We have a DD already (conceived naturally 4 years ago) and would like to balance with a boy next time. I am 35 and DH is 38. I know we are on the older side, and boys are more at risk for autism. We actually have a couple of cases of autism already in our extended family (both boys), where the parents were around the same age.

Girls can have Autism too. My dd has it and she is a delight!

Anonymous wrote:If you really want a boy yes. Older women are more likely to naturally conceive a girl.

Really? I just don’t think this is true. I come from big families and so does Dh. Our great grandmas all had the last babies in their 40s. One had 2 sons last, 1 son, another had 2 sets of boy/ girl twins and then a daughter (shoot me! 15 total kids), and the other had a girl and then 5 boys. The genders are all pretty even too between boys and girls but the later kids were mostly boys

Anonymous wrote:If you were 45 - yes. But at 35 you're practically a fetus yourself. Unless there is family history of autism or any mental or neurological conditions I would not rule out a boy.

+1

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/link-parental-age-autism-explained/

"...men in their 30s are 1.6 times as likely to have a child with autism as men under 30; men in their 40s have a sixfold increase."

"Women seem to be at increased odds of having a child with autism both when they are much older and much younger than average, according to some studies."

It doesn't sound like your current ages dramatically increase the odds of your next child having ASD. Also bear in mind that girls are significantly underdiagnosed with autism because it presents differently in boys and girls, so choosing a girl to avoid potential ASD is a misinformed strategy.

Anonymous wrote:We have a DD already (conceived naturally 4 years ago) and would like to balance with a boy next time. I am 35 and DH is 38. I know we are on the older side, and boys are more at risk for autism. We actually have a couple of cases of autism already in our extended family (both boys), where the parents were around the same age.

I would take the best embryo period.

If you already have a girl, get another girl. It's easier. Better for them too.

I've had my boys after 35 (one at 37 naturally and one at 44 via IVF with eggs created at 41). No autism in either. Also have a girl in the middle. I love my kids but the age and gender spread they have isn't conducive to close sibling ties.

No I wouldn’t.

Np. I’m also against gender selection. That being said, both my IVF babies (from the same batch) were conceived when my husband was 46. My son is autistic and we think our daughter is as well (she’s high functioning) but on the borderline side. She’s not officially diagnosed but my son is. There are research out there that talks about the correlation between older fathers and autism. Not that we would have done anything differently since our son was the only PGS tested normal embryo.

If you were 45 - yes. But at 35 you're practically a fetus yourself. Unless there is family history of autism or any mental or neurological conditions I would not rule out a boy.

nope