This might sound a bit daft but i would love to know oter peoples experiences.
With my first ds i went into quick fast labour,(no signs at all!) within four hrs i was fully dialated but was in a huge rush with having to have e-c because he was breech (only worked that out at last min!)
However i would love for this to be done naturaly simply for the after care of it being able to heal quicker and be more mobile. (would love to go home straight away after birth) So with this one (29wks today) what do you think the chances are with it being quick? I am petrified this one will last for hours and hours! having your first one quite quick is the chance for the second being quick?
I think further labours are generally quicker than the first. My two were both pretty quick. If you have a good midwife you can ask them about positions for slowing down or speeding up labour, so you feel more in control. Active Birth or pregnancy yoga classes can also give you lots of tips.
My first labour was about 6 hours and my second was about 3½ hours.
The obstetrician kept telling me that as soon as I had any signs of labour for my second child that I was to get to hospital immediately and that the midwives must be made aware that I had a quick first birth.
Like you my first labour was 4 hours from start to finish. My second labour was 2 hours, I am now 21 weeks pg with my 3rd DD and am pretty sure that I wont have enough time to get to the hospital! So am hoping for a homebirth.
My first was about 2 hours of the "main" part (have forgotten correct definition of stages!) i.e. the full-on contractions and pushing bit; second one about 6 hours and my waters had broken first which they didn't in first labour. With the second I had a larger baby (who was also posterior) so don't know if that had anything to do with it! I have a couple of friends whose second births were slightly slower too but it seems to have a lot to do with how the baby's positioned.