How Long Would You Be Prepared to be Pregnant For?

[*LittleMissSummer*]

Having my DD come by herself 2 weeks early i'm not sure if i would ever be faced with the choice of being induced but hypothetically i would be willing to wait until 41 weeks, any later than that i would be paranoid something would go wrong.

[kass]

With family history of being 2+ weeks late, I'm expecting to go over the 40 week mark. I'm comfortable with 41, but I don't think I'll be happy to let it go past 42, I'd be too anxious about something going wrong.

[~ Mylitta ~]

I haven't voted in the poll yet because, honestly, I just don't know. I like to think that babies are meant to choose their own birthday, and I would hate the thought of ever needing to be induced, but there just seems to be so much that might come into the equation.

For me, both my babies came in their 37th week, so I've never experienced being "over due". My son's placenta was "gritty" already, and I was told that is seen more commonly in over due babies when the placenta is starting to breakdown (or something along those lines). So I have to wonder, if he stayed in my tummy longer, was there a risk that the placenta could have failed him? So that makes me wonder if in a normal pregnancy that has gone overdue, is there a greater risk of placenta problems the longer the baby stays in the tummy? I just don't know.

Also, I sometimes wonder about the risk of induction vs. the risk of a potential c-section if the baby grows too much during the extra time in the womb. Obviously induction can lead to a cascade of interventions, but is there a greater chance of a c-section if the baby has grown too big? Again, I'm just putting the question out there because I honestly don't know, and not because I think that big babies can't be born vaginally. Even my 37-weekers were 8lb10oz and 8lb3oz, so not exactly tiny, lol.

[Arimeh]

I wouldn't be induced. (and can't anyway - and won't cos I'm not having any more babies...)

But I would go until the baby is ready to come - be it 43 weeks or what - AS LONG AS I had good care with frequent monitoring.

I believe DD1 was very close to being one of those "statistics" being born at 42 weeks.

[Tuesday's Child]

I said 42 weeks. The antenatal midwife I had with DD had a good discussion with me about the best time to induce post dates (resulting from me saying being post dates alone wasn't enough reason to induce) and there is some evidence of adverse outcomes after 42 weeks so I think I'd get too stressed going much further. But then, I'd want to be pretty certain of conception dates too.

Having said that, DD was born 10 days early so I've never even gone to 40.

[Traveller]

I said 43 weeks but I would only be happy to do so with extra monitoring in the form of scans and extra midwife visits. If anything started to seem off and I hadn't gone into labour I would accept having my waters broken and if that didn't work, a CS. I can't envisage a situation where I would ever accept a chemical induction.

[Cherished]

Wow I'm surprised that >43 weeks is ahead, I read so much about induction I would have guessed that >43 weeks would be coming in last I was the most comfortable in the 3rd tri and was 11 days over although I was booked in to be induced at 42 weeks by my own choice. Our OB was supportive of our choices either way.