November 2015 Moms

How true is it ??

2»

Re: How true is it ??

  • petreannpetreann member
    edited September 2015
    not really a usual poster but i do browse here everyday and all i ever see is bashing and tearing down one another on every post. it's pretty sad and discouraging. im not saying every post should be glitters and rainbows but come on ladies... does every post have to go down hill? what about the people who actually visit this post to get answers to this question?

    Edited for words
  • Loading the player...
  • BlondeMomma92BlondeMomma92 member
    edited September 2015
    petreann said:
    not really a usual poster but i do browse here everyday and all i ever see is bashing and tearing down one another on every post. it's pretty sad and discouraging. im not saying every post should be glitters and rainbows but come on ladies... does every post have to go down hill? what about the people who actually visit this post to get answers to this question?

    Edited for words

    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    The initial "question" became lost on most people who read this, the second the OP made a poorly worded joke. I'm sure that had the attempt at humor not been made, then the responses that followed would not be perceived as "bashing" and "tearing down". However seeing as there are quite a few ladies who have been struggling with severe and very scary preterm labor struggles, the humor was lost and not seen as very tasteful-- or done with tact. so yes a lot of people are going to react this way to a post that many felt was done in poor taste. 

    Regardless if that was OPs actual intent or not.

    edited cause i apparently don't know how to get the quote box to work..
    BabyName Ticker
  • As far as the answer to her "question", it had been covered a few times. But again, it's possible, but not scientifically true or proven, that birth of your second could be faster, both is gestational time and labor.
  • ive actually read all of the replies under this post. im not defending what she said, but if that's how she feels then so be it. what can we do about it? bash and belittle her? ok fine and what does that solve? she has that right, just how you guys have the right to feel strongly about the points youre making about the other ladies who have been having a hard time keepin babies cooking for as long as they can. i completely get that. but some of you just make it hard for anyone to even wanna ask a question on here (not using this one as an example for obvious reasons) because it's like you're just asking to get insulted or bashed. 
  • its just a little frustrating to see every post turn into a bashing is all 
  • eamarat said:
    not really a usual poster but i do browse here everyday and all i ever see is bashing and tearing down one another on every post. it's pretty sad and discouraging. im not saying every post should be glitters and rainbows but come on ladies... does every post have to go down hill? what about the people who actually visit this post to get answers to this question?

    Edited for words
    And you come out of lurking now to WK this? You browse here daily then you must note several of the ladies we have here dealing with preterm labor and several ladies who now have preemies. OPs post was not tactful and made even less so after it was edited to add a "lol." Most of the ladies here were jumping to other mamas' defenses, and rightly so. Also, if you don't wish for posts to go "down hill" maybe you should post more.

    i came out of lurking because i just got tired of seeing the same trend on every post made and i will definitely be posting more. like i said i sympathize with all the ladies who have been going thru it with their little ones. i know my pregnancy has been far from a fairly tale. cant we just ignore posts that are considered "crass" or offensive etc and not even shine any light on it to give them the undeserved attention they're seeking?
  • its just a little frustrating to see every post turn into a bashing is all 
    Every post? Really? And where are your supportive and valuable contributions to this community?


    lm not here to get into it with you. i have my opinion and you have yours so enjoy your night

  • "Full term" is actually anywhere between 37 weeks and 42 they come when they are ready!! And just cos it's your second or 3rd doesn't necessarily mean they will be born earlier I think faster can be a possibility tho As your body knows what it's doibg
  • Guess it's different all over the world!! In NZ 37 -42 is full term I have a friend who's baby was born at 24 weeks and is now 18months old it's amazing what they can do sorry that part has nothing to do with full term and that baby was probably extremely lucky!
  • Ps very interesting articles! You don't get to choose a c section here or an induction they will only ever do them if medically nessesary or in an emergency otherwise they're always done around 39 weeks I think and no inductions untill 40 + 10
  • Cook3133 said:

    I was told 37 weeks is considered full term, babies tend to be a lot healthier and not need any interventions at this time. Which is why it is "safe" to deliver at 37 weeks.

    The myth is that the labor will get faster, in my case it was true. As far as when they came that's a no, had a friend deliver her first 3 1-2 weeks earlier and 4th was a week late.

    The 37 week rule is an old one. 39 weeks is now considered full term. There's a huge difference between a 37 weeker and a 40 weeker.
  • Dam wat did they say?
  • apritch88 said:

    I don't think the OP had any intentions of inferring the baby would be coming before it was ready. While perhaps not the most tactful in her wording, and certainly not in her responses, I think there is a legitimate question if you read between the lines.



    FWIW- I talked with a NICU nurse about this on Saturday, as I too would be 100% on board if baby decided to make her debut a few days early- and she quickly squashed my fantasies and said it's completely untrue. 
    Curious, what was the nurse telling you about baby coming a few days earlier? Meaning they could still have to stay in the NICU? My eldest came at 38.5 weeks and didn't have any issues but I'm worried about this little girl coming too early. My last pregnancy she came at 32 weeks and was in the NICU the whole time she was alive. And I agree with you, I think the OP is asking a legit question of if labor and delivery is faster but def a little crass in how she worded her question.. For me it was faster with my second so we'll see with my 3rd.
    My DH and I are expecting our first child! A boy.. we're thrilled :)http://www.thebump.com/profiles/kestes946/settings/avatar/index# BabyFruit Ticker BabyName Ticker Anniversary Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • Pontot31 said:

    Cook3133 said:

    I was told 37 weeks is considered full term, babies tend to be a lot healthier and not need any interventions at this time. Which is why it is "safe" to deliver at 37 weeks.

    The myth is that the labor will get faster, in my case it was true. As far as when they came that's a no, had a friend deliver her first 3 1-2 weeks earlier and 4th was a week late.

    The 37 week rule is an old one. 39 weeks is now considered full term. There's a huge difference between a 37 weeker and a 40 weeker.
    I appreciate that 39 weeks is now considered full term in the US, however, in many other countries (UK, Eire, NZ, Australia, Etc) 37 weeks is still considered full term.
  • nmwheel1 said:

    And this is why I hate most people....

    To all the awesome ladies trying to keep your baby cooking longer, you are my hero's! To the mom's who already had their babies, you are stronger than super hero's! And if you were closer I'd totally share a piece of my spiced pumpkin cake with cream cheese icing that I just made! But not you OP, no cake for you.

    Lol "no cake for you" love it. Absolutely love it..
  • Cook3133Cook3133 member
    edited September 2015
    Pontot31 said:

    Cook3133 said:

    I was told 37 weeks is considered full term, babies tend to be a lot healthier and not need any interventions at this time. Which is why it is "safe" to deliver at 37 weeks.

    The myth is that the labor will get faster, in my case it was true. As far as when they came that's a no, had a friend deliver her first 3 1-2 weeks earlier and 4th was a week late.

    The 37 week rule is an old one. 39 weeks is now considered full term. There's a huge difference between a 37 weeker and a 40 weeker.
    in my state 37 is considered full term to be able to deliver outside a hospital. If your baby comes before 37 or after 42 midwives are no longer able to deliver your baby in a birthing center or home and will/can be prosecuted. My state also does not allow women who are carrying more then 1 to deliver outside a hospital.

    And yes there can be a big difference between 37 & 40 wks, but I think that can be different with each baby. My nephew was born healthy between 8-9#s in his 37th week. Just as there are babies born at 41wks and 5#s.
  • Cook3133 said:

    Pontot31 said:

    Cook3133 said:

    I was told 37 weeks is considered full term, babies tend to be a lot healthier and not need any interventions at this time. Which is why it is "safe" to deliver at 37 weeks.

    The myth is that the labor will get faster, in my case it was true. As far as when they came that's a no, had a friend deliver her first 3 1-2 weeks earlier and 4th was a week late.

    The 37 week rule is an old one. 39 weeks is now considered full term. There's a huge difference between a 37 weeker and a 40 weeker.
    in my state 37 is considered full term to be able to deliver outside a hospital. If your baby comes before 37 or after 42 midwives are no longer able to deliver your baby in a birthing center or home and will/can be prosecuted. My state also does not allow a women who are carrying more then 1 to deliver outside a hospital.

    And yes there can be a big difference between 37 & 40 wks, but I think that can be different with each baby. My nephew was born healthy between 8-9#s in his 37th week. Just as there are babies born at 41wks and 5#s.
    See here in Canada unless recently changed, full term is 37 weeks. Well my doctor office is anyhow. :) but I agree that it depends on the baby. My first DS was 8lbs at 37weeks where DS2 was born 39 weeks and was 6lbs. Like it has been stated on here many hundreds of times I'm sure, every pregnancy is different so comparing yourself to others can be rather pointless, just saying.
    image BabyFruit Ticker VOTE on my Name List
  • kestes946 said:
    I don't think the OP had any intentions of inferring the baby would be coming before it was ready. While perhaps not the most tactful in her wording, and certainly not in her responses, I think there is a legitimate question if you read between the lines.


    FWIW- I talked with a NICU nurse about this on Saturday, as I too would be 100% on board if baby decided to make her debut a few days early- and she quickly squashed my fantasies and said it's completely untrue. 
    Curious, what was the nurse telling you about baby coming a few days earlier? Meaning they could still have to stay in the NICU? My eldest came at 38.5 weeks and didn't have any issues but I'm worried about this little girl coming too early. My last pregnancy she came at 32 weeks and was in the NICU the whole time she was alive. And I agree with you, I think the OP is asking a legit question of if labor and delivery is faster but def a little crass in how she worded her question.. For me it was faster with my second so we'll see with my 3rd.

    She didn't say anything about having to stay in the NICU for a few days early (unless there was other medical complciations going on). She is the wife of a co-worker and we happened to be at a social function, so it was a casual conversation.  In fact (we were on a different topic later on) she said, barring other complications, as long as baby is born at 35+0 or more, and meets "weight" (I didn't ask what the threshold was) they wouldn't have to spend any time in the NICU.... obviously this is going to vary from patient to patient and hospital to hospital.

    Back to the original point though- she said every woman and every pregnancy is different. She had four herself and her last was her longest pregnancy, but shortest labor. They were all born between 35+5 and 37+3 (no NICU for any of them). She pretty much squashed the same rumors OP is referring to- that the 2nd+ babies come sooner and faster. It's different for everyone and every pregnancy. 


  • I think the original question was do second babies come quicker??? UMM no. They come when the are ready. My second took way longer because of scar tissue on my cervix from my first. You never know what is going to happen.

    This one is due two days before Thanksgiving. I haven't even given a thought to how we will celebrate his birthday or the Holiday so close because I am more focused on getting him her HEALTHY!! His birthday will be whenever he gets here, not a day sooner. If he shows up Thanksgiving day, one more amazing thing to be thankful for. Not to be snarky, but I am a mom and my kids needs come first.

    To all you ladies trying to hang on - praying for you and your babies!! Hang in there mamas!!


    Sorry if this is a bit ranty..... I get a bit emotional about moms who try to rush things for their own wants/needs.  GROW UP!! I clearly need a nap.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"