# Anyone here have a fast first birth? What was the second birth like?



## SarahBear

So with my first, I woke up from my contractions a little after 5:00 am and Violet was born at 8:16. Which means that my first labor was about 3 hours long. Sure it could have been a bit longer, but the part that was intense enough to not sleep through was 3 hours. That's pretty fast for a first labor. I'm now due with my second on the 22nd of March.

Did anyone else here have a fast first labor and then have a second kid? How fast was your first labor and what was the second labor like for you?

Oh, and I had a home birth with my first. It was not a water birth and gas and air are not an option for home birth in the US, so it was completely drug free with only my relaxation strategies for pain relief. I'm planning the same for my second birth.


----------



## Maxy1

I had au naturale labour with my first - 4 hours from first contraction to baby. It was a really nice experience as far as labours go. 

My second labour was intense and done and dusted in less than 90 mins. I really found this one difficult. Everything was rush rush rush and the pain was constant with no breaks. I was at pushing time while we were driving to the hospital and baby was out less than 15 minutes after arriving, like 5 pushes. 

unfortunately after that I had a retained placenta that had to be removed manually. So that sucked. :cry:

They say your second labour is usually about half the time of the first. 

Best of luck!!


----------



## Eleanor ace

I had quite a quick first birth. It was 6 hours start to finish but would probably have been quicker if I'd been able to be active throughout. I dilated quite fast, 0-6cm took about 1.5 hours, then 6-7cm took about 10 mins. From there though I had to be on my back for monitoring (problems with our heartrates and they couldn't get LO's eartrate accurately in other positions) and it slowed right down, and pushing took 2 hours.
My second labour was longer, about 9 hours I think from 3cm. I figured it'd be quicker, especially as I was already 3cm dilated so my body had less work to do. But the first few hours weren't intense, I wasn't sure I was in labour for a while. When it really got going it was more painful than my first labour, transition and pushing were significantly "worse" pain wise, although DD had shoulder dystosia so I think that might have been why (both were the same presentation otherwise, posterior with hand to face) and I only pushed for 14 minutes- the joy of beng able to move!


----------



## SarahBear

Movement is a funny thing. I have read a lot about it being helpful, but for me, holding still was most helpful. Before transition phase (I'm making an assumption on the stage here as I wasn't examined until pushing), I could move around and stuff, but had to sit straight upright. Then when it got to a certain level, I laid down on my bed in the position recommended in the Bradley method book and used the relaxation technique described there. At the pushing stage, I started on the toilet, but moved to my bed and pushed her out on all fours... So I changed positions based on toilet needs and in order to return to the bed to push, but that was to meet needs other than pain needs.


----------



## LeoTheLion

I had ds1 4 weeks early with a 4ish hr labour & ds2 was 9 days early 2 1/2 he labour :)


----------



## Cheska8

I was wondering the same thing, I had my first LO in July 13 and from first pain to her being out was 1 hour 40, and am pregnant with my second, due in April. Am having a lot of worries about making it to the hospital on time. Seems like second ones are generally quicker, so I suppose we just have to be prepared and have people on stand by to watch our first ones.

With my first, after about 20 minutes the contractions were just on top of each other and unbearable, and I was 8cm when I got to the hospital, which took about 20-25 mins. Think I only had about 20 mins of pushing to get her out. I don't think I'd swap my quick labours for a longer one but they are so intense and painful because your body just goes into shock rather than being able to deal with them ramping up. That's what my midwife told me anyway.


----------



## SarahBear

Cheska8 said:


> I was wondering the same thing, I had my first LO in July 13 and from first pain to her being out was 1 hour 40, and am pregnant with my second, due in April. Am having a lot of worries about making it to the hospital on time. Seems like second ones are generally quicker, so I suppose we just have to be prepared and have people on stand by to watch our first ones.
> 
> With my first, after about 20 minutes the contractions were just on top of each other and unbearable, and I was 8cm when I got to the hospital, which took about 20-25 mins. Think I only had about 20 mins of pushing to get her out. I don't think I'd swap my quick labours for a longer one but they are so intense and painful because your body just goes into shock rather than being able to deal with them ramping up. That's what my midwife told me anyway.

I can't imagine trying to get to a hospital with a fast labor. It's much easier to manage labor without having to rush anywhere or worry about having the baby in the car. I had a home birth last time and I'm planning the same thing again.


----------



## Pearls18

4 hour first labour about an hour for my second. Not a chance I would be risking trying to get to a hospital if we had a third, second was a planned home birth but he came so quickly the MW didn't get there on time and I didn't get in the pool. All was well though, although it was quick the actual pushing was steady, a couple of pushes, so I wasn't too shocked, he was fine.


----------



## Cheska8

I spoke to my mw about a home birth and she advised against it. She said it would take them at least an hour to get to me whereas an ambulance could get me to the hospital in less than 30 mins from the phone call. I am still in two minds what to do though.


----------



## Pearls18

Cheska8 said:


> I spoke to my mw about a home birth and she advised against it. She said it would take them at least an hour to get to me whereas an ambulance could get me to the hospital in less than 30 mins from the phone call. I am still in two minds what to do though.

How come it would take so long to get to you? Surely if your labour would be that quick it would be risky to try and get there yourself, and obviously ambulances arent really designed as labour transport unless an emergency? When planning my home birth we said to the MWs we were worried they wouldn't make it (as they didn't) and she said that tbh the labours where the MWs don't make it are usually the most straight forward with little need for any other intervention, chances are the mum wouldn't have made hospital anyways so it's just to go along with it, and that was exactly what happened. Obviously you've got to do what's comfortable for you, how quick can you get to a hospital?


----------



## SarahBear

Cheska8 said:


> I spoke to my mw about a home birth and she advised against it. She said it would take them at least an hour to get to me whereas an ambulance could get me to the hospital in less than 30 mins from the phone call. I am still in two minds what to do though.

What about a private practice midwife?


----------



## SarahBear

MarineWAG said:


> Cheska8 said:
> 
> 
> I spoke to my mw about a home birth and she advised against it. She said it would take them at least an hour to get to me whereas an ambulance could get me to the hospital in less than 30 mins from the phone call. I am still in two minds what to do though.
> 
> How come it would take so long to get to you? Surely if your labour would be that quick it would be risky to try and get there yourself, and obviously ambulances arent really designed as labour transport unless an emergency? When planning my home birth we said to the MWs we were worried they wouldn't make it (as they didn't) and she said that tbh the labours where the MWs don't make it are usually the most straight forward with little need for any other intervention, chances are the mum wouldn't have made hospital anyways so it's just to go along with it, and that was exactly what happened. Obviously you've got to do what's comfortable for you, how quick can you get to a hospital?Click to expand...

This is a good point.


----------



## Cheska8

I think home birth isn't promoted in my area so she was trying to put me off. Last time I had meconium in my waters and needed an episiotomy so not sure if mine would be completely straightforward. If hubby was home and it wasn't rush hour we could get to the hospital in 15 mins. He works about 20 mins away so if he had to come home first or if it was rush hour then there is a good chance we might not make it, which is why she said to call an ambulance.


----------



## buttons1

My first labour was 3 1/2 hours and second was half an hour my second was so intense I would have much preferred it to be longer. I also got a nasty tear because it was so quick


----------



## Cheska8

Yeouch x

And half an hour - OMG!!


----------



## SisterRose

I was induced 3 times. First was 3hrs from waters broken to birth.

second two had more intervention with and had to be started on the drip to get things going but from drip to birth was 4hrs with both of them. 3rd labour I went from 5cm to baby being born in 30mins.


----------



## Tasha

Not in the same position but I worry about the speed of labour. My first labour was an early induction due to preeclampsia, so it was 27 hours long but the rest have been fast; second ninety minutes from first contraction to holding her, third forty-five minutes from first contraction to holding her, fourth less than an hour to go from 0cm to 7cm (needed a section then), fifth was 12 minutes. Home birth isn't an option for me (a variety of reasons including history of loss, medications I would be on, that it would be a vbac and my local hospital are not who I would trust to deliver my baby).

No real point to this other than in my experience they do get faster x


----------



## Srrme

All 3 of my labors have been 3 hours and under from start to finish.


----------



## Pearls18

Tasha said:


> Not in the same position but I worry about the speed of labour. My first labour was an early induction due to preeclampsia, so it was 27 hours long but the rest have been fast; second ninety minutes from first contraction to holding her, third forty-five minutes from first contraction to holding her, fourth less than an hour to go from 0cm to 7cm (needed a section then), fifth was 12 minutes. Home birth isn't an option for me (a variety of reasons including history of loss, medications I would be on, that it would be a vbac and my local hospital are not who I would trust to deliver my baby).
> 
> No real point to this other than in my experience they do get faster x


Ahhhhhh you're pregnant, congrats!!!!! So chuffed for you. (Sorry OP!!) xx


----------



## Midnight_Fairy

My first was 2hrs and my 2nd was 55mins. I am 40mins from a hospital and had GBs so no HB. The pains I recognised instantly and were more intense from the start. We went to hosp immediately and she was born 8 mins later 

My 3rd was slightly longer, say 4hrs or so? But I didn't have intense pain x


----------

