November 12, 2001

7:32 PM

Woman Pregnant Twice.An Italian woman is due to give birth in a hospital in Rome this week to a baby girl - before returning three months later to have triplets. If both deliveries are successful, it is thought that this will be the first such case in history.
posted by tpoh.org (17 comments total)

What a row if # 1 her husband, numbers # 2- 4 her lover.
posted by Voyageman at 7:41 PM on November 12, 2001

I like how superfecundation is possible among animals, bot impossible for people. What are we, robots?
posted by Hildago at 7:42 PM on November 12, 2001

bot impossible...robots?

Goodness.
posted by j.edwards at 7:52 PM on November 12, 2001

Talk about Fertile Myrtle.
posted by ColdChef at 7:59 PM on November 12, 2001

All I can say is thank god that did not happen to me when *I* was pregnant!
posted by gloege at 8:13 PM on November 12, 2001

What a row if # 1 her husband, numbers # 2- 4 her lover.
Voyageman

Well, she could always convert to Islam or become a Mormon.
*slaps forehead smartly*
No, wait, that's only for the men...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:45 PM on November 12, 2001

Did she attend Dartmouth College? I hear they have a pretty intense sex-ed lecture series.
posted by shoepal at 9:12 PM on November 12, 2001

No she's Harvard-Radcliffe. Husband and lover both quite impressed by her straight As.
posted by Voyageman at 9:17 PM on November 12, 2001

makes me feel kind of yucky...
posted by jackiemcghee at 5:10 AM on November 13, 2001

This story doesn't go far enough to describe the health risk to those second-in-line triplets. How are they going to avoid being born when the first child is delivered? I can't imagine the chances for triplets born three months early are very good.
posted by rcade at 5:23 AM on November 13, 2001

If both deliveries are successful, it is thought that this will be the first such case in history.

What mankind needs is another religion based on an unlikely birth scenario.
posted by mischief at 5:44 AM on November 13, 2001

mischief - HA! HA! Now that deserves elaboration!
posted by yesster at 7:15 AM on November 13, 2001

I knew a brother and sister who, although they were born at the same time, were not twins...they were the products of eggs fertilized about a month apart. So one was born 2 wks early, the other was 2 wks late. Their doctor said there were several cases like that in the U.S.
posted by fotzepolitic at 9:11 AM on November 13, 2001

Well then, doesn't that mean that it won't be the first time in history?
posted by animoller at 9:35 AM on November 13, 2001

animoller:

This is three months later, not just two weeks, and the major diffrence is that this women is giving birth twice.
posted by delmoi at 12:45 PM on November 13, 2001

delmoi - ". . . is that this women is . . ."

should be "woman is" or "women are"

I wouldn't normally bother, but I've seen A LOT of this particular mistake made lately.
posted by yesster at 1:29 PM on November 13, 2001

I'll bet you a beer that, despite the mother's denials, there's fertility treatment somewhere in this scenerio.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 2:02 PM on November 13, 2001