Was your first quick labour then second just as quick?

[Dunnyjo]

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.

First labour was 9.25 hours for a 9 lb 10 oz baby. I am sure if he had been smaller it would have been quicker.

Second labour was 4.75 hours and totally natural and driven by me.

i went from 5 1/2 to 2 1/2 hrs - I think it's not unusual to get quicker!

Also think it will help that although you actually ended up with a section that you started off in labour IYSWIM.

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.

He was half right!

ds1 3 1/2 hours

ds2 2 1/2 hours
dd3 5 hours (posterior)
dd4 2 1/2 hours so i'd say yes they do get quicker usually, but not always!

Hi DunnyJo -

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.

Both labours about 6 hours - first might have been quicker if I hadn't had an epidural.

well here is hoping that this will be nice and quick then lol (fingers crossed).....

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.

My first i suddenly doubled up in pain around 5pm, got ready, went in to Hospital and dd was born at 8.58pm.

My second i was told to gon in pretty sharpish. I had pains in the morning and went in around 8am and dd was born at 11.26am that morning.

So i'd say mine were about the same.

GOOD LUCK!

Yeah, quick first and same for second (and third). Had to slow me down to avoid problems (twins).

first labour was about 4 hours from start to finish
was told that I ought to get to the hospital quickly with my second

didnt think they meant within 35 minutes of the first proper contraction though

if we have a third, DH will have to take a crash course in midwifery

Ooooh my 2 were both nearly 24hrs from start to finnish, im 34 wk with number 3 and booked in for a homebirth so hope its not too quick or the midwife may not get here in time! lol

my first was quick, 3.5 hours, 2nd was quicker, 2.5 hours, third i got there and only just made it! fourth, well lets just say i got wise and set off for the hospital at the very first twinge!

god im going daft, ive already posted in march!

1st 2 1/2 hours
2nd 1 hour 45 mins
3rd 1 hour

so they stated quick and got quicker!