littlesthobo, cabbagecabbage, Fundal height really doesn't have a whole lot to do with how much you show or how you carry. It's really just how it's growing. I think it's supposed to be a centimeter a week. Like if you're 25 weeks, your OB should be able to feel your uterus 25cm above your pubic bone. It's a higher measurement if you're carrying twins or if you had a high BMi prior to pregnancy usually. I think a lot of OBs use it to make sure growth isn't restricted. Like you've moved from one week to another and it's not just chillen around the same area.
ellebelle, that's cool. I always find myself wondering about OB practices. I swear each practice in every state had a different standard of care. I'm convinced it's the most unregulated branch of medicine.
If I have a growth u/s it will be to make sure growth is happening and there's no iugr. It's not standard at this practice. My DD was 5,15 full term. There are some theories as to why she was so small, 1 being she had a thin umbilical cord and 2 perhaps we just make small babies, but it's enough to be cautious this time and make sure this guy can keep growing as much as he needs to in there.
The whole measuring thing is so ridiculous. My OB does the barest of bare minimum feels and then goes "yep. About where it's supposed to be." Which I suppose is good. I'd hate for my uterus to be wandering around my body unaccounted for.
For the ladies having growth scans done, are they to make sure growth is happening or because they're concerned about size? Those u/s scans are within a 10% margin of error 71% of the time. Which accounts for a good chunk of women being told they need sections for big babies, and they end up having normal sized kids.
We are getting one bc the ob thinks baby is too big, which I think is ridiculous! I'm having a difficult time going against my ob recommendations, but will be pissed if she insists on a c section and he comes out 7lbs.
The whole measuring thing is so ridiculous. My OB does the barest of bare minimum feels and then goes "yep. About where it's supposed to be." Which I suppose is good. I'd hate for my uterus to be wandering around my body unaccounted for.
For the ladies having growth scans done, are they to make sure growth is happening or because they're concerned about size? Those u/s scans are within a 10% margin of error 71% of the time. Which accounts for a good chunk of women being told they need sections for big babies, and they end up having normal sized kids.
We are getting one bc the ob thinks baby is too big, which I think is ridiculous! I'm having a difficult time going against my ob recommendations, but will be pissed if she insists on a c section and he comes out 7lbs.
Has she mentioned that? Honestly, I'm down with sections if they're medically necessary/that's what mom wants. But women give birth to some big fucking kids vaginally. I'd be hard pressed to think of a time that I've heard of a baby that was too big to deliver. All of the women on MHs side of the family are "petite," and they've all had 9-11lb kids. Sometimes genetics just smacks you with this stuff.
Post by tikoberry99 on Apr 16, 2016 18:23:06 GMT -5
TheTuna15 I think she will "prep" me mentally for a c section if he measures big at the scan next week...but I agree women have been birthing big babies for centuries...big baby shouldn't mean c section. Uggv.
TheTuna15 I think she will "prep" me mentally for a c section if he measures big at the scan next week...but I agree women have been birthing big babies for centuries...big baby shouldn't mean c section. Uggv.
I mean, not going to lie, a 10 pounder is probably going to be less fun to push out than a 6 pounder. She'll probably tell you that. I think the biggest baby born vaginally in the US was like 14lbs. When you go into the hospital, they'll be monitoring you and the little guy's vitals. If size is an issue for delivery, they'll know.
Sorry if I sound pushy, I don't mean to. It just bothers me when people who want to have vaginal or unmedicated deliveries feel like they have to fight their doctors for it. There's nothing wrong with sections, but they are surgical procedures that I don't think need pushing.
Post by lovegrilledcheese on Apr 16, 2016 19:28:35 GMT -5
I had a growth scan two weeks ago and I believe it is just standard practice. We also did it to check on my marginal placenta previa which has now resolved itself. My OB just said I have a big healthy baby which she seemed about because of my HG.
******Loss Mentioned***** Me-Stage 3 Endo DH-MFI Nov and Dec 2014-Letrozole+trigger+IUI=BFN Jan 2015: IVF#1:ET cancelled due to severe OHSS FET #1: April 2015=BFP 4/10 & M/C 4/27 & D&C 5/15 Hysteroscopy and polypectomy 7/31 FET #2: Aug-Cxl FET #2.1 9/18-BFFN FET #3: 10/23-
TheTuna15 I think she will "prep" me mentally for a c section if he measures big at the scan next week...but I agree women have been birthing big babies for centuries...big baby shouldn't mean c section. Uggv.
I agree with TheTuna15 If it's wanted/needed then that's different. I'm 5'4" and gave birth to a 9 pound 13 oz baby. My sister gave birth to a 10 pound 3 oz baby. My friend who is one of the tiniest people I know had a 10 pounder and an 11 pounder! I'm sure there are cases where it's needed but like you said a big baby shouldn't automatically mean a c section. Sorry you're having to deal with the stress of this!
Post by rungirlrun on Apr 16, 2016 23:12:05 GMT -5
Does a baby's weight really matter that much when it comes to how difficult a vaginal birth is? Maybe a dumb question. But basically the hardest part is getting the head and shoulders out. Once those are out, I feel like how long or how much fat is on the baby (affecting the weight) wouldn't really matter. Like many of you, I feel some drs are a bit too CS happy for reasons that aren't really necessary.
Does a baby's weight really matter that much when it comes to how difficult a vaginal birth is? Maybe a dumb question. But basically the hardest part is getting the head and shoulders out. Once those are out, I feel like how long or how much fat is on the baby (affecting the weight) wouldn't really matter. Like many of you, I feel some drs are a bit too CS happy for reasons that aren't really necessary.
I was about to say that. If you can get the head out, you're fine. The rest is length designed to be smaller. I have...feelings on this issue since last time I was told I *had* to be induced on my due date. I had to fight for 40 weeks actually with mild GD, diet cobtrolled. My growth scans were 50% on the nose. I went into labor at 39w5d and she was 7lb9oz. I'm at a different practice now where they go case by case. I'll take interventions if necessary and be thankful but I don't want extra.
Does a baby's weight really matter that much when it comes to how difficult a vaginal birth is? Maybe a dumb question. But basically the hardest part is getting the head and shoulders out. Once those are out, I feel like how long or how much fat is on the baby (affecting the weight) wouldn't really matter. Like many of you, I feel some drs are a bit too CS happy for reasons that aren't really necessary.
That's basically my feeling on the issue. Even talking to MH about it, he's mentioned that it doesn't really seem to matter. His hospital has seen cases where arrested decent happens in a 6 1/2lb baby. I think it's ridiculous to push it on someone because it MAY be an issue, especially if you're giving birth at a hospital where you can be rushed to section in 90 seconds.
Then Comes Family, LLC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising
program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.