Never mind...stupid question!!!

[starrzone]

My SO and I were having this discussion the other day. I'm almost positive that I read somewhere that the statement "John is older than his identical twin David by 10 minutes" is untrue, and that twins are always the same age regardless of birth order.

Thanks, and any links to information would be helpful so I can back myself up

 

[jrmasm]

If you were born first, why wouldn't you be older?

 

[LUCiD]

I don't have any links or anything, but I can tell you from experience that the twin who is born first is older by a little bit. I know because two of my best friends are twins, and they told me that the brother was older because he was born before the other twin.

 

[starrzone]

Yeah, good point...whether or not there's an age gap of 10 years or 10 minutes, one sibling is older than the other...thanks! It was pretty obvious...

 

[Cantw8]

If you were born first, why wouldn't you be older?

that makes sense to me

 

[Feralpeg]

I have brothers who are twins. One was born three minutes before the other. Technically, the one is older than the other. Not that it really matters. They are both the same age.

 

[Ohiodislover]

We have a family friend who had one of her twins on 10/29 at 11:52, and the other on 10/30 at 12:04. Olivia is older.

They tried the same thing w/ my sister. She was induced on 12/31, trying to give her girls separate days, and years. Babies didn't cooperate. The youngest came at 11:47 on the 31st

 

[ICF]

We have a family friend who had one of her twins on 10/29 at 11:52, and the other on 10/30 at 12:04. Olivia is older.

My daughter had twins on her baseball team last year that had different bday's too. I don't know how you wouldn't have said that one of them was older than the other.

 

[TN Hockey Mom]

A friend of ours had triplets (1 boy and 2 girls). The boy was born 1 month before the girls. The girls were then born just minutes apart. She says, and I agree, that the boy is their oldest child, the first born girl is their middle child and the second born girl is their youngest child.

 

[LuvOrlando]

That sounds like a Marilyn Vos Savant question.

I suspect the real question behind the obvious question is whether or not to we consider aging to begin from the moment of conception or from birth. Obviously, one is born into the world before the other. However, in terms of twins, I think both had to be conceived at the same time in order for both eggs to be viable.

With preemies, I have one, we often speak in terms of age since conception because development since birth is often VERY behind, but when we think in terms of conception things tend to fall in line. On the other hand, my full term son was always evaluated since birth.

 

[AKL_Megs]

This makes me think of a set of twins I went to college with...

The first was born on December 31st at 11:56pm. The second was born on January 1st at 12:04am! 10 minutes apart, but on different days!!! I am sure if HLN had been around in the early 80's, you'd have heard of them!

 

[Acklander]

During the millennium I saw a woman on the news who had one twin before the new year and one after, so they were 25 minutes apart but born on different days/years/decades/

 

[mumom95]

It may also depend on if they were born naturally or by c-section. With a c-section I imagine they pull the second child out right after the first, so it is quite possible when the time of birth is named, it could be within the same minute.

But, I've never had twins and I'm not a doctor, so what do I know. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a couple of weeks ago, if that gives me any more credibility.

 

[MsLeFever]

I thought I read somewhere once that in China the second born is considered the elder because they were "on top" in utero....

Anyone know if that's true?

 

[Liberty Belle]

That sounds like a Marilyn Vos Savant question.

I suspect the real question behind the obvious question is whether or not to we consider aging to begin from the moment of conception or from birth. Obviously, one is born into the world before the other. However, in terms of twins, I think both had to be conceived at the same time in order for both eggs to be viable.

With preemies, I have one, we often speak in terms of age since conception because development since birth is often VERY behind, but when we think in terms of conception things tend to fall in line. On the other hand, my full term son was always evaluated since birth.

But our birthdays are not on the day we were conceived. They're on the day we were born. So the one born first would be older.

 

[snykymom]

That sounds like a Marilyn Vos Savant question.

I suspect the real question behind the obvious question is whether or not to we consider aging to begin from the moment of conception or from birth. Obviously, one is born into the world before the other. However, in terms of twins, I think both had to be conceived at the same time in order for both eggs to be viable.

It is true that identical twins must be conceived at the same time, since the egg splits after it's fertilized to create the twins. For fraternal twins, however, this is not true. Fraternal twins can be created by an egg that splits and is then fertilized by different sperm, or by two different eggs fertilized by different sperm. Either of these can happen serially; in fact, it would be unusal for them to happen at precisely the same moment.