I first heard my aunt mention it, or allude to it in any event. My aunt is a radical feminist of sorts. She is very pro-choice–but she is at the same time anti-sex, at least for men. And when Viagra first came out, she complained that these old men should take hint from mother nature–the time has come to stop having sex for goodness sakes. This actually got me to thinking, or maybe she brought it up (I forget which now), that with old men having more sex, when before it was impossible, this in theory could lead to more birth defects, couldn’t it? Because think about it. Alot of birth defects, like Down Syndrome, just to name one, come from defective sperm and eggs.
Has anyone heard any articles of this subject? If you have, please provide a link to this thread.
Most of these “old men having more sex” are probably using some method of birth control, just as they did before needing Viagra. Many of them have probably even had vasectomies.
There’s no rule that sex is supposed to be impossible once you’ve reached a certain age; it’s just that some men become impotent when they get older. They don’t necessarily produce huge numbers of defective sperm (anyway, defective sperm don’t win the race, so to speak). They don’t lose their sex drive, just their ability to perform. Thus arises the need for Viagra.
Anyway, I ran a Medline search on “viagra AND birth defects” and “sildenafil AND birth defects” and came up with no results. If it’s happening, the medical community hasn’t written about it.
The gist of the articles is not that Viagra causes birth defects, but that older men’s sperm, like older women’s eggs, is more likely to be defective. So the rise in use of Viagra may mean we’ll have more older men not just having sex but also siring children, so therefore we may have more babies born with birth defects. It’s just a simple numerical thing.
Well, she’s pretty disgusted with the way they treat women, and she thinks this world is too populated. So if you mean with women, I’d say basically yes.
Her arguments against Viagra would also apply to heart valves, pacemeakers, blood pressure medications, anti-depressants (which may end up preventing suicide), and insulin; in short, anything that helps one of those evil men live longer will also allow him to keep having sex longer, possibly leading to more birth defects. I say we just ban all of it now.
There is a “defect” that may be passed on due to use of Viagra - impotency. It has been speculated (and perhaps proven - I’m not sure) that IVF will allow the same problem that caused infertility in the father/mother to be passed on to the child. That child will need infertility treatments in order to reproduce - and pass on the infertility defect to the grandchild. A nice self-sustaining racket for fertility docs, when you think of it.
If the impotency has a genetic basis in the male using Viagra, and said impotency reduces/eliminates the male’s ability to reproduce sans Viagra, the resulting (male) child may well end up with impotency problems as well.
Impotence probably doesn’t always have a genetic basis; often it’s something like a blocked blood vessel. You could say that men who become impotent because of this are more likely to develop more serious cardiovascular problems.
I’d think that the majority of men who take Viagra probably already have children, though. So they’ve already passed on the genes that (if their impotence was genetic) made them prone to impotence, heart attacks or strokes.
What about men who become impotent at an early age? Men who become impotent due to an obstructed blood vessel at a young age are probably quite prone to serious cardiovascular problems. Viagra might allow them to have children that they might not otherwise be able to have, and so the genes predisposing them to cardiovascular problems would be passed on.
But then, I don’t think Viagra is very effective in the case of blood-vessel obstruction. I think it’s more for men who have problems with the ‘control system’ for achieving erections; you can read all about that at the Viagra site. Or ask your doctor. =)
The risk factor for Down’s syndrome is a older woman, not an older man. So one way to reduce the risk of birth defects is for older men on Viagra to have sex with young women. I’m all for it!!! Of course, this will increase the risk of Rockefeller syndrome.
There is a difference between impotence and infertility. Impotence is the inability for a man to have or maintain on erection, essentially. Infertility is the ability to get a woman pregneant (not exaxt defintions, but close). Impotence is not necessarily, and usually is not, genetic, so I don’t think impotence in this society is going to increase because of viagra.
There is also an inherent difference between eggs and sperm production in that eggs are produced in a woman very early in life, are stored and then released when the right time comes while men make millions of sperm daily and replenish the supply on a regular basis. There may be an increased risk of defects in the sperm, as some of the articles shown seemed to point out, but I don't think its the same process as the way older women have more kids with birth defects.
Finally, I would be interested to know what response your (possibly hypocritical ?) aunt would give to a man who made a statement to the effect that women should not have a child if over 35 and should follow the advice of mother nature in a similar manner.
Sorry about the late response. Well, as I’ve said, my aunt is anti-overpopulation, so she probably would be against that too. On the other hand, as you imply, she is very pro-woman, so maybe she would support that, I don’t know (I’ll have to ask her some day). Don’t get my aunt wrong though. She says alot controversial
stuff at times, but she is real nice person. Actually, I have always enjoyed listening to her refreshing viewpoints, even if I don’t always agree with them.
