I'm right... right?

Mrs.Greg

I was talking to my SIL the other day (who is an idiot, BTW) and I said something about how I can't imagine having only one of the babies, they are so perfect together, etc.  She gets this weird look on her face and said something like "If you only had one baby, it wouldn't have been one of THESE babies."  I was so shocked, I've made the comment about how the babies are so perfect together to so many people and never gotten this response.  I kinda stuttered a response about how I know that, I was just saying that they really do complete each other.  Then she went on to say if we only had one baby, it would have been a totally different baby. 

BUT I was thinking about it and it's definitely possible for me to have had only one of them, right?  Like if only one of the fertilized eggs stuck?  Even if they were identical, the scenario could have happened, right?

LadyNikon

I am so confused right now so I am sorry if my answer comes out wrong.  Your SIL is saying that if you would have had only one baby instead of both of them that it wouldn't have been one of your daughters.  Why wouldn't it?  Yes.  One egg could have stuck or an egg may not have split.  I don't understand what she is saying. 

Breezy8407

Yes...I think.

I guess if I think about my situation with fraternal, I am assuming two eggs were fertilized, so in theory the two I have would have been the same baby if they would have been a singleton.

And, I suppose if they are identicals, the egg that split would have been the same baby if it wouldn't have split. 

Mrs.Greg

You all are totally getting my point. I think the identical twins scenario may not be right but for fraternal twins, it's possible for only one to have stuck. My SIL is a dummy. And kinda rude. When I tell people that I can't imagine having only one of the babies, most people say that's sweet, etc.

pea-kay

Well, I think if they are fraternal, of course you could only have had one of them. But if they were identical, the very nature of the egg would change when it split, so I think maybe you would have a slightly different kid because of womb conditions. Not completely different, at least looks-wise. And personality would certainly be different, being raised as a singleton.

BananaPancake

Your girls are identical, right? So yeah, they totally could have not split and you'd have the "same baby." Which just seems weird considering there are two, now. I find identical twins so fascinating and strange in this way. That they could have been ONE, and they split and are now TWO, each with their own personality and everything. So crazy!!

Mrs.Greg

BananaPancake:

Your girls are identical, right? So yeah, they totally could have not split and you'd have the "same baby." Which just seems weird considering there are two, now. I find identical twins so fascinating and strange in this way. That they could have been ONE, and they split and are now TWO, each with their own personality and everything. So crazy!!

We aren't positive but we're pretty sure they are fraternal. They were di/di and don't really look alike.

Missa_g

Maybe she meant that they wouldn't be the same personality wise? That's all I can think of. Physically you could theoretically have one but then their personality would probably be different because your parenting of one vs two would be different. Maybe?

bearfootz

That's just a really weird thing to say.

But yes, I think you are right.

 

kiwi443

pea-kay:

Well, I think if they are fraternal, of course you could only have had one of them. But if they were identical, the very nature of the egg would change when it split, so I think maybe you would have a slightly different kid because of womb conditions. Not completely different, at least looks-wise. And personality would certainly be different, being raised as a singleton.

I agree with this. And it's weird for me to think about that as the mom of IDs.

macchiatto

pea-kay:

Well, I think if they are fraternal, of course you could only have had one of them. But if they were identical, the very nature of the egg would change when it split, so I think maybe you would have a slightly different kid because of womb conditions. Not completely different, at least looks-wise. And personality would certainly be different, being raised as a singleton.

Interesting!

AmyJoy728

I think yes, you are right. If the egg had not split it would still have been the one fertilized. The baby may not have looked exactly the same or acted the same...

zombiemommy

Uh, totally. She's like 100% incorrect and you're 100% correct. For example, if you have fraternal twins, its completely reasonable that one of the eggs would have been fertilized and the other not OR that only one would implant OR that only one would develop past a certain point. If they were identical, this is even more likely. If the egg had not split, I guess you technically wouldn't have the exact same kid, but you would have a kid that is basically genetically identical to the two you have in a twin pregnancy. Also possible to have the egg split and then to lose one of the babies. So, yeah. Your SIL is wrong, and I also don't really understand what she was trying to prove with her argument in the first place.