4 ms·
That's about the same risk for a 43 year old woman to have a baby with Downs. So where are all the "biological clock is ticking" articles for men?
by lizzard 14y ago
That's about the same risk for a 43 year old woman to have a baby with Downs. So where are all the "biological clock is ticking" articles for men?
- mahyarm 14y agoBiological clock is more about absolute fertility vs. healthy fertility.
- sliverstorm 14y agoThat's certainly how I hear it, too. I've never heard a woman expressing fear that she might have waited too long, such that her child will get Downs. Rather, fear that she might have simply waited too long, and now it is too late.
- bestes 14y agoOnce you get pregnant, though, you are labeled with the condition AMA - Advanced Maternal Age. This comes with more tests and precautions.
- Uhhrrr 14y agoI'm over 40, and I certainly have! Downs can be detected in time for an abortion, but it means that you have to get pregnant all over again, and risk Downs and the various other bad mutations again, and risk miscarriage for whatever reasons all over again, etc. So for non-fundamentalist women, there is fear of having a Downs child, but it gets rolled into the package of "worried about getting to have a successful pregnancy at all".
- continuations 14y ago> So where are all the "biological clock is ticking" articles for men? A part of that is because the risk is a lot higher for women than men. http://www.notsuperhuman.com/2010/02/pregnancy-chronicles-with-older-moms-baby%E2%80%99s-autism-risk-rises/ http://www.notsuperhuman.com/2010/02/pregnancy-chronicles-wi... "University of California-Davis researchers studied close to 5 million births during the ’90s, a decade when autism spiked in the state. "A woman’s risk for having an autistic child rose 18% for every five years she aged. "40-year-old women had... a 77% greater risk (of autistic child) than women who gave birth before 25." Being a new mom at 40 increases autism risk by 77%, vs. the 2% increase in autism risk from being a new dad at 40 or older.
- roguecoder 14y agoYour numbers are bad. I am guessing, since the article you link doesn't actually link to the scientific study, that it is referring to: http://pediatricbioscience.com/publications/pdf/Pub16.pdf http://pediatricbioscience.com/publications/pdf/Pub16.pdf This did not examine any form of causality, as the currently-linked study did, nor did it evaluate the children themselves. By not controlling for evaluation mechanisms, the study you link only addresses patterns of early diagnosis and treatment. While it is interesting, the researchers themselves say that the data is hardly conclusive. The current study, on the other hand, explores not just correlation but causation, and thus is far more persuasive. Second, you are comparing increase in risk to total overall risk. The percentage increase for men going from age 25 to 40 is 110%, not 2%. The study you link found a comparable number for women over age 40 of 0.4%.