11 months pregnant

So I was talking to a girl in my a mothers group about labours etc.

She is an African refugee, has a 4 month old that is bigger than my 9 month! He's gorgeous. Anyways, she said she was induced at 42 weeks, wasnt good and had to have a c-section. I asked how others in her family birthed. She said everyone had natural (wasnt much option for anything else). Her mum had straightforward labours etc, but her aunty went 11 months pregnant...and birth a healthy Large baby (about 5kg).
Next baby 12 months! She said she thinks she may just be like her aunty and the doctors interfered to soon.

I have never heard of being pregnant so long! Not that we could ever trial that here...

Does make me wonder if their cycles are irregular and they actually had the dates wrong....

Honestly, I find it very hard to believe. Doesn't the placenta start to break down??

This is what I always thought! That's a good point myturn. Maybe they count from last period, and that may not be accurate. Don't really know if I should ask how they count. They may have traumatic markers that they know definitely by.

Would it be 11months, as in 44 weeks? I might be able to believe that....

I have heard of women going 46-48 weeks, but I would think it's extremely unusual! I don't know that there's a useby on the placenta, as such, but that once it starts to go that's a signal for labour to begin.
It's possible dates are wrong. It's also possible that a woman tests positive, miscarries, but doesn't know it, and then conceives again. Though, again, it would be extremely unusual to lose a baby and have no indication of that.

I had a woman at my work who had all four of her babies at 44 weeks. That's just how she baked (and she said she was definite on dates each time).

I think there is a large variation on normal, but our current model of medicalised birthing only works when things are standardized. It has also meant many mums and babies have been saved, but the cost to our society is a shrinking knowledge of things outside the standard and an inability to personalize care to match this variation. So yeah, I think some women cook babies longer, just like my periods were always 35 days apart.

DHs maternal grandmother gestated all 5 of her babies for over 43 weeks. MIL was born at 45wks. We don't all have the same menarche or cycle length so it makes sense to me that there can be huge variation in length of gestation

I'm not sure if its true or not, but I've read that Jackie Chan's mum was pregnant with him for 50 weeks :o

I think it's possible, but very unlikely, for a pregnancy to go that long. Stranger things have happened :dunno:

My mum was induced with me in her 45th week. They messed up her dates and therefore let her go well post dates. Apparently my placenta was almost really calcified and the waters were beyond rotten. Doctors believe I was also starting to get smaller in size from what I can only guess to be reduced nutrients going through.

Makes me wonder how long it would have taken for her to go into labour if she wasn't induced or if I would have survived??!??

definitely possible if counting in 4 week months, I would be sceptical of 11 full months though.

Wow this is quite fascinating!

I think it's possible but unlikely, especially in today's world.

I had to google and found this:

:

---

Generally, a normal human pregnancy last around 280 days, which is slightly more than nine months. During this time, the baby slowly develops enough to survive and grow outside of the womb. Each pregnancy is slightly different, and women can give birth slightly earlier or later and still be considered normal. However, in 1945, a young woman gave birth after 375 days. This is a period of almost a
year and a half. The woman, Beulah Hunter, was 25 when she gave birth. Doctors claim that the length of her pregnancy is accurate by looking at the date she first tested positive for pregnancy, as well as the date of her last menstrual cycle. Beulah Hunter claimed she had her last menstrual cycle on February 10th in 1944. The first time she tested positive for pregnancy was on March 24th of that same year. Doctors believe that the cause of this long pregnancy was the extremely slow development of the fetus. The baby developed much more slowly than a normal child while in the womb. However, Beulah Hunter's daughter, Penny Diana, was born healthy and normal, ready to face the world, with no outstanding developmental issues apparent at the time.Beulah Hunter's pregnancy is the longest known in which a living child was born. There have been many instances in which a stillborn fetus did not dissipate properly, meaning that the woman did not give birth at the correct time. This gives the appearance of what would seem like an abnormally long pregnancy. Because the children did not survive, though, medical professionals and record keepers do not consider these to be true long pregnancies. Before Beulah Hunter, the longest pregnancy resulting in a living child was only 317 days. Although this is some time short of Beulah Hunter's remarkable lengthy pregnancy, it is still a very long time to be pregnant.More reference links: Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com theophanes.hubpages.com

---

I don't know how true it is, but is it possible??

Wow, if that's true, what an amazing story!

Actually, that story got me thinking, when were pregnancy tests invented? I wouldn't of thought there would be a test in 1945?

Gosh going to 40+4 with DS1 was tough enough for me, imagine being pregnant for 1 1/2 years?!!!!!

Back in medieval england they didn't recognise a pregnancy until the first 'quickening' or movement, so the pregnancies would actually seem quite varied by that standard, as the first movements can be felt anything from about 14-20 weeks for some women. I know in homebirth circles that some women go past the 42wk mark and some have gone to 44-45wks, but not many.

Bit of a sticking point in the story though - if she was pregnant for "around 375 days", that's not a year and a half as they claim. That's a year and ten days. Still a looooooong pregnancy, but I had to point it out because it annoyed me :lol:

:

---

Bit of a sticking point in the story though - if she was pregnant for "around 375 days", that's not a year and a half as they claim. That's a year and ten days. Still a looooooong pregnancy, but I had to point it out because it annoyed me :lol:

---

I thought the same thing

:

---

Honestly, I find it very hard to believe. Doesn't the placenta start to break down??

---

Yeah, a few weeks perhaps - but a few months, nah I don't believe it.

:

---

Wow, if that's true, what an amazing story!

Actually, that story got me thinking, when were pregnancy tests invented? I wouldn't of thought there would be a test in 1945?

---

I believe they used to test using rabbits - something to do with using their ovary and the cells would change if the test was positive. So obviously tests weren't common, not like you could pop down the chemists for a rabbit ovary!

Its definately possible. With the right care provider.

I've heard of many babies being birthed at 43 weeks and some further along. Most of the stories I've read/heard of have been women with Midwives as care providers.

It obviously comes with some extra monitoring to make sure that all is ok with baby and the placenta.

:

---

I thought the same thing

---

Haha me too! Which makes me wonder how reliable that story is given they don't know how long a year is :p

I would imagine extremely prolonged pregnancies are more likely in times of war or famine, when there's a very good reason for the body to protect it's child by maintaining the pregnancy. But yes, I do believe that pregnancies, if left alone, could sometimes extend to more than one month over what we deem to be "normal".