Jump to content

Misinformation About Risks Associated with Paternal Age at Childbearing


Recommended Posts

Nice try...

 

 

Not buying it...

 

 

I've been a scientist for a long time.

 

 

As much as the old guys trying to have kids into their 40's and above would prefer otherwise... It simply isn't logical that men's sperm has no contribution to the health or viability of child.

 

 

Try adoption if you absolutely must be a parent past that age. Is my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author

"When compared to a child born to a 24-year-old father, a child born to a 45-year-old father is 1.5 times more likely to have autism, .7 times less likely to have ADHD, 1.3 times more likely to have a psychotic disorder, 1.5 times more likely to have bipolar disorder, .9 times less likely to have suicidal behavior, .8 times less likely to have a substance abuse problem, .7 times less likely to have failing grades in school, .9 times less likely to have low educational attainment, .8 times less likely to have a low IQ; and 1.5 times more likely to have some higher education."

 

From actual, measured data. Not opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, life is imperfect yet it doesn't seem to stop older men from having children, and never will. Happy that my 'old' dad didn't let the specter of the loss of his daughters inhibit him from trying again with a new wife, way back in those times before we knew what was 'perfect' and what wasn't. Analysis paralysis comes to mind. IMO, there's a range of viability that crosses the nature and nurture aspects relevant to the age of the father; there's no 'perfect' answer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, times ARE changing.

 

Women aren't obliged to have children with older men like they were in the past.

 

The guys hanging onto their mythical never ending fertility sound like those who deny climate change.

 

Just doesn't make sense to any logical person.

 

Then again, as long as there are poor young women, oppressed young women, and messed up young women... there will be an old guy looking to get with her. That probably won't change. Correct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Then again, as long as there are poor young women, oppressed young women, and messed up young women... there will be an old guy looking to get with her. That probably won't change. Correct.

 

First, your baggage is showing.

 

Second, has nothing to do with the study linked in the OP.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
First, your baggage is showing.

 

Second, has nothing to do with the study linked in the OP.

 

 

Oh please.

 

 

You are the one with the 'baggage' if you can't handle that your sperm is getting older.

 

 

Do you also believe the world was created in 7 days... like literally?

 

 

And the world is flat??

 

 

Any other bogus science you want to throw our way?

 

 

Noone is saying you can't be a father... just adopt if you just gotta... I guess what chaps your *ss is that younger women aren't so keen to hook up with the older guys now... at least not the ones who want to have their own kids. As for me, I got my tubes tied. So it isn't even an issue for me. *shrug*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quiet Storm

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Old men make more defective sperm than younger men

 

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think from what I remember kids born into poverty have even higher health risks. So if we really want to benefit children we should leave the rich old men alone and focus our don't breed efforts on the poor people. :p

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think from what I remember kids born into poverty have even higher health risks. So if we really want to benefit children we should leave the rich old men alone and focus our don't breed efforts on the poor people. :p

 

 

Good point.

 

 

Not to mention... rich people do whatever they want... so it doesn't matter... and they have the money to manage whatever health issues might arise.

 

 

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.

 

 

The Planned Parenthood near where I used to live had at least one visit from the Klu Klux Clan... holding signs saying "Don't kill the white babies"... Saw it myself driving by. That is one holdover in the South I'm glad to see die or at least go underground.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

yep if you really want to spend the money conceiving - the genetic risks to a child with older parents (sperm/egg) can be brought down to as good as a younger parent or better.

 

Brave new world and amazing stuff they can do if you have the money.

Edited by dichotomy
Link to post
Share on other sites

People should be less concerned with what other people are doing / how old they are when they conceive.

 

 

Nunya.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Robert Z
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by a LoveShack.org Moderator
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Feminist science = it can't be true if it hurts my feeeeelings.

 

Unfortunately, feminism doesn't trump biology. What a shame. :lmao:

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, feminism doesn't trump biology. What a shame. :lmao:

 

 

 

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...