text: Enlarge Family photo Chad and Barbie Soper hold their baby Cearra Nicole, who was born Oct. 10, 2010. Unlike many moms, Barbara Soper never gets her kids' birthdays confused. That's because her first was born on Aug, 8, 2008, her second on Sept. 9, 2009 and her most recent on Oct. 10, 2010. Yes, that's 8-8-08, 9-9-09 and 10-10-10. The Rockford, Mich., mom and husband Chad weren't thinking about dates when their children were born. Their doctor had to give drugs to start labor for the couple's first daughter, Chloe Corrin Soper, who was born full term on Aug. 8 at Spectrum Health's Butterworth Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich. Their son was a surprise all around. "He wasn't a planned baby at all, he was a miracle," says Barbara Soper. He was due on Sept. 20, 2009, but because sister Chloe's birth had caused some hemorrhaging, their doctor, Andrew Van Slooten, suggested he come out a little early so he'd be smaller. Soper was started on drugs to induce labor on Sept. 8, but it took 24 hours before Cameron Dane Soper made his way into the world, arriving on 9-9-09. Soper says she and her husband had thought it would be "neat" if their third child was born on 10-10-10 but because her due date wasn't until Nov. 4, it seemed unlikely. But it ended up being "kind of a mandatory eviction," says Soper. She developed blood clots in her legs and three weeks before her due date doctors told her the baby needed to be delivered. The induction was begun on 10-9-10, but it wasn't until 6:53 on Sunday night, 10-10-10, that Cearra Nicole Soper arrived. Despite being three weeks early, "she's feeding well," says mom. "She's a trooper." While the dates might seem "incredibly rare," they're really not. Such a lineup can only happen in the first 12 years of the century and at least 10 months apart, says Shannon McWeeney, a professor of biostatistics at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland. "Given that the first birth occurred in that window, the probability is not as astronomical as you might be compelled to think," she says.In fact, it's not that high a number at all, says Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley. "The 'chance' you get depends on the assumptions you make," he says. One set of assumptions gives a chance of about 1 in 50 million. More realistic assumptions — including allowing at least 11 months between births — increases it to about 1 in 2,500. Since thousands of women in the United States had kids in 2008, 2009 and 2010, this suddenly seems a little less extraordinary. But humans "like to look for patterns, to make sense of things" he says.For the Sopers, three is simply their lucky number — "we don't have any more planned," says Barbara. Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more ||||| Barbara "Barbie" Soper is letting statisticians get their geek on after delivering her third baby on Sunday. That's because it was the third baby for the Soper family born on a numerical anomaly. 
   
   Baby number one came on 8-8-08. Baby number two came on 9-9-09, and, yes, Sunday was 10-10-10. 
   
   It's an almost impossibly cool coincidence -- especially when you consider her third baby wasn't due until November of this year but came early, and she didn't schedule C-sections with any of the kids. 
   
   But let's do a little math of our own here, shall we? 
   
   Barbara Soper has been either pregnant or recovering from giving birth since late 2007. It is now late 2010. 
   
   Can we send her some condolence cards along with those congratulatory bouquets? 
   
   Many women who have had their kids in quick succession tout the advantages to getting their childbearing over in one fell swoop: having little to no break in between the kids means they're closer in age and can play with each other on almost the same level; once you potty train one you can start the next one and escape the diaper stage faster; and of course you don't have the "lost baby weight, now I'm pregnant again" conundrum. 
   
   But there's a reason doctors discourage the practice. 
   
   Pregnancy and childbirth both do a number on the body -- especially the uterus, your baby's house for the next nine months. It takes a minimum of six weeks after delivery to return to its normal size, but it still needs time to recover to again be a hospitable home for a fetus. 
   
   New studies have likewise found women really DO need to lose that baby weight before embarking on a new pregnancy. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, there's less strain on the body (and less risk to the fetus) if your body has gone back down to a healthy weight before the next pregnancy begins. 
   
   Add to that, if you're planning to nurse your kids for longer than nine months, it's possible to do it -- but it's needlessly complicated when babies are born one on top of another. 
   
   Barbara and Chad Soper say she never planned for this to happen. Her son was a surprise pregnancy, and her second and third children were born earlier than their due dates -- she was due on September 20, 2009 with Cameron, who was born September 9, and little Cearra born this month was actually due November 4. 
   
   Congrats to the family on their mathematical surprises! 
   
   Does anyone have tips for them on three kids under 3? 
   
   Image via Spectrum Health 
   
   
   
  
target: – Barbara Soper managed a feat that seems like it should be impossible: She had her three children on 8/8/08, 9/9/09, and 10/10/10. No, she isn’t a mathematician who planned out her pregnancies to happen that way: Her first child was born full-term, but the next two were both born early—and both were actually induced a day prior to being born, USA Today reports. Of course, along come the statisticians to make the story a lot less magical: “The probability is not as astronomical as you might be compelled to think,” says one. Another says the chance of such a series of births is about 1 in 2,500—not all that “extraordinary,” he says, since thousands of women in the US gave birth during those years. What is extraordinary, The Stir notes, is that Soper was pregnant or recovering for three years straight. For more on that, click here.