subsequent labors shorter than first?

Is labor shorter in subsequent pregnancies than in the first? Or not always?

Thanks.

ted wrote:
Is labor shorter in subsequent pregnancies than in the first? Or
not always?

On average, second/subsequent labors are shorter than first labors, but
there are no guarantees. My stats:

1st labor: 8 hours start to finish, induced with pitocin
2nd labor: 28+ hours start to finish, spontaneous
3rd labor: 3h50m, induced by AROM

Obviously, not a very useful pattern there!
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [2] mom)

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

ted wrote:
|| Is labor shorter in subsequent pregnancies than in the first? Or not
|| always?
||
|| Thanks.

On average I believe they are but not always as Barabra pointed out. If you
are interested in stats for this NG mine a
#1- 16 hours
#2- 4 hours

--?

Jenn
-WAHM
-DS Feb'92
-DD Feb'97
-Jellyfish due June 25/04

ted wrote:

Is labor shorter in subsequent pregnancies than in the first? Or not always?

Statistically speaking, yes. Individually speaking,
who knows?

Best wishes,
Ericka

ted wrote:
Is labor shorter in subsequent pregnancies than in the first? Or not
always?


Generally. My second labor may have been a tad shorter. The truly useful
part was the actual pushing/delivery. That was dramatically shorter and
since my labors are relatively straight forward the pushing is what matters
to me :-)

#1 - Spontaneous - around 7-8 hours of serious contractions and then the
pushing started - 3hrs45min
#2 - Induced - around 7-8 hours of serious contractions and then pushing
started - 8 minutes :-D.

The non-serious contraction phase was longer with #1.

--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (4) and Luke (2)

"ted" wrote in message
om...
Is labor shorter in subsequent pregnancies than in the first? Or not
always?

Thanks.

My first labor was less than 12 hours then my second lasted 30 hours (i am
counting when contractions started).
Kat
mama to Maggie 11/03/01
and Will 02/10/04

ted writes:
: Is labor shorter in subsequent pregnancies than in the first? Or not always?

: Thanks.

Usually. :-)

Larry

First labour 30 plus hours, got to 6 cm, C-section. 9 lb 11.5 ounces
Second labour 6 hours of serious stuff including just over an hour of
pushing, VBAC, 9 lb 8 ounces
Third labour 1 1/2 hours of holy cow, including 20 minutes of pushing,
VBAC, 10 lb 4 ounces

If I were young enough to have had more, I think a 4th one would have
been sneezed out.

Mary G.

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
ted wrote:

Is labor shorter in subsequent pregnancies than in the first? Or not
always?

Statistically speaking, yes. Individually speaking,
who knows?

Best wishes,
Ericka


Oh, now there's the rub! Statistics don't mean anything to the
individual -- it's either going to happen to you, or it's not. So, in a
way, it's more like a 50% chance!
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Handmade Baby Blankets -- www.geocities.com/digit_the_cat/Blankets.html

Statistically speaking, yes. Individually speaking,
who knows?

Oh, now there's the rub! Statistics don't mean anything to the
individual -- it's either going to happen to you, or it's not. So, in a
way, it's more like a 50% chance!

I'm hoping I don't follow the statistical trend, according to my notes I
was in active labour for 1.5 hours, but that was induced. The midwife told
me when I was discharged that even though it was induced this still puts
me at high risk of another precipitate labour. Anyone know if that's true?