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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Quick and easy is far more common than you might think. My SIL was told that if she
had a third child, not to bother going to the hospital. The first was delivered less than an hour after she got to the hospital. The second within minutes. And she is a tiny little mom. My daughter was in hard labor less than 2 hours with each of her three. When she had the second one, we stopped at her neighbors on the way to the hospital to pick up her firstborn. By the time we got there, she was sitting up eating lunch and the baby was asleep next to her. -- Jo Firey "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." "Tanada" wrote in message ... Yowie wrote: 3 hours sounds like a good sort of time for labour. (Why does everyone regale you with 72 hour horror stories as soon as they find out you've got a bun in the oven?) My mother says if I came out any more quickly i would have hit the back wall. I'm hoping that its hereditary - although when I was 16 and terribly embarrassed about my body, my doctor grabbed my by my hips and told me what a fine baby making body I was growing, particularly my nice broad hips - perfect for bearing babies apparantly. At 16 I could have died from that description, but I"m hoping that, despite the extra layers of "insulation" and "cuddliness" I have developed since 16, the hips are still good baby bearing types. Vicky, my oldest, Jason, was 4 hours, Mike was 45 minutes, and Mandy was 5 3/4 hours. In spite of the "extra padding" I really had no problems. I walked with each of them and that helped strengthen my leg and pelvic muscles so that it was easier for me. I didn't have time for a doctor with Mike, he was delivered by the labor room nurses. Mandy delivered herself (just slid right out) while they were trying to find a OB. Rob's flight surgeon was working in the emergency room and was the only Dr they could find, so his name is on her birth certificate. With Jason, the Doctor arrived just in time to play catch. They all did fine, and your baby Yowie will do well too. I don't know what possesses people to tell the 30+ hour labor horror stories, unless it's a scare them, sadistic pleasure, sort of thing. I've seen seasoned military wives do that to the little 17 year old babies that are in for their first one, and always tell them that it isn't always true, my first one took 4 hours. It helps, somewhat, to ease their fears. Pam S. who had great baby hips |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Tanada wrote in message ...
Yowie wrote: 3 hours sounds like a good sort of time for labour. (Why does everyone regale you with 72 hour horror stories as soon as they find out you've got a bun in the oven?) I was in labor four hours with Abi, less than 2 for Eve, that's active contractions labor, pushing lasted max, 3 minutes. That's combined. I pushed four times with Abi, I pushed maybe twice for Eve . The deal with extended labor is that it comes in several stages and the first stage can last upwards to two and three days. It's the backache, pms/menstrual cramp, yucky feeling, it's actually a pre-labor type thing. You can run around, drive, shop, and otherwise participate in daily activities during this stage, just as you do before and during your period. The stuff about OH MY GOD, IT HURTS, Five minute between contractions labor for hours and hours and hours and hours and days and days? *snorts* Besides the fact that it exhausts you and the baby unnecessarily with today's technology, if there are any complications, they are more than ready to perform a cesarean. At least, that's stateside. It's not dangerous and they won't let you suffer anymore than they can prevent it |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
GraceCat wrote:
Oh I knew what you meant . I was replying in general that the only 3 days of anything she'll have is what she already knows as PMS. I don't doubt with complications in days of old, women did suffer for hours upon hours. But today it's so much easier on us as moms. They really have made childbirth fairly easy. I think.. I wonder.. Am I making sense? Grace I understood you, but I'm not sure I'm a reliable expert. Pam S. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
I was in labor four hours with Abi, less than 2 for Eve, that's active
contractions labor, pushing lasted max, 3 minutes. That's combined. I pushed four times with Abi, I pushed maybe twice for Eve . Lucky you I was induced & still had a near 24 hour labour with Nathan. Actually, he popped his head out, took a look around, decided he didn't much care for that & popped back in... Little horror. Cheers, helen s (who really can remember every dam*ed contraction & *PPPPPUUUSSSHHH*) ~~~~~~~~~~ This is sent from a redundant email Mail sent to it is dumped My correct one can be gleaned from h*$el***$$n*$d$ot$**s**i$$m*$m$**on**$s$@*$$a**$*o l*$*.*$$c$om*$ by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame ~~~~~~~~~~ |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
bewtifulfreak wrote:
I'm childless at the moment, so I'm curious....do they put you on tilt tables fairly regularly now, so the pelvis is more open? I heard the only reason women ever had babies on their backs in the first place is because some pervy king wanted to watch, and that's why they ended up having to do so many episiotomies over the years. I was under the impression that now they often have women giving birth in a more natural crouched position. Is this true? When I had Mandy, I was in something that looked sorta like a dental chair, but with me perched on a set of arms. (does that make sense?) It was much easier on the back than with the boys, as Mike was between gurney and delivery room table (flat), and with Jason, I was lying flat on my back, with my legs up in stirrups and the on call OB playing catch until the regular OB walked in an did the honors. Pam S. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Tanada wrote:
bewtifulfreak wrote: I'm childless at the moment, so I'm curious....do they put you on tilt tables fairly regularly now, so the pelvis is more open? snip When I had Mandy, I was in something that looked sorta like a dental chair, but with me perched on a set of arms. (does that make sense?) Yeah, it does, actually. It was much easier on the back than with the boys, as Mike was between gurney and delivery room table (flat), and with Jason, I was lying flat on my back, with my legs up in stirrups and the on call OB playing catch until the regular OB walked in an did the honors. I can see why that would feel better, because the pelvis would be much more open in that position, and that would certainly allow the baby to come out with less effort (though still plenty, I'm sure!) and alleviate the back strain. Thanks for sharing. Ann -- http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"bewtifulfreak" wrote in message ...
GraceCat wrote: I don't doubt with complications in days of old, women did suffer for hours upon hours. But today it's so much easier on us as moms. They really have made childbirth fairly easy. I'm childless at the moment, so I'm curious....do they put you on tilt tables fairly regularly now, so the pelvis is more open? I heard the only reason women ever had babies on their backs in the first place is because some pervy king wanted to watch, and that's why they ended up having to do so many episiotomies over the years. I was under the impression that now they often have women giving birth in a more natural crouched position. Is this true? Ann just wondering I never heard that . The bed I was in was a standard issue hospital bed with the head tilted up and my legs bent, knees straight up and spread as far as possible, feet in stirrups. Very unproper position, dignity is swiftly removed. I'm like Pam, I'm not an expert but I've always heard that episiotomies were given because they believed it's better to cut than to rip and repair. I had a fourth degree episiotomy the first time. The second time I didn't even have a "carpet burn" as the doctor put it. So the jury is out on if they're really necessary. I don't think so, and certainly not to the extent my first OB gave me. A fourth degree is well... ok hold on. GROSS WARNING GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW They cut through the ummm.. I forgot what it's called between vagina and anus, kind of making it one big opening. nod nod *plastered forced grin*. Not everybody has something like that done. Yowie I'd ask your attending person if they give episiotomies and strongly suggest a 4th degree is unnecessary!. Apparently though through Victor, we're the only ones (USA'ers) that are crazy fanatical about giving episiotomies anymore. Victor said once to me, that none of his sisters nor his mother had one. If I recall correctly that is. So anyway, I babble again Grace |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
GraceCat wrote:
I never heard that . The bed I was in was a standard issue hospital bed with the head tilted up and my legs bent, knees straight up and spread as far as possible, feet in stirrups. Very unproper position, dignity is swiftly removed. LOL....I know that one from pap smears! But yeah, I do think they do more births on tilt tables now, though I'm not sure if you have to request it, or if it's just certain places, or what. I'm like Pam, I'm not an expert but I've always heard that episiotomies were given because they believed it's better to cut than to rip and repair. That's probably true, but I think there isn't as much chance of tearing in the first place if you're in more of a squatting position, because the pelvis is more open. Of course, I'm no expert either.... They cut through the ummm.. I forgot what it's called between vagina and anus Perinium, I believe....*OUCH*. kind of making it one big opening. nod nod *plastered forced grin*. Not everybody has something like that done. Yowie I'd ask your attending person if they give episiotomies and strongly suggest a 4th degree is unnecessary! I agree; in most cases, I don't think even a first degree is necessary, I'd definitely do some research, Yowie. Then again, I do think it's more of a U.S. thing (we do a lot of dumb things over there).... :\ So anyway, I babble again You and me both! Ann -- http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
That's probably true, but I think there isn't as much chance of tearing in
the first place if you're in more of a squatting position, because the pelvis is more open. Of course, I'm no expert either.... snippity... hmm.. is that appropriate in this thread ;-) When I was preggers and did my ante-natal courses, we were told bymidwives that it was better to tear than to cut as the relatively ragged edges of a tear heal faster & better than a cut. Cheers, helen s ~~~~~~~~~~ This is sent from a redundant email Mail sent to it is dumped My correct one can be gleaned from h*$el***$$n*$d$ot$**s**i$$m*$m$**on**$s$@*$$a**$*o l*$*.*$$c$om*$ by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame ~~~~~~~~~~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|