Labour with 2nd or 3rd child....or more

samtoby

I have been thinking about my labour with my DS back in 2004 and I wonder if it will be different this time around or whether they follow any kind of trend - such as - I laboured quickly with DS - does it get quicker?

I am interested to hear peoples experience. My midwife did state as I had DS at 37 weeks it is unlikely but not impossible I will go into labour again that early but to me how long is a piece of string?

As my labour was fast I have been advised I will have labels - warnings for how quick I laboured as it might be even quicker?

Thanks in advance.

double_mummy

my 2nd was elective csection but was warned labur could be easier or harder my mums with me was 14 hours with my younger sis it was over 24 hours.

it will be different from the first but how you wont know until it happens

brunettifan

I had one at 36 weeks, then the next one was born at 42 weeks!!

splishsplash

You can't predict how it will go, but I think the trend is for quicker labours for second and subsequent babies (assuming a SVD for the first) - the system is tried and tested by then.

My first labour was four and a half hours (waters went, only got contractions about an hour and a half later), second labour was 1h 20m from waters going to baby born, third labour was a week late and was a dry birth, had a few warning twinges then an hour or so of 'proper' labour before baby came.

Talking about trends - all mine were born on Saturday... just sayin' :rotfl:

Kynthia

I'm only pregnant with my first so can only tell you what others have told me. I was born two weeks early but my younger sister was two weeks late. So I don't think it's a given that giving birth at 37 weeks means you'll do so again, particularly if there wasn't a reason that makes the midwife think so.


However I did know someone who had quick labours, and that was the case for all of her pregnancies. At least it's in your records and they will be aware of it.

Janepig

My first was born at 41 weeks, my second was 35 weeks. The only similarity was that with both I was in labour all day from the early hours of the morning, ending up in an emergency C-section late at night.

Jx

claire16c

Kynthia wrote: »

I'm only pregnant with my first so can only tell you what others have told me. I was born two weeks early but my younger sister was two weeks late. .

Snap!

My sister came out very fast though, so fast my dad delivered her at home!

Frith

Son 1 was born on his due date and it took about 5 hours start to finish.


Son 2 was 8 days later and born in 2.5 hours.


Similar weights - 7 lb 2.5 and 7 lb 6.

System

They do say second and subsequent babies are delivered quicker than the first but it didn't work out that way for me. My first delivery was an hour from start to holding her in my arms.

My others were pretty quick but not that quick.

The longest and more painful delivery was my one baby who was 8 days overdue.

thorsoak

NNow bear in mind when I had my 4, it was before the days of scans and pregnancies were calculated as 280 days from date of last period or 266 day from date of conception.

No 1 son born 15 days before due date, labour 6 hours, weight 7lb 8oz
Daughter born 20 days before due date, labour 5 hours, weight 7lb 3oz
No 2 son born 18 days before due date, labour 5 hours weight 7lb 12oz
No 3 son born 22 days before due date, labour 61/2 hours weight, 7lb 12oz

One of my midwives (can't remember with which baby) had a theory that the shorter the menstrual circle, the shorter the pregnancy - my cycle was 25 days.

None were considered prem by any of the criteria of that time.

bylromarha

My 2nd labour was quicker and that has also been the experience of many friends with 2+ babies.

1st labour 12 hours start to finish.
2nd labour 2 hours start to finish.

A friends 1st labour was 2 hours start to finish, 2nd labour 50mins start to finish, 3rd labour 15 mins start to finish - her DH had to put the phone to the midwife down to go deliver his daughter.