For all those men that think that only women have time limit on having kids

[TheBigQuestion]

Or maybe older fathers' sperm detoriates like the rest of any aging living organism. What is so hard about guys being honest about this?

 

Nobody is being dishonest about that fact.

 

Are you saying that one of the main reasons autism is more prevalent now than ever before is because there are way more older men fathering children? Do you have any scientific study indicating a causal relationship between the two?

 

I'm not as familiar with autism as I was in undergrad, but I'm preeeeetty sure I never came across any such hypothesis. Most of the time the increase in autism is attributed to better diagnostic methods and/or environmental factors.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

It might be true, but all I'm saying is that my own father had me before he was even 30 and I still came out autistic. All of his subsequent children are fine. Why is that?

 

I am proof that this isn't an ironclad theory, and while older father's sperm likely does deteriorate, I don't personally understand what that has to do with autism.

 

When the proteins in sperm break down, it causes certain DNA mutations. That's why a deteriorating sperm can cause autism. Of course, some autistic people are very intelligent, some people have different form of autism. Regardless of this, the science points to the reality that older father's sperm deteriorates. It only behooves men to be hoenst about this rather then to ignore it. At the end of the day, it will be his own children that will have to deal with it. With that said, we all know there are always exceptions. But your experience alone doesn't mean the proof or science isn't there.

[ThaWholigan]

When the proteins in sperm break down, it causes certain DNA mutations. That's why a deteriorating sperm can cause autism. Of course, some autistic people are very intelligent, some people have different form of autism. Regardless of this, the science points to the reality that older father's sperm deteriorates. It only behooves men to be hoenst about this rather then to ignore it. At the end of the day, it will be his own children that will have to deal with it. With that said, we all know there are always exceptions. But your experience alone doesn't mean the proof or science isn't there.

 

Nobody is even being dishonest about older men's sperm causing problems with their eventual offspring, so I don't understand what your point is. I'm just curious how autism came into the mix, as I really don't see the correlation between the two.

 

Nobody is being dishonest about that fact.

 

Are you saying that one of the main reasons autism is more prevalent now than ever before is because there are way more older men fathering children? Do you have any scientific study indicating a causal relationship between the two?

 

I would like to see it too.

 

I'm not as familiar with autism as I was in undergrad, but I'm preeeeetty sure I never came across any such hypothesis. Most of the time the increase in autism is attributed to better diagnostic methods and/or environmental factors.

Exactly. Which proves my own theory that autism has always been around, and is more genetic in nature than to do with degenerative sperm.

[The Way I Am]

I don't think anyone on this board ever denied that men's sperm deteriorates as they age, so I fail to see the need for anyone to furnish that argument in support of OP's point.

 

The fact that many men on this forum continually say the opposite leads me to think many do deny it.

 

You can argue over whether the origin of the "biological alarm" or "baby fever" that women experience around age 30 is a social construct, biology, or both until you're blue in the face, but it does not change the fact that a substantial portion of women DO hear said alarm.

 

Except that knowing it can change it. If it's a social construct, it can be relatively easily countered by simply applying facts and logic to change the perception of society. If "hearing" a biological clock is a physical effect, it can't be affected by a change in perception.

 

Research now indicates that women's aging is not the cause of birth defects as it was once thought. And even for women who are not fertile into their 50's, there are now means to counteract their infertility. So if society applies the facts of our current world and stops applying antiquated ideas that you need to have a baby by 30 or you're dried up, women will be less inclined to "hear" the call.

 

If it is a social construct and women understand that what they're reacting to is a push by family and society rather than a biological need, they can make better decisions about their lives.

 

This is so for valid reasons. Women understand that the longer they wait to get pregnant, the more they risk harm to their children AND to themselves.

 

Except the research in the OP's article suggests that the risk to children because women wait is not factual and is a false perception of society. The reality is that the longer men wait, the more they risk harm to their children.

 

So the best way for women to ensure the health of their child seems not to be to rush into getting pregnant. It seems it would be best to pursue younger fathers for those children. Which is a concept I think will enrage certain men around here.

[RedRobin]

Men who aren't interested in having a family someday have nothing to worry about...

 

But what I witness here is a slow dislodging of the sense of entitlement and smug satisfaction some men have gotten from their perceived ability to take longer than women to settle down. First point.

 

Second point being that they reeeeelly, reeeaally like to believe that all the mojo they've been working on all those years will land them a hot, young thing who will make their family dreams come true when/if they finally get off their thumbs.

 

Sure, not every man has been twiddling his time away... but alot definately have.

 

The reality, of course, is that there are always exceptions...

 

... and hope springs eternal...

[TheBigQuestion]

The fact that many men on this forum continually say the opposite leads me to think many do deny it.

 

Show me where anyone has ever said that on LS.

[TheBigQuestion]

The fact that many men on this forum continually say the opposite leads me to think many do deny it.

 

 

 

Except that knowing it can change it. If it's a social construct, it can be relatively easily countered by simply applying facts and logic to change the perception of society. If "hearing" a biological clock is a physical effect, it can't be affected by a change in perception.

 

Research now indicates that women's aging is not the cause of birth defects as it was once thought. And even for women who are not fertile into their 50's, there are now means to counteract their infertility. So if society applies the facts of our current world and stops applying antiquated ideas that you need to have a baby by 30 or you're dried up, women will be less inclined to "hear" the call.

 

If it is a social construct and women understand that what they're reacting to is a push by family and society rather than a biological need, they can make better decisions about their lives.

 

 

 

Except the research in the OP's article suggests that the risk to children because women wait is not factual and is a false perception of society. The reality is that the longer men wait, the more they risk harm to their children.

 

So the best way for women to ensure the health of their child seems not to be to rush into getting pregnant. It seems it would be best to pursue younger fathers for those children. Which is a concept I think will enrage certain men around here.

 

The research does not entirely discount the risks older women take when giving birth, but merely minimizes it. As it stands, BOTH genders are playing Russian roulette with their children's futures if they wait too long to have them.

 

Sperm quality undoubtedly deteriorates, but if I remember correctly, women's overall fertility takes a sharp decline once they reach their mid-30s. Perhaps that has something to do with baby fever?

[Greznog]

So the best way for women to ensure the health of their child seems not to be to rush into getting pregnant. It seems it would be best to pursue younger fathers for those children. Which is a concept I think will enrage certain men around here.

 

I guarantee you it won't bring about as much whining, bitching and complaining as saying you like your women young and thin.

[Art_Critic]

Except the research in the OP's article suggests that the risk to children because women wait is not factual and is a false perception of society. The reality is that the longer men wait, the more they risk harm to their children.

 

So the best way for women to ensure the health of their child seems not to be to rush into getting pregnant. It seems it would be best to pursue younger fathers for those children. Which is a concept I think will enrage certain men around here.

 

Did you read the article ?

Don't rush to have babies earlier just yet

 

The researchers from University College London looked at 78,000 children born between 2000 and 2002 to mothers aged between 13 and 57.

 

When they analysed child weight, accidents, hospital admissions and language development, they found that the older mothers' children fared better.

 

 

The researchers from deCODE, a genetics firm in Reykjavik, studied "new mutations" –– mutations not inherited from the parents –– in 78 Icelandic parents and children. They found a father's age had the biggest impact on mutations in their child's DNA.

 

The finding of a scientific firm on 78 parents and children all of a sudden reverses all that is all ready known..

 

 

We have a hospital here in Atlanta that has a woman's center that over 200 babies a day are born...in one hospital..

 

There are 400,000 babies born in the world each and every day and the findings of those 78 fall well within the tolerance of error.

[Art_Critic]

With that said, we all know there are always exceptions. But your experience alone doesn't mean the proof or science isn't there.

 

dislike...

[The Way I Am]

Show me where anyone has ever said that on LS.

 

No problem. I don't even have to look outside this thread. Carhill said that it was obvious that men's sperm deteriorate with age. Pierre argued with his statement. He didn't seem to me to be trying to pull carhill's leg. Based on carhill's response, I don't think he thought so either.

 

Anthony Quinn (the famous dead actor) fathered his last kid well into his 80s (Ryan Nicholas Quinn born July 5, 1996).

 

The mom was in her 30s

 

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/quinnant.jpg

 

 

The research does not entirely discount the risks older women take when giving birth, but merely minimizes it.

 

I never thought it did. But if women's age as a horrible curse to children's health as it's been perceived by society is not factual and women have no more or possibly fewer risks for their children due to age than men do, then if "hearing" the biological clock is caused by society, women will have no more reason to "hear" it than men do.

[The Way I Am]

Did you read the article?

 

Yeah, and the parts you quote support my argument. In a fairly large sample size of 78,000, they found that children of older women tend fair better than children of younger women.

 

The part you quoted actually supports an argument one step further than I was trying to make, which would be that it benefits children for women to be older when they give birth.

 

The sample size on the Icelandic study is small but still suggests that the risks are due more to male's age than female's.

 

Art, I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that the research isn't proof that there are no risks for older women to give birth? If so, I don't disagree. But the research suggests that women have no greater risk for problems for their children due to age than men do, and that women likely have fewer risks due to age than men. And so if women want the best possible children, it seems that there's more support for the idea that they should look for younger men to father them than there is for men to search for younger mothers. Of course, I don't recommend that in practice for either gender.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

dislike...

 

What did you dislike about my comment Art?

[Disenchantedly Yours]

It seems a bit unrealistic to me that men would think that their children only get their "good qualities". I guess if women's aging bodies are the only reason for genetic mutations, then women's bodies in general are the only reason that there are nobel prize winners, mathematical genius, super athletes and musicans. If men don't contribute to any of the bad, then how could the possibly contribute you to any of the good?

[TheBigQuestion]

No problem. I don't even have to look outside this thread. Carhill said that it was obvious that men's sperm deteriorate with age. Pierre argued with his statement. He didn't seem to me to be trying to pull carhill's leg. Based on carhill's response, I don't think he thought so either.

 

 

My mistake. I thought you were claiming that guys on LS frequently said that men's sperm DIDN'T deteriorate with age. That's what I get for using so many negatives.

[ascendotum]

My parents were 27 and 28 respectively.

 

Autism cannot be traced by things such as age of parents IMO. It's likely a hereditary thing. I have autistic cousins also.

 

I thought studies show there is a correlation to the age of the parents. I also thought there is a study which shows there is a correlation to the intelligence of the parents also. (smarter parents more chance of a child with a autism spectrum disorder). Some argue its just being diagnised more, but as a % of the population there has definitely been an increase. There has been something like 50,000 new chemical substances registered and in use by industry since the 1950s. So much is different in our exposure to pesticides, heavy metals, chemicals, drugs compared to the pre wwII generations. Some of it even carrying through to us, though exposure when we were in the womb/breastfed.

 

As to the intention of this post...I definitely think it is something men need to keep in mind. Still when a couple gets together late 30s up, and the woman is adamant for having children, its puts a lot of pressure on the other partner who is conscious of the higher incidence of defects, and is wary of taking that chance + the accompanying change in their 'its all about me' lifestyle, that will end. Take small chance or risk having your beautiful gf walk, most guys will then think 'we'll be fine', as I find most women who are mid 30s up and who really want to be a mother, they don't care about what the studies say about increased risk, or at least they don't display it.

[The Way I Am]

My mistake. I thought you were claiming that guys on LS frequently said that men's sperm DIDN'T deteriorate with age. That's what I get for using so many negatives.

 

If you misunderstood, I probably wasn't clear enough either.

[Els]

It might be true, but all I'm saying is that my own father had me before he was even 30 and I still came out autistic. All of his subsequent children are fine. Why is that?

 

I am proof that this isn't an ironclad theory, and while older father's sperm likely does deteriorate, I don't personally understand what that has to do with autism.

 

This is reverse correlation, which doesn't usually hold logical value. The fact that elderly men's sperm increases the risk of autism in its offspring doesn't mean that young men cannot also beget autistic children. There are many factors to autism, genetic mutations in sperm are just one of them. Also, increased risk does not mean that it will always occur. Some elderly men beget extremely healthy children, and so do some elderly women. It's just a percentage, based on several studies. I don't have the time to weed through and post individual links now, but a google search should bring most of them up.

[Weezy1973]

What I would like to know is how much does the chance of a birth defect increase with age. For example, does the chance of having a child with a birth defect due to a negatively mutated sex cell (sperm or egg) increase by 1% every year past 35? I guess what I'm saying is that it would be up to the parents to weigh those risks before having kids.

 

And for the other point, I strongly suspect that women past 30 "hearing" their biological clock ticking is almost certainly solely a social construct. I highly doubt that "family planning" was much of a priority (or even a thought) for our evolutionary ancestors. Therefore a genetic predisposition for getting anxious as one gets older that their time is running out on baby making time, would not have been selected for. No nature; all nurture.

[Art_Critic]

What did you dislike about my comment Art?

 

You basically called him an exception and discounted the fact that he is autistic and his parents were not old..

I think it was rather rude honestly, not giving his opinion more weight when it really deserved it rather than discounting it to push thru your own opinion.

 

JMO.. Carry on...

[Disenchantedly Yours]

You basically called him an exception and discounted the fact that he is autistic and his parents were not old..

I think it was rather rude honestly, not giving his opinion more weight when it really deserved it rather than discounting it to push thru your own opinion.

 

JMO.. Carry on...

 

I did. But what is rude about calling another person an exception? There will always be exceptions. There will always be young couples that don't have healthy babies and older couples that do. But there is validity to the concept that an older father's sperm is open to the same aging process as the rest of his body and it's natural to understand that the aging process as the potential to cause mutations in the DNA code.

 

I think you are being rude Art. As well as unfair and non-partial. I am not saying that older people shouldn't have kids. I am not saying it's impossible or that all older people that have kids are "wrong". I don't think that at all. What I am saying is that older men's sperm deterioates like the rest of his body and it is not the best genetic material necesarily.

[Art_Critic]

I did. But what is rude about calling another person an exception? There will always be exceptions. There will always be young couples that don't have healthy babies and older couples that do. But there is validity to the concept that an older father's sperm is open to the same aging process as the rest of his body and it's natural to understand that the aging process as the potential to cause mutations in the DNA code.

 

I think you are being rude Art. As well as unfair and non-partial. I am not saying that older people shouldn't have kids. I am not saying it's impossible or that all older people that have kids are "wrong". I don't think that at all. What I am saying is that older men's sperm deterioates like the rest of his body and it is not the best genetic material necesarily.

 

If you can't see it I really don't think I should explain it..

[Disenchantedly Yours]

If you can't see it I really don't think I should explain it..

 

No, I see what *you* are doing Art. And I think it's unfair and rude on your part.