Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 12:01     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Anonymous wrote:Op, ignore all the bitter women on this board. They don’t want to see you happy. Family life of many of these women are failures. Many are divorced and on their second or third marriages and some cannot find a husband.

Its best if you marry a family values woman from West Virginia or Arkansas. My buddy is with a fine lady from Arkansas after his first marriage and he is doing great.


There is a big debate here about the importance of genetics. It's fine to have a baby with someone from West Virginia or Arkansas, provided they are smart, fit, and attractive. Just as you need to be careful about old sperm or old eggs, you should also be careful to avoid making a baby with people who are obese, low IQ, low EQ, or who have a messy family of origins who could cause problems for you or your future kids. If you really want to optimize, you could always be a single dad by choice, like Arthur Liu, Alyssa Liu's dad, and go and find some high-quality eggs and hire a surrogate to carry your baby.

But, ya, the person you choose to make a baby with matters immensely. You should be looking at all the things.
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 11:50     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Anonymous wrote:Op, ignore all the bitter women on this board. They don’t want to see you happy. Family life of many of these women are failures. Many are divorced and on their second or third marriages and some cannot find a husband.

Its best if you marry a family values woman from West Virginia or Arkansas. My buddy is with a fine lady from Arkansas after his first marriage and he is doing great.


By your own metric your buddy's family life is a failure, so I'm not sure why OP should follow his lead.
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 11:25     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t sound like you’ve thought anything through - not in your 20s, not in your 30s and not now, at 47.

Just stop. Don’t bite off more than you can chew.

There are probably some very valid reasons you didn’t get married or have kids. And it’s not that “you worked too much.” That’s an outcome of other things, values, personality, disorders. And women know that.


This

But this is the Troll Op so don’t matter. Lame thread.
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 11:21     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Op, ignore all the bitter women on this board. They don’t want to see you happy. Family life of many of these women are failures. Many are divorced and on their second or third marriages and some cannot find a husband.

Its best if you marry a family values woman from West Virginia or Arkansas. My buddy is with a fine lady from Arkansas after his first marriage and he is doing great.
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 09:56     Subject: Re:Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
MAGA on 2-3 age gap marriages with gold diggers can keep producing their developmentally and academically challenged offspring


Trump and Kennedy should literally look into their own bedrooms to understand what causes the autism pandemic.

All these trad wives, submissive home maker women BS
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 09:51     Subject: Re:Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
“ In summary, neither is inherently "more risky" in all scenarios, but they pose different types of risks; APA is generally associated with a higher risk of specific neurocognitive disorders, while AMA carries higher risks of chromosomal abnormalities and pregnancy complications. ”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19781913/

And I stand by my response that chromosomal abnormalities are detects me at early pregnancy stages (which is why all pregnant women older 35 yo are taking these tests). And it’s preventable by abortion if a Down Syndrome is confirmed for example.

But APA abnormalities are not detectable at gestational stage and thus not preventable
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 09:37     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Anonymous wrote:Please stop spreading false and dangerous misinformation that gives women unrealistic hope about delaying pregnancy. Advanced paternal age and advanced maternal age are not viewed the same in real reproductive medicine. Yes, male age can modestly affect sperm quality and slightly raise risk for certain conditions, but that is not comparable to the far larger and well-established impact of maternal age on fertility, miscarriage, IVF success, chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy complications.

Women are born with all the eggs they will ever have, and those eggs age over time. That is why fertility specialists, OB/GYNs, and every serious fertility clinic focus so heavily on maternal age, especially after 35 and even more after 40. Male fertility may decline more gradually, but men continue producing new sperm throughout life. Saying "new sperm is corrupt so men are just as risky" is not supported by mainstream medical reality.

Claims that paternal age drives Down syndrome the same way maternal age does are simply wrong. Down syndrome risk is primarily linked to maternal egg chromosomal errors, which rise significantly with age. Likewise, pretending that older female eggs mostly just miscarry so unhealthy live births are not a concern ignores decades of established data on increased chromosomal risk with advanced maternal age.

And the most obvious reality check is this: many women in their late 50s cannot naturally conceive at all, while men that age often still can father children. That alone shows these are fundamentally different biological systems. Women deserve accurate information, not internet talking points that minimize the very real risks of geriatric pregnancy and encourage waiting based on false equivalence.


Yes both women and men deserve to know the truth. Repeating again. Learn recent research. Paternal advanced age is a leading cause for autism spectrum disorder. Any age after 35. My child is autistic I was 27 my exH 38 at conception.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9957550/

“ Advanced paternal age (typically $\ge$40–45) poses a higher risk for specific neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders (autism, schizophrenia, bipolar) due to sperm DNA mutations. Conversely, advanced maternal age ($\ge$35) carries higher risks for chromosomal abnormalities (Down syndrome) and pregnancy complications. Both contribute differently to offspring health.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
+5
Key Comparisons and Risks
Paternal Advanced Age (APA): Primarily linked to an increased risk of de novo genetic mutations, leading to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and schizophrenia. Other risks include childhood cancers, cleft lip, and premature birth.
Stanford Medicine
Stanford Medicine
+4
Maternal Advanced Age (AMA): Strongly associated with chromosomal abnormalities (aneuploidy) like Down syndrome, miscarriage, and pregnancy-related complications like gestational diabetes and hypertension.
YouTube
YouTube
Distinct Risks: Studies indicate APA affects a wider range of psychiatric and academic outcomes (e.g., ADHD), while AMA is more strongly associated with structural chromosomal issues.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
+3
Thresholds: Risks from APA begin to rise around age 40 and become more significant after 50. The risk of autism for children of fathers over 45 is over twice that of fathers aged 25-29.
Fertility and Sterility
Fertility and Sterility
+1”
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 09:33     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


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.

+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.


It does increase greatly, but the absolute risk is still relatively low. According to Gemini AI:
"For the general population, the absolute risk for any major birth defect is roughly 1.5% to 3%.
Source: National Institutes of Health (.gov)


Under 30: This age group is often the baseline, with an absolute risk for any major defect near 1.5%.
Age 50 and Older: Even as relative risks for specific conditions double or triple, the overall absolute risk only shifts slightly, estimated at approximately 1.84% to 2.6%.
Source: National Institutes of Health (.gov)"

Some might think 1.84%-2.6% is too high. But it is important to distinguish between relative risk and absolute risk.



They are talking about birth defects eg noticeable physical or mental ailments. Things like learning of social disabilities are undetectable at gestational stage . They would show around age 5 when you child still can’t learn to lace their shoes or begin reading letters, hits everyone at playground, chronically fussy etc.
these risks are 50-80% for older parents
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 09:10     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Please stop spreading false and dangerous misinformation that gives women unrealistic hope about delaying pregnancy. Advanced paternal age and advanced maternal age are not viewed the same in real reproductive medicine. Yes, male age can modestly affect sperm quality and slightly raise risk for certain conditions, but that is not comparable to the far larger and well-established impact of maternal age on fertility, miscarriage, IVF success, chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy complications.

Women are born with all the eggs they will ever have, and those eggs age over time. That is why fertility specialists, OB/GYNs, and every serious fertility clinic focus so heavily on maternal age, especially after 35 and even more after 40. Male fertility may decline more gradually, but men continue producing new sperm throughout life. Saying "new sperm is corrupt so men are just as risky" is not supported by mainstream medical reality.

Claims that paternal age drives Down syndrome the same way maternal age does are simply wrong. Down syndrome risk is primarily linked to maternal egg chromosomal errors, which rise significantly with age. Likewise, pretending that older female eggs mostly just miscarry so unhealthy live births are not a concern ignores decades of established data on increased chromosomal risk with advanced maternal age.

And the most obvious reality check is this: many women in their late 50s cannot naturally conceive at all, while men that age often still can father children. That alone shows these are fundamentally different biological systems. Women deserve accurate information, not internet talking points that minimize the very real risks of geriatric pregnancy and encourage waiting based on false equivalence.
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 08:46     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
It doesn’t sound like you’ve thought anything through - not in your 20s, not in your 30s and not now, at 47.

Just stop. Don’t bite off more than you can chew.

There are probably some very valid reasons you didn’t get married or have kids. And it’s not that “you worked too much.” That’s an outcome of other things, values, personality, disorders. And women know that.
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 08:39     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Agree with what a lot of people are saying…OP I think you might be happier dating a single mom and being a great stepdad. I think the “mail order bride” (yikes) route will be…..especially lonely for you?
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 08:22     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


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.

+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.


It does increase greatly, but the absolute risk is still relatively low. According to Gemini AI:
"For the general population, the absolute risk for any major birth defect is roughly 1.5% to 3%.
Source: National Institutes of Health (.gov)


Under 30: This age group is often the baseline, with an absolute risk for any major defect near 1.5%.
Age 50 and Older: Even as relative risks for specific conditions double or triple, the overall absolute risk only shifts slightly, estimated at approximately 1.84% to 2.6%.
Source: National Institutes of Health (.gov)"

Some might think 1.84%-2.6% is too high. But it is important to distinguish between relative risk and absolute risk.
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 08:16     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
I'm a DH and we had a child at 46. We weren't starting a family, we already had kids and this was an "accident." You would think by 45 we would have figured the birth control thing out, but life happens!

It is challenging in some ways. For example, he won't graduate from high school or college until I'm well into my 60s, limiting my retirement options somewhat.

On the other hand, one of the children I had when I was younger is severely disabled both physically and mentally. When compared to raising a disabled child, having a kid at 46 feels like a walk in the park!
Anonymous
Post 04/28/2026 02:12     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


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.

+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.
Anonymous
Post 04/27/2026 23:53     Subject: Is 47 too old for a man to start a family?
Anonymous wrote:
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.


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.