LoveShack.org Community Forums

Reload this Page LoveShack.org Community Forums > General > General Relationship Discussion

Misinformation About Risks Associated with Paternal Age at Childbearing


General Relationship Discussion Everything else under the sun. Not sure where to post? This is the place!

Like Tree53Likes
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 9th April 2014, 1:08 AM   #16
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 7,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Z View Post
What does that have to do with falsifying results and giving the public bad information? You said you didn't buy it. You don't buy what? You don't buy the statistics cited?

Nope.......
RedRobin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 1:18 AM   #17
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Based in Cali but never there
Posts: 10,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRobin View Post
Nope.......

As a scientist, if you are going to refute published statistics and make sweeping statements, shouldn't you have evidence to back it up? The last time I checked, opinions still don't mean squat in science. And "I'm a scientist" isn't evidence.

Last edited by Robert Z; 9th April 2014 at 1:20 AM..
Robert Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 1:21 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRobin View Post
Which is the main point.


People who want to have their own biological kids (men or women) need to be doing so at a relatively young age.... ie, less than 40.
You are arguing statistics with opinions (well, she actually agreed with OP's point...so you're actually taking her statement out of context). Sorry, if you really are a scientist, as you claim, you know that that's not the way to go about it. Find your own statistics to back up your points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRobin View Post
Can tell you that LOTS of fundamentalists are pretty pissed when women like me don't have kids though. I take some satisfaction in that.... lol.
I promise you that nobody cares if you don't have kids. Get over yourself.
topaMAXX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 1:22 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Z View Post
As a scientist, if you are going to refute published statistics and make sweeping statements, shouldn't you have evidence to back it up? The last time I checked, opinions still don't mean squat in science. And "I'm a scientist" isn't evidence.
I was a biochemistry major and did some research back in college.

Based on my research experience (that had nothing to do with this topic), I conclude that your opinion here is correct.

Carry on.
topaMAXX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 1:27 AM   #20
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: TX
Posts: 791
From what I can gather, aging mothers increase the possibility of birth defects by orders of magnitude (assuming mom can even have kids). Aging fathers increase the possibility of birth defects by percentage points. This goes back to centuries (mellenia) of conventional wisdom that women should marry and have children prior to their 30s.

Last edited by LoveShack.org Moderator; 9th April 2014 at 7:52 AM..
TXGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 1:36 AM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXGuy View Post
Feminist science = it can't be true if it hurts my feeeeelings.
Unfortunately, feminism doesn't trump biology. What a shame.

Quote:
From what I can gather, aging mothers increase the possibility of birth defects by orders of magnitude (assuming mom can even have kids). Aging fathers increase the possibility of birth defects by percentage points. This goes back to centuries (mellenia) of conventional wisdom that women should marry and have children prior to their 30s.
This is what I've seen while rotating through an infertility clinic. Birth defects are way more rare for both sexes (both through what I've observed in person and statistically), but many women over 35 have a ton of trouble conceiving, in general.

Men CAN have trouble too once they hit 45 or so, but it's not nearly as bad as it is for women.
topaMAXX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 1:44 AM   #22
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 7,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by topaMAXX View Post
You are arguing statistics with opinions (well, she actually agreed with OP's point...so you're actually taking her statement out of context). Sorry, if you really are a scientist, as you claim, you know that that's not the way to go about it. Find your own statistics to back up your points.

I promise you that nobody cares if you don't have kids. Get over yourself.

What point was that??


That aging men's sperm is more defective than younger men's sperm??


Oh, she said a few were healthy? Oh, a few women's eggs are healthy too. No revelation there.


You roll the dice, you take your chances... if you are a man or woman over 40 trying to conceive without intervention. Noone is disputing that.


... and you are wrong about the fundamentalists... they put all kinds of effort... millions maybe billions of dollars in fact... into trying to convince women (usually the white ones... if you notice) to have lots more kids. I'm not taking it personally, nor am I letting it go to my head, lol Just an observation.
RedRobin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 1:50 AM   #23
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by topaMAXX View Post
Unfortunately, feminism doesn't trump biology. What a shame.



This is what I've seen while rotating through an infertility clinic. Birth defects are way more rare for both sexes (both through what I've observed in person and statistically), but many women over 35 have a ton of trouble conceiving, in general.

Men CAN have trouble too once they hit 45 or so, but it's not nearly as bad as it is for women.
What's your problem with the women's views in this thread? You told me you were looking for a good partner now, rather than waiting until you're in your forties or fifties, and finding a younger woman.

All of this talk in these threads, about women being in their prime before the age of 35, and basically useless after that - it's all garbage, and I don't understand the need to continuously insult and antagonize women over that age. It makes you guys look bad.
Anela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 1:51 AM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRobin View Post
Which is the main point.
If you want to base it on science, well science says it's not much of a difference. If you want to base it on what you wish were true, well nothing I can say about that.
123321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 2:07 AM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet Storm View Post
I think that since men produce new sperm, it makes sense that age would have less affect on men's fertility. I say this because women do not produce new eggs. Our eggs age, so our 20 year old eggs are in better shape than our forty year old eggs. Just like most other things on our body, they deteriorate over time. Our skin wrinkles, eyes get worse, etc. Old men make more defective sperm than younger men. But they do still make healthy new ones. We dont produce any healthy new eggs. My friend froze her eggs a few years ago for $10k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRobin View Post
What point was that??


That aging men's sperm is more defective than younger men's sperm??


Oh, she said a few were healthy? Oh, a few women's eggs are healthy too. No revelation there.


You roll the dice, you take your chances... if you are a man or woman over 40 trying to conceive without intervention. Noone is disputing that.
You are incorrect, both in your interpretation of what that poster said and in your general knowledge of this area.

Men have far less difficulty having children over 40 than women because men produce sperm into their 60s (just not as healthy as men in their 20s). Women produce a certain amount of eggs and that's it. So, both logically and statistically, it is more difficult for women to have children as they age. Sorry, if this is not what you want to hear, but these are the facts.
topaMAXX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 2:11 AM   #26
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anela View Post
What's your problem with the women's views in this thread? You told me you were looking for a good partner now, rather than waiting until you're in your forties or fifties, and finding a younger woman.
I don't have any problem with anyone (well, there is one poster in particular that I don't care for....can you tell who? ). I'm simply stating facts here.

Also, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I'd prefer to be a younger father. But that doesn't mean that what the OP posted is incorrect.


Quote:
All of this talk in these threads, about women being in their prime before the age of 35, and basically useless after that - it's all garbage, and I don't understand the need to continuously insult and antagonize women over that age. It makes you guys look bad.
Nobody said that women over 35 are useless. I'm saying that it becomes way more difficult to have children at that age.

Also, what do I care if I look bad on an anonymous internet forum? I am free to say what I want because nobody knows me.
topaMAXX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 3:15 AM   #27
Established Member
 
Elswyth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 25,426
To be fair, the link that you cited is a personal blog. A blog written by a PhD guy, sure, but PhDs are a dime a dozen. I'm not saying that what he is claiming is necessarily false, and I wouldn't be surprised if the press release was purposefully exaggerated. But it doesn't change the fact that there are other studies in multiple genuine, peer-reviewed international journals that prove linkage between increased paternal age and certain birth defects.

Also, it is worth noting that the only part of this article that doesn't stem mainly from personal anecdote is:

Quote:
However, the actual population risks found by D’Onofrio et al. are consistent with findings from other studies. For example, Frans et al. (2008) found a 1.37 times greater risk of bipolar disorder for children of men aged 55+ compared to men aged 20 – 24 using a dataset that overlapped with, or included, the dataset used by D’Onofrio et al. Another large study, McGrath et al. “A Comprehensive Assessment of Parental Age and Psychiatric Disorders” (2014) found the following increased risks for paternal age, comparing men aged 45+ to men aged 25-29: 1.8 for autism, 1.24 for bipolar disorder, and 1.47 for schizophrenia. In another large study, Parner et al. (2012) found that children of men aged 40+ were 1.35 times more likely to have autism as children of men who were less than 35. Hultman et al. (2011) found a 2.2 times increased risk of autism for offspring of men aged 50+ compared to offspring of men aged 29 or less.
__________________
~Perfection is about accepting that we cannot control everything and letting go of some of our preconceived notions.~ -Spiritofnow-
Elswyth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 3:26 AM   #28
Established Member
 
Elswyth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 25,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet Storm View Post
I think that since men produce new sperm, it makes sense that age would have less affect on men's fertility. I say this because women do not produce new eggs. Our eggs age, so our 20 year old eggs are in better shape than our forty year old eggs. Just like most other things on our body, they deteriorate over time. Our skin wrinkles, eyes get worse, etc. Old men make more defective sperm than younger men. But they do still make healthy new ones. We dont produce any healthy new eggs. My friend froze her eggs a few years ago for $10k.
Unfortunately, this theory isn't biologically sound. Advanced paternal age: How old is too old? has a brief explanation on it:

Quote:
It is thought that accumulation of chromosomal aberrations and mutations during the maturation of male germ cells are responsible for increasing risks of certain conditions with advancing paternal age. The amount of DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36–57 is three times that of men <35 years.
8
There is a recent body of literature discussing the possible effects on reproductive outcomes, which has been summarised by Kühnert and Nieschlag.
10
Elswyth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 6:58 AM   #29
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 7,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by topaMAXX View Post
You are incorrect, both in your interpretation of what that poster said and in your general knowledge of this area.

Men have far less difficulty having children over 40 than women because men produce sperm into their 60s (just not as healthy as men in their 20s). Women produce a certain amount of eggs and that's it. So, both logically and statistically, it is more difficult for women to have children as they age. Sorry, if this is not what you want to hear, but these are the facts.
I never said women produced healthy new eggs..

There are women who have plenty of healthy eggs well past their 30's and a few into their 40's.

The risk of more being defective go up... And just because a guy produces new sperm doesn't mean it is healthy. That was the point.

It will take more than one paper to convince me that reproducing with an over 40 guy is a good bet.

I get it that the op in this thread seems to think he has found himself a Triscuit sized island to build his parenting hopes on... With this paper. Doesn't change anything.

Anyway... What is the big deal? Why not just adopt if you are over 40?
RedRobin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2014, 7:04 AM   #30
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,416
Meh who cares. I'll just keep laughing at 50 year-olds doing egg and spoon races on their 5 year-old's school day.
Emilia is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

 

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why can't I take any risks? zetkin Long-Distance Relationships 3 11th April 2010 1:57 PM
Should I ask with risks? Harris932 Friendship 0 28th January 2007 11:12 AM
risks... lvgrl Long-Distance Relationships 3 28th June 2005 9:43 PM
Oral sex---what are the risks? Frank Archive 1 16th January 2001 10:52 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 5:03 AM.

Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.


Copyright © 1997-2018 LoveShack.org. All Rights Reserved.