Your thoughts: Babies born in different years

dani2480

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/03/twins-born-in-separate-years-by-parents-choice/

Have you heard about this? What are your thoughts? Perfectly acceptable? Totally irresponsible? Would you do it if the opportunity were presented to you?

StumpyG

Gut reaction: I don't particularly have a problem with it, I just look at it like... why? Just to be gimmicky? Not what I'd do, but as long as the timing wasn't putting the babies' health at risk, whatever I guess. It just seems dumb and a pain in the butt more than anything. 

Mrs.BoomBoom

Silly but not the stupidest thing I've heard of parents doing...by far!

MrsAWZ

Definitely interesting, but not something I'd choose to do. I do think it's a little weird that the doctor gave them the choice to deliver on seperate days, so each child had it's own birthday. All I could think was two days of birthday celebrations instead of one...and that seemed more stressful to me!

dani2480

It actually kind of irks me. I get the sense that it was done more with publicity and novelty in mind than the health of the babies. The article mentions they scheduled the C section to avoid "complications" but not what those complications are. It makes me wonder if those complications were really worse than the complications inherent in delivering a baby a month early.

Plus, the fact that it was scheduled to happen this way makes it far less interesting (and more obnoxious), IMO.

Go Dux

I don't see why anyone should really care.  There twins with different birthdays in a different year.  Wouldn't be any different than twins being born with different birthdays in the same year.  I don't think  they were in harm medically, so why not?

It's a good when filing taxes if anything.  They can claim one for each year.  Hopefully get some good  money back each time.

CheekyGirl22

I think its kinda lame.  Whats the point?  To have a few minutes of fame?? 

Nothing particulary wrong with it, and to each their own but not something I would chose to do.  I think if it had actually happened naturally that way, it would be cool, but since they chose to do it, eh whatev.

CheekyGirl22

dani2480:

It actually kind of irks me. I get the sense that it was done more with publicity and novelty in mind than the health of the babies. The article mentions they scheduled the C section to avoid "complications" but not what those complications are. It makes me wonder if those complications were really worse than the complications inherent in delivering a baby a month early.

Plus, the fact that it was scheduled to happen this way makes it far less interesting (and more obnoxious), IMO.

This is pretty much how I feel

secretkeeper321

Totally dumb, lol. For one thing, tax wise they are missing out on a big deduction for 2010 (not that that is any reason to have a kid, but ya know). Um, like they are going to do two birthday parties when they are little? Yeah, birthday parties on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day...that's convenient. Just seems so ridiculous and confusing. Oh, and that it was all scheduled? LAME-O

dani2480

Go Dux:

I don't see why anyone should really care.  There twins with different birthdays in a different year.  Wouldn't be any different than twins being born with different birthdays in the same year.  I don't think  they were in harm medically, so why not?

It's a good when filing taxes if anything.  They can claim one for each year.  Hopefully get some good  money back each time.

It's actually bad for taxes. You get to claim your kids every year (not just the year they're born). If they had both babies in 2010, they'd get to deduct both on their 2010 taxes, and their 2011 taxes. But, now they'll only get to deduct one baby for 2010. They just lost $1000 for the child tax credit. Plus another $365 - $912 (how much they would have saved from the child/dependent deduction, depending on their tax bracket). That's $1365 - $1912 in cold hard cash they just kissed goodbye for a publicity stunt.

If the children were born naturally, I don't think it would be anyone's concern. However, it does concern me that their doctors -- who are supposed to know better and always do what is in the best interest of their patient's health -- were complicit in this. Early births (even when they happen naturally) are highly risky for the baby. If it was not 100% necessary to take the babies out right then and there, then the doctors actually did risk harm to those babies, because there are a lot of complications that can arise from a premature birth. Their lungs and brain aren't fully developed at 8 months, and it can affect their mental and physical development throughout their life. That doesn't seem so harmless to me.

Mrs.BoomBoom

1st baby born in 2011 in the bay area was not due until Valentine's Day.  Makes me wonder if it was a c-sect that they planned that way (to be the 1st)

Personally, I'd rather be the last of 2010 and get that tax deduction.

cheryl2006

CheekyGirl22:

dani2480:

It actually kind of irks me. I get the sense that it was done more with publicity and novelty in mind than the health of the babies. The article mentions they scheduled the C section to avoid "complications" but not what those complications are. It makes me wonder if those complications were really worse than the complications inherent in delivering a baby a month early.

Plus, the fact that it was scheduled to happen this way makes it far less interesting (and more obnoxious), IMO.

This is pretty much how I feel

Me too. It isn't really that interesting to me since it was planned. 

tilden2

secretkeeper321:

Totally dumb, lol. For one thing, tax wise they are missing out on a big deduction for 2010 (not that that is any reason to have a kid, but ya know). Um, like they are going to do two birthday parties when they are little? Yeah, birthday parties on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day...that's convenient. Just seems so ridiculous and confusing. Oh, and that it was all scheduled? LAME-O

This.  And LOL at Dani actually doing the math!!

winterorchids

Meh. Gimmicky. I feel like the kind of ridiculousness that people pull these days is so common that I'm really not surprised anymore.

 Anyway, the real reason I posted was to say how adorable it is that Dani got into the math of it

wldktz10

It's kind of stupid. People will still probably celebrate their birthdays together and call them "the twins" so I don't see the point. Maybe to get in the newspaper?

Passanie

That's just stupid.

sm23

Personally, I find it kind of ridiculous and pointless, but I'm not sure why it would be irresponsible? Just seems kinda gimmicky but maybe they thought it would be a funny story to tell.