Meg, I don’t understand what your friend’s doctor is telling her. I’ve had 3 kids so far, & all were born vaginally with no probs, & none of them ever engaged until shortly before being born. Seriously, they didn’t engage at all. When I had a show on my due date with my first daughter, the midwife thought it would still be a week or two because bub had not engaged, and she was born the next morning. There is no way you would need a C-section just for this reason.

Belinda, I’d say the same to you. To be considering a C-section it would have to be for other reasons, not just bub not engaged in the pelvis. Some babies are there for ages before birth & some not at all.

I’d be wary of concerns about size of pelvis too. It’s not an easy thing to assess accurately. What is easy though is using good upright positions for birth. The worst thing you can do if you’re worried about baby’s size is be laying on your back!

I don’t think it has much to do with when bub will be born either. My 1st was born on due date, 2nd 12 days early, 3rd 9 days overdue. None appeared to be under or over cooked ï*

I hear the good thing about having your bub engaged is it takes the pressure off your ribs, but the other side of that is it puts more pressure on the bladder.

Btw, I’m 36 weeks tomorrow with twins, & I don’t have one engaged yet. My friend is 39 weeks with twins & has had one engaged for ages.