If you have delivered vaginally x-post

Talk about your birth plan, ask questions, and share advice.

Moderators: B Michaelson, southernbelle, jessm, 1daysoon, reapage, Honey Bunny, unaffected, maddy, TrebleLily

If you have delivered vaginally, is your shoe size larger than size 5 US?

yes
91
92%
no
8
8%
 
Total votes : 99

If you have delivered vaginally x-post

Postby ladybug07 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:29 pm

Just curious.....
Me 31 DH 34
DS 5
DS 3
DD is here! January 13th @ 8:42 am 6lbs, 11oz 20 inches

Image

ImageImage
Image
ladybug07
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:00 am

Postby Danika » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:10 pm

Now that you have me curious.. you have to explain this one eventually. :)
Image Image
User avatar
Danika
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:00 am

Postby ladybug07 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:21 pm

:) Sorry for the lack of explanation on this one.......

Both of my babies were delivered by c-section because they were not able to fit through my pelvis. I am a petite person all around, with size 5 feet. I heard that there is a correlation between shoe size and pelvic size.
Me 31 DH 34
DS 5
DS 3
DD is here! January 13th @ 8:42 am 6lbs, 11oz 20 inches

Image

ImageImage
Image
ladybug07
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:00 am

Postby january » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:01 pm

My cousin is 4'10" (I don't remember her shoe size off the top of my head, sorry) and I've got a friend who is 5'0" and wears a size 5 and they both delivered vaginally.

Don't know how the hell they managed to carry 7lb babies either, but they did!!

I'm 5'7" and am miserable, lol.
Heather - 32
DH - 33
Violet - 12/31/08 (born on her EDD -- 6lb 13oz)
Eleanor & Cecilia - 6/26/12 (born 39 weeks 2 days -- 6lb 8oz & 7lb 10oz)

Image
User avatar
january
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 3856
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:00 am
Location: NE Ohio

Postby HeatherJ » Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:54 pm

My MIL is 5'1", wears a size 5 shoe, and wore a size 2 when she got pregnant with DH. Well, she delivered DH vaginally, with no drugs... and he was 10 lbs. :D
Me - 27
DH - 30
Breastfeeding, cloth-diapering, baby-wearing SAHM to my beautiful (intact!) baby boy.
Image
Image
User avatar
HeatherJ
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:00 am
Location: Beautiful Seattle, Washington

Postby ladybug07 » Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:18 pm

Heather9801 wrote:My MIL is 5'1", wears a size 5 shoe, and wore a size 2 when she got pregnant with DH. Well, she delivered DH vaginally, with no drugs... and he was 10 lbs. :D


8O Wow!
Me 31 DH 34
DS 5
DS 3
DD is here! January 13th @ 8:42 am 6lbs, 11oz 20 inches

Image

ImageImage
Image
ladybug07
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:00 am

Postby SlainteMhath » Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:40 pm

My mom is very small framed and gave birth to five babies ranging from 8.5 to 9 pounds all vaginally. I think she has a bigger shoe size than 5, but you wouldn't believe by looking at her that she was able to get five babies that big out of her body (or that she even HAD five babies!). I think the vast majority of women have a pelvis large enough to deliver whatever baby they carry. Unfortunately, things don't always line up correctly for one reason or another and women end up with c-sections. Nothing wrong with that! Just that I don't think anyone should think they aren't capable of delivering a baby vaginally because they are small. Women were made to have babies! :wink:
[ImageImageImage
User avatar
SlainteMhath
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 7673
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:00 am

Postby mrstreenall » Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:10 pm

I'm terrified of needing a C-Section. I think all women can get a baby through their pelvis one way or another, just doctors don't want to be liable because it's not safe. That's my take on it and I'm sticking to it!! (I have small hips and small feet)
the little birch tree - flower hair clips http://www.etsy.com/shop/thelittlebirchtree
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
mrstreenall
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:00 am

Postby lizzen » Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:32 pm

mrstreenall wrote:I'm terrified of needing a C-Section. I think all women can get a baby through their pelvis one way or another, just doctors don't want to be liable because it's not safe. That's my take on it and I'm sticking to it!! (I have small hips and small feet)


I bet you'll be fine. The size of your hips is not necessarily indicative of the size of your pelvic bones, oddly enough. I am (was--hopefully will be again!!!!) a size 0/2 each time I got pregnant and like I said, I was able to have vaginal deliveries with both my boys--even my first who had a HUGE head!
The cleaning and scrubbing will wait till tomorrow, For children grow up, as I've learned to my sorrow. So quiet down, cobwebs. Dust go to sleep. I'm rocking my baby and babies don't keep.

:hb: Mommy to my three boys!!! :hb:

ImageImage
Image
User avatar
lizzen
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 2336
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:00 am
Location: The testosterone zone

Postby Nasonsmom » Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:14 pm

If my son could fit through my pelvis, any baby can. He was so huge for me. I needed a 4th degree cut, but he was perfect....and that is what matters. Good luck!
Christie (44), DH (45), DS (5); Image Image Her name is Madeline Rose.

Image
User avatar
Nasonsmom
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:00 am

Postby lami » Fri May 20, 2011 8:05 pm

Speaking from experience not all babies can fit, I pushed for 4 1/2 hours but my son was sunny side up, with an oblique tilt to his head, stuck on my pelvis, after 26 hours of labor I needed a c-section to get my almost 9lbs son out, a c-section was the LAST thing on my birth plan and I did EVERYTHING I could have to prevent it, in the end it came down to his position and simply being too big for me. I am 5'3 and was a size 0/2 when I got pregnant, but that never stopped me from believing I could deliver natural. I plan a VBAC with my next, but for some of you women who have never had a section to act like it is a choice, or imply if we had tried harder we could have had a different birth I think is ignorant. Until you have been there lets not judge.
ITS A BOY
10/18/10

Image
lami
Angel
Angel
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:00 am

Postby fodla » Fri May 20, 2011 8:12 pm

I don't think they meant that you did something wrong! Your kid wasn't lining up - that doesn't mean the same thing as "too big to fit".
I'm Emma!

DD Jessie, 08/12/11
Current LO EDD 01/03/16
fodla
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 2002
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:00 am

Postby Blakes_Mummy » Sat May 21, 2011 6:21 am

I don't think they meant that you did something wrong! Your kid wasn't lining up - that doesn't mean the same thing as "too big to fit".


^THIS


My sister is tiny. VERY tiny.
She had 2 natural vaginal births & did fine with them both - just grazes whilst I, a size 9 AUS had to have a cut & pull with the first & had a minor tear with my 2nd.[/quote]
Image

Image
Image

Image
Image
User avatar
Blakes_Mummy
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:00 am

Postby Hunnybunny22 » Sat May 21, 2011 6:43 am

ladybug07 wrote::) Sorry for the lack of explanation on this one.......

Both of my babies were delivered by c-section because they were not able to fit through my pelvis. I am a petite person all around, with size 5 feet. I heard that there is a correlation between shoe size and pelvic size.


i hate when i read this. i am 5ft tall size 4 feet. i had 2 babies average size 8lbs 4.5 and 8lbs 2 and one got stuck because he was not in the right position for birth and the 2nd i had vaginally. i did have to have some help because she was posterior but she fit through my pelvis so i hate when drs do c secs because of this
Image
Image
Image

me:26 OH: 29
DS born: 42w1d 14.05.09 DD born 42w1d 15.04.11 DS 2 40w4d 27.10.13
User avatar
Hunnybunny22
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 8023
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:00 am

Postby Emmo » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:31 am

I think this poll has higher "over size five" rates, simply b/c most women are over size 5.

Maybe a poll that asked two different groups... size 5 or less, "did you need a C-section b/c your pelvis was too small".... vs... larger than size 5 "did you need a c-section b/c your pelvis was too small?"
But that's too many variables to fit on these polls I guess.

Thats the researcher coming out of me, lol.
Interesting, though, it seems like it makes at least a little bit of sense although everyone is very different, and being small doesn't automatically mean your pelvis will be tiny.
Me: 31
DH: 32
DS: 4 (Nov 2008 baby)
DD: 1 (Nov 2011 baby)

Image

Image Image :cloth diapering:
User avatar
Emmo
Girlfriend
Girlfriend
 
Posts: 2978
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:00 am


Return to Labor & Delivery

cron