3 or 4 children?
Now you've confused what I put, Francine says she has 2 kids, as Libby was a surrogate and so not considered her child legally or biologically if there was a donor egg and donor sperm. Given Roger's surprise reaction to this, it's possible he knew about Bailey but thought Francine was in denial. Francine clearly thought Roger was just plain wrong ... we can't know for sure, but it seems noteworthy to mention such a possible hint but clearly stating that Libby is not Francine's 3rd child, and actually Steve is therefore.
Francine agreed to in-utero fertilization making her the biological mother The question should only be about the father. --Buckimion 22:31, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
edit: I agreed that the version question posted was certainly noteworthy. The only part removed was denial of Francine as the biological mother. --Buckimion 22:33, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't even trying to debate that, as it's not even relevant. But since Francine answered as such, then there must be some explanation that the 3rd child Roger mentions may have been Bailey but Francine thinks Roger is like you in thinking Libby is hers. You and I have differing ideas about human biology, but if it's just going to create more confusion to anyone glancing at the Bailey page, then I'll just delete the whole sentence.
I pulled the episode and I stand corrected - Greg and Terry did say they had a separate egg source. There is still some question as to if giving birth counts as biological or not but I restored the entire point, with some edits. (Bailey's name is not in doubt since it was taken from Hulu's closed captioning and is official.) --Buckimion 22:43, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
OK then, if you agree then that's fine. BTW Bailey is logically the right spelling, but Bayley has some symmetry with Hayley, but if you have proof then this wiki can be considered accurate
Given that the whole episode was about suppressing memories; maybe Stan made Francine forget Bailey's existence entirely, not just that they should give him/her a shot. [User:Frevoli|Frevoli]] 00:00, September 22, 2014 (GMT)
Shouldn't it be Bailey Smith? —Jiyanamiki ❤ 23:14, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
It's unconfirmed as to whether or not Bailey really a Smith. For all we know Stan and Francine were walking a neighbor's child named Bailey what happened to be of similar age since they were taking Hayley out as well. --Buckimion 23:18, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
Why would they talk about having a friend's child inoculated? [User:Frevoli|Frevoli]] 00:01, September 22, 2014 (GMT)
I think that the name Bailey that rhythms with Hayley would be a clue that they were twin, right? --TiffanyBlogs 06:45, March 08, 2014 (UTC)
Not enough to change what is actually shown.
Well, normally non-twins do not have twin strollers either, so that is not an assumption, just like most children who are not related do not happen to have names that rhythm. Just Twins in most cases. :) --TiffanyBlogs 12:05, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
Bailey could have been an orphan that went to live with the Smith's for a few days due to CIA stuff. Or they could have been a celebrity kid whose parents they were helping out. Maybe they got an "Opportunity" (like in TS3) to get Bailey vaccinated. Kaiko Mikkusu (talk) 11:36, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
Maybe even... Gasp! Dead
I think there is a joke here that went over a lot of people's heads. Or I'm a negative Nancy making some dark jokes. This show is particularly good at one offs and has no problem casting death on any type of person, so also since it probably doesn't exist for no purpose, I present to you the theory behind the scene:
Bailey was most likely Hailey's twin. Based on the snippets of info given (and noticed by others, thanks guys) - names rhyming, double stroller, same age. However, due to Stan circumventing vaccination through hypnosis, poor Bailey didn't make it through whooping cough. Rough.
I think it's a reach, but something I initially connected the dots to and had a good laugh. I got pretty curious to if she had appeared elsewhere (thus bringing me here!) Maybe an expansion to the page involving theroies could be introduced?
188.8.131.52 07:33, January 3, 2015 (UTC)
Entirely disagree. If anything, as a source dedicated directly to AD, I think it's MORE important to list possible theories as to why the scene actually exists. This isn't Wikipedia. There is room for speculation as long as it is correctly noted.
Otherwise I'd say why even have this page? What was the authors purpose for including that scene in the show at all? It's a little silly to say "only facts," when a lot of the facts presented in one-offs from American Dad require a little brain power to bridge things together. It may not be right, but it worth noting for those who land here, looking for a possible explanation. 184.108.40.206 16:51, January 3, 2015 (UTC)
Our "mission statement" is to provide a "database of facts", not speculation. We present the characters, places and stars within the show and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions based on what is shown, not to tell them what to think. --Buckimion (talk) 18:46, January 3, 2015 (UTC)
Well, then why include the line, "but this was dismissed as Roger's mistake because Francine gave birth to a third child in "Surro-Gate" but the baby, Libby, was not her biological offspring" in which dismissial of his statement is entirely speculation? In fact, this Wiki's Mission Statement also looks to include "Inside Jokes and Hidden Messages ", which requires some assumption to correctly understand jokes when not spelled out directly to your face. It's said that American Dad commonly creates specialized contexts in specific flash backs that are irrlevant to a timeline or any factors prior stated within this Wiki itself... 220.127.116.11 22:36, January 3, 2015 (UTC)
Inside jokes & "meanings" such as film references are kept on the Notes & References pages, not on Character pages. Read the American Dad! Wiki:Editing Policy for the exact definitions. We allowed the statement by Roger to hint at another sibling because it IS an event that did occur earlier, although we have a disclaimer that it still does not change Bailey's known status. Again, it falls to the reader to follow all known facts and draw their own conclusions. --Buckimion (talk) 22:50, January 3, 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, surrogates aren't generally considered parents, so Libby wouldn't be Francine's child. Secondly, you wouldn't discuss vaccinating another person's child as casual conversation. Thirdly, renting a twins stroller for another person's child who just so happens to be the same age (or close) and has a rhyming name? Seems like detractors are making absurd leaps of illogic to avoid the obvious implication.
It is quite clear that Hayley is a twin and it is a secret kept from Hayley and Steve. Whether that twin died or something else happened is the only question left to debate. ZapSBrannigan (talk) 03:25, August 27, 2015 (UTC)Zap