They were two babies from a set of triplets/quadruplets/quintuplets............... or even eye wateringly more, and the other babies were all girls.
alternatively
Whilst one was her biological son, the other may have been adopted. I know the odds of such a coincidence are probably very small, but it's not impossible.xxx
2006-10-07 07:53:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by stiflersmom29 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Adopted comes to mind - same DOB but different mothers. Or how about her eggs being given to two other women, fertilised by her husband and babies born as indicated.
Could say they were part of a larger multiple birth but thats too easy?
2006-10-07 14:44:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
You forgot to say same month.....one could be born January 20, she could get pregnant again and have the second December 20 and meet the criteria.
2006-10-07 17:43:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I had two within minutes of each other, so the two you speak of came from a multiple birth, other than twins.
2006-10-08 11:48:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by jfmm 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
well since it says she only had two sons maybe she had 2 sons and a daughter and therefore thy are triplets not twin and there are only two boys...
2006-10-07 15:34:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They were 2 of sextuplets
2006-10-07 14:42:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Warlock Fiend 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
they were 2 of triplets
2006-10-07 14:41:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because they were part of a larger set, triplets or whatnots!
2006-10-07 14:43:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Cold Bird 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
one was her son and the other was an adopted son
2006-10-07 15:00:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sonupraba 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
they were 2 of quadruplets
2006-10-07 14:49:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by ♥LiveLavaLive♥ 3
·
0⤊
0⤋