3 ms·
Your only quantitative argument is an additional 1 in 10,000 risk of the mother's death. So what? It's almost nothing. Why would anyone advance parenthood by ye
by unchocked 11y ago
Your only quantitative argument is an additional 1 in 10,000 risk of the mother's death. So what? It's almost nothing. Why would anyone advance parenthood by years to avoid such a small risk?
Furthermore, your allusions to chromosomal abnormalities are a eugenic argument. That could be interesting if uncomfortable, but to present it so casually is disappointing. If you're going to go there, please do it with arguments that are well considered and framed in a way that is subject to refutation.
- douche 11y agoAge of the mother is one of the prime factors in the incidence of Down Syndrome, for instance. http://www.ndss.org/Down-Syndrome/What-Is-Down-Syndrome/ http://www.ndss.org/Down-Syndrome/What-Is-Down-Syndrome/
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jazzyk 11y agoI think the age of the father may also have something to do with it.
- douche 11y agoIt appears that that is true, although all I can find is this abstract[1], and it sounds like it might have as much to do with both parents being older. In general, it appears that waiting into your 30s or later to start having children is riskier than doing so earlier. It'd be nice if we could rejigger society to reflect that - if people had their children first and entered the workforce at 30, they'd still have thirty or so productive years. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12771769 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12771769