Birth Weights

[Kazh]

Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you =
have.

I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.

My past babies weighed -=20

8.lb 12 oz
9.lb 13 oz
10.lb 9 oz

I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>


--=20
Karen
DS 10th Aug 1986
DD 13th Aug 1988
EDD 14th May 2005

My website - http://www.freewebs.com/kazh/familypictures.htm

[Mary W.]

Kazh wrote:
> Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you have.
>
> I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.
>
> My past babies weighed -
>
> 8.lb 12 oz
> 9.lb 13 oz
> 10.lb 9 oz
>

My first was 10lb 5 oz. Second was 9 lb 7 oz.

Although not diagnosed with gest. diabetes, I did try to follow
the american diabetes association guidelines (watched the number
and amount of carbs I ate and spread them across the day - its
not really low carb, just not real heavy on the carbs), and I limited my
dairy with the second baby (making sure to get plenty of
protein and got my calcium from other sources). I don't know
if any of those things made a difference

Mary

[Kazh]

Thanks I'll try and cut down on the carbs and see if it helps.

"Mary W." > wrote in message =
nk.net...


Kazh wrote:
> Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you =
have.
>=20
> I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.
>=20
> My past babies weighed -=20
>=20
> 8.lb 12 oz
> 9.lb 13 oz
> 10.lb 9 oz
>=20

My first was 10lb 5 oz. Second was 9 lb 7 oz.

Although not diagnosed with gest. diabetes, I did try to follow
the american diabetes association guidelines (watched the number
and amount of carbs I ate and spread them across the day - its
not really low carb, just not real heavy on the carbs), and I limited my
dairy with the second baby (making sure to get plenty of
protein and got my calcium from other sources). I don't know
if any of those things made a difference

Mary

[Welches]

Kazh > wrote in message
...
Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you have.

I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.

My past babies weighed -

8.lb 12 oz
9.lb 13 oz
10.lb 9 oz

I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>

#1 7lb 15oz
#2 6lb 14oz (though a few oz missing with her hand, I guess!)
#2 was just before due date, #1 just after.
Debbie

[Nikki]

Kazh wrote:
> Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you
> have.
>
> I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.
>
> My past babies weighed -
>
> 8.lb 12 oz
> 9.lb 13 oz
> 10.lb 9 oz
>
> I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>

My second was 4 ounces smaller. Was the 10lb 9oz baby more difficult to
deliver then the 8lb 12oz one?

My second was vastly easier. It might have been those 4 ounces but I doubt
it. Same length and same size head - just skinnier :-)

[Karen]

Hey, nothing at all wrong with an 11 pound baby! My second birth (11
pound baby) was a lot faster and easier than my first (8lb 15oz). All
natural too, at a birth home. (I am a little concerned however, that
shold I have a third child that it would be 13 pounds!)

-Karen, mom to Henry 4 and William 4 1/2 months-

[Sophie]

"Kazh" > wrote in message
...
>Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you have.

Not for me. The sizes of mine corresponded with when they were born. The
one who cooked the longest weighed the most.


#1 - 38 weeks - 6 lbs 9
#2 - 40 weeks - 7 lbs 14
#3 - 39 weeks - 7 lbs 1
#4 - 39 weeks - 6 lbs 12

[Ericka Kammerer]

Kazh wrote:

> Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you have.
>
> I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.
>
> My past babies weighed -
>
> 8.lb 12 oz
> 9.lb 13 oz
> 10.lb 9 oz
>
> I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>

Statistically they tend to go up, but that
trend doesn't hold up very well on an individual basis,
so there's no telling. My second was more than two
pounds heavier than my first, but my third was more
than a pound less than my second.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Kazh]

"Welches" > wrote in message =
...

#1 7lb 15oz
#2 6lb 14oz (though a few oz missing with her hand, I guess!)
#2 was just before due date, #1 just after.
Debbie

------------
Did you gain the same weight with both or eat differently ?

[Kazh]

"Nikki" > wrote in message =
...
My second was 4 ounces smaller. Was the 10lb 9oz baby more difficult to
deliver then the 8lb 12oz one?

My second was vastly easier. It might have been those 4 ounces but I =
doubt
it. Same length and same size head - just skinnier :-)

---------------

My DD =3D 10lb 9oz was harder but faster. But labour is *supposed* to =
get quicker isn't it ?

[Kazh]

"Karen" > wrote in message =
k.net...
Hey, nothing at all wrong with an 11 pound baby! My second birth (11=20
pound baby) was a lot faster and easier than my first (8lb 15oz). All=20
natural too, at a birth home. (I am a little concerned however, that=20
shold I have a third child that it would be 13 pounds!)

-Karen, mom to Henry 4 and William 4 1/2 months-

----------------
This my worry......my labour has shortened but I *ripped* during births. =


DS (Adopted) - 8lb baby was a 24 hour labour and I had an epistotomy, =
and needed 10 stiches 5 in and 5 out.
DS =3D 9lb baby was long and I ripped when his head came out, requiring =
4 stitches
DD =3D 10lb baby was shorter but fatter, I ripped when her shoulders =
came out.requiring 3 stitches.

Doctor told my lasy DH I ''looked like a patchwork quilt'' down there =
when he was sewing me up............nice !!

[Kazh]

"Sophie" > wrote in message =
...
>Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you =
have.

Not for me. The sizes of mine corresponded with when they were born. =
The
one who cooked the longest weighed the most.


#1 - 38 weeks - 6 lbs 9
#2 - 40 weeks - 7 lbs 14
#3 - 39 weeks - 7 lbs 1
#4 - 39 weeks - 6 lbs 12

-------------------
Sounds about right -=20

#1 - 40 weeks bang on EDD to the day- 8lb 12oz
#2 - 8 days earlier than EDD - 9lb 13oz
#3 - 5 days later than EDD - 10lb 9oz

That would means #2 would have been bigger had he *cooked* longer =
.................I pray for a 38 wk for #4 !!!

[Kazh]

"Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message =
...

Statistically they tend to go up, but that
trend doesn't hold up very well on an individual basis,
so there's no telling. My second was more than two
pounds heavier than my first, but my third was more
than a pound less than my second.

Best wishes,
Ericka
---------------
With #3 doctor said ''it was a petite little girl'' I complained after =
she was born at 10lb 9oz !!! <bg>

[firedancer623]

#1 - 7lb 9oz
#2 - 8lb 6oz
#3 8lb 5oz

They were all born within days of their due dates. My weight gain was the
most with my first, but I was really thin and needed the extra weight. I
gained 30 lbs with her, and 28 lbs with both boys.

Also, the first birth was my most diffucult but hardly so - 10 hr labor, 15
minutes pushing. She was chubbiest and had the largest head :) The boys were
1.5 inches and 3 inches longer respectively.

And I just ate how I eat normally. I didn't diet but I didn't pig out
either. Except on ice cream with #2 :)

Kari
mom to Kaylie (8) Noah (5) and Xander (11 mos)

[Kazh]

"firedancer623" > wrote in message =
news:OvI1d.3679$_53.132@trndny02...
#1 - 7lb 9oz
#2 - 8lb 6oz
#3 8lb 5oz

They were all born within days of their due dates. My weight gain was =
the=20
most with my first, but I was really thin and needed the extra weight. I =

gained 30 lbs with her, and 28 lbs with both boys.

Also, the first birth was my most diffucult but hardly so - 10 hr labor, =
15=20
minutes pushing. She was chubbiest and had the largest head :) The boys =
were=20
1.5 inches and 3 inches longer respectively.

And I just ate how I eat normally. I didn't diet but I didn't pig out=20
either. Except on ice cream with #2 :)

Kari
mom to Kaylie (8) Noah (5) and Xander (11 mos)=20
-------------------------
Thanks Kari,

[Denise Anderson]

"Kazh" > wrote in message
...
Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you have.

I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.

My past babies weighed -

8.lb 12 oz
9.lb 13 oz
10.lb 9 oz

I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>

They're supposed to, but mine haven't. Mine are
7lb 3oz
6lb 12oz
5lb 14oz
and 5lb 12oz

Denise



--
Karen
DS 10th Aug 1986
DD 13th Aug 1988
EDD 14th May 2005

My website - http://www.freewebs.com/kazh/familypictures.htm

[Ericka Kammerer]

Kazh wrote:


> This my worry......my labour has shortened but I *ripped* during births.

What position were you in while delivering?

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Circe]

Kazh wrote:
> Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies
> you have.

As others have said, statistically, birth weights go up over subsequent
pregnancies, but for any individual, the rule may or may not hold. And keep
in mind that length of gestation is a factor--a baby born at 41 weeks is
probably going to be bigger than one born at 39 weeks, all other things
being equal (which, of course, they rarely are).

All of my babies were quite average in weight (though they all had rather
large heads, relative to the rest of them), and my first was actually the
largest of the three:

#1 8lb. even at 41w4d
#2 7lb. 5oz. at 39w2d
#3 7lb. 15oz. at 40w2d

If you look at the gestational age at birth, however, you could argue that
they were getting bigger. If I'd always given birth at 40 weeks and is they
were all gaining the regulation.5 lbs. per week at term, their birth weights
would have been:

#1 7lb., 4 oz.
#2 7lb. 10 oz.
#3 7lb. 13 oz.

Of course, I'm not sure I believe that all babies gain the regulation .5 lb.
per week, anyway, but it's interesting to see how the gestational age at
birth might change the picture!
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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

[Circe]

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
> Kazh wrote:
>> This my worry......my labour has shortened but I *ripped* during
>> births.
>
> What position were you in while delivering?
>
And did you have someone providing good perineal support and helping you
slow down during the pushing stage so your perineum could stretch?
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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

[Unadulterated Me]

Kazh wrote:

> Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you have.
>
> I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.
>
> My past babies weighed -
>
> 8.lb 12 oz
> 9.lb 13 oz
> 10.lb 9 oz
>
> I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>
>
>

Mine have gone up and down all over the spectrum
#1 10lb
#2 10lb 7oz
#3 9lb 11oz
#4 9lb 50z
#5 9lb 7oz
#6 9lb 20z
#7 10lb 4oz
#8 and 9 (twins) 7lb 2oz and 8lb 8oz
#10 11lb
#11 8lb 11oz

My next could be 8lb or 10lb I have no idea, I'm hoping it's closer to
10lb as the tiddly 8lb one got herself stuck and I'm sure it was because
she wasn't big enough.

Andrea

[Circe]

Unadulterated Me wrote:
> My next could be 8lb or 10lb I have no idea, I'm hoping it's closer
> to 10lb as the tiddly 8lb one got herself stuck and I'm sure it was
> because she wasn't big enough.
>
Ah, so there *is* going to be a "next one", then <g>?
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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

[Jamie Clark]

"Circe" > wrote in message
news:w6M1d.159721$4o.127282@fed1read01...
> Unadulterated Me wrote:
>> My next could be 8lb or 10lb I have no idea, I'm hoping it's closer
>> to 10lb as the tiddly 8lb one got herself stuck and I'm sure it was
>> because she wasn't big enough.
>>
> Ah, so there *is* going to be a "next one", then <g>?
> --
> Be well, Barbara
> Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)
>
> This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
> "Four More Wars!"
>
> 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


Well, besides the one currently growing in her uterus?
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/

[Nikki]

Kazh wrote:

> My DD = 10lb 9oz was harder but faster. But labour is *supposed* to
> get quicker isn't it ?

I think that is the general rule of thumb. If the baby presents wrong even
subsequent labors can be pretty long from what I've heard. Good luck!!


--
Nikki

[Unadulterated Me]

Circe wrote:
> Unadulterated Me wrote:
>
>>My next could be 8lb or 10lb I have no idea, I'm hoping it's closer
>>to 10lb as the tiddly 8lb one got herself stuck and I'm sure it was
>>because she wasn't big enough.
>>
>
> Ah, so there *is* going to be a "next one", then <g>?

Girlfriend you need to keep up with the gossip ;-)

Andrea
Bellybug #12 due April/May 05

[Circe]

Unadulterated Me wrote:
> Circe wrote:
>> Unadulterated Me wrote:
>>
>>> My next could be 8lb or 10lb I have no idea, I'm hoping it's
>>> closer to 10lb as the tiddly 8lb one got herself stuck and I'm
>>> sure it was because she wasn't big enough.
>>>
>> Ah, so there *is* going to be a "next one", then <g>?
>
> Girlfriend you need to keep up with the gossip ;-)
>
> Andrea
> Bellybug #12 due April/May 05

Oh my. I guess I must have missed that announcement during the week I was
away from my computer for my company's convention. Ding-bling work!
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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

[Leslie]

>Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you =
>have.

I've always heard that statistically they do, and mine have:

8 lb. 14 oz.
11 lb. 8 oz.
12 lb.
13 lb. 5 oz.

All of them were just about exactly 40 weeks gestation. The first was a girl
and I have also heard that girls tend to weigh a bit less.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Kelly]

I've heard this (and seen it often) as well, but I do not think there is
scientific evidence of it. You do show a pattern of increasing weights.....
I was all over the board.

#1 7-4
#2 8-13
#3 6-12
I was also very sick with #3 and was on tube feedings from week 15-26.

Kelly
#4 2/05

"Kazh" > wrote in message
...
Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you have.

I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.

My past babies weighed -

8.lb 12 oz
9.lb 13 oz
10.lb 9 oz

I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>


--
Karen
DS 10th Aug 1986
DD 13th Aug 1988
EDD 14th May 2005

My website - http://www.freewebs.com/kazh/familypictures.htm

[Kelly]

<choking on a hershey kiss>

Those are some pounds, girl.
You make me laugh calling her *tiddly* at 8lbs.

Kelly

"Unadulterated Me" > wrote in message
...
> Kazh wrote:
>
> > Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you
have.
> >
> > I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.
> >
> > My past babies weighed -
> >
> > 8.lb 12 oz
> > 9.lb 13 oz
> > 10.lb 9 oz
> >
> > I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>
> >
> >
>
> Mine have gone up and down all over the spectrum
> #1 10lb
> #2 10lb 7oz
> #3 9lb 11oz
> #4 9lb 50z
> #5 9lb 7oz
> #6 9lb 20z
> #7 10lb 4oz
> #8 and 9 (twins) 7lb 2oz and 8lb 8oz
> #10 11lb
> #11 8lb 11oz
>
> My next could be 8lb or 10lb I have no idea, I'm hoping it's closer to
> 10lb as the tiddly 8lb one got herself stuck and I'm sure it was because
> she wasn't big enough.
>
> Andrea

[Kelly]

So, did your eyes pop out of your head, Barbara? ;)

Kelly

"Circe" > wrote in message
news:m5O1d.159761$4o.150236@fed1read01...
> Unadulterated Me wrote:
> > Circe wrote:
> >> Unadulterated Me wrote:
> >>
> >>> My next could be 8lb or 10lb I have no idea, I'm hoping it's
> >>> closer to 10lb as the tiddly 8lb one got herself stuck and I'm
> >>> sure it was because she wasn't big enough.
> >>>
> >> Ah, so there *is* going to be a "next one", then <g>?
> >
> > Girlfriend you need to keep up with the gossip ;-)
> >
> > Andrea
> > Bellybug #12 due April/May 05
>
> Oh my. I guess I must have missed that announcement during the week I was
> away from my computer for my company's convention. Ding-bling work!
> --
> Be well, Barbara
> Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)
>
> This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
> "Four More Wars!"
>
> 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
>
>

[Amy]

Not necessarily from friends and relatives I've spoken with. I can't speak
from experience because DS was born at only 29 weeks and DD was born at 38w
4d.
But the size of the baby doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the
difficulty of the labour and birth. DD's birth was easier than DS', even
though she was over twice the size.
And friends have birthed babies much smaller than DD with much more
difficulty than what I had with her, some having c-sections. I think
positioning, both mother's position and fetal position, has more to do with
it all than birthweight.
In short, don't get hung up on size. If Leslie can have a 13lb VBA3C, size
can't make that much of a difference.

"Kazh" > wrote in message
...
Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you have.

I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.

My past babies weighed -

8.lb 12 oz
9.lb 13 oz
10.lb 9 oz

I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>


--
Karen
DS 10th Aug 1986
DD 13th Aug 1988
EDD 14th May 2005

My website - http://www.freewebs.com/kazh/familypictures.htm

[Circe]

Kelly wrote:
> So, did your eyes pop out of your head, Barbara? ;)
>
Because she's having #12? Nah, I've known Andrea for years now and I really
didn't *expect* her to stop. But after Lydia's birth, I knew she was a bit
ambivalent about another. I wasn't *sure* she'd have a 12th, although if
you'd ask me to bet one way or the other, I think I would have bet there'd
be a 12th (and a few more after that, too!).
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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

[Sophie]

"Circe" > wrote in message
news:eBX1d.159826$4o.101275@fed1read01...
> Kelly wrote:
> > So, did your eyes pop out of your head, Barbara? ;)
> >
> Because she's having #12? Nah, I've known Andrea for years now and I
really
> didn't *expect* her to stop. But after Lydia's birth, I knew she was a bit
> ambivalent about another. I wasn't *sure* she'd have a 12th, although if
> you'd ask me to bet one way or the other, I think I would have bet there'd
> be a 12th (and a few more after that, too!).
> --
> Be well, Barbara
> Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)


Oh I don't think Andrea's done either :)

[Joybelle]

"Kazh" > wrote in message
...
>Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you have.

>I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.

>My past babies weighed -

>8.lb 12 oz
>9.lb 13 oz
>10.lb 9 oz

>I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>

Mine look like this:

6 lb 10 oz
8 lb 3 oz
10 lb 3 0z

Honestly, for me, the delivery of the ten pounder wasn't really any
different than the 8 pounder in terms of difficulty. He actually took less
pushing than it did for the 8-pounder. Of course, assuming I continue in
the same pattern (and have another), I would have an 11-pound, or possibly a
12-pound, baby! It maybe gives me a little pause, but I also realize the
numbers might not go up. If they do, I quite effectively managed to have
that 10 pound boy. What's another pound or two?? I didn't really expect
myself to have a 10 pound baby, and I did that! :)

--
Joy

Rose 1-30-99
Iris 2-28-01
Spencer 3-12-03

[Joybelle]

"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kazh" > wrote in message
> ...
> >Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you
have.
>
> Not for me. The sizes of mine corresponded with when they were born. The
> one who cooked the longest weighed the most.
>
>
> #1 - 38 weeks - 6 lbs 9
> #2 - 40 weeks - 7 lbs 14
> #3 - 39 weeks - 7 lbs 1
> #4 - 39 weeks - 6 lbs 12

Interesting! Mine all baked about the same length, but size-wise they
jumped almost two pounds each time!

#1-41w2d-6 lbs 10 oz
#2-41w3d-8 lbs 3 oz
#3-41w4d-10 lbs 3 oz
--
Joy

Rose 1-30-99
Iris 2-28-01
Spencer 3-12-03

[Jill]

"Sophie" > wrote
> Oh I don't think Andrea's done either :)
>
>

12 kids, how cool is that? I don't think my body could handle that, but I
would be very happy if I could have 12 kids. I started wayyyy too late
though, having my first one a few months before I turned 28.

If I had started young, like 20-21, I could easily see myself having 4-5
kids. I would need time between them not to separate the age or having
anything to do with the work of raising them, but just to give my body a
rest. I felt pregnancy was very hard in the sense of not being able to
breathe well with my short torso, and on my joints etc. I could have several
kids by now, with several years in between.

At the rate I am feeling it now, I believe I will feel physically up to only
possibly having 2 more at most.....so #1 at 27, something like #2 at 30, and
#3 at 33, and well, maybe I could have a #4 at 36 and then be done. But I
bet that wouldn't feel as good (physically going through it) as having had
them younger.
--
-Jill
Mom to Rachel, May 9, 2004 (A Mother's Day baby!)
See her here: http://tinyurl.com/3nsug

[Welches]

Kazh > wrote in message
...

"Welches" > wrote in message
...

#1 7lb 15oz
#2 6lb 14oz (though a few oz missing with her hand, I guess!)
#2 was just before due date, #1 just after.
Debbie

------------
Did you gain the same weight with both or eat differently ?

I don't know about weight gain. My dr. for #1 didn't bother weighing at all
and #2 only weighed me at 6 and 20 weeks (because they were concerned I'd
lost weight at 20 weeks)
I "looked" about the same. I ate basically the same-was sick most of the way
through and didn't really feel hungry at all, but ate what I could.
Debbie

[Kelly]

honestly, me neither. I'm guessing another really close to #12. Make it a
bakers dozen ;)

Kelly

"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Circe" > wrote in message
> news:eBX1d.159826$4o.101275@fed1read01...
> > Kelly wrote:
> > > So, did your eyes pop out of your head, Barbara? ;)
> > >
> > Because she's having #12? Nah, I've known Andrea for years now and I
> really
> > didn't *expect* her to stop. But after Lydia's birth, I knew she was a
bit
> > ambivalent about another. I wasn't *sure* she'd have a 12th, although if
> > you'd ask me to bet one way or the other, I think I would have bet
there'd
> > be a 12th (and a few more after that, too!).
> > --
> > Be well, Barbara
> > Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian,
7)
>
>
> Oh I don't think Andrea's done either :)
>
>

[Leslie]

Karen said:

>(I am a little concerned however, that
>shold I have a third child that it would be 13 pounds!)

And what would be wrong with that? ;-)




Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Leslie]

Jill said:

>But I
>bet that wouldn't feel as good (physically going through it) as having had
>them younger.

This is anecdotal evidence only, but I feel the best this pregnancy (at age 37)
than I remember feeling during my others at 23, 26, 27, and 34. My first
pregnancy I had to work full-time and was swollen like the Pillsbury Doughboy
from about four months! I think I feel better this time around because I was
in much stronger, better physical shape beforehand, and because not working
even part-time and having big kids to help me out, I am able to take better
physical care of myself (naps, etc.) than I could when there were only me and
toddlers in the house.




Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Kazh]

Lying down.

"Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message =
...
Kazh wrote:


> This my worry......my labour has shortened but I *ripped* during =
births.=20

What position were you in while delivering?

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Kazh]

I don't think so. Only a midwife there and a bunch of students.

"Circe" > wrote in message =
news:0SL1d.159720$4o.103934@fed1read01...
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
> Kazh wrote:
>> This my worry......my labour has shortened but I *ripped* during
>> births.
>
> What position were you in while delivering?
>
And did you have someone providing good perineal support and helping you
slow down during the pushing stage so your perineum could stretch?
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, =
7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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

[Kazh]

WOW all your baby have been good weights...........

"Unadulterated Me" > wrote in message =
...
Kazh wrote:

> Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you =
have.
>=20
> I'm a tad worried my baby will be big.
>=20
> My past babies weighed -=20
>=20
> 8.lb 12 oz
> 9.lb 13 oz
> 10.lb 9 oz
>=20
> I don't want an 11lb baby !!! <ouch>
>=20
>=20

Mine have gone up and down all over the spectrum
#1 10lb
#2 10lb 7oz
#3 9lb 11oz
#4 9lb 50z
#5 9lb 7oz
#6 9lb 20z
#7 10lb 4oz
#8 and 9 (twins) 7lb 2oz and 8lb 8oz
#10 11lb
#11 8lb 11oz

My next could be 8lb or 10lb I have no idea, I'm hoping it's closer to=20
10lb as the tiddly 8lb one got herself stuck and I'm sure it was because =

she wasn't big enough.

Andrea

[Kazh]

13lb 5oz ? I closed my legs automatically when I read that !! Was it a =
harder labour than the ones before ?

"Leslie" > wrote in message =
...
>Does anybody know if birth weights increase the more pregnancies you =
=3D
>have.

I've always heard that statistically they do, and mine have:

8 lb. 14 oz.
11 lb. 8 oz.
12 lb.
13 lb. 5 oz.

All of them were just about exactly 40 weeks gestation. The first was a =
girl
and I have also heard that girls tend to weigh a bit less.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Circe]

Kazh wrote:
> 13lb 5oz ? I closed my legs automatically when I read that !! Was
> it a harder labour than the ones before ?
>
I have to jump in and drop your jaw <g>. The 13lb. 5ozer was Leslie's first
vaginal birth. The first three were all c-sections.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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

[Ericka Kammerer]

Kazh wrote:

>> "Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message ...
>> Kazh wrote:
>>
>>>This my worry......my labour has shortened but I *ripped* during births.
>>
>>
>> What position were you in while delivering?
>
> Lying down.

On your back? If so, that could have significantly
contributed to your tearing. Getting up off your tailbone
gives you more room for delivery, and being able to push
slowly and with good control and support during crowning
can also help minimize tearing. Also, non-coached pushing
can help (i.e., don't have someone yelling at you to hold
your breath and push to the count of ten). Push when and
how *you* feel like pushing, and don't hold your breath
while you push (exhale on exertion, just like if you
were exercising).
Frankly, I think a lot of tearing is due to
labor management, not to individual characteristics.
If you ask homebirth midwives, many of them have very
little tearing in their practices, while most OBs
have to stitch most clients. If you want to remain
intact, I think your best bet is to find yourself a
caregiver whose clients don't often tear. That's
the caregiver who will help you manage your labor to
successfully avoid tearing. It seems to me that many
caregivers really don't see tearing as much of a problem
and they don't really do much of anything to avoid it
(and often don't even really know how to avoid it).

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Leslie]

>13lb 5oz ? I closed my legs automatically when I read that !! Was it a =
>harder labour than the ones before ?

Hmm . . . I can't really compare it fairly to the other labors I experienced
(I've had two long labors before this ending in sections) because it was
pitocin augmented, I had to stay in bed, and I ended up with an epidural
(whereas I had gone natural previously). And it's the only vaginal birth I've
had so far, so I've nothing to compare that to. I tore pretty severely, but my
Bradley instructor thinks that's more because I was pushing SO hard and had an
epidural so couldn't feel that I was probably pushing harder than needed.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Leslie]

>I have to jump in and drop your jaw <g>. The 13lb. 5ozer was Leslie's first
>vaginal birth. The first three were all c-sections.

Just had to beat me to my punchline, didn't you, Barbara? <g>


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Kazh]

Ouch !! I missed that bit..........sounds even more painful now.

"Circe" > wrote in message =
news:ldh2d.165876$4o.130077@fed1read01...

I have to jump in and drop your jaw <g>. The 13lb. 5ozer was Leslie's =
first
vaginal birth. The first three were all c-sections.

[Kazh]

"Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message =
...

On your back? If so, that could have significantly
contributed to your tearing. Getting up off your tailbone
gives you more room for delivery, and being able to push
slowly and with good control and support during crowning
can also help minimize tearing. Also, non-coached pushing
can help (i.e., don't have someone yelling at you to hold
your breath and push to the count of ten). Push when and
how *you* feel like pushing, and don't hold your breath
while you push (exhale on exertion, just like if you
were exercising).
Frankly, I think a lot of tearing is due to
labor management, not to individual characteristics.
If you ask homebirth midwives, many of them have very
little tearing in their practices, while most OBs
have to stitch most clients. If you want to remain
intact, I think your best bet is to find yourself a
caregiver whose clients don't often tear. That's
the caregiver who will help you manage your labor to
successfully avoid tearing. It seems to me that many
caregivers really don't see tearing as much of a problem
and they don't really do much of anything to avoid it
(and often don't even really know how to avoid it).

Best wishes,
Ericka

------------------
Thanks for that. When I had my last children, there were 'no options' as =
to discussing postitions for labour, lighting, etc.

I DID have the ''hold your beathe'' coaching during labour and didn't =
realise it was inappropriate. I'm learning loads of new techniques for =
this birth is should be a lot of easier with all the advice I'm getting.

[Kazh]

"Leslie" > wrote in message =
...
>13lb 5oz ? I closed my legs automatically when I read that !! Was it a =
=3D
>harder labour than the ones before ?

Hmm . . . I can't really compare it fairly to the other labors I =
experienced
(I've had two long labors before this ending in sections) because it was
pitocin augmented, I had to stay in bed, and I ended up with an epidural
(whereas I had gone natural previously). And it's the only vaginal =
birth I've
had so far, so I've nothing to compare that to. I tore pretty severely, =
but my
Bradley instructor thinks that's more because I was pushing SO hard and =
had an
epidural so couldn't feel that I was probably pushing harder than =
needed.


Leslie

-----------------
I didn't read the bit about your previous births. I'm glad the epidural =
worked for you, it didn't for me, gas and air worked a treat with my DD =
but epidural just made me sick and didn't work for the pain relief.

How many stitches did you need ?

[Circe]

Leslie wrote:
>> I have to jump in and drop your jaw <g>. The 13lb. 5ozer was
>> Leslie's first vaginal birth. The first three were all c-sections.
>
> Just had to beat me to my punchline, didn't you, Barbara? <g>
>
Yep. It's too much fun to see people's reactions! Besides, what if you were
offline for a couple of days or something <g>?
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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

[Circe]

Kazh wrote:
> I'm glad the
> epidural worked for you, it didn't for me, gas and air worked a
> treat with my DD but epidural just made me sick and didn't work for
> the pain relief.
>
Gas and air are unheard of in the States for pain management. Over here,
it's pretty much either IV drugs or nothin' (although there are obviously
non-medical forms of pain management like massage, shower/tub, etc.).

Assuming you have gas and air again, you should have lots of options for
moving around when you get to the pushing stage, since you won't be
effectively paralyzed from the waist down. One trick it sounds as though
your caregivers didn't know when you were delivering your third is that, if
baby's shoulders are big and getting stuck, rotating the mother from her
back/side lying to an all-fours position almost always "unsticks" the baby
without trauma either to mother or baby.

I pushed my third out on all-fours and it was a very comfortable position.
The one problem I had was that the urge to push in that position was so
overwhelming that I really *couldn't* slow down and allow my perineum to
stretch. I wound up with a very small (1st degree) perineal tear and a
labial tear that nicked an artery (very messy, that!). Neither was
particularly painful or horrible, though. The labial tear stung for a couple
of days when I peed, but other than that, it was pretty mild. Certainly, it
was much easier/better to recover from that the episiotomy I got with my
first.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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

[Ericka Kammerer]

Kazh wrote:


> Thanks for that. When I had my last children, there were '
> no options' as to discussing postitions for labour, lighting, etc.

Even today, in many places you will have to fight
for those options if you want them. The vast majority of
women still give birth on their backs (whether completely
lying down or semi-sitting). The vast majority of caregivers
will structure the environment so that doing so will seem
The Thing To Do. Some will actively push back if you attempt
a different position.

> I DID have the ''hold your beathe'' coaching during labour
> and didn't realise it was inappropriate.

This is also something very common with hospital
births, so you'll want to put together a birth plan
that specifically says you don't want coached pushing
and run it by your caregivers.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Leslie]

Kazh said:

>I didn't read the bit about your previous births. I'm glad the epidural =
>worked for you, it didn't for me, gas and air worked a treat with my DD =
>but epidural just made me sick and didn't work for the pain relief.

Oh, that's too bad. I really didn't want to have an epidural but with having
pit contractions and being confined to bed I couldn't manage the pain on my
own.

>
>How many stitches did you need ?

I'm not sure anyone ever said how many, but I had either three or four tears
(one internal) plus an episiotomy, and sitting down was painful for at least a
month.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Kelly]

It must be a location deal, as the hospitals around here run very unlike you
mentioned. At both the hospitals I had the children I felt like I really
had a say in my birth: I sat in a rocking chair most of the time or on a
birth ball leaning over the foot of the bed. If I wasnt doing that I was
walking or in the shower. I had a MD for all three deliveries that were
very flexible with me. In fact, at some point I really wanted someone to
tell me what to do and then they made further suggestions. At the time, I
was a labor and delivery nurse, so I really had seen a lot of
cause/effect....

Warmly,
Kelly
#4 2/05

"Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message
...
> Kazh wrote:
>
>
> > Thanks for that. When I had my last children, there were '
> > no options' as to discussing postitions for labour, lighting, etc.
>
> Even today, in many places you will have to fight
> for those options if you want them. The vast majority of
> women still give birth on their backs (whether completely
> lying down or semi-sitting). The vast majority of caregivers
> will structure the environment so that doing so will seem
> The Thing To Do. Some will actively push back if you attempt
> a different position.
>
> > I DID have the ''hold your beathe'' coaching during labour
> > and didn't realise it was inappropriate.
>
> This is also something very common with hospital
> births, so you'll want to put together a birth plan
> that specifically says you don't want coached pushing
> and run it by your caregivers.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka
>

[Ericka Kammerer]

Kelly wrote:

> It must be a location deal, as the hospitals around here run very unlike you
> mentioned. At both the hospitals I had the children I felt like I really
> had a say in my birth: I sat in a rocking chair most of the time or on a
> birth ball leaning over the foot of the bed. If I wasnt doing that I was
> walking or in the shower. I had a MD for all three deliveries that were
> very flexible with me. In fact, at some point I really wanted someone to
> tell me what to do and then they made further suggestions. At the time, I
> was a labor and delivery nurse, so I really had seen a lot of
> cause/effect....

There are certainly wonderful places like that,
but given that the overwhelming majority of women labor
and give birth on their backs in bed and many of them
say they were not encouraged to do otherwise, I think
it's pretty safe to say that yours is a rather uncommon
hospital. The Listening to Mothers national (US) survey
showed less than 8 percent of women using birth balls,
showers, or laboring in water. A whopping 71 percent
reported staying in bed once contractions were established
(because they were hooked up to instruments, could not
walk because of pain meds, or were told by their caregivers
not to walk around). Even more (74 percent) gave birth
on their backs, and 23 percent were more upright (which
included propped up, squatting, or semi-sitting--so
most of these were almost certainly still on their
tailbones). Only 3 percent were side-lying.

Now, I don't think all those women were forced into
those things against their will. Most didn't know any better
and didn't even consider alternatives. However, it begins
a vicious circle where staff and clients are unfamiliar
with these options, so they are not presented or encouraged,
and so become even more unfamiliar to both. In this sort
of environment, the skids are very much greased to
encourage a certain sort of birth. It's human nature
to keep doing what you've been doing, and that sort of
inertia is difficult to overcome even when people are
*willing*.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Kelly]

The hospitals in this city are so competitive and we have several midwife
based clinics so most, if not all, run in a manner that is mom and baby
friendly. There are, of course, some questionable providers, but usually
the nurses override that ;)

Kelly

"Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message
...
> Kelly wrote:
>
> > It must be a location deal, as the hospitals around here run very unlike
you
> > mentioned. At both the hospitals I had the children I felt like I
really
> > had a say in my birth: I sat in a rocking chair most of the time or on a
> > birth ball leaning over the foot of the bed. If I wasnt doing that I
was
> > walking or in the shower. I had a MD for all three deliveries that were
> > very flexible with me. In fact, at some point I really wanted someone
to
> > tell me what to do and then they made further suggestions. At the time,
I
> > was a labor and delivery nurse, so I really had seen a lot of
> > cause/effect....
>
> There are certainly wonderful places like that,
> but given that the overwhelming majority of women labor
> and give birth on their backs in bed and many of them
> say they were not encouraged to do otherwise, I think
> it's pretty safe to say that yours is a rather uncommon
> hospital. The Listening to Mothers national (US) survey
> showed less than 8 percent of women using birth balls,
> showers, or laboring in water. A whopping 71 percent
> reported staying in bed once contractions were established
> (because they were hooked up to instruments, could not
> walk because of pain meds, or were told by their caregivers
> not to walk around). Even more (74 percent) gave birth
> on their backs, and 23 percent were more upright (which
> included propped up, squatting, or semi-sitting--so
> most of these were almost certainly still on their
> tailbones). Only 3 percent were side-lying.
>
> Now, I don't think all those women were forced into
> those things against their will. Most didn't know any better
> and didn't even consider alternatives. However, it begins
> a vicious circle where staff and clients are unfamiliar
> with these options, so they are not presented or encouraged,
> and so become even more unfamiliar to both. In this sort
> of environment, the skids are very much greased to
> encourage a certain sort of birth. It's human nature
> to keep doing what you've been doing, and that sort of
> inertia is difficult to overcome even when people are
> *willing*.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka
>

[Kazh]

"Circe" > wrote in message =
news:ELi2d.167198$4o.149843@fed1read01...

Gas and air are unheard of in the States for pain management. Over here,
it's pretty much either IV drugs or nothin' (although there are =
obviously
non-medical forms of pain management like massage, shower/tub, etc.).

Assuming you have gas and air again, you should have lots of options for
moving around when you get to the pushing stage, since you won't be
effectively paralyzed from the waist down. One trick it sounds as though
your caregivers didn't know when you were delivering your third is that, =
if
baby's shoulders are big and getting stuck, rotating the mother from her
back/side lying to an all-fours position almost always "unsticks" the =
baby
without trauma either to mother or baby.

I pushed my third out on all-fours and it was a very comfortable =
position.
The one problem I had was that the urge to push in that position was so
overwhelming that I really *couldn't* slow down and allow my perineum to
stretch. I wound up with a very small (1st degree) perineal tear and a
labial tear that nicked an artery (very messy, that!). Neither was
particularly painful or horrible, though. The labial tear stung for a =
couple
of days when I peed, but other than that, it was pretty mild. Certainly, =
it
was much easier/better to recover from that the episiotomy I got with my
first.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, =
7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

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
---------------------

thanks for that, I'll bear the all fours method in mind.

[Kazh]

"Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message =
...

Even today, in many places you will have to fight
for those options if you want them. The vast majority of
women still give birth on their backs (whether completely
lying down or semi-sitting). The vast majority of caregivers
will structure the environment so that doing so will seem
The Thing To Do. Some will actively push back if you attempt
a different position.

> I DID have the ''hold your beathe'' coaching during labour=20
> and didn't realise it was inappropriate.=20

This is also something very common with hospital
births, so you'll want to put together a birth plan
that specifically says you don't want coached pushing
and run it by your caregivers.

Best wishes,
Ericka

-------------------

thanks I'll have a long think about how I'd like it to go this time =
round.

[Kazh]

"Leslie" > wrote in message =
...
Oh, that's too bad. I really didn't want to have an epidural but with =
having
pit contractions and being confined to bed I couldn't manage the pain on =
my
own.

>
>How many stitches did you need ?

I'm not sure anyone ever said how many, but I had either three or four =
tears
(one internal) plus an episiotomy, and sitting down was painful for at =
least a
month.


Leslie

-
------------------
I';m hoping to avoid tearing this time, and by the sounds of it better =
birth planning will help with this.

[Unadulterated Me]

Circe wrote:

>
> Oh my. I guess I must have missed that announcement during the week I was
> away from my computer for my company's convention. Ding-bling work!

Must of been then, I didn't really announce it, i just popped quietly
onto the due date list, so if you didn't read that you will of missed it :-)

Andrea

[Unadulterated Me]

Circe wrote:

> Kelly wrote:
>
>>So, did your eyes pop out of your head, Barbara? ;)
>>
>
> Because she's having #12? Nah, I've known Andrea for years now and I really
> didn't *expect* her to stop. But after Lydia's birth, I knew she was a bit
> ambivalent about another.

I wasn't sure if I could have another to be honest, I thought my uterus
would be too traumitised to hold a pregnancy, I'm a little over 9 weeks
now and things seem ok, but I'm still wary of a miscarriage or even an
early loss. I can't wait for my 20 week morphology scan to see that the
baby is ok and find out there the placenta has implants (hopefully not
over any of the scarring)

> I wasn't *sure* she'd have a 12th, although if
> you'd ask me to bet one way or the other, I think I would have bet there'd
> be a 12th (and a few more after that, too!).


hmmm we'll see ;-)

Andrea

[Unadulterated Me]

Sophie wrote:

>
> Oh I don't think Andrea's done either :)
>

You people spoil all the fun, so I guess they'll be no 'wow what a
surprise!' comments from anyone here when I announce #13 lol

Andrea

[Unadulterated Me]

Leslie wrote:


> This is anecdotal evidence only, but I feel the best this pregnancy (at age 37)
> than I remember feeling during my others at 23, 26, 27, and 34.


Well I'm only 9 weeks into it but I feel MUCH better in this pregnancy
that I did in Lydias too, luck of the draw perhaps.

Andrea

[Unadulterated Me]

Kelly wrote:

> honestly, me neither. I'm guessing another really close to #12. Make it a
> bakers dozen ;)
>
> Kelly

I'll spite you all and have twins next time and make it 14 so skipping
the 13 bakers dozen thing all together <g>

Andrea

[Kelly]

I believe one astute reader caught your sly little act of sliding in.... :)

Kelly
#4 2/05

"Unadulterated Me" > wrote in message
...
> Circe wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh my. I guess I must have missed that announcement during the week I
was
> > away from my computer for my company's convention. Ding-bling work!
>
> Must of been then, I didn't really announce it, i just popped quietly
> onto the due date list, so if you didn't read that you will of missed it
:-)
>
> Andrea

[Sophie]

"Unadulterated Me" > wrote in message
...
> Sophie wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh I don't think Andrea's done either :)
> >
>
> You people spoil all the fun, so I guess they'll be no 'wow what a
> surprise!' comments from anyone here when I announce #13 lol
>
> Andrea
>
>

Nope, more like "yawn, oh another?" fain surprise :)
Unless you want us to all go crazy, like you're having your millionth, like
how people react when I say I have 4. <eyeroll> ;)

[Mary S.]

Kelly wrote:
> Don't you just love that when people do that silent gasp when you say you
> are having the fourth (or you have four) Ridiculous. Maybe it's the
> youthful appearance and portrait of calm we eminate ;)

LOL! I love it. You should figure out how to incorporate that into a
reply. :)

Mary S.

[Kelly]

Don't you just love that when people do that silent gasp when you say you
are having the fourth (or you have four) Ridiculous. Maybe it's the
youthful appearance and portrait of calm we eminate ;)

Kelly
#4 2/05 by gosh!

"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Unadulterated Me" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sophie wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Oh I don't think Andrea's done either :)
> > >
> >
> > You people spoil all the fun, so I guess they'll be no 'wow what a
> > surprise!' comments from anyone here when I announce #13 lol
> >
> > Andrea
> >
> >
>
> Nope, more like "yawn, oh another?" fain surprise :)
> Unless you want us to all go crazy, like you're having your millionth,
like
> how people react when I say I have 4. <eyeroll> ;)
>
>

[Kelly]

Somehow that does not seem like an unrealistic task ;)

Kelly
#4 2/05-I feel as though it should read "only #4" heehe.

"Unadulterated Me" > wrote in message
...
> Kelly wrote:
>
> > honestly, me neither. I'm guessing another really close to #12. Make it
a
> > bakers dozen ;)
> >
> > Kelly
>
> I'll spite you all and have twins next time and make it 14 so skipping
> the 13 bakers dozen thing all together <g>
>
> Andrea

[Kelly]

Well, I work with patients recovering from outpatient surgery, so I can't be
too quick ;) The joke would be wasted on the anesthesia! Hmmm, I'll have
to come up with something. I'm sure later in the pregnancy the comments
will come more naturally. Heehee. Any ideas?


"Mary S." > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kelly wrote:
> > Don't you just love that when people do that silent gasp when you say
you
> > are having the fourth (or you have four) Ridiculous. Maybe it's the
> > youthful appearance and portrait of calm we eminate ;)
>
> LOL! I love it. You should figure out how to incorporate that into a
> reply. :)
>
> Mary S.
>

[Sophie]

"Kelly" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I work with patients recovering from outpatient surgery, so I can't
be
> too quick ;) The joke would be wasted on the anesthesia! Hmmm, I'll have
> to come up with something. I'm sure later in the pregnancy the comments
> will come more naturally. Heehee. Any ideas?

"Kiss my a**" comes to mind very quickly but you might get fired - LOL!
I like it when I'm out with 2 (usually Lewis and Nolan) people make a
comment and I say "this is only half of them", you see them do the math -
lol.

[Kelly]

I do that, too. Classify by numbers: IE: I took 2 of them to the store.
You're right, it gets people doing that awkward stare into space look ;)

Kelly
#4 2/05

"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kelly" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well, I work with patients recovering from outpatient surgery, so I
can't
> be
> > too quick ;) The joke would be wasted on the anesthesia! Hmmm, I'll
have
> > to come up with something. I'm sure later in the pregnancy the comments
> > will come more naturally. Heehee. Any ideas?
>
> "Kiss my a**" comes to mind very quickly but you might get fired - LOL!
> I like it when I'm out with 2 (usually Lewis and Nolan) people make a
> comment and I say "this is only half of them", you see them do the math -
> lol.
>
>

[Leslie]

Andrea said:

> Well I'm only 9 weeks into it but I feel MUCH better in this pregnancy
>that I did in Lydias too, luck of the draw perhaps.

I hope it continues for you! I feel kind of guilty complaining about this one
because I know it was much worse last time. Plus with all the big kids to help
me I just have such luxury to take care of myself. I certainly couldn't take a
two hour nap every day when I had toddlers!




Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Unadulterated Me]

Leslie wrote:

> Andrea said:
>
>
>> Well I'm only 9 weeks into it but I feel MUCH better in this pregnancy
>>that I did in Lydias too, luck of the draw perhaps.
>
>
> I hope it continues for you! I feel kind of guilty complaining about this one
> because I know it was much worse last time. Plus with all the big kids to help
> me I just have such luxury to take care of myself. I certainly couldn't take a
> two hour nap every day when I had toddlers!

Well I still can't take a nap, but then I don't need to which is why I
feel so good. I have avoided all the tiredness and grumpiness of my last
pregnancy, my RA isn't so bad, I feel energetic, I can exercise, I'm not
too emotional...although that been said today was a little melt down
day, but my first so far...I haven't been sick, not even sore any sore
breasts to speak of.
However I have all 11 kids home for 2 weeks for Spring holidays so I
reserve the right to renege on my statement in a fortnights time ;-)
By then I may of collapsed in shear exhaustion.

Andres