The research suggesting that men who conceive late in life are likelier to produce children who suffer from schizophrenia, autism, etc, does not seem likely, as Dana hopes, to create symmetry in the way men and women feel about child-bearing. For women, there's a biological issue that they can't have children after a certain age. For men, there's a biological issue suggesting it's arguably immoral to wait to have children after a certain age. I'd be surprised if those were treated similarly by society. But the research did shake loose vague memories of a policy presentation I remember watching on life cycle in social policy. The presenter -- I can no longer remember who -- argued that the welfare state operates off an implicit theory of the lifecycle that suggests people should study until their mid-20s, work until their mid-60s, and then relax until they die in their early-70s. This, she said, was no longer appropriate given our understanding of biology and advances in medicine. A more suitable cycle, she suggested, would make it easier to take time off to focus on young children in your 20s and 30s, and would also make it easier to work in reduced capacities (even volunteer or social service capacities) after your 60s and well into your 80s, if you so chose. I remember thinking it an interesting argument but quick Google searches didn't turn anything up. So if anyone has seen the papers on this, send me a link.
