Your mother's labour - is it true?

[Lemondrop09]

Is there any truth in the tale that your labour is likely to reflect your mother's? Obviously they won't be identical, and you might have complication etc. But for example, my mum was in the delivery room for just 2.5hrs with my brother and only 20 minutes with me!!! People keep telling me I'll probably have a quick labour. I was wondering if there's really any truth in that? Much as I'd welcome a quick labour, I'd also like pain control (probably an epidural) and I'm worried it'll happen so fast that I won't have time for pain relief

This topic really interests me! Mum and I had almost identical births first time round : show, two hours later waters, quick progression and baby within 6.

I am currently pregnant with number 2 and hoping my second is less like hers, which ended in her waters being broken, my brother arriving in 6 minutes and a LOT of blood and stitches.

My mum took 24 hours with me (first child). I was induced at 2 weeks overdue and delivered within 12.

My mother had two straightforward home births.

I had a life or death crash c-section and then an elective.

Nope, my mum had short labours, mine were long and I had PPH's with both.

All 3 of my births have been quick (longest labour 2 hours 45 mins), straightforward natural deliveries. My poor mother had over 24 hours active labour (and hours of the early kind before that) and I was born by crash section. With my brother it wasnt quite so bad- 14 hours, full episiotomy and forceps. I am glad my births were nothing like hers.

Yep, 3 quick ones for her and 3 for me too.

My Grandma (her mum) was the same - had her 4th in half an hour!

I had an identical labour to my Mum. 20 hours long, forceps, episiotomy, passing out, vomiting, the works.

DS was lying back-to-back, so was I, and so was my Mum!
So difficult labours all round in my family!

Not at all for me. Thank goodness, my DM had a horrific time! Her first baby died in childbirth (a little boy), my sister was 6 weeks prem and very ill and I was emcs as the cord was badly round my neck. I was full term but very tiny and was ill after birth.

No. My mother was induced on the Thursday, my sister was born by emergency c-section on the SUNDAY, both of them nearly died, my mother didn't see my sister until she was 2 days old. I was two weeks late, my sister was 2.5 weeks late.

I on the other hand gave birth at 33 weeks about 3 hours after I turned up at hospital!

Mum popped me out quickly and easily , 3 weeks early at 20 years old
Then had 2 home births ( was the 1960s )
I had DS with the help of forceps and an epidural after 24 hours in labour ( at age 34 )
DD was born in less than an hour though

My Mum had long pregnancies and large babies (her first was a failed induction) considering she was only 4'10 and my Dad 5'9"

I had long pregnancies was a bugger to get inductions working and had HUGE babies (I'm only 5')

Both of us had horrendously heavy periods and long cycles!

My mum gran and sister all had long-ish but fairly easy straight forward labours all very similar everyone said i would be the same but both my labours were back to back and ended in forceps 1st and emcs 2nd time so nothing alike. However my grans sister had all hard labours particually her one boy which was exactly the same issue I had and mine were boys take from that what you will.

I think so. My mum is very critical about women who complain about giving birth. She thinks they're being ridiculous.

I have had very very fast & quite easy labours - I've never been in a great deal of pain during them. I've suggested to dm that we are both just very lucky people who happen to have easy labours but she disagrees with this.

She's not an empathetic person at the best of times but she can't acknowledge that other women may have bad or painful experiences giving birth. "Labour isn't that bad. Women who fuss during labour are ridiculous attention seekers" in my mum's eyes this is an absolute fact and not subjective at all.

My mum had quick, drug free labours so I was hoping for the same, but DC1 took 21 hours from when I was 5cm dilated. DC2 and DC3 were quick though.

Nope. My Mum was 6 hours with me (assisted - forceps) and then 36 hours with my brother.

DD1 was 18 hours and born in a birth pool. DD2 was 12 hours and born with gas and air on a birth mat.

My mum had very quick labours and so did I. I seem to follow her on most things uterus related - puberty age, cycle frequency, ease of pregnancy, smooth & fast labours, ....and hopefully easy menopause to look forward to.

No.

My mother honestly thinks 2 hours is "normal". As that's her experience. Longer than that and "something's gone wrong".

Apparently 14 days over is normal for our family too.

I was 2 weeks early, emcs without even getting to established labour.

My sister had a textbook, 1cm/hour, 10 hour labour and delivery.

My mum had 4 babies and I've had 3. Other than a baby coming out of a vagina at some point our labours had nothing in common at all.

No, couldn't have been more different for me and my DM (thankfully for me!)

Not for me unfortunately longest of my mum's was 7 hours, mine was over 2 days!

Me and my mum had identical first births time spans etc all very similar but she ended in a c section. Mum believes that if she had been given the time like I was she would've had a vaginal birth too.

No entirely different. But then my DM had babies that were half the size of mine.

My labour with my son was near identical to my mothers labour with me - so for me yes it's true!

My Mum went into spontaneous labour with my brother and it was 12 hours from start to finish. With me she opted for an epidural and as she had to go private to do this they would only do it with an induction, from start to finish it was approx 6 hours.

Labour with my DD was 5 hours 17 mins from start to finish and spontaneous.

My mum and I both had awful sickness during pregnancy and both had very fast labours.