Re:Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force
by bitL on Friday January 10, 2020 @02:54PM
(#22014709)
I think that comes from biology, many men can have children in their 70s, most women have problems past 35 (my piano teacher almost died in the age of 41 while giving birth, 3 years ago). Maybe medicine in the future would allow it, but as far as nature goes, there are different limits.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force
by ChuckNorris89 on Friday January 10, 2020 @03:09PM
(#22014895)
>many men can have children in their 70s
Just because you can have an erection and produce sperm at 70 doesn't mean you can have children and if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions.
Having kids after 45 as a male carries risks for the children as well.
Re:Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force
by cmdshiftf4 on Friday January 10, 2020 @03:21PM
(#22015056)
>if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome
Please cite something for this assertion or delete it, as it is not in line with anything I've read on the matter.
Increased paternal age carries some potential for increased side effects for their children, but it is absolutely nowhere near the risks involved in a delayed pregnancy for women [0].
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/well/family/older-fathers...
Re:Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force
by blacksmith_tb on Friday January 10, 2020 @03:47PM
(#22015366)
Though there's some biological risk[1], it seems obvious the real problem is that you'll be dead before your kid is in college (and I am skeptical about how involved you could be in parenting before that...)
Re:Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force
by ewindal on Friday January 10, 2020 @04:13PM
(#22015599)
> they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions
An order of magnitude higher chance of genetic defects isn’t very significant when the initial risk is less than .1%