Hawdgirl Posted February 28, 2007 Yes, that is right, humans always taught that only women have biological clock that is ticking, but WRONG! Men have biological clocks, too Mounting new research disputes the long-held assumption that there is no risk when older men father children. Popular wisdom has held that babies born to older mothers are at an increased risk of having birth defects - but that the age of the father played no almost role in the baby's health. But now, the idea of a "biological clock" is being extended to men. Research says that children of men in their middle to late forties are more likely to suffer a list of relatively common conditions, including schizophrenia and autism. Some researchers doubt the findings outright, others say more research needs to be done before any conclusions can be drawn. It has been long known that some rare genetic conditions - some dwarfism, neurofibromatosis, Marfan syndrome, skull and facial abnormalities - are related to the age of the father. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Che -Guevara Posted February 28, 2007 I have seen Somali men reproducing well into their seventies with no noticable side effects to their offsprings. But it is more healthier to have kids at younger age. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paragon Posted February 28, 2007 A consolation of some sort, I guess. Good luck ladies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valenteenah. Posted February 28, 2007 Who would have guessed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paragon Posted February 28, 2007 ^^Only a concerned soul? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted February 28, 2007 Clearly, a catchpenny study to please & appease, those beautiful independent spinisters in western countries Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valenteenah. Posted February 28, 2007 Ah. Indeed, Faarax-Brown. It's only a hop, skip, and jump from being a beautiful, independent spinster to a single-mom. Isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paragon Posted February 28, 2007 ^^You make it sound so adventurous. It may tempt some of those beautiful independent spinsters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted February 28, 2007 Originally posted by Valenteenah: Ah. Indeed, Faarax-Brown . It's only a hop, skip, and jump from being a beautiful, independent spinster to a single-mom. Isn't it? I dont know, is it? I am not one of those beautiful independent spinisters, Dear Val Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valenteenah. Posted February 28, 2007 Paragon: Not a bad thing if they can become beautiful, independent moms. Faarax, I know you're not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paragon Posted February 28, 2007 ^Now that is less adventurous. You left out the single mom part, no? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valenteenah. Posted February 28, 2007 Paragon, a mom is a mom whether she is single or partnered. Waa ku sidee? (PS: I know. It doesn't sound exciting enough to tempt a frumpy homebody, let alone a fabulous spinster.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paragon Posted February 28, 2007 Valenteenah, in nature or in circumstance? [edit] What is the label you most prefer? I won't give any suggestion but its kind nice knowing . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valenteenah. Posted February 28, 2007 Both. Labels: Do you mean the single or partnered label? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted February 28, 2007 Paragon [/b] : Not a bad thing if they can become beautiful, independent moms. To become an Idependent Mom? Thats almost impossible dear val. Wait, Independent of Grumpy distrungled husbands?, Now thats more reasonable Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites