Does your experience of labour follow your mother's?

[Chocalholic1]

I've heard this lately - that if your mother was overdue/had a long labour etc. then you are likely to share the same experience? Similarly, if her's was quick and easy yours is likely to be too! This is my first baby so I can't comment but I wondered what others' experiences were and whether they agreed?

Yes, my mum and I had kind of similar easy experiences. I was born after 7 hour labour (1 week early and induced due to high bp) with no real problems - during which she apparently cried out, 'It's a miracle!' and after which she said, 'Well, I could do that again!' With my brother he was very nearly born in the ambulance on his due date.

DD came four weeks early in four hours. I was 10cm dilated when I got to hospital and she was born about an hour later.

I think we had a smooth ride... I read some labour stories and realise how lucky we were!

Fiona

never asked my mum, but was at the birth of my sisters sons, this was before I had children. Lucky for us all (she had 2ds and i have 2dd) all uncomplicated, similar and very quick!

No - thank f*ck! Mum had a really hard time, I was breech, she had no pain relief, was totally uneducated as to what to expect (she didn't even know what her waters breaking was), forceps delivery and stitches followed by years of PND. Unsurprisingly, I'm an only child.

I didn't labour at all with dd1, waters broke but only weak contractions, didn't dilate, dd's heart rate was high so I had emcs. Elective cs this time round.

I wish! My mum's three were quick and easy; she was young, fit and athletic (I was neither young nor athletic), and she just seems to have done it all without any major problems.
Mine were a bit harder work...

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some memory filtering going on. ('Mum, surely we must have refused to eat our vegetables sometimes as well?!?'; 'No, I really don't think so. You just ate yours.' Yeah, right... )

first birth of mine differed alot from my mothers second one identical in time both 4 hours. ds1 and i were born at exactly same time in the morning and ds2 and my brother born same time in the evening!

Nope, my mum had NO labour pains, gave birth to me in an hour after being admitted a week overdue. She apparently thought she had indigestion but the midwife recognised her expression as 'pushing face'.

Lucky witch!

At a tangent - do you still get some women who feel no labour pains? My mil was like this and I always half suspected she was fibbing.

SO it happens then?

There was one in my postnatal group -- went along for her scheduled midwife appointment and the midwife said "umm... you appear to be in labour...". She didn't feel anything approaching a labour pain until it was time to push.

My mum had three easy births - mine were too apart from PPH after each however my sister went through a nightmare first time round and then opted for an elective section second time.

I don't think it makes a difference

Ah. Not particularly rare then

I'm in the no camp too. My mum spent my whole pregancy telling me that giving birth isn't as bad as everyone says as hers were all easy, quick and more or less on time. My dd was 10 days late, I had a slow, difficult labour & emergency C-section and my mum was there throughout - afterwards she was quite traumatised and said she had no idea giving birth could be so difficult! Think both my grandmothers had problems though.

I wish!

My mum was 16 when she had me - apparently she was in a bit of discomfort (her words) but thought she was in the early stages as the woman in the next bed was wailing and dm didn't feel like she needed to! (Apparently, when they checked her she was nearly crowning)

Unlike me, who had forceps and an emergency c-section with dd1 and dd2 and huge amounts of bloodloss etc - but I've recovered.

no. mum had a bad time - I was fine

My mum says she had two easy births and I had an emergency c-section followed by breech and planned section. Her theory is that she was 20-22 and I was 33-35 and as we get older we are less well equipped to have straightforward births.

I'm not sure if there is any research on this out there, but I think it might be true. My cousins had babies in early twenties - all fine quick births and many of my friends in mid to late thirties had tricky times.

Apparantly, you may find that it's your partners mums labour (with your partner not their siblings unless they all have the same dad) to look at. Your body treats a second (or third or fourth) pregnancy as if it's its first if its with a different bloke from your previous kids. My mum was overdue a week with me and was in labour 24 hours. My baby was born 2 hours after his due date and I was only in labour an hour and a half, my partners mum died years ago and he never asked her and her labour. So I don't believe you copy your mums patern.

My Mum and I both had our babies early-ish at between 37 & 39 weeks, fairly fast, trouble free, active labours with fathers present - very helpful with making cups of Tea for midwives!
Perhaps it was because we were at home and relaxed, I had a fantastic labour with my 1st child. Neither of us had any gas & air, shaving, enemas - which were common in my mums day (1966-1970).
I think the reason you can follow your mums' experience is because you have a similar gentic make up, some women take days to labour, which my sister-in-law did. Her mum thought she would follow her paternal grandmother, and she was right. They both had similar characters/personalities apparently.

NO - my mother still insists that childbirth wasn't that painful - just like passing a big poo!! Having said that, her's got drastically faster after the first one, much like my no 2 and 3.

Does anyone think that having babies in quick succession eg: 12-18 months apart makes for easier labours? I am asking as I want another baby and my ds will be 4 in june...is it REALLY true that your second is easier!!!...

I live in hope as I want to have a nother baby asap and my daughter is 16 months

My mother was in hospital for 2 months before my birth with high blood preasure and endedup having a section after 2 days of labour and I gave birth o my daughter in 5 hours, so thankfully I didnt take after my mother. She was also 8 yeras younger than me when she gave bith

My Mam and my Nanna both had struggles giving birth due to a samll pelvis and I did too.

I took after my mum with fast labours, both children were nearly 9lb, first took 7 1/2 hours start to finish, second 2 1/2 hours. My midwife told me to ask my mum what she did about pain relief and she said 'well I didn't have any but you have a much lower threshold for pain than me' That was it I was determined to do it without anything and I did - not even gas and air. The one thing I have done in my life that makes me feel really hardcore!
Btw rubbish about being in your 30s equalling difficult births, both mine were very straightforward and ds was born when I was 31 and dd when I was 33. However, I cannot say it didn't hurt

With regards to the genetic thing, I don't think that is necessarily true, lifestyle must play a part. I haven't given birth yet so can't compare.

But my mum is an identical twin and she had 3 natural labours with just GandA which lasted about 20hours each. My aunt had 2 emergency caesarians and 1 where she had to be on bedrest for 6 months. My mum loved being pregnant, my aunt hated it. In theory as identical twins you'd have thought they would have similar birth experiences.

xx

Nope, totally different.

Mum: I was 5 days overdue, very small, and took 36 hours to come out but did so without causing too much damage.

Myself: dd was six weeks early, breech and deliverd by c/s. She was very big (6.8 lbs) for being premature and me being a tiny wee thing (seven and a half stone). I guess she ran out of space, lol.

...also, my mum had a supereasy pregnancy and mine was awful.