Guess not then LOL

I think it makes sense from a biological point of view. A couple of centuries ago, most parents died fairly young, so it would make sense to me that the children who were born later in their parents lives would have to start caring for themselves at a much younger age, and perhaps this was nature's way of ensuring that the child of older parents would be more likely to survive.

I was pregnant 2 weeks off of birth control and miscarried. My daughter was conceived 2 weeks after the miscarriage. My son was conceived 14 months later after no birth control other than breastfeeding. I'm not sure which is smarter, though. They are hard to compare.

This is a really interesting thread! Not at all what I thought it would be. Hmmmmmmm in my family the most gifted of my mother's children was born when my mother was 43. And for my children they all seem similar, probably mg except for DS8 who is mg-hg I would guess and I had him at 35. He is not the last however, my daughter is 6 but not as g as DS. She is however very artistically talented. Where that came from is beyond me!

Studies have indicated that intelligence stays constant across the maternal age. So because you are more likely to have a children of low intelligence -- 1 in 3 chance at 45, then you have just as likely to have a child of high intelligence -- 1 in 3. Since many women opt of out pregnancies with children with problems, the chance of havely a very smart kid becomes higher.

Ren