55.3% of California births are to mothers age 30+. In San Francisco? 82.5%.pic.twitter.com/fdP4cxFAVR
Show this thread
Interesting. All the stuff I've seen before has either been contingent on advanced maternal age, showed little risk <45 or appeared confounded by sexual selection factors (e.g. only fathers whose *first* children were born to them at an advanced age appeared to introduce risk)
-
-
Anyway, these births likely involve both advanced maternal age & advanced paternal age. One of the two is much easier to track accurately, for obvious reasons. Dudes should definitely freeze their stuff early, as should women, if they're lucky enough to have affordable options
-
Yeah, I think the paternal stuff doesn't get enough attention. And you're right, though I think there are questions re: the effectiveness of egg freezing. Anyway, as a mid-30something who has never wanted kids, I've definitely seen a lot of my friends go into panic mode.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Looking closer, it seems like the report on the paper may have overblown the results re: men 35-44, although the risks associated with a paternal age of 45+ look pretty glaring
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This has to be BS. His age only influences if it is a first child? How can the ejaculate be influenced to introduce downs syndrome by whether some other previous ejaculation resulted in conception? It could have been decades ago? Or last week?
-
It can't. There must be some other explanation. I leave it as an exercise for the reader.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.