children of old fathers more likely to be autistic or schizophrenic

[ThunderIdeal]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-father-factor

just heard on the radio, that looks like the right article.

[nabraxas]

i think that's been known for quite a while now.

the rates of miscarriage also rise with the fathers age regardless ov the mothers age.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...her-861270.html

[ThunderIdeal]

it was on the news for SOME reason. i don't doubt you, but possibly you're thinking of mothers age, which to name one was known to contribute to the possibility of downs syndrome.

[nabraxas]

here's a couple ov news stories from last year that report children of old fathers more likely to be autistic or schizophrenic:

http://sfari.org/news/father-s-advanced-ag...eds-autism-risk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/205...er-fathers.html

[ThunderIdeal]

only with such undeniable truth about my news thread fails will i learn not to start threads in the news forum.

[nabraxas]

Nevermind

Why did you raise it anyway?

Is it something you think older guys should worry about?

If i desperately wanted kids i hope i'd be strong enough not to let it worry me.

[ThunderIdeal]

i don't suggest anybody worry about it. it's just another little bit of info to help us all piece things together. i'd expect many members here to be interested in info about mental illness, which is related to neuro chemistry.

this also: researchers said that advanced paternal age, as they call it, has also been linked to an increased risk of birth defects, cleft lip and palate, water on the brain, dwarfism, miscarriage and “decreased intellectual capacity.”

i can't easily find info on the reason why, but logically it must be a problem with the chromosomes being deposited in the egg as that is the entire male reproductive role. all i know is that the RNA shortens as you age. their must be an issue with age and DNA replication.

[Torsten]

If i desperately wanted kids i hope i'd be strong enough not to let it worry me.

ever considered how selfish that sounds? I mean, why is an individual's desire for a child overriding the risk of a life of misery for another human being?

I have an aunt who has downs and she was told she had a 60% chance of having kids with downs. The first one turned out fine, but the second was severely downs. It made the life of the whole family miserable, including the first child and obviously the downs child. But at least the selfish bitch had the 2 kids she always wanted

Not that the issue of this topic is quite as severe as downs or even as high a risk, but it's just the self centered mentality that gets me.

[tardistestpilot]

ever considered how selfish that sounds? I mean, why is an individual's desire for a child overriding the risk of a life of misery for another human being?

I have an aunt who has downs and she was told she had a 60% chance of having kids with downs. The first one turned out fine, but the second was severely downs. It made the life of the whole family miserable, including the first child and obviously the downs child. But at least the selfish bitch had the 2 kids she always wanted

Not that the issue of this topic is quite as severe as downs or even as high a risk, but it's just the self centered mentality that gets me.

so in [downs] you mean down-syndrome?

or a [downy] not sure what is politically correct here? or the difference?

[Torsten]

yes, Down's Syndrome. As mentioned in post #3

[Teotzlcoatl]

Not that the issue of this topic is quite as severe as downs or even as high a risk, but it's just the self centered mentality that gets me.

Well put Torsten. I couldn't agree more!

[nabraxas]

I mean, why is an individual's desire for a child overriding the risk of a life of misery for another human being?

obviously if an older couple decide to try for a baby there's an increased risk.

do you really think they should let that risk stop them?

Edited March 14, 2009 by nabraxas

[ThunderIdeal]

i agreed with torsten at first but throw in the movie 'gattaca' (although it's not quite the same scenario) and you're left with a puzzling problem.

[ballzac]

ever considered how selfish that sounds? I mean, why is an individual's desire for a child overriding the risk of a life of misery for another human being?

I have an aunt who has downs and she was told she had a 60% chance of having kids with downs. The first one turned out fine, but the second was severely downs. It made the life of the whole family miserable, including the first child and obviously the downs child. But at least the selfish bitch had the 2 kids she always wanted

Simple solution. Have the child. If it has Down's syndrome, kill it and bury it in the backyard. Because they're better off dead, right?

Yes, of course I'm being ridiculously sarcastic to get my point across, but I have certainly met a lot of people who are mentally deficient in some way, and most seem happier than the rest of us. Granted, that is not necessarily the case if their disability is severe, but if a parent is willing to look after a child no matter how severe their disability is, then that seems at least selfless enough to cancel out the selfishness of wanting a child.

[Torsten]

i agreed with torsten at first but throw in the movie 'gattaca' (although it's not quite the same scenario) and you're left with a puzzling problem.

Great movie! But not at all what I am getting at. I am all for equality, but that shouldn't stop us from using technology to PREVENT serious problems. It's already common practice for many hereditary diseases, so it's not like I am proposing anything new.

Nabraxas - it's a matter of risk versus benefit as far as I can see. In this particular topic it probably isn't something that would keep me awake at night, but at the same time I also don't think it should be dismissed off hand. And it's not like we don't already have enough humans on this planet so why take the risk? If there was a one child policy for example [which is probably inevitable at some stage for the survival of the human race] then I am sure people would put more thought into this topic.

[Torsten]

Simple solution. Have the child. If it has Down's syndrome, kill it and bury it in the backyard.

Exactly. Except that we can now do that at the embryo stage where it is legal to do so.

Because they're better off dead, right?

I've worked in a home for down's adults and listening to their life stories I think in many cases they would have been. That's not from my perspective, but from theirs! As kids they are often the cause of family problems which in many cases they are well aware of and which causes great emotional pain. In my extended family the father became an abusive alcoholic and the son an emotional wreck with serious attachment and trust issues. The mother was too busy dealing with the disabled child to cope with anything else. I got to know them when the child was in puberty and the uncontrollable sex drive of downs kids is more than most parents can handle. This was a very promising family and they were ruined by the circumstances. This is the story I found repeated over and over in downs homes. In almost all cases the mother had unconditional love for the child, but that dedication simply wasn't shared by all the family and problems arose from that. problems that break your heart.

Those disabled adults who comprehended enough to have a somewhat productive life were also fully aware of the burden they were and that created huge emotional scars. In my experience it was those who were oblivious to all that who had a much happier existence.

if technology can spare us and them some of that heartbreak then we should use it. And where technology is not available yet then erring on the side of caution [rather than self satisfaction] should be the preference.

if a parent is willing to look after a child no matter how severe their disability is, then that seems at least selfless enough to cancel out the selfishness of wanting a child.

Staying committed to the result of a poor choice is hardly the definition of selfless