Length of time in Pre- labor

Personally, I have always felt
that they rely too much on their charts and just because a baby is
*overdue* by their clocks, it doesnt mean that it really is overdue as
such. Their calculating wheel is based on an average of gestation and is
not precise, so when my midwife started mewling on about induction at
just 1 week over, I told her that I wouldnt even consider it until at
least week 2 or 3. Babies come when they are done and just because your
little wheel says it should be today, doesnt mean that it's late. Just
that your calculations are off by a week or two.

Wookie

i completely agree with you, you never kow if the calculation is dead
on or WAY off. I agree with you about induction. Unless you show me
some kind of proof that MY baby is in danger not someone elses baby at
this point. I disagree. BUT my midwife group are the same way. they
are against medical intervention unless the mommy or baby are in
danger. They are very very take a step backish.

"ChocolateChip_Wookie" "wookie[at]bluelotusblossom[dot]com" wrote in
message ...

That seems to me to be a slightly strange comment. I don't think putting
most people on rest would have a significant change in dates.
I'm skeptical that being post dates would effect colic, can you produce
research to show this? And is there any problem with a strong startle
reflex, other than with associated problems that it is one of the signs?
There are associated problems with post-dates, although I don't think as
many as sometimes the pro-induction people talk about.


I can only imagine that the midwife has observed that post-date babies
appear to be healthier than pre-date babies. Perhaps this is because (as I
said in the other post) their calculators are based on averages of
gestation and what they consider to be overdue, is in fact right on time
and therefore *done* as it were. I have never seen colic, my daughter
didnt seem to suffer from it though as I said in my other post, I was very
ignorant when she was born and it may have occurred but I did not
recognise it. As for the startle reflex, my daughter certainly had that as
well as her father who regularly tipped me out of bed *searching* for
Little_Wookie under my pillow, for some unfathomable reason. We never did
get to the bottom of it, but it went on for months almost every night. If
he wasnt searching under my pillow, it was down the side of the bed etc.
He doesnt have any sleep walk tendancies though I do (just OT, he told me
that I once frisked him for some keys, *found* them, told him not to hide
them in future and promptly went back to sleep).
Lol.
My dh sleep talks/does things when he's a bit stressed. Just after we'd
moved in here (I was 37 weeks pregnant at the time) I woke up in the night
to find him sitting up on the bed pulling at his radio alarm clock (which
was still plugged in, so he wasn't getting very far) saying that he had to
pack :-D He then had to sort out all the things in the morning that he'd
knocked off by tugging it!

Who
knows. Certainly the midwives told me that her skin was nice and smooth,
not mottled, cracked or wrinkled.
I thought that one of the signs of post-dates is that their skin can be
poor? My mum was asked if I was postdates because I had bad excema, although
I was actually early. Maybe that idea has changed in 30 years though!


She seemed to feed easily enough
(though with the above caveats about being completely in the dark about
babies), she was always contented and slept well from 6 weeks onwards. She
is a good weight, slim and active and now an enquiring energetic toddler.
Perhaps I was just blessed. Something had to go right after the trauma of
her birth....

:-)
Debbie

ChocolateChip_Wookie wrote:

Now, a question of my own....how long does it last for the second one?

There's no telling. With my first, I woke up in labor
with no prior indications whatsoever and it was the real thing.
With my second, I had more than a week of prodromal labor. With
my third I had even more. So, I don't really think there's any
way to predict.

Some tell me it'll be quick but the midwife says it could be the same
timing again? Also, I had food poisoning a few weeks ago and ended up in
hospital with very mild contractions (or monster braxton hicks, we
couldnt decide) and they gave me steroids then as a precaution. No-one
has been able to tell me if this artificial maturing of the lungs will
have any bearing on how early if at all this one will arrive. I am
currently 33 weeks pregnant and I would like to go on a coach trip to
visit a relative at about 37 weeks...should I be risking this or would
it be asking for trouble? Any advice would be welcome.

I think if you would be uncomfortable delivering
at your relative's, it would be somewhat dicey to go that
late in the game.

Best wishes,
Ericka

ChocolateChip_Wookie wrote:

Still, the question remains, how long
was it for the second? Is it, as most stories state, quicker, or is that
an old wives tale?

*ACTIVE* labor is statistically likely to be shorter
(though that's not guarantee for any individual), but that's
not necessarily true of prodromal labor.

Is there a greater chance of delivering early with
the second or is it about the same each time. My first was 10 days
overdue according to the midwives.

Statistically, subsequent babies tend to arrive a
bit earlier than the first, but again, that doesn't tell
you *anything* about what might happen with any individual
baby. Each of mine were progressively later. You just
don't know. Your best guess is that your baby will arrive
somewhere between 37 and 42 weeks, and that's about all you
get to know, especially with a sample size of one.

Best wishes,
Ericka