# 1st baby born at 39 weeks, will 2nd baby be early too?



## Shiv

Hello, my little girl was born at 39 weeks, I went into labour natuarlly, and had a realtively quick and easy labour (waters broke at 1pm, contractions started at 4pm, had her by 10pm). So what is the likelihood that this baby will come early, or even earlier? Also is it true that 2nd labours tend to be much quicker than 1st?

Thanks in advance :flower:


----------



## Mummy~L

I spoke to my MW about this on Tues as Bobby was born at 38+1 and a 4 hour 25 min labour.

She said to expect another quick labour. She said that this one might not be as early though, only time will tell for that :(

I still have my fingers crossed but this LO isn't engaged in the slightest so not holding my breath! Xx


----------



## spencerspiece

my first was 10 days early and my second was 2 weeks late so no to are the same lol


----------



## NaturalMomma

Maybe yes, maybe no. All babies come at different times.


----------



## mitnmay

It could happen, but dont count on it. My first son was 6 days early and my second son was 2 days late. As for labor, I was told your first sort of "paves the way" for the next so they do tend to be faster. I went from 9 hours with my first to 3 hours with my second. Good luck!


----------



## sam*~*louize

Just bumped an old thread I found wondering this. My first was same, 39 weeks, natural - and waters break to contractions to birth was 6 hours eeeek.

My midwife said 2nd labours are "generally" quicker so expect it, and she couldnt say def but as you went early with first then yes it is a possibility for 2nd to do it too.


----------



## MandaAnda

It all depends on whether baby is ready. And keep in mind that 39 weeks isn't "early." (Yes, I get that it's before your EDD, which is an _estimate_ anyway.) 37-42 weeks is _normal_.


----------



## PeanutBean

My first came at 38+3, 34.5 hour labour, very complicated. I am certain that my waters went because I had some degree of polyhydramnias (undiagnosed) and bronchitis the combined efforts of which caused the membranes to give in.

The second came at 40+3, 22 hour labour, natural homebirth with no pain relief. A very different story I think because she was actually ready to come.


----------



## Babynumber1

I was wondering the same thing as i had my son at 37+3 and im 37 weeks on thursday and wondering when i will labour this time xx


----------



## Mary Jo

Obviously I don't know from experience... but from a few people I know, the labours themselves seemed to be a lot quicker second and more times round, but they didn't necessarily go into labour earlier than before. 

for example, my sister in law - 1st baby 39+3, long labour, epidural, ended in instrumental delivery. 2nd baby 40+5, very short labour once waters went (almost gave birth in the lift at the hospital), baby born after 10 mins in hospital, no pain relief. 3rd baby 38+4, another very short labour, 2 hours all in all, no pain relief. another friend - 1st baby 39 weeks, long delivery, interventions required. 2nd baby 41+1, quick labour, no interventions or pain relief.

so I think your answer is, maybe, maybe not. :)


----------



## Ju_bubbs

My labours have come earlier, and been quicker each time... but, it doesn't always happen like that, it really does depend completely on the individual pregnancy!


----------



## BrandiCanucks

Not necessarily.

My first was born at 39w5d after a 9 hour and 55 minute labour.
My second was born at 38w2d after a 7 hour and 15 minute labour.
My third was born at 41w0d..yup, 7 days LATE, after a 4 hour and 45 minute labour.


----------



## Eternal

you labour may well be quicker, but as for earlier, 39 weeks isnt really early, anything between 37 - 42 weeks is considered normal and your "due date" is just an estimate, very few babies arrive on their due date.


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

I reckon there's no correlation. Espec as your baby wasn't even 'early' anyway - she was term.


----------



## sam*~*louize

Nice to read your experiences ladies, regardless of who classes what as early, we didn't go to due date :)


----------



## MandaAnda

sam*~*louize said:


> Nice to read your experiences ladies, regardless of who classes what as early, we didn't go to due date :)

As I said up-thread, I get that people say "early" when they mean before their estimated due date. I just want to clear this up though: it's not "who classes what as early," to be fair. It's not me saying 39 weeks isn't early and another woman saying it is. Ask any obstetrician, midwife, neonatal staff, etc. in the _world_ - only birth before 37 weeks gestation is classed as pre-term or early. 37-42 weeks is term. Normal.


----------



## Shiv

Ok I get the definition of early - thank you!

I am pretty sure most people understood from the OP that i meant before my due date, I wasn't asking for advice on what early means, just that as I have already had one baby come before my due date (and lets face it most people expect to go overdue with their first - go on someone argue with me :haha:) was it more likely that my second one would also come before my due date too.

Thanks for all the replies ladies, just a waiting game now. I don't want to go before my due date by the way, my husband is away until I am 38 weeks so I am more than happy for bubs to stay put until i am due.


----------



## VikkieD

I guess it just depends on when baby is ready :)

My little man came along at 39 weeks, relatively easy labour :)

Good luck :)


----------



## calliebaby

My sister was born 3 weeks early and it was 2.5 hours of labor.
I was 3 days early and a 45 minute delivery.

My little man was 3 weeks early and a 4.5 hour, natural labor....I hope the next one is as quick!:thumbup:

My friend, her first born was 2 weeks late, she was induced, 16 hours of labor, epidural and 2-3 hours of pushing.
Her second child, was born on her due date, after 1.5 hours and without any pain relief.


----------



## Coastiewife07

My first was 38 weeks 12 hour labor. Second 41 weeks (induced) 24 hour labor. Guess it all depends


----------



## Guppy051708

depends on the baby, positioning, your health, and your emotions, honestly.

My son came at 41+5 (he was posterior). I will update when i give birth to this peanut (but that wont be for a while). I'm just expecting this one to be late but I don't really know

its different for everyone, but if i were basing it off of my friends experience, the ones who we early the first time, went overdue the second time. the ones that went overdue the first time went overdue the second time. But those are only a couple of my friends and as i said its different for everyone. Really there is NO way to tell


----------



## Blah11

Amelie was 39+1 spontaneous labour, 15 hours from waters breaking, maybe 12 hours established labour and 27 min pushing. She was back to back and didn't turn at all.

I wouldn't mind a similar birth but not direct op.


----------



## Guppy051708

Blah11 said:


> Amelie was 39+1 spontaneous labour, 15 hours from waters breaking, maybe 12 hours established labour and 27 min pushing. She was back to back and didn't turn at all.
> 
> I wouldn't mind a similar birth but not direct op.

Haha yeah.direct op sucked! Ouch! And my labor was 30 hours :shock: you should be very prouD that yours was average length with an op!


----------



## charbaby

My 1st was 4 days late and easyish labour, my 2nd was 3 weeks earlier and alot harder labour x


----------



## Blah11

Guppy051708 said:


> Blah11 said:
> 
> 
> Amelie was 39+1 spontaneous labour, 15 hours from waters breaking, maybe 12 hours established labour and 27 min pushing. She was back to back and didn't turn at all.
> 
> I wouldn't mind a similar birth but not direct op.
> 
> Haha yeah.direct op sucked! Ouch! And my labor was 30 hours :shock: you should be very prouD that yours was average length with an op!Click to expand...

No tears or grazed either. Midwife says if you can have a direct op baby with no epi you can do anything haha x


----------



## Guppy051708

Blah11 said:


> Amelie was 39+1 spontaneous labour, 15 hours from waters breaking, maybe 12 hours established labour and 27 min pushing. She was back to back and didn't turn at all.
> 
> I wouldn't mind a similar birth but not direct op.




Blah11 said:


> Guppy051708 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah11 said:
> 
> 
> Amelie was 39+1 spontaneous labour, 15 hours from waters breaking, maybe 12 hours established labour and 27 min pushing. She was back to back and didn't turn at all.
> 
> I wouldn't mind a similar birth but not direct op.
> 
> Haha yeah.direct op sucked! Ouch! And my labor was 30 hours :shock: you should be very prouD that yours was average length with an op!Click to expand...
> 
> No tears or grazed either. Midwife says if you can have a direct op baby with no epi you can do anything haha xClick to expand...

I think she's correct! Haha. I went unmedicated (sooooo much back labor!!!) and I had a small, hardly noticeable cat scratch. I attribute that to the long crowning stage! Took6 hrs to push him out but he crowned for about a half hour :shock: I def think (if this baby isn't op) then labor is going tobe a breeze!


----------



## Treelo

My 1st was 5hr labour born at 38wks gas, air and pethidine, my 2nd was faster and easier labout 1hr 40min born at 36wks no pain relief, my 2nd was bigger than my first also.
My MW and GP have told me that this baby will prob make an early and fast appearance but only time will tell, knowing my lukc i will go over by 2wks this time lol!!


----------

