I have heard various things; mostly regarding increased chance of autism. But on the whole, what are the chances of having a relatively OK baby? For example do the odds of having a perfectly healthy baby go from 97% to 94% or does it go fro 97% to something like 50%? I am having a very difficult time finding decent research on the subject - google searches just show me a bunch of vague scary articles that do not cite any specific research let alone go into details of methodology.
One of the top hits that came up was a Daily Mail article claiming that older men have uglier babies - just to give you some idea of what the layperson comes up with when trying to find a serious article on the subject.
The study also says “Older dads apparently also show less affection and warmth towards their partner”
Speaking as a man who fathered two healthy children in his forties (albeit with a much younger woman) I found that I was and am a close or closer to them as most other parents I know.
One important fact seems to me that after 40, parents are probably better off financially and more likely to stick together than younger parents. "Jack O’Sullivan, co-founder of the pressure group Fathers Direct argues that the advantages to late fatherhood outweigh the disadvantages. “Research shows that old fathers are three times more likely to take regular responsibility for a young child. They are more likely to be fathers by choice and this means that they become more positively involved with the child. They behave more like mothers, smiling at the baby and gurgling - although young fathers are probably better at getting down on the floor for physical play.”
I note that you cannot be a sperm donor after your 40th birthday. (39 in the UK)
Don’t know the exact statistics (although the upcoming link has some), but you may find it interesting to read about a study which suggests that the causal link between the chance of a child being autistic and the age of the father, is in the opposite direction from what most people would assume.
The proposed explanation is that older men are not more likely to have children with autism or other problems because of “defective sperm” or something like that; instead, when a man doesn’t manage to find a partner and start a family until he is in his forties, that is a possible indication of the man having psychological issues, some of which may be genetic and show up in the child.
If that hypothesis pans out, then it would mean that if you already have a child from some time ago, or if you are confident that your reasons for being a late-bloomer as a parent are non-genetic, then you don’t have too much to worry about.
(Hopefully unnecessary disclaimer: this doesn’t mean that any man who waits with becoming a father must necessarily have something wrong with them; just that it’s an effect which is apparently statistically significant.)
This is in response to **Bob++ **:
Thank you for the information - I really appreciate it. It’s actually good to know that there are some positives associated with older paternity.
As you pointed out, there is a lot of information. None of the research seems to claim to establish causation. With autism in particular I am extremely leery of any studies showing only an association.
Also, hard numbers for a specific increase in developmental abnormalities continue to elude me. That is more specifically what I have been having difficulty finding.
I do like that you pointed out that sperm bank no longer wants your swmmers after 40 - I think that is a very good data point to consider.
I’m pretty sure that advanced maternal age issues and risks are far more dire and likely than issues of fathers of similar age though.
So if you’re 40 and marrying a 20 year old, then your funky old spooge might make a difference, but if you’re having kids with another 40 year old, that is much more of a big deal than you being 40 is.
My father was 41 when I was born.
Negitives
I did not have grandparents.
My sons only had their grandfather for a short time. My youngest was 4 years old when Pop passed.
I was in High school when I realized that my parents were the age of my friends grandparents. I did not realize that they were any older, infact in some ways they were more young at heart.
My dad was a very loving man. There was never a moment in my life when I did not feel how loved I was.
There was at one time a claim that older fathers contributed to the incidence of autism. AFAIK, it’s somewhere between debunked and very unproven, but there were those who suspected that men with mild to moderate ASD (e.g. Asperger’s) became fathers at notably later ages, skewing the data.
Yes, that’s quite possible. As the study cited above noted, older fathers are likely to have kids with older mothers, so if you don’t control for that variable you have no idea if it’s the father’s age, the mother’s, or a combination of the two that matter.
I do know that the risk of issues like Down Syndrome go up steadily from early age of the mother - they don’t magically go way up at a certain age like 35 or 40.
The latest studies have confirmed a link to age of parents and autism, but they also found a link to very young (teen) mothers, and to parents of very different ages. All very weird stuff, and I’d guess at least some of the results are related to other, spurious variables and not directly causal, as you noted.
The interesting thing is that only at age 40 does the odds drop to worse than 1 in 100 only at age 40 (1 in 75). So it’s a good idea (at any age) to be tested, but not enough of a risk to say “I better not have children”.
The odds for fathers are remarkably less, since the correlation only is noted in statistical studies, not from real-life observations.
for other issues, this article:
However, consider this:
Huh? Based on this, at the very least, well over 9% of all people have mental disorders. Malaysia must be like California, where everyone goes to see a shrink and every child is dyslexic with ADHD. The article does not really clarify what qualifies as a mental disorder, but presumably they include ANY issue, regardless of how debilitating it is.
I was 44 when my first child arrived. FWIW, I had raised concerns about my age with the doctor, who is very much an expert in the area, and she was completely unconcerned.
Long ago I’d read a study that men who father children after 50 leads to a larger rate of schizophrenia in said offspring.
My father was 51 and my mother was 37 when I was born in the 60s, so we got age, plus large age difference, and yet I am neither autistic, schizophrenic, nor have Down’s syndrome.
But, my dad never played baseball with me, so there is that.
I would tend to support the idea (that men with ASD marry later and are thus disproportionately older fathers of children with ASD) from personal experience. I’ve spend most of the last two decades in the autism world, and at social events and the like, “weird older fathers” are legion.
PS - Just to be clear, I may be weird, but I’m 4-for-4 not an ASD father.
Presuming you would not want a child with Down syndrome. (I have one.)
Interestingly, the old recommendation that mothers undergo amniocentesis when signs of Down syndrome or other conditions are present at age 35 or older is not based only on the risk of birth defects. It’s the age when the risk of miscarriage caused by the amnio is lower than the risk of birth defects. The assumption is that a mother would rather have a miscarriage of a normal child than risk not having the chance to abort a child with a defect. The doctors never explained that to the mothers to let them make an informed decision about the risks.
There are a bunch of unspoken assumptions about prenatal testing.
Once worked with a woman who was very Christian (offspring of missionaries, studying to be a missionary herself along with her husband). Very pro-life. Well, she was pregnant, had minimal or no health insurance (can’t remember which, exactly, at this point 20 years later) and her doctor was pressuring her to have a bunch of tests they’d have to pay for but couldn’t really afford. She was venting to me about it.
I asked her, are there any circumstances under which you’d consider an abortion?
She said no, of course not, you know I’m anti-abortion and pro-life.
I suggested she tell her doctor that, because all a lot of those tests do is tell you something is wrong and then the next question is “do you want to abort this pregnancy?” At that time there really weren’t any other options. If you already know the answer is “no” then what’s the point of the test? If you’re going to keep the baby no matter what then what’s the point of all those tests? Particularly those that pose a risk of miscarriage.
Nowadays there are a very few options to intervene prior to birth for certain conditions (Downs syndrome is not one of them), but even those are risky. If a woman is definitely not going to abort even if there’s a birth defect then a lot of that testing is completely unnecessary. It’s just gotten so damn customary that no one ever seems to stop and ask “well, is this needed for this *particular *pregnant woman?”
(End of the story: she wound up skipping most of the prenatal testing, just did the stuff that was actually focused on keeping her healthy while pregnant, and had a perfectly normal kid after a perfectly normal labor and delivery. Which is how most pregnancies end.)
