Update 40 W 3 D

[Zaz]

Hello,

Well, I went in for my NST and an ultrasound on Thursday. I explained to the
personel at the hospital that I believed my due date, based on conception,
was June 3, and that was why I was there.

Well. Well. Well. It appears that it doesn't work that way. After the
ultrasound, June 7 was reconfirmed as my due date, no matter what I said -
damn it. Not that I am looking for an induction, but I feel I should know
the conception date better than they: I was there when it happened! Anyway.
Baby is fine, we could see very clearly it's a boy, with big hands and wigly
toes. His nuchal skin is now normal for his gestational age (i.e. almost
done), so that's that for whomever wonders what happens with that when the
diagnosis of DS is excluded.

I went to see the midwife afterwards, and she also insisted on leaving my
date on June 7. Whatever happened with the other midwife last week was
totally discounted, and I was told this time that this exam was absolutely
unnecessary. While I can agree on the clinical side, it was important to me
to go through it, if only for my own (and my family's) reassurance. Now
people have stopped calling in freaking out because I haven't given birth
yet.

DH keeps saying it will happen during full moon, i.e. tomorrow evening. I
really don't care at this point. All I know is that since this morning the
contractions are getting closer and closer, and stronger and stronger. Time
to take another warm bath to see if they stop. Even though I don't keep my
hopes up, I can't stop thinking that it's the first time they happen during
the daylight, so maybe something is going on.

Have a nice week-end,


--
Isabelle
Mlle C 2004-11-27
Guillaume EDD 2006-06-07 or 2006-05-31

[carlye]

Zaz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Well, I went in for my NST and an ultrasound on Thursday. I explained to the
> personel at the hospital that I believed my due date, based on conception,
> was June 3, and that was why I was there.
>
> Well. Well. Well. It appears that it doesn't work that way. After the
> ultrasound, June 7 was reconfirmed as my due date, no matter what I said -
> damn it. Not that I am looking for an induction, but I feel I should know
> the conception date better than they: I was there when it happened!

Gee, Isabelle, that really sucks. This is part of why I opted for an
induction -- not that I think it was the *best* idea or that I think
anyone else should go that route, but my maternity leave was
diminishing, we had the whole issue with who we'd get to watch DD, and
I *knew* my real due date had come and gone. I so admire that you
insisted on an NST and US, taking the responsible route, but I'm so
sorry your concerns are being discounted. That must be so frustrating.


Crossing my fingers for you for labor very soon!!

-Carlye
DS 6-2-06
DD 9-29-04

[lucy-lu]

Zaz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Well, I went in for my NST and an ultrasound on Thursday. I explained to the
> personel at the hospital that I believed my due date, based on conception,
> was June 3, and that was why I was there.
>
> Well. Well. Well. It appears that it doesn't work that way. After the
> ultrasound, June 7 was reconfirmed as my due date, no matter what I said -
> damn it. Not that I am looking for an induction, but I feel I should know
> the conception date better than they: I was there when it happened! Anyway.
> Baby is fine, we could see very clearly it's a boy, with big hands and wigly
> toes. His nuchal skin is now normal for his gestational age (i.e. almost
> done), so that's that for whomever wonders what happens with that when the
> diagnosis of DS is excluded.
>
> I went to see the midwife afterwards, and she also insisted on leaving my
> date on June 7. Whatever happened with the other midwife last week was
> totally discounted, and I was told this time that this exam was absolutely
> unnecessary. While I can agree on the clinical side, it was important to me
> to go through it, if only for my own (and my family's) reassurance. Now
> people have stopped calling in freaking out because I haven't given birth
> yet.
>
> DH keeps saying it will happen during full moon, i.e. tomorrow evening. I
> really don't care at this point. All I know is that since this morning the
> contractions are getting closer and closer, and stronger and stronger. Time
> to take another warm bath to see if they stop. Even though I don't keep my
> hopes up, I can't stop thinking that it's the first time they happen during
> the daylight, so maybe something is going on.
>
> Have a nice week-end,
>
>
Hi Isabelle,

Sorry to hear they are messing you about :/ Looks like you're going to
beat me to the labour room though! I hope he comes out soon (along with
mine!), it's far too hot to be this pregnant!

Good luck!!

Lucy

--
Due with a little girl on 15th June

[Anne Rogers]

bummer that they were so mean to you, ultrasound at this stage can't tell
anything about the due date, all you can do at this stage is look for
markers like quality of the placenta to see if you are well over, it's all
guesswork!

good for you though for getting the NST if that was what you needed to
reassure you, half the time they seem to force them on you anyway!

I haven't kept on top of how you know when he was conceived, but I'm sure
you do know! For myself with my 2nd, I really didn't know as the relevent
activity took place regularly, so I had to rely on the scan dates, but I had
an early scan, so that was fine.

Good luck, it will happen soon!

Anne

[Zaz]

"Anne Rogers" > wrote in message
...
snip>
> I haven't kept on top of how you know when he was conceived, but I'm sure
> you do know! For myself with my 2nd, I really didn't know as the relevent
> activity took place regularly, so I had to rely on the scan dates, but I
> had an early scan, so that was fine.
>
Well, conception date is easy to figure out. It was the end of last summer
and it was so hot that we barely touched each other during that month. I
took note of every proximity we did have the instinct to have, and there was
only one for three weeks in a row... I got my period 12 days later. So that
was it. Sept. 10 was conception date. According to all my calendars, due
date should really be May 31st - I can go with June 3 since my periods are
more like between 29-30 days apart than 28.

It doesn't really matter at this point. Everything was fine with the baby,
and I am certain now it is a matter of one or two days rather than a week.
At any rate, I have another ultrasound on Monday if little Guillaume is
still in there by then.


--
Isabelle
Mlle C 2004-11-27
Guillaume EDD 2006-06-07 or 2006-05-31


>
>

[Zaz]

With Mlle C I had to be induced because I was contracting to no avail for 48
hours, being deprived of any sleep whatsoever. It still took another 24
hours for her to come out.

This time, if I feel like I am right now for more than 24 hours, I'm getting
induced, no matter what anyone else says. I'm not going through that again.
It took me weeks to recover from the lack of sleep and the long labour. I
won't have that twice.


--
Isabelle
Mlle C 2004-11-27
Guillaume EDD 2006-06-07 or 2006-05-31


"carlye" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Zaz wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Well, I went in for my NST and an ultrasound on Thursday. I explained to
>> the
>> personel at the hospital that I believed my due date, based on
>> conception,
>> was June 3, and that was why I was there.
>>
>> Well. Well. Well. It appears that it doesn't work that way. After the
>> ultrasound, June 7 was reconfirmed as my due date, no matter what I
>> said -
>> damn it. Not that I am looking for an induction, but I feel I should know
>> the conception date better than they: I was there when it happened!
>
> Gee, Isabelle, that really sucks. This is part of why I opted for an
> induction -- not that I think it was the *best* idea or that I think
> anyone else should go that route, but my maternity leave was
> diminishing, we had the whole issue with who we'd get to watch DD, and
> I *knew* my real due date had come and gone. I so admire that you
> insisted on an NST and US, taking the responsible route, but I'm so
> sorry your concerns are being discounted. That must be so frustrating.
>
>
> Crossing my fingers for you for labor very soon!!
>
> -Carlye
> DS 6-2-06
> DD 9-29-04
>

[Ericka Kammerer]

Zaz wrote:
> With Mlle C I had to be induced because I was contracting to no avail for 48
> hours, being deprived of any sleep whatsoever. It still took another 24
> hours for her to come out.
>
> This time, if I feel like I am right now for more than 24 hours, I'm getting
> induced, no matter what anyone else says. I'm not going through that again.
> It took me weeks to recover from the lack of sleep and the long labour. I
> won't have that twice.

Be careful what you wish for--my first labor was
long, but the second was only 2.5 hours ;-) If I had to
choose, I'm not sure I wouldn't choose the longer one!
I'll cross my fingers for a nice middle path for you ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Dagny]

Your conception date is not the date you DTD, it's the date the egg and
sperm met. That may account for the 4 day discrepancy. Research does show
sperm can easily fertilize an egg four days after it took up residence.

[Mum of Two]

"Dagny" > wrote in message
. ..
> Your conception date is not the date you DTD, it's the date the egg and
> sperm met. That may account for the 4 day discrepancy. Research does
> show sperm can easily fertilize an egg four days after it took up
> residence.

Just for clarity, the sperm were already there, and then the woman
ovulated. Eggs don't survive anywhere near as long, as far as I'm aware, but
sperm can live for days ;-)
Now, if you were charting and knew your ovulation date, then you'd have a
pretty good idea when conception took place.


--
Amy
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/

[Anne Rogers]

> Well, conception date is easy to figure out. It was the end of last summer
> and it was so hot that we barely touched each other during that month. I
> took note of every proximity we did have the instinct to have, and there
> was only one for three weeks in a row... I got my period 12 days later. So
> that was it. Sept. 10 was conception date. According to all my calendars,
> due date should really be May 31st - I can go with June 3 since my periods
> are more like between 29-30 days apart than 28.

don't you mean didn't get your period 12 days later?

I had a calender to hand and it seems that 10th September was a Saturday, so
if you count a strict 38 weeks from then, that would make it 3rd June (just
like you said ;-)), but as Dagny says there can be some variation, even
knowing the exact date you did the act. When did you have the ultrasound
that switched it to 7th June?

As you say, it's all irrelevant as you know what you are going to do. I
always wanted my due date to be as late as possible so no one could use
purely post dates as a reason to push for induction. Depends on your carers
how much they listen if you have a long latent phase, some do, some don't,
even here it would depend exactly which doctor you saw and how busy the
delivery unit is. But it sounds like you have people on your side.

(A stupid thing locally, they really pressure induction for postdates,
rather than offer, explaining the risks as they are supposed to, but then,
if they are busy, they will keep you on the antenatal ward for days, so it
can't have been that urgent can it! What they don't get is that if they just
set the date 4 or even 2 days later they wouldn't have so many inductions,
or people taking up space on the antenatal ward waiting)

Anne

[Pologirl]

Zaz wrote:
> I should know
> the conception date better than they: I was there when it happened!

Conception necessarily happens after both insemination and ovulation
happen. So if your LMP and usual cycle length indicate June 7, that is
probably more accurate than going from your date of insemination.
Unless you also were watching for ovulation with LH tests.

By way of example, my current pregnancy came about as follows. We did
the baby dance about two weeks prior to my expected ovulation date
(which normally is on about day 22 of my cycle). And then I felt the
need to start watching way early for ovulation. I was concerned that
maybe I wasn't ovulating at all (I am "older"), so I wanted to be
really thorough. And lo, 2 days after the BD, the LH test showed that
I was about to ovulate. We weren't able to do another BD that week, so
I was depressed at missing an opportunity to conceive. And then my
basal temperature didn't drop, and my period didn't come, and I started
feeling queasy at breakfast. Yadda yadda. Hence, I probably conceived
on day 10 of my cycle, 3 days after the BD. To avoid any confusion,
when asked for my LMP I give only my date of conception.

[Zaz]

Thanks, I thought of that after I hit the "send" button... ;-)
But that can't account for a 7 days difference!

"Dagny" > wrote in message
. ..
> Your conception date is not the date you DTD, it's the date the egg and
> sperm met. That may account for the 4 day discrepancy. Research does
> show sperm can easily fertilize an egg four days after it took up
> residence.
>

[Zaz]

"Huttite" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Now, if you were charting and knew your ovulation date, then you'd have a
>> pretty good idea when conception took place.
>
snip>
> Hang in there, the last couple of weeks are always tough to get
> through. You will know when baby is ready because he should twist
> around and "drop" to "engage" his head to be in position and ready to
> be born a few hours to a few days before the actual birth day. Listen
> to your body and your baby as well as the medical people. And remember
> you always have the last say - and the medical people can only advise
> you what to do - not tell you.
>

Thanks, but I've been there before... My first baby would never have turned
and gone down by herself as I had too much amniotic fluid. This one is head
down, has dropped and his head is engaged. But nothing.

[Zaz]

You know what? At this point I really don't care.

We had a false alarm on Saturday night, spent the whole night at the birth
centre contracting like crazy. When I got there I was 1 cm dilated and
effaced, when I left the next morning after much pain, same thing. I didn't
sleep all night that night, and spent all of yesterday recuperating and
doing just nothing - too exhausted to move.

Now, I have another ultrasound today - not expecting anything, but I'll
follow protocol this time.

Induction? Sincerely, at this point I really don't mind. If I'm to have
another night as Saturday's, I prefer to go the medical way.

Sorry, I know I'm being harsh in my tone of writing, but I am exhausted and
I just need this to be over with so I can start caring for my children
instead of only walking around like a zombie in contractions!!!


"Pologirl" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Zaz wrote:
>>
>> I should know
>> the conception date better than they: I was there when it happened!
>
> Conception necessarily happens after both insemination and ovulation
> happen. So if your LMP and usual cycle length indicate June 7, that is
> probably more accurate than going from your date of insemination.
> Unless you also were watching for ovulation with LH tests.
>
> By way of example, my current pregnancy came about as follows. We did
> the baby dance about two weeks prior to my expected ovulation date
> (which normally is on about day 22 of my cycle). And then I felt the
> need to start watching way early for ovulation. I was concerned that
> maybe I wasn't ovulating at all (I am "older"), so I wanted to be
> really thorough. And lo, 2 days after the BD, the LH test showed that
> I was about to ovulate. We weren't able to do another BD that week, so
> I was depressed at missing an opportunity to conceive. And then my
> basal temperature didn't drop, and my period didn't come, and I started
> feeling queasy at breakfast. Yadda yadda. Hence, I probably conceived
> on day 10 of my cycle, 3 days after the BD. To avoid any confusion,
> when asked for my LMP I give only my date of conception.
>

[Zaz]

First, I want to apologize to anyone I might have replied to in a harsh
tone. I am very exhausted and I just can't seem to have any patience with
anyone, me included (and unfortunately everyone who cares about me).

Last Saturday, that is, the day I posted my first update, I ended up calling
my midwife. Contractions had lasted all day, but around 7 PM they started
getting very strong, less than 6 minutes apart, and quite long too. Even in
the tub they kept coming and hurting. Since my water didn't break I wasn't
expecting excruciating pain, and it wasn't that, but it was quite
breathtaking. So I called the midwife.

Because we live far from the Birth Centre, she told me to come right in. FIL
came to watch over Mlle C and we got there around 9:30 PM or so, and the
contractions were still strong and regular. I was 1 cm dilated, and effaced.
And they kept coming. We settled in a nice room (I chose the one with the
big tub, thinking a water birth might be a nice thing), and we watched an
episode of the Sopranos on my laptop before going to bed. I didn't see much
of the episode as I was experiencing quite much pain - happily so and even
managing a few smiles here and there.

We went to bed and I had a long time falling asleep. The midwife woke me to
listen to the baby's heart. It seemed the contractions had slowed down, but
they came back in force. And then stopped.

I woke up at 7 AM. Nothing going on but baby moving. Internal showed nothing
had changed overnight. So we had a coffee - I declined breakfast - and went
home, quite disapointed, as you can imagine. I cried my brains out in the
midwife's arms as this reminded me too much of Mlle C's birth... She wisely
told me to hang in there and not pressure myself; things will come when they
must.

Ultrasound this afternoon. I had a good night sleep but I feel
short-fused... My Mom is coming over again; she's convinced they'll induce
today. No, they won't and I wouldn't let them. I had a good night sleep, and
I feel I can wait some more before I go that route.

I feel full like the moon was last night, though.


--
Isabelle
Mlle C 2004-11-27
Guillaume EDD 2006-06-07 or 2006-05-31

[Anne Rogers]

hi there, I was just wondering if it would be possible to break your waters,
is that within what they do at the birth centre? If so, maybe one way to go
would be to next time you have a big episode of contractions to break the
waters? It may well be all you need to get going properly.

NB, for anyone else reading this, I am not endorsing this course of action
in general, but for an exhausted 2nd timer with a history of long latent
phase, it may well be a sound course of action, a way of avoiding a full on
induction. Breaking the waters is often first course of action for induction
anyway, so doing it while contractions are actually happening would seem
more logical.

Cheers

Anne

[Zaz]

Hi Anne,

We thought of that, but the problem is that I am just not dilated enough to
allow this course of action. The general idea is WAIT.

Going off to the ultrasound - and the contractions have just restarted. More
news later.


--
Isabelle
Mlle C 2004-11-27
Guillaume EDD 2006-06-07 or 2006-05-31


"Anne Rogers" > wrote in message
...
> hi there, I was just wondering if it would be possible to break your
> waters, is that within what they do at the birth centre? If so, maybe one
> way to go would be to next time you have a big episode of contractions to
> break the waters? It may well be all you need to get going properly.
>
> NB, for anyone else reading this, I am not endorsing this course of action
> in general, but for an exhausted 2nd timer with a history of long latent
> phase, it may well be a sound course of action, a way of avoiding a full
> on induction. Breaking the waters is often first course of action for
> induction anyway, so doing it while contractions are actually happening
> would seem more logical.
>
> Cheers
>
> Anne
>

[Anne Rogers]

>
> We thought of that, but the problem is that I am just not dilated enough
> to allow this course of action. The general idea is WAIT.
>
> Going off to the ultrasound - and the contractions have just restarted.
> More news later.

oh, I was given the impression that 1cm was enough though I suppose that
depends on the position of the cervix, anyway, more contractions should
hopefully move everything into postition and maybe dilate more.

Cheers

Anne

[Zaz]

She stripped my membranes on Saturday, though. But it gave nothing.


"Anne Rogers" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> We thought of that, but the problem is that I am just not dilated enough
>> to allow this course of action. The general idea is WAIT.
>>
>> Going off to the ultrasound - and the contractions have just restarted.
>> More news later.
>
> oh, I was given the impression that 1cm was enough though I suppose that
> depends on the position of the cervix, anyway, more contractions should
> hopefully move everything into postition and maybe dilate more.
>
> Cheers
>
> Anne
>

[carlye]

Anne Rogers wrote:
> oh, I was given the impression that 1cm was enough though I suppose that
> depends on the position of the cervix, anyway, more contractions should
> hopefully move everything into postition and maybe dilate more.

I don't know most place's or practitioner's method of doing things, but
I know I was dilated to 1 when I showed up for my induction, but they
still had to get my cervix dilated to 2 (which they did by inserting a
fragment of a cytotec tablet) to break my waters. But that's all it
took. I was pushing 2 1/2 hours after my waters were broken, and 18
minutes later, I had a baby. I know breaking waters doesn't work for
everyone. My mother, for one, had her water break naturally or
artifically with all four of her babies, and she still needed Pitocin.
But for me, that's all I needed, and labor was easier than my first,
"natural" labor.

I'm so sorry you're going through this, Isabelle. I had false labor
off and on for the last 3 weeks of this pregnancy, but it seems like
it's been going on a lot longer than that for you, and been far more
severe. I hope things start soon for you.

Good luck.

-Carlye
DS 6-2-06
DD 9-29-04

[cjra]

Huttite wrote:
> > Now, if you were charting and knew your ovulation date, then you'd have a
> > pretty good idea when conception took place.
>
> However, Doctors have always "guessed" the due date from the date of
> the last period and added 40 weeks - give or take two! The average
> pregnancy is typically 40 weeks but it could be up to 42. The
> ultrasound might give you a better idea but, ultimately, babies are
> born when they are ready. All the medical people can really do is wait
> ... or interfere to induce birth.
>
> Hang in there, the last couple of weeks are always tough to get
> through. You will know when baby is ready because he should twist
> around and "drop" to "engage" his head to be in position and ready to
> be born a few hours to a few days before the actual birth day.

I'm 37 weeks now, and my baby dropped and engaged, head in position
about one month ago..... while I suspect we may not make it to 40
weeks, everything I've read said the 'engagement' or 'dropping' has
little to do with the kid actually coming out.

[cjra]

Mum of Two wrote:
> "Dagny" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Your conception date is not the date you DTD, it's the date the egg and
> > sperm met. That may account for the 4 day discrepancy. Research does
> > show sperm can easily fertilize an egg four days after it took up
> > residence.
>
> Just for clarity, the sperm were already there, and then the woman
> ovulated. Eggs don't survive anywhere near as long, as far as I'm aware, but
> sperm can live for days ;-)
> Now, if you were charting and knew your ovulation date, then you'd have a
> pretty good idea when conception took place.

Yes...if I hadn't been charting, my due date would have been set 10
days earlier than it is. While my midwife is prepared to let me go as
long as possible, I worried that I'd get pushed for induction at 41-42
weeks when I was still really closer to 40wks. Fortunately, though, my
U/S dating correlated with my day of ovulation dating. Of course this
bub may not correlate with any dating ;-)

[Welches]

"cjra" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Huttite wrote:
>> > Now, if you were charting and knew your ovulation date, then you'd have
>> > a
>> > pretty good idea when conception took place.
>>
>> However, Doctors have always "guessed" the due date from the date of
>> the last period and added 40 weeks - give or take two! The average
>> pregnancy is typically 40 weeks but it could be up to 42. The
>> ultrasound might give you a better idea but, ultimately, babies are
>> born when they are ready. All the medical people can really do is wait
>> ... or interfere to induce birth.
>>
>> Hang in there, the last couple of weeks are always tough to get
>> through. You will know when baby is ready because he should twist
>> around and "drop" to "engage" his head to be in position and ready to
>> be born a few hours to a few days before the actual birth day.
>
> I'm 37 weeks now, and my baby dropped and engaged, head in position
> about one month ago..... while I suspect we may not make it to 40
> weeks, everything I've read said the 'engagement' or 'dropping' has
> little to do with the kid actually coming out.
>
I don't think there's much to be said on engagement and when it actually
comes. #2 engaged by 28 weeks but didn't come until week 39.
Debbie

[[email protected]]

Zaz > writes:

It doesn't matter what your "real" due date is. Never argue
when they want to *delay* it. Only aruge when they want to
*advance* it, and as a result take precipitous actions!

:-)
Larry

[Zaz]

Well, today I'm being told the baby's head is not engaged anymore. So hang
in there, they say. "you're only 5 days overdue"... Yep. But I'm contracting
and it's getting tough.

Now amniotic fluid seems to be 20, 25 being the limit. The note on the chart
says "Amniotic fluid: mildly increased". Now, what does that mean, I don't
know. I still need to call my midwife with the results but there is no
induction in sight for now. Unless these contractions keep me from sleeping
tonight. I intend to go for a long walk after supper to help this baby
re-engage...

Later,


--
Isabelle
Mlle C 2004-11-27
Guillaume EDD 2006-06-07 or 2006-05-31




"carlye" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Anne Rogers wrote:
>> oh, I was given the impression that 1cm was enough though I suppose that
>> depends on the position of the cervix, anyway, more contractions should
>> hopefully move everything into postition and maybe dilate more.
>
> I don't know most place's or practitioner's method of doing things, but
> I know I was dilated to 1 when I showed up for my induction, but they
> still had to get my cervix dilated to 2 (which they did by inserting a
> fragment of a cytotec tablet) to break my waters. But that's all it
> took. I was pushing 2 1/2 hours after my waters were broken, and 18
> minutes later, I had a baby. I know breaking waters doesn't work for
> everyone. My mother, for one, had her water break naturally or
> artifically with all four of her babies, and she still needed Pitocin.
> But for me, that's all I needed, and labor was easier than my first,
> "natural" labor.
>
> I'm so sorry you're going through this, Isabelle. I had false labor
> off and on for the last 3 weeks of this pregnancy, but it seems like
> it's been going on a lot longer than that for you, and been far more
> severe. I hope things start soon for you.
>
> Good luck.
>
> -Carlye
> DS 6-2-06
> DD 9-29-04
>

[Anne Rogers]

>
> I'm 37 weeks now, and my baby dropped and engaged, head in position
> about one month ago..... while I suspect we may not make it to 40
> weeks, everything I've read said the 'engagement' or 'dropping' has
> little to do with the kid actually coming out.
>
has a midwife told you the baby is engaged? because there seems to be a
diffence between dropping and engaging, I definitely remember with my first,
him dropping and me thinking this meant he was engaged, but it turned out he
was only partially engaged.

Don't start predicting anything now, you don't want to feel disappointed if
your due date comes and goes, I had this suspicion my 1st was going to be
born on 25th June (due date was 14th), which was fine, a perfectly normal 11
days over, so I got on with life made plans, tried to fill my diary etc.
Then in mid May I did start to get this feeling the birth was going to be on
28th May, a whole 4 weeks earlier, eventually I told my midwife she laughed,
but agreed it wasn't impossible, I had had a show by that stage, well, he
was born at 10.16pm on May 28th, but I'm glad I hadn't told anyone else (not
even my husband) and barely admitted it too myself as it would have been a
very long 4 weeks otherwise!

Anne

[cjra]

Anne Rogers wrote:
> >
> > I'm 37 weeks now, and my baby dropped and engaged, head in position
> > about one month ago..... while I suspect we may not make it to 40
> > weeks, everything I've read said the 'engagement' or 'dropping' has
> > little to do with the kid actually coming out.
> >
> has a midwife told you the baby is engaged? because there seems to be a
> diffence between dropping and engaging, I definitely remember with my first,
> him dropping and me thinking this meant he was engaged, but it turned out he
> was only partially engaged.

Yes.

> Don't start predicting anything now, you don't want to feel disappointed if
> your due date comes and goes,

I'd still be quite happy if my due date comes and goes. I'd rather be
late than early at this point. We still have a lot going on and things
I need to settle. I'm just getting nervous due to a number of potential
'signs.' I'll be happy if they're all wrong.

Of course, it's not like I'm super comfortable right now, so I may
change my tune in 3 weeks. But for now I'm sticking to it.

[lucy-lu]

Zaz wrote:
> Well, today I'm being told the baby's head is not engaged anymore. So hang
> in there, they say. "you're only 5 days overdue"... Yep. But I'm contracting
> and it's getting tough.
>
> Now amniotic fluid seems to be 20, 25 being the limit. The note on the chart
> says "Amniotic fluid: mildly increased". Now, what does that mean, I don't
> know. I still need to call my midwife with the results but there is no
> induction in sight for now. Unless these contractions keep me from sleeping
> tonight. I intend to go for a long walk after supper to help this baby
> re-engage...
>
> Later,
>
>
Hi Isabelle

Sorry to hear it's looking grim at the moment... They said similar
things to me last week, but the midwife said she was engaged again, so
fingers crossed :/

I don't know what the amniotic fluid levels mean - sorry.

I'm seeing the consultant tomorrow (midwife is on holiday :/), and tbh,
I am thinking of giving in and asking for an induction date (I'll be 39w
5d) as I can't cope with my narcolepsy being this bad (being asleep just
about all day and night, but not feeling rested, restless legs, and
suddenly falling asleep), nor can I take the heat much longer. I can't
go out without fainting, or eat without being sick...I;m not meaning to
moan in your thread :D Just saying if you feel you need the induction,
don't feel bad about it. The contractions are hard work, and with
another kiddy to care for, you need to do what's best for you at the moment.

Take care *hugs*

Lucy x

[PattyMomVA]

"lucy-lu" wrote and I snipped:
> nor can I take the heat much longer. I can't go out without fainting, or
> eat without being sick...

Where are you that it's so darn hot? And, how hot is it?

Just curious,
-Patty, mom of 1+2

[carlye]

PattyMomVA wrote:
> Where are you that it's so darn hot? And, how hot is it?
>
> Just curious,
> -Patty, mom of 1+2

I have no idea how hot it is where Lucy is (I think she's in the UK,
though), but I have to say, being -that- pregnant and in the heat
didn't sit well with me, either. I, for one, am in North Dakota, USA,
and though that's not exactly a place people usually associate with
heat (after all, several short months ago, it was about 40 degrees F
below zero out here), the days that were 85 degrees F or warmer here
were just killing me. I know some have to tolerate temps in the upper
90's and into the 100's, but I think anything over about 80 can be hard
on an expectant mom. I was feeling faint and queasy every time the
temperature was barely above 'comfortable' for an average person.

So basically, Lucy, regardless of your answer to Patty's question, you
have my sympathies. It doesn't take much to be too freakin' hot when
you're 9 months along!!

-Carlye
DS 6-2-06
DD 9-29-04

[lucy-lu]

carlye wrote:
> PattyMomVA wrote:
>> Where are you that it's so darn hot? And, how hot is it?
>>
>> Just curious,
>> -Patty, mom of 1+2
>
> I have no idea how hot it is where Lucy is (I think she's in the UK,
> though), but I have to say, being -that- pregnant and in the heat
> didn't sit well with me, either. I, for one, am in North Dakota, USA,
> and though that's not exactly a place people usually associate with
> heat (after all, several short months ago, it was about 40 degrees F
> below zero out here), the days that were 85 degrees F or warmer here
> were just killing me. I know some have to tolerate temps in the upper
> 90's and into the 100's, but I think anything over about 80 can be hard
> on an expectant mom. I was feeling faint and queasy every time the
> temperature was barely above 'comfortable' for an average person.
>
> So basically, Lucy, regardless of your answer to Patty's question, you
> have my sympathies. It doesn't take much to be too freakin' hot when
> you're 9 months along!!
>
> -Carlye
> DS 6-2-06
> DD 9-29-04
>
Hi Patty and Carlye,

Yes, I'm in the SE of England. Yesterday was about 30 deg celsius -
that's 86F I think... But I think it's the humidity that's doing me in.
Plus being of Celtic descent, I burn very quickly too :/ I don't like
the heat at all normally - getting pg in September maybe wasn't my best
ever timing ;)

It's raining this morning...Hopefully it will clear it, but it's still
warm and humid atm, and it's only 7.15 :)


lucy x

[Anne Rogers]

> Yes, I'm in the SE of England. Yesterday was about 30 deg celsius - that's
> 86F I think... But I think it's the humidity that's doing me in. Plus
> being of Celtic descent, I burn very quickly too :/ I don't like the heat
> at all normally - getting pg in September maybe wasn't my best ever timing
> ;)

it's better than most, I suppose August would be better, but July would have
meant feeling horrible in the hot weather and getting pregnant any later
than September would have meant even longer in the heat.

Anne

[Zaz]

The NST and ultrasound went perfectly yesterday. Funny thing though, was
last week the baby was supposedly "not moving enough" during the NST (he was
just fine to me), but this time, he was just "moving too much" (and was
still just fine to me). Different technicians/nurses always want different
things, dont't they? And there's always my saviour coming in saying: "Oh!
Wow! This is perfect!" (I love her).

Ultrasound was fine too ---- wait, didn't I say all that yesterday?

Anyway. Big news now: CONTRACTIONS!!!
I went for an hour walk last night with mom, then beat her very to Scrabble
(for afficionados, 446 to 312 - must have been my best score ever, with the
first 3 rounds placing all my letters), and then the contractions started.
First slowly, then quite strongly. I didn't go in the tub this time,
thinking some work must be done and not wanting to interfere. I know, when
it's the real thing there's nothing to stop it, but I feel even those
"false" contractions have to be doing something and MUST do it!

I didn't sleep too well on the physical side, but my brains are rested - I
wasn't hoping for anything, and this morning the contractions are still
there. At 5 AM I was in the tub, and they kept coming. Out of the tub now,
sitting on my exercise ball and still contracting, more so. The only thing
bothering me a bit now is that it's gonna be rush hour for traffic, and
there is no way we get in the car to the Birth Centre before 8:30 AM. Oh
well, That's a bit more than two hours down the road, 'til then I'll really
know if something is happening or if it's just another long latency
starting...

Wish me luck, I'll keep you posted.

Oh, and thank you all so much for being there - I don't reply to all, but I
read everything.


--
Isabelle
Mlle C 2004-11-27
Guillaume EDD anytime now

[Rebecca Jo]

"Zaz" > wrote:

> The NST and ultrasound went perfectly yesterday. Funny thing though, was
> last week the baby was supposedly "not moving enough" during the NST (he
> was just fine to me), but this time, he was just "moving too much" (and
> was still just fine to me). Different technicians/nurses always want
> different things, dont't they? And there's always my saviour coming in
> saying: "Oh! Wow! This is perfect!" (I love her).
>
> Ultrasound was fine too ---- wait, didn't I say all that yesterday?
>
> Anyway. Big news now: CONTRACTIONS!!!
> I went for an hour walk last night with mom, then beat her very to
> Scrabble (for afficionados, 446 to 312 - must have been my best score
> ever, with the first 3 rounds placing all my letters), and then the
> contractions started. First slowly, then quite strongly. I didn't go in
> the tub this time, thinking some work must be done and not wanting to
> interfere. I know, when it's the real thing there's nothing to stop it,
> but I feel even those "false" contractions have to be doing something and
> MUST do it!
>
> I didn't sleep too well on the physical side, but my brains are rested - I
> wasn't hoping for anything, and this morning the contractions are still
> there. At 5 AM I was in the tub, and they kept coming. Out of the tub now,
> sitting on my exercise ball and still contracting, more so. The only thing
> bothering me a bit now is that it's gonna be rush hour for traffic, and
> there is no way we get in the car to the Birth Centre before 8:30 AM. Oh
> well, That's a bit more than two hours down the road, 'til then I'll
> really know if something is happening or if it's just another long latency
> starting...
>
> Wish me luck, I'll keep you posted.
>
> Oh, and thank you all so much for being there - I don't reply to all, but
> I read everything.

Yay! I hope it happens for you today.

rj

[Zaz]

OK, I'm not getting into this again. I had a latency period of 72 hours with
my first, and I was the one insisting on delay. Not so this time, I won't go
through that. I will argue if they want to delay it once I've set my mind on
an induction - if I do.


> wrote in message ...
> Zaz > writes:
>
> It doesn't matter what your "real" due date is. Never argue
> when they want to *delay* it. Only aruge when they want to
> *advance* it, and as a result take precipitous actions!
>
> :-)
> Larry

[Anne Rogers]

good luck, the rush hour stinks doesn't it, my friend had a baby in November
and she was pretty darn sure it was the real thing and she wanted to go into
the birth centre about 4 in the afternoon, but they told her no, eventually
she went in about 7 and had the baby before 10, so it wasn't a mega rush,
but I think she'd have felt more comfortable if they'd have just listened to
her and had her come in when she wanted to.

Good luck Isabelle

Anne

[Anne Rogers]

> OK, I'm not getting into this again. I had a latency period of 72 hours
> with my first, and I was the one insisting on delay. Not so this time, I
> won't go through that. I will argue if they want to delay it once I've set
> my mind on an induction - if I do.

I think what Larry means is that you don't want pressure just because you
are post dates, long latent phase is something doctors are usually happy to
induce for, as long as you are past 39 weeks (however unpleasant a latent
phase is before that, most people just won't risk immaturity)

Anne

[lucy-lu]

Zaz wrote:
> The NST and ultrasound went perfectly yesterday. Funny thing though, was
> last week the baby was supposedly "not moving enough" during the NST (he was
> just fine to me), but this time, he was just "moving too much" (and was
> still just fine to me). Different technicians/nurses always want different
> things, dont't they? And there's always my saviour coming in saying: "Oh!
> Wow! This is perfect!" (I love her).
>
> Ultrasound was fine too ---- wait, didn't I say all that yesterday?
>
> Anyway. Big news now: CONTRACTIONS!!!
> I went for an hour walk last night with mom, then beat her very to Scrabble
> (for afficionados, 446 to 312 - must have been my best score ever, with the
> first 3 rounds placing all my letters), and then the contractions started.
> First slowly, then quite strongly. I didn't go in the tub this time,
> thinking some work must be done and not wanting to interfere. I know, when
> it's the real thing there's nothing to stop it, but I feel even those
> "false" contractions have to be doing something and MUST do it!
>
> I didn't sleep too well on the physical side, but my brains are rested - I
> wasn't hoping for anything, and this morning the contractions are still
> there. At 5 AM I was in the tub, and they kept coming. Out of the tub now,
> sitting on my exercise ball and still contracting, more so. The only thing
> bothering me a bit now is that it's gonna be rush hour for traffic, and
> there is no way we get in the car to the Birth Centre before 8:30 AM. Oh
> well, That's a bit more than two hours down the road, 'til then I'll really
> know if something is happening or if it's just another long latency
> starting...
>
> Wish me luck, I'll keep you posted.
>
> Oh, and thank you all so much for being there - I don't reply to all, but I
> read everything.
>
>
Aaah, so Scrabble's the way to induce labour?! *lucy goes to find the
board, and her dh* ;)

Good luck tho! - I hope today is the big day!

Lucy x

[Welches]

"Zaz" > wrote in message
.. .
> Well, today I'm being told the baby's head is not engaged anymore. So hang
> in there, they say. "you're only 5 days overdue"... Yep. But I'm
> contracting and it's getting tough.
>
With a second baby it's fairly usual not to be engaged until labour starts.
It's also usual for the baby to drift in and out of engagement.
Debbie