Originally Posted by
Sol
The principle difference exists that men are much lesser limited by age to have children, unlike women which are doubtful to born after 40-45 at all or without critical health problems for them and children.
Now about that "more". The risk from men age itself can be low, at least mb up to 50 yo. The stats I saw were gotten from general view, where a correlation does not point on reasons. Older fathers have older women. That mother's age influences strongly is evident. Also there are negative factors which may be _linked_ with age and may influence, as that many older men take meds with side effects, may use alcohol for long time, may work for long near dangerous substances (women more rare have such jobs), may for long time eat low quality meal, may to have reduced immunity due to lack physical load, more of them have disorders which may influence, etc. This makes the _degree_ of fathers' age factor (taken itself) as questionable still and thay risks may vary significantly among concrete people. Also it's important how much is that "after".
For correct data for the men age factor, they'd need to take children born from young (<25 yo) women with men of 35-40 yo (and other 5 year range groups) without significant additional risks (alcoholism, toxic environments at occupations, some health disorders, etc). Then to compare the criterion with pairs where both parrents are young. I did not hear about such researches still.