If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
length of labour
All
Hello, I am currently 26 weeks pregnant. I have a 13 year old daughter who was born a few weeks early and only after a 2 hour delivery. I was 16 at the time of her birth. I know that we don't know the actual answer to these things but given that this is my second pregnancy and is 14 years later is it likely that this delivery will be quicker that two hours ??? I am hoping... Zoe |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Zoe Brown writes:
: All : Hello, I am currently 26 weeks pregnant. : I have a 13 year old daughter who was born a few weeks early and only after : a 2 hour delivery. I was 16 at the time of her birth. I know that we don't : know the actual answer to these things but given that this is my second : pregnancy and is 14 years later is it likely that this delivery will be : quicker that two hours ??? : I am hoping... : Zoe Hmmm. Two hours is awfully short for a labor. Are yuo just counting from the time you got to the hospital, the pushing stage, or what? Larry |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Zoe Brown wrote:
All Hello, I am currently 26 weeks pregnant. I have a 13 year old daughter who was born a few weeks early and only after a 2 hour delivery. I was 16 at the time of her birth. I know that we don't know the actual answer to these things but given that this is my second pregnancy and is 14 years later is it likely that this delivery will be quicker that two hours ??? Sorry, I really don't think there's any way to know for sure. My second labor was just over two hours, but my third (six years later) was five hours (and my first was 45 hours). Best wishes, Ericka |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I think usually the second labor is shorter, but no guarantees, and 2
hours would be hard to beat. My first labor was 6 hours after my water broke, and my second labor was 2.5 hours after my water broke. I wasn't having much action before the water broke in both cases. KC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm. Two hours is awfully short for a labor. Are yuo just counting from
the time you got to the hospital, the pushing stage, or what? doesn't that rather depend on how you measure when labour starts, if you measure it from the first painful contraction, then I was in labour 11 weeks, if you measure it in terms of dilation, my labour was apparently 1.5 hours, there is such a thing a precipitate labour, I at least had some warning I was at the hopsital being induced, but no one expected a baby that day, I was 5cm dilated 20 minutes before delivery and that truely freaked me out. My mum had two true precipitate labours, one induced in under 2 hours one spontaneous at 38 weeks also in under 2 hours. So short labours DO happen but they aren't necessarily a good thing, the shock for me was possibly the biggest shock I'd ever experienced and I suffered flash backs for months afterwards. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, I really don't think there's any way to know for sure. My second labor was just over two hours, but my third (six years later) was five hours (and my first was 45 hours). I'd settle for 5 over 2 any day, just a little bit more time to make sure everything is ready to go, like the midwife is actually there, rather than still on her way! to the original poster, there isn't much way to tell, and you don't say how early and how small your baby was, which could make a difference, plus with early labours first time mums often don't notice the early signs which you probably would this time, it would be very unlikely for you to suddenly have a very long labour, unless the baby was malpostioned, or something else. I would have thought that whilst active labour could be less than two hours you are likely to have some warning (my mum for example had a show 8 hrs or so before my sister was born, though active labour was around an hour). cheers Anne |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry McMahan" wrote in message ... Zoe Brown writes: : All : Hello, I am currently 26 weeks pregnant. : I have a 13 year old daughter who was born a few weeks early and only after : a 2 hour delivery. I was 16 at the time of her birth. I know that we don't : know the actual answer to these things but given that this is my second : pregnancy and is 14 years later is it likely that this delivery will be : quicker that two hours ??? : I am hoping... : Zoe Hmmm. Two hours is awfully short for a labor. Are yuo just counting from the time you got to the hospital, the pushing stage, or what? Well it was a long time ago. She was 5 weeks early too. I had bad backache for a few day's before but nothing too bad. My waters broke at 9pm on 7th March 1991 and she was born at 11:10pm on 7th March. My waters broke, I started regular contractions. The midwife said to come in the morning but my mum took me in anyway. By the time I got to the hospital at about 9:45 I was told that I was fully dilated and taken to the delivery room. No time for medication - apart from gas and air... Larry |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Anne Rogers" wrote in message ... Sorry, I really don't think there's any way to know for sure. My second labor was just over two hours, but my third (six years later) was five hours (and my first was 45 hours). I'd settle for 5 over 2 any day, just a little bit more time to make sure everything is ready to go, like the midwife is actually there, rather than still on her way! to the original poster, there isn't much way to tell, and you don't say how early and how small your baby was, which could make a difference, plus with early labours first time mums often don't notice the early signs which you probably would this time, it would be very unlikely for you to suddenly have a very long labour, unless the baby was malpostioned, or something else. I would have thought that whilst active labour could be less than two hours you are likely to have some warning (my mum for example had a show 8 hrs or so before my sister was born, though active labour was around an hour). You are correct, perhaps I missed some signs. I may have missed the loss of the mucus plug, and I did have back ache. In any case Naomi was 7lbs and apparently 5 weeks early, but I didn't know my dates and she was dated by the first scan which was not until about 26weeks. cheers Anne |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm. Two hours is awfully short for a labor. Are yuo just counting from
the time you got to the hospital, the pushing stage, or what? Well it was a long time ago. She was 5 weeks early too. I had bad backache for a few day's before but nothing too bad. My waters broke at 9pm on 7th March 1991 and she was born at 11:10pm on 7th March. My waters broke, I started regular contractions. The midwife said to come in the morning but my mum took me in anyway. By the time I got to the hospital at about 9:45 I was told that I was fully dilated and taken to the delivery room. No time for medication - apart from gas and air... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
You are correct, perhaps I missed some signs. I may have missed the loss
of the mucus plug, and I did have back ache. In any case Naomi was 7lbs and apparently 5 weeks early, but I didn't know my dates and she was dated by the first scan which was not until about 26weeks. dating is very inaccurate at 26 weeks, I suspect she was early, but maybe 2 or 3 weeks not 5 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
long labour (36 hours) - advice needed | Abi | Pregnancy | 14 | July 15th 04 02:38 PM |
Birth story: very late and *extremely* long | Sidheag McCormack | Pregnancy | 14 | December 13th 03 08:37 PM |
Anna's birth story (long) | Welches | Pregnancy | 7 | October 29th 03 12:52 AM |
Checking BP/preeclampsia signs in labour | Sidheag McCormack | Pregnancy | 11 | October 15th 03 10:25 AM |
Midwives & Home birth vs. an OB & hospital ? | LSU Grad of '89 | Pregnancy | 54 | October 12th 03 09:26 PM |