jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
1,739 points (90% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

pics

unsubscribesubscribe11,711,318 Photographers readers
11,812 users online users here now
A place to share photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

Spoiler code

Please mark spoilers like this:
[text here](/spoiler)
Hover over to read.

Posting Rules

  1. No screenshots. No pictures with added/superimposed text. This includes image macros, comics, maps, infographics, and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt.
  2. No porn or gore. NSFW content must be tagged.
  3. No personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder. Stalking & harassment will not be tolerated. No missing-persons requests!
  4. No post titles soliciting votes (e.g. "upvote this").
  5. No DAE, "[FIXED]", "cake day", or "photoshop this" posts, nor posts addressed to a specific redditor. "[FIXED]" posts should be added as a comment to the original image. Photoshop requests should be directed to /r/PhotoshopRequest
  6. Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to a website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited. URLs in image or album descriptions are prohibited.
  7. No animated images. Please submit them to /r/gif, /r/gifs, or /r/reactiongifs instead.
  8. Three strikes, you're out for misleading posts. If three of your posts are tagged misleading by moderators, you will be banned.
  • Please be civil when commenting. Racist/sexist/homophobic comments and personal attacks against other redditors do not belong here.
  • If your submission appears to be filtered, but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!
  • If you come across any rule violations please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!
  • Please note: serial reposters may be filtered
  • Please also try to come up with original post titles. Submissions that use certain clichés/memes will be automatically tagged with a warning.
  • Professional photographer or artist? Read these guidelines for linking to your own site and obtaining 'Verified' user flair.

Links

If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

Subreddits

Below is a table of subreddits that you might want to check out!
Screenshots Advice Animals
/r/images /r/adviceanimals
/r/screenshots /r/memes
/r/desktops /r/memesIRL
Animals More Animals
/r/aww /r/rabbits
/r/dogs /r/catsstandingup
/r/cats /r/otters
/r/foxes /r/redpandas
GIFS HQ / Curated
/r/gifs /r/pic
/r/catgifs /r/earthporn
/r/reactiongifs /r/spaceporn

Topic subreddits

Every now and then, we choose 2 new topics, and find some subreddits about that topic to feature! Got a topic you think we should feature? Go here
Space Interesting
/r/space /r/Damnthatsinteresting
/r/ISS /r/mildlyinteresting
/r/Mars /r/notinteresting
a community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
discuss this ad on reddit
This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]bucknakid14 23 points24 points25 points  (199 children)
Exactly. He's more than likely autistic because the mother (and/or father) decided to have him too late in life and that drastically increases chances of birth defects, downs, and autism/learning disabilities in their babies.
EDIT: Yes, I know he could have been adopted. Yes, I know there is nothing wrong with having children later in life. As I said, although numbers dramatically increase in cases of autism with older parents, it hasn't been proven yet. We don't know what causes autism. But, the correlation between the two is astounding.
[–]cattreeinyoursoul 177 points178 points179 points  (10 children)
BTW, studies have also shown that older fathers can have the same effect, so it isn't all about the mother. And we don't know the whole story anyway, so let's not ruin a nice post about a cool big brother. K?
[–][deleted]  (2 children)
[deleted]
    [–]j0y0 -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
    Let's upvote this for science. It's time to live up to our "you have to accept science even when it doesn't stroke your confirmation bias" rhetoric.
    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    you were a lot nicer about that than i would have been. a braver soul than i.
    [–]ko3j comment score below threshold-16 points-15 points-14 points  (4 children)
    BTW, studies have also shown that older fathers can have the same effect, so it isn't all about the mother.
    Other studies have shown the age of the father is statistically insignificant.
    [–][deleted]  (3 children)
    [deleted]
      [–]anusface 13 points14 points15 points  (2 children)
      as a pooper I can confirm this.
      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      ANECDOTAL
      But me too
      [–]devotchkade 244 points245 points246 points  (41 children)
      There's no way you could make that assertion without more information. Older or young brother could be adopted, or a half-brother on the father's side. If they share a mother, she could have been in her teens for the older one, and still be well within what is generally deemed an acceptable age to have children.
      [–]juma606 14 points15 points16 points  (4 children)
      But he's clearly making it without that information. I would take his assertion as necessarily conditional.
      [–]devotchkade 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
      My point is that s/he shouldn't be making that kind of a leap in this context.
      [–]juma606 -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
      He's not legislating, he's commenting. I don't see the problem, honestly.
      [–]devotchkade 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      And... I'm commenting, too. Likewise, I don't see the problem with my reply that s/he can't make that assumption without more information. I'm really not making as big a deal about this as you seem to think.
      [–]juma606 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      I don't have an impression of how big a deal this is to you. We can wrap it up here.
      [–]hoodie92 comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (34 children)
      While this is true, I remember reading from a survey that between the ages of 35 and 40, the chances of a mother having a child with autism increases 10-fold.
      [–]devotchkade 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      I'm not disputing that at all, just noting that he can't make that assertion with the information we have.
      [–]Crayboff 3 points4 points5 points  (32 children)
      Do you think you can find that study and provide it?
      [–][deleted]  (3 children)
      [deleted]
        [–]istara 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
        Thank you for posting this!
        [–]OwlEyed -3 points-2 points-1 points  (1 child)
        Very interesting, but the last paragraph is a little weird. It comes off as something Magneto would say, but about autism instead.
        [–]NAAC3PO 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
        I hear what you're saying, but I think it was just the author trying to soothe concerns about people waiting longer to have kids.
        [–]infamous-spaceman 14 points15 points16 points  (8 children)
        Some stats from an article. By the time you're 40+ the chances of chromosomal disorders increases dramatically (from about 1 in 1250 at younger ages to as high as 1 in 10 at 49 years old). It doesn't talk about autism in the article but I think its pretty safe to assume there would be a higher change of autism aswell.
        [–]istara 18 points19 points20 points  (5 children)
        From studies I have read, autism is connected with an older paternal age, not maternal.
        [–][deleted]  (4 children)
        [deleted]
          [–]future-madscientist 19 points20 points21 points  (3 children)
          That theory was thrown out a long time ago by most psychiatrists. Not only is it wrong, its extremely offensive
          [–][deleted]  (2 children)
          [deleted]
            [–]future-madscientist 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
            Apologies, I thought you were either a troll or one of the many idiots who still do believe that crap
            [–]Crayboff 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
            Huh, didn't know. Thanks!
            [–]bucknakid14 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
            Thank you :)
            [–]killermarsupial 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
            Agreed. Please provide this study.
            While you're at it, compare and contrast it with the the thousand other studies that show a link between autism and gestational diabetes, antidepressant use, maternal allergies, neonatal and infant autoimmune processes, neonate and infant GI disturbance, latent herpes infection, maternal illness, neonatal and infant exposure to televised stimuli/interaction, maternal spotting, parental obesity, second-hand nicotine exposure, fetal hypoxia, low fetal birth weight, early gestational period, perinatal or neonatal ingestion of flavonoids in food, maternal thyroid variances, exposures to mercury or lead, and lastly that ignorant, yet persisting theory of vaccines (despite incredible evidence).
            See? I, too, can espouse theories I've read without providing peer-reviewed data.
            [–]OscarWhisky 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
            It would probably be just as easy doing it yourself.
            [–]oiturtlez 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
            idk if i could find one but I distinctly remember learning that in my freshman year of HS so its not like he is pulling it out of his ass
            [–]Crayboff 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
            I don't think i ever heard about this back in high school. I wasn't accusing the guy of being wrong, I just wanted more info and hoped he would remember where he originally found it.
            [–]Crayboff 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
            Thanks! You sir are a gentleman and a scholar :D
            [–]x20mike07x -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
            What do you think this is, r/science!? The reddit hivemind wants to hear only what it deems acceptable.
            [–]future-madscientist -5 points-4 points-3 points  (10 children)
            These excessive citation demmands really have to stop. It is a widely known medical fact that older women have drastically increased risk of delivering children with down syndrome
            [–]istara 18 points19 points20 points  (1 child)
            Autism and trisomies (chromosomal abnormalities) are not the same thing.
            [–]future-madscientist -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
            I realised I had talked about down syndrome when OPs brother was autistic just after I clicked send , but decided not to bother with an edit. Autism does follow a similar pattern regarding maternal and paternal age as down syndrome (as do most genetic disorders) just not to quite a dramatic extent
            [–]WeHealWithSteel 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
            Down syndrome is a different clinical entity to autism.
            [–]future-madscientist 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
            Yes, I know. I already explained this in another reply
            [–]Crayboff 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
            I didnt know that about down syndrome either. Just because you knew doesnt mean everyone does :/
            [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points  (4 children)
            It's an excessive demand to ask someone to produce something they've read before? And since when was this a widely known fact, even if it was, does that mean anyone that doesn't already know it is SOL? If it's so widely known, it should be easy to produce something on it.
            [–]future-madscientist 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
            It shouldnt require a citation for the same reason that claiming a diet high in fatty foods correlates with heart disease...there both widely known but since you ask, this page has links to many of the papers first establishing the correlation http://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0815/p825.html#afp20000815p825-b8
            [–]Waqqy 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
            While I agree that there's nothing wrong about asking for citations, it is extremely common knowledge, if you've ever been to high school you should know it.
            [–][deleted]  (4 children)
            [deleted]
              [–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
              This! Rationality does not equal factual.
              [–]lithodora 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
              I didn't mean to delete that. Scrolling click then panic when the yes/no came up... and I clicked yes. damn it! I thought no one would've noticed my comment in the short time I did it....
              [–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
              I loved it! It really annoys me when people make broad assumptions based on a little bit of guess work and tout them as factual. Especially when they're being Debbie Downers to uplifting stories!
              [–]lithodora 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
              I only clicked on this stuff because I have a child with Autism, otherwise it would've been ... meh
              [–]primal_funk 77 points78 points79 points  (68 children)
              dude wtf.. that, as a child of older parents, is really pretty hurtful.
              [–]glassescontacts 54 points55 points56 points  (17 children)
              It is kind of sad. When you look at a kid with disabilities who has older parents, people tend to blame the parents. "You shouldn't have kids when you are so old." Well most kids born of old parents turn out just fine, and no one judges them because their were no negative consequences. So why do people judge parents of disabled children? It is a double standard.
              [–]primal_funk 50 points51 points52 points  (12 children)
              it's just messed up.. no one is to blame.. my parents had a daughter that died of sids when they were in their late twenties. and that was totally out of their control.. my mom had me when she was 39 and my dad was 43. if me and my late sister were swapped, people would have blamed it on their age? i'm not easily offended at all, but i feel like this was fucked up and i needed to say something on behalf of my parents.
              [–]oompahloo 15 points16 points17 points  (5 children)
              Dude I have to agree with you - my parents had the hardest time having children (it was about a 15 year struggle with treatments and tests etc) when they finally had me (and my twin sister) my mom was 42 and my dad was 44. I am now 23 and when we were born we were both incredibly healthy. Some of these posts about parents who should think twice about having kids because they are older is quite offensive and a little bit ignorant. Of course there are risks, there are also risks of having children at any age. And there is no reason to assume that the OP's brother is in that category of "careless parents". Fuck yeah to the OP and his little brother. Totally impressive and inspiring.
              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
              You're painfully ignorant of the subject you've decided to be vocal about.
              You wouldn't praise a mother for smoking during her pregnancy, why do so for this group. Both are making a choice that's putting their pregnancy at risk.
              They are severely and deliberately increasing the risk of defect and abnormality of their child.
              How you feel about that is subjective, i think valuing your own desire to have a child over the well being of that child is a pretty fucked up and selfish thing to do.
              So far the only people to disagree are people (such as yourself) who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
              [–][deleted]  (3 children)
              [deleted]
                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
                If you'd had the run down then why would say something as stupid as this.
                Some of these posts about parents who should think twice about having kids because they are older is quite offensive and a little bit ignorant. Of course there are risks, there are also risks of having children at any age
                You're comparison is complete bullshit and pointing out the fact that older aged parents are being irresponsible and puting their children at risk isn't ignorant.
                All the data points one way and just because it isn't the way we'd like it to be people such as yourself get their balls up and try to act pointing it out is being 'offensive'.
                You can be offended, that doesn't change the facts and it doesn't make those who point it out ignorant in the slightest.
                The risks of deformity or abnormality are increased for the over 35 age group by tenfold. Anyone having children at that age is being careless, irresponsible and selfish.
                There's no way around it, having a child at that age puts your own life and the life and well being of your child at serious risk.
                End of story.
                [–][deleted]  (1 child)
                [deleted]
                  [–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  Mentally delayed isn't a thing, i'm gonna assume you've confused mental retardation and developmentally delayed.
                  Yet another instance of you almost understanding the topic.
                  too many words seems to be causing you to fail to grasp the concept, i'm going to embolden the important parts for you.
                  The chances of down's syndrom and other birth defects / abnormalities developing during a pregnancy are increased from normal rates, TENFOLD when the parents are over 35 BECAUSE they are over 35.
                  There is no arguing with the facts, you can accept them or you can keep talking shit.
                  [–][deleted] comment score below threshold-15 points-14 points-13 points  (5 children)
                  No.
                  The added risks for late in life pregnancies are substantial, well documented and well known.
                  Choosing to have a child late in life is a selfish and really scummy thing to do.
                  Those people blaming older parents are right, it's just an unfortunate reality we have to live with.
                  Edit: downvoting doesn't change a damn thing. Late in life pregnancies have dramatically increased risk of developing birth abnormalities and defects
                  Going ahead with such a pregnancy is a selfish act, you're choosing your own preferences over the safety and well being of your child.
                  Explain to me how it's anything other than that.
                  Edit: As expected, not a single response that can addresses the fact that there is an increased risk.
                  Here's some reading material for those of you too ignorant to educate yourselves before developing an opinion.
                  [–]dan2737 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
                  Fuck you.
                  [–][deleted] comment score below threshold-12 points-11 points-10 points  (0 children)
                  Thanks for your contribution.
                  Go fuck yourself.
                  [–]lessthan3d 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
                  I would argue that all pregnancies are selfish. I disagree with being older parents making it more selfish. ಠ_ಠ
                  In fact, I feel like older parents, generally, have more resources (including healthcare/access to various testing) available to them which would seem to make it a better choice.
                  [–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
                  Disagree all you like.
                  The facts ( which are both well known and have been provided in this thread multiple times ) are that late life pregnancies increase the risk of birth abnormalities and defects by about ten fold.
                  Late life pregnancies are a pretty shameful and selfish thing to do and it seems only those ignorant of the facts ( such as yourself ) would advocate it.
                  If you want to wait until you're more financially stable that's fine, just adopt.
                  All the benefits of increased financial security with the added benefit of not risking the well being of your child for your own selfish need to procreate.
                  [–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
                  Irrelevant, you're a cunt.
                  [–]istara 12 points13 points14 points  (0 children)
                  Also, as testing is made more available to older mothers, the majority of children born with Down Syndrome are now born to younger mothers. This is because while older mother still conceive more abnormal foetuses, the vast majority of trisomy foetuses are aborted, in pretty much every country where testing and termination are available (easily over 90% even in the US, and I have read over 97%/98% in Australia and the UK. I actually did research this a couple of years ago).
                  [–]bitterpiller 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
                  In the middle ages, people blamed children's disabilities on the parents behaviour; as in, the parents must have committed some sin to have been given a disabled child by god.
                  Now we still manage to blame the parents, for their health/age/genes/whatever. And still managing to entirely miss the point that, to the disabled person in question, anyone being assigned 'blame' for you being born is extremely hurtful.
                  [–]starlinguk -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
                  Nobody is being "blamed" for anything.
                  [–]Ais3 -4 points-3 points-2 points  (0 children)
                  What double standard? Having kids at old age is risky regardless if the kid is fine, and it's quite selfish.
                  [–]infrared_blackbody 10 points11 points12 points  (2 children)
                  Dude, I am too, but he was stating a fact and I didn't detect judgement.
                  -he is likely this way because older parents lead to increase chances of birth defects
                  The guy never implied the parents did it with malice of forethought. At least not in my opinion.
                  [–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
                  fact or not, why even bring it up in a cute post about a kid's halloween costume? The context is all wrong.
                  [–]infrared_blackbody 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  It's the Internet. Props for your own morals though.
                  [–]primal_funk 23 points24 points25 points  (1 child)
                  wow.. i'm kind of insulted and actually take this to heart. guess it's time to say goodnight. take care. and for those people out there who miscarried or couldn't get pregnant until they were older than they had planned, you're lucky and people like this have no idea what is like to bring a child into the world. stay loving.
                  [–]very_easily_confused comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (0 children)
                  Yeah I hate when facts don't align with my picture perfect world view
                  [–]Sureiyaa 11 points12 points13 points  (11 children)
                  He's not insulting you or anyone else. He's stating a fact. It's true that older parents are more likely to have children with disabilities.
                  [–]peace72012 25 points26 points27 points  (7 children)
                  What the fuck is the reason of posting that on a picture of a badass dude and his brother? Such negativity lately, it makes me sad.
                  [–]waleedwale1 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                  Exactly am I the only one that respects him for doing that when most older brothers would be out on halloween smoking weed at a party?
                  [–]Sureiyaa 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
                  What the fuck is the reasoning for mentioning that his brother is autistic? He's a good older brother regardless.
                  [–]Vaknor 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  This.
                  His brother being autistic has no relevance here, if he had said his brother has a difficult life because he's autistic then it would be relevant.
                  [–]infrared_blackbody -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
                  I assume you say "how the fuck is that relevant?!" to 99% of comments on reddit. Oh, you don't? Well hello double standard.
                  And he wasn't being offensive unless people took it the wrong way. It was a statement of fact, whatever tone you ascribe to it is partly his fault for not dancing around in a politically correct way, but also yours for immediately assuming ill thought from at best a morally ambiguous comment.
                  [–]very_easily_confused comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (1 child)
                  Grow a sack and stop being effected by meaningless words on a screen.
                  [–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points  (0 children)
                  *affected
                  [–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
                  u sound mad
                  [–]fornoone 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
                  He's also saying it in a very blameful and accusatory way. There are many other ways to not subliminally accuse the mother of being selfish / directly causing a child's problems. It was pretty hurtful.
                  [–]primal_funk -4 points-3 points-2 points  (1 child)
                  i'm saying it's a fucked up assumption.
                  [–]Sureiyaa 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
                  Except it's not. You're getting offended for no reason. He didn't say anything offensive.
                  [–]Ecchii 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  Yea I know, Ignore him anyways, a lot of people like to make spineless claims. I'm 18 atm, my dad is in his 70's and my mother is in her 50's and nothing is wrong with me.
                  [–]religionisanger 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
                  Just to be clear here, this isn't directed towards you, or the people in the picture. The guys just saying that parents who choose to have children when they're older are more likely to have children who suffer with autism. That's not an insult to older parents, an insult to you, an insult to children who already have autism; just a statement. Grow some balls.
                  [–]primal_funk 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
                  i don't think balls need to be grown..? i'm not speaking on the world's behalf. i was expressing my distaste for what the person said. or how he said it. it just didn't sit right with me is all.
                  [–]religionisanger -4 points-3 points-2 points  (1 child)
                  Jesus how old are you, it's just an expression. "Grow some", "grow a pair" etc. Anyway, it doesn't effect you, so you've no need to be insulted. There's tonnes of more offensive shit on reddit which maybe pointed at you, critique that instead.
                  [–]primal_funk 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
                  i'm 23 and no, i don't get why growing some or growing a pair comes into play. i'm sorry i'm not sorry. and no, never really come across anything that really has ground my gears. i appreciate the advice though.
                  [–]ChristopherJDorsch 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
                  Obviously it was directed towards the people in the picture otherwise you wouldn't have commented that statement on this post
                  [–]religionisanger 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  Three month old post.
                  [–]Vaknor 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  That, as a child of older parents, doesn't offend me whatsoever because I have multiple major defects in addition to Asperger's Syndrome.
                  [–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  "these facts suck"
                  [–]istara -1 points0 points1 point  (8 children)
                  The "older mothers" thing is just a really idiotic myth, from the contraception era, that in olden times all women had their families by their early twenties.
                  If you actually look at family trees and read old novels, and even look at certain cultures today, you will see that most women kept bearing children until the menopause, because they had no real options to prevent pregnancy.
                  The only difference these days is women starting families at an older age.
                  [–][deleted] comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (7 children)
                  WHERE THE FUCK did you hear that? It is such a closely studied phenomenon, I am genuinely pissed at either you or the person who taught you that. I'm not sure what kind of source material you're comfortable with (do you want scholarly articles or magazine articles, etc?), but from here, because it had an easy to read chart. The risk goes from
                  1/1500 at 20 years to 1/12 at 49
                  That means that if you have a baby at 50, there is a 1/10 chance the kid will have downs. ONE IN TEN. DO YOU NOT THINK THAT THAT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR TO THE FUCKING KID?!?!?!?
                  [–]istara -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
                  You misread my comment. I wasn't referring to the risk of Down Syndrome, but the current criticism of older mothers as some kind of new phenomenon.
                  My point is that there have always been older mothers and no one thought to criticise them in the past.
                  As for DS risk I fully agree. I commented elsewhere that the risk for trisomy increases with maternal age. No one would refute this.
                  [–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
                  Ok, it wasn't clear as one read the entire exchange. It went from...
                  -> Kid is probably disabled because mom was old.
                  -> I am offended by that sentiment
                    -> Don't be - that's just an idiotic myth.
                  The phrase "The oldest mothers thing" is kind of vague, so in context, I took it to mean "As long as you are fertile, you shouldn't have any second thoughts about having kids. Just do it." Sorry if I misinterpreted, but since it's a public health issue, there isn't much room for discussing shit that is well known to science. Obviously there are things like genetic screening, etc, and people are free to do what they want, but it isn't something I would be so cavalier about.
                  [–]istara 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  That's ok - the DS/trisomy link is so absolutely established that I had not imagined anyone would try to deny it, or think it was.
                  There just does tend to be a lot of hating on "too old" mothers, as though they are some kind of new phenomenon, when really it's more of a return to the situation from before the Pill era.
                  Of course back then, disabilities were "hidden away" more, plus survival rates were far less (DS children often have heart issues and there would have been no way to treat it back then, they can also have breastfeeding issues and modern formula wasn't available, and infant mortality overall was higher) plus pregnancy generally was much less talked about, so I guess there weren't big red warnings about older motherhood. I'm sure married women knew, but I doubt wider society did to the same extent.
                  [–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points  (3 children)
                  Oh, man, you're so fucking mad. Why are you so bent on making sure everyone agrees with your point of view?
                  [–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
                  Did you read the link I posted? It is most certainly not a point of view. It is a probabilistic reality. I don't care if anyone agrees, but if you are acting like older women aren't 100 times more likely to have babies with Downs, you're fucking stupid.
                  [–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points  (1 child)
                  Why are you so bent on making people agree with you? Why is this so personal to you?
                  [–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                  I'm going to have to assume you're either trolling, or I am just not capable of explaining this in a way that you can understand, so let's move along.
                  [–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points  (0 children)
                  Yup, facts hurt sonetimes huh?
                  [–][deleted] comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (8 children)
                  You're allowed to be.
                  Unfortunately though that doesn't change the fact that having children late in life dramatically increases the risk of birth defects.
                  This is widely known and citations have been provided a few times in this thread.
                  With late in life pregnancies you're rolling the genetic dice for your future children with those dice loaded against them.
                  Having children post 35 is just a douchey, selfish thing to do.
                  [–]megabetty 10 points11 points12 points  (4 children)
                  I agreed with your comment up until the last sentence. There are plenty of reasons outside of selfishness and douchiness that parents choose to have children later in life. While is is true that birth defects are substantially more common in later-in-life pregnancies (it's an unfortunate fact of life, folks), there's absolutely no need to insult an entire group of people for which you have no idea why they waited.
                  [–]primal_funk 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
                  thank you.
                  [–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points  (2 children)
                  There is a reason though obviously.
                  You don't have to have children and if you absolutely must then there is always adoption.
                  There's not really any exception because the parent is always choosing their personal choice of having a child over the well being of that potential child.
                  As I said, it's unfortunate but it's the reality of the situation.
                  [–]megabetty 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
                  Is it selfish and douchey to wait until you're financially, mentally, and perhaps even more physically capable of having and taking care of a child? No, it's not. Just because the prime time (physiologically) to have children is before 30, doesn't mean that it is necessarily the most appropriate time. I know older parents with perfectly healthy children who waited until later in life for all of these reasons specifically. Generalizing is lazy. Don't do it.
                  [–][deleted] comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (0 children)
                  What a complete load of horse shit.
                  I know people that occasionally drive drunk and make it home fine, by your logic we should ignore the well documented risks of doing so because of a few anecdotal examples.
                  Obviously though, that would be pretty fucking stupid.
                  A person who waits until 35+ increases the risks of birth defects and abnormalities of their child by tenfold.
                  This is well known and widely documented and statistics and studies stating this have already been provided in this thread.
                  I'm almost shocked that you would try to pretend that the benefit of a better financial situation outweighs the obvious risk of severely increased rates of birth defects
                  Then again it's not exactly surprising that the kind of person who would argue the point you're trying to argue would be woefully uninformed on the subject.
                  [–]primal_funk 13 points14 points15 points  (2 children)
                  well i'm really glad my parents were douchey and selfish.
                  [–]TryingtoSavetheWorld 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
                  Same, fuck this guy.
                  [–][deleted] comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (0 children)
                  I'm not suggesting that you Shouldn't be.
                  That however, doesn't mean that there was nothing wrong with what they did or that people in a similar situation aren't putting their future children at a dramatically increased risk.
                  The suggestion of late in life pregnancies should be met with the harsh reality of increased risks and what that means for the child, not ignorant encouragement.
                  [–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
                  As the child of an oldish mother (37) it is hard to accept but the reality is we probably suffer numerous minor defects to intelligence, physique, looks and health as a result.
                  Just consider yourself lucky the damage isn't worse.
                  [–]primal_funk 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                  i don't know about you, but i am one smart and sexy motherfucker.
                  [–]Uaedaien -5 points-4 points-3 points  (2 children)
                  You have no right not to be offended.
                  Smokers probably think it is hurtful to be told they're killing themselves all the time. Fat people are probably think it's hurtful to be told they are eating themselves to death all the time.
                  It's great you turned out fine, however it will a well documented trend that people have even cited in this thread.
                  [–][deleted]  (1 child)
                  [deleted]
                    [–]Uaedaien 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                    You are what you eat, you dick :)
                    [–]glassescontacts 12 points13 points14 points  (7 children)
                    Father's over 40 dramatically increase the chances of autism as well.
                    [–]killermarsupial comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (6 children)
                    Now, I am aware that there is evidence for this, but please do provide your source. And while you're at it, please compare that evidence with the thousand other plausible sources for autism. I'm sure you can, as you seem to make your claim so convincingly. Please, do tell me about your peer-reviewed journals.
                    EDIT:
                    For those of you who are displeased with my tone:
                    Exposure to Flavonoids00437-6/abstract)
                    I am willing to apologize for my condescension. My point is precisely what someone else said here. Correlation does not equal causation. It is possible that autism has always been around to some degree, but was not diagnosed. It is accepted that increased opportunity to diagnose has greatly increased the prevalence statistics. However, it is also noticed by professionals that incidence does seem to have increased rapidly over the last 30 to 40 years. The first well recognized study of autism by Hans Asperger was published in 1944. It is also noteworthy that autism did not seem to be a widespread problem until 1980-1981. The link between parental age and autism rates do not have the same correlation as parental age and down's syndrome. The mechanism is not understood.
                    It is frustrating for a number of reasons that people took a tone saying that this kid has a lifelong disability because the parents were foolish and decided to have a child later than they should have.
                    [–]glassescontacts 13 points14 points15 points  (0 children)
                    I don't feel like finding the papers but here is an article about a few of them.
                    [–]captinherb 14 points15 points16 points  (0 children)
                    Nature is peer reviewed.. Also he said increase the chances of not the sole cause of.
                    [–]gijane480 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
                    correlation may not show causality. There is the possibility that when older people have children they tend to be better financially prepared... Perhaps even having better medical insurance that would cover the expensive tests and therapies, maybe more kids with older parents are simply 'diagnosed' Autistic because they are in the financial and medical position to do so. The division of Diagnosis in Autism across socio-economic lines is very interesting indeed.
                    for example In 2007 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a higher prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in New Jersey, one of the wealthiest states in the United States, than in other surveillance regions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of socioeconomic status (SES) with ASD prevalence. METHODS: Information on eight-year-olds with ASD from four counties was abstracted from school and medical records. US Census 2000 provided population and median household income data. RESULTS: 586 children with ASD were identified: autism prevalence was 10.2/1000, higher in boys than girls (16 vs. 4/1000); higher in white and Asian non-Hispanics than in black non-Hispanics and Hispanics (12.5, 14.0, 9.0, and 8.5/1000, respectively); and higher (17.2/1000 (95% CI 14.0-21.1)) in tracts with median income >US$90,000 than in tracts with median income ≤US$30,000 (7.1 (95% CI 5.7-8.9)). Number of professional evaluations was higher, and age at diagnosis younger, in higher income tracts (p < .001), but both measures spanned a wide overlapping range in all SES levels. In multivariable models race/ethnicity did not predict ASD, but the prevalence ratio was 2.2 (95% CI 1.5-3.1) when comparing highest with lowest income tracts. CONCLUSIONS: In the US state of New Jersey, ASD prevalence is higher in wealthier census tracts, perhaps due to differential access to pediatric and developmental services.
                    [–]killermarsupial 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                    This is one of the most profound points. I see this all the time while practicing healthcare. People confuse correlation with causation.
                    Further support for the argument made above: Here and Here
                    [–]DunedinThunder 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
                    Seeing you are aware of the evidence of this, why don't you compare that evidence with thousands of other sources?
                    I'm sure you can, as you seem to make your claim so convincingly.
                    Dick.
                    [–]PaulMcGannsShoes 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
                    ... They could have adopted.
                    [–]horselover_fat 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
                    Here comes the reddit internet detectives...
                    [–]ITS_DANGERNOVA_BITCH 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
                    Regardless, I highly doubt OP played any role in his parents' decision making process to have another kid, so can we please not ruin his post about being a terrific big brother?
                    [–]bucknakid14 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
                    Sure! I think it's great they are so close! The pictures are adorable! It was really just a comment in passing in regards to the comment in which I replied to. I didn't mean for it to be an all out discussion.
                    [–]joomba08 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
                    or she had her first son very young. people have babies around late 30's to 40 all the time, not that strange.
                    [–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points  (11 children)
                    So what? Is that not allowed anymore?
                    [–]BluShine 11 points12 points13 points  (10 children)
                    There's a lot of things that are allowed, but are still bad ideas.
                    [–]AdamBombTV 33 points34 points35 points  (8 children)
                    Like most of the comments in this thread.
                    [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points  (7 children)
                    Yeah fuck the spread of information because it may upset some people.
                    [–]AdamBombTV 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
                    Yeah, and fuck the use of tact as well, hell lets throw human decency under the wheels as well, where the fuck has that gotten anyone? No where, that's what.
                    [–]bitterpiller -3 points-2 points-1 points  (2 children)
                    And what is the purpose of this? So, assuming the parents are older, what is gained by telling them their age is to blame? "Oh, thanks for telling us, we'll go abort him right away!" Sure is useful, shaming people because their children didn't turn out 'perfect'.
                    OP shares a touching picture of a beloved little brother, and everyone starts looking for someone to blame for said little brother's existence. This isn't helpful. Give me a thread full of considerate, sensitive people who can see this is a child who is loved by his family any day above reddit's cold, uninvited preaching based on unfounded assumptions and some pop science article they read on a news site one time.
                    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
                    Nowhere did i say that you should go up to people and tell them that its their fault they have a disabled child. I stated (in a sarcastic way) that the spread of information is good even if it hurts others feelings.
                    I believe this thread has been very helpful. I for one didnt know that having a child at a later age increases the chance of autism and im sure im not alone.
                    Finally OP is allowed to milk his brothers disability but we are not allowed to spread factual information regarding it?
                    [–]bucknakid14 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
                    Apparently not. I was just trying to be informative, not rude. :/
                    [–]HabitOfCreature -2 points-1 points0 points  (2 children)
                    That's a nice straw man you've built. We could have informed people that the age of the mother at birth could have contributed to the kid being autistic without being snobs.
                    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
                    You dont know what a "straw man" is. Ironic thing is you just created one.
                    [–]HabitOfCreature 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                    A straw man is when you misrepresent or rephrase someone's argument to mean something that they weren't saying.
                    Nobody was saying, "Fuck the spread of information!"
                    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
                    Seriously get over yourself. Telling people having kids (pretty much a compulsion for most of the human race) is a bad idea because of a 1% risk of autism is pretty tasteless.
                    Anything else you think people should consult you on before doing?
                    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                    Oh shut the fuck up...
                    [–]Wishbiscuit 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
                    I'm going to go with unplanned and not decided. After 25 years, no mom wants more kids. I asked my mom.
                    [–]i_like_salad 37 points38 points39 points  (2 children)
                    My mom says I'm handsome
                    [–]SerfNuts- 22 points23 points24 points  (1 child)
                    Your mom says I'm handsome.
                    [–]Zombie_Feeder 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                    She said I was handsome too. What a whore.
                    [–]TheLadyEve 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                    no one knows exactly what causes autism. There have been a million theories (mercury, other toxins, prenatal infection, folic acid levels, etc.). So unless you're a doctor with some groundbreaking data, I think you have a pretty flawed argument.
                    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
                    Exactly WHAT? You can subtract 7 from 32? I'm failing to see what you're agreeing so vehemently with. Exactly people shouldn't be allowed to have children later in life? Exactly you think autistic fetuses should be aborted? I don't really get what you're trying to say here.
                    [–]BayouBalls comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points  (15 children)
                    Upvote for rational thinking. It mostly gets downvoted on reddit.
                    [–]Goodly 49 points50 points51 points  (2 children)
                    It might be rational but in this case it's also assuming the worst of people you've never met and demeaning a well meant post. I'm sure there's a lot of people who'll downvote this, but I think it's sad to try to demean anyone without facts.
                    [–]ImTheGuyWhoLoveGems comment score below threshold-52 points-51 points-50 points  (0 children)
                    If he is lying or not, the little kid is one retarded piece of crap.
                    [–]7Year1tch 15 points16 points17 points  (1 child)
                    I would call it jumping to conclusions but how ever you want to church it up is fine too I guess.
                    [–]BayouBalls 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                    You're right. The "more than likely" part was an assumption. We don't know the family.
                    He has some other good points though.
                    [–]HabitOfCreature 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
                    Rational thinking? Nobody here knows what's going on and it's not anybody's business or place to judge.
                    [–]killermarsupial 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
                    Right...... making assumptions about a story and providing correlative claims is rational thinking... Let's upvote every mindless assertion!
                    Just because Down's is reliably linked to maternal age does not mean everything else is. A few studies show a link. A thousand other studies show a link to a thousand other things.
                    [–]BayouBalls 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                    I regret the cheerleading of his assumption after sobering up. I don't think the thought process was mindless though.
                    Every negative karma post I have seems to happen when I browse reddit while drunk.
                    [–]Fatally_Flawed 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
                    Yeah it's a good job he pointed that out. Now OP's mum can jump in her time machine and wipe out her son from existence, phew! Good thinking guys, very rational and not at all redundant.
                    [–]BayouBalls comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (0 children)
                    Well number one, I don't think you know what the word "redundant" means.
                    Second, what the fuck are you talking about? This isn't even a strawman argument. Since you chose to involve time-travel murder, I think it is called Strawfuture Guy.
                    [–]bucknakid14 comment score below threshold-31 points-30 points-29 points  (4 children)
                    Thank you, kind sir. Have one as well!
                    [–][deleted]  (1 child)
                    [deleted]
                      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                      lol
                      [–]epiphone805 -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
                      You were doing so well...
                      [–]bucknakid14 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
                      Oh well. Hive mind at it's finest. It doesn't mean I'm right. There is no absolute direct correlation between the two. There is evidence for it, but it hasn't been proven. What has been proven is learning disabilities and chromosomal abnormalities with advanced maternal/paternal parents. It's a fact that cases of autism go up with advanced parental age as well. But, so have the number of diagnosed cases of autism in the past decade. Dramatically so. Oh well, at least it started a thought provoking discussion! :)
                      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                      You can't get causation through implication.
                      [–]ScreamThyLastScream -2 points-1 points0 points  (2 children)
                      Trisomy 21 (if this is the case here) can just as easily be caused by the father. Remember his sperm cells also contribute to the genetic input of reproduction, in which abnormalities in sperm can also lead to chromosomal imbalance.
                      My biggest reason for advocating again having children later in life is the fact you never really get a chance to be young with your children. We are indeed built (evolved) to reproduce between the ages of 20-35.
                      [–]BreSput 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                      Autism is completely different than down's syndrome.
                      [–]bucknakid14 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                      Even 35 is considered "advanced maternal age" by most gynecologists now.
                      [–]soykommander -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
                      So says the 15 year old. Life happens don't be a cunt. Shit will always go down all that really matters is how people handle it, and it looks like the little dude is loved and is digging life.
                      [–]niwotiandebater -4 points-3 points-2 points  (1 child)
                      yes, it was only the mothers fault...
                      [–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points  (0 children)
                      The dad cannot abort the embryo.
                      [–]killermarsupial -2 points-1 points0 points  (2 children)
                      You're an idiot. And an asshole.
                      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                      It's the truth, a fact. Stop acting like a baby and accept it.
                      [–]bucknakid14 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                      It's a perfectly reasonable assumption if it is the case that the parents had the brother much later in life. If adoption is the case, my apologies. I did not mean to start a debate.
                      [–]susanne_albrecht -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
                      You shоuld know that SubredditDrаma has written about you.
                      As of now, your cоmment has a score of 50 (415|365). The submission has a score of 1501 (8922|7421).
                      SRD has no rules against invading or voting in linked threads, and threads linked by them hаve a tendency to suddenly acquire large amounts of vоtes and derailing comments.
                      Tired of SRD's invasions and downvoting? Join us at /r/SRDBroke!
                      [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
                      Reminds me of this wheelchair kid at high school. What was wrong with him? Everything. Muscular disorder. Epilepsy. Chronic allergies. Near-blindness. Some sort of facial deformity. Supposed to be very bright though.
                      So one day his parents turn up and they're literally in their mid or late sixties. He's throwing a tantrum about something as they're getting him out the chair and then he says the only full sentence I ever recall hearing from him - "It's your fault I'm like this.".
                      [–]Geotic -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
                      without calling out conspiracy, a drip-feed of all the bad chemicals over time makes more sense imo
                      [–]rydan comment score below threshold-17 points-16 points-15 points  (6 children)
                      decided to have him too late in life
                      I hate to break it to you but you can't delay when someone is born. They are either born or they aren't. Had the mother decided to have a child sooner it wouldn't be this one.
                      [–]mejogid 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
                      You seem to be making some vague and irrelevant point on identity. The point is that by choosing to have a child late in life, their risk of various unpleasant birth defects is much higher. Or, more in line with your current reasoning, the child with autism would never have been born and instead a child with a much lower risk of such defects would have been.
                      [–]rydan 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
                      You seem to be making some vague and irrelevant point on identity.
                      It isn't irrelevant. bucknakid14 is the one who brought up the point of identity. He said the mother decided to have him too late in life. Had he simply said a child there wouldn't have been any point to be made and I would have agreed with him.
                      [–]ItsMikeontheMic 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                      lol I'm pretty sure they mean that the mother was older, not the baby
                      [–]BluShine -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
                      Having a child is still a decision. I think you might need a little refresher on the birds and the bees.
                      [–]Dingan -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
                      Can't see why you're being downvoted, you're only stating facts...
                      [–]veltrop -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
                      Had the mother decided to have a child sooner it wouldn't be this one.
                      That's the point.
                      [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
                      Those selfish fuckers!
                      Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
                      REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
                      π Rendered by PID 10820 on app-411 at 2016-06-25 16:23:43.583920+00:00 running cce93f4 country code: NL.
                      Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
                      0%
                       
                      10%
                       
                      20%
                       
                      30%
                       
                      40%
                       
                      50%
                       
                      60%
                       
                      70%
                       
                      80%
                       
                      90%
                       
                      100%