Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

If you had a c-section because you were having a big baby...

was your baby really as big as they said or bigger? I'm just curious. My friend is having a c-section next week (she isn't due for 3 more weeks) because the baby is a little over 9lbs already. I am just wondering how accurate they are on this.

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 2:40 PM on Jun. 9, 2010 in General Parenting

Answers (15)
  • they estimated my DS at 8lbs 8 oz at a 36 week ultrasound

    he was born at 42 weeks at 7lbs 9 oz

    Answer by peanutsmommy1 at 2:41 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

  • OP here - I wanted to clarify that this is not a c-section bash. I have nothing against c-sections that are necessary and I know that some can do it but I wouldn't want to push out a baby that was that big. lol I don't think that I could do it.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:42 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

  • They are hardly ever accurate, also most women can birth the baby they make regardless of size. Doctors just don't care about that.

    Answer by BradenIsMySon at 2:42 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

  • That's absurd if you ask me. A friend of mine who is NOT a large woman pushed out an 11 lb baby with no pain meds, 9 hours start to finish (baby was 2 weeks late). Why don't they just wait until there's ACTUALLY a problem before doing invasive surgery? But then, it's my opinion... hopefully your friend at least knows that this is a choice she can opt out of...

    But to answer your question a little more directly, they told me my first was at least 8.5 lbs and she ended up being 6 lbs, 4 oz. They have no idea.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:43 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

  • Truly, that is a frightening thing. I had to have a c-section the second time around and they didn't want me to schedule it a day before 39 weeks because of the risks of having it too early (everyone says 38 weeks is considered "full term" but babies born by induction or c-section at this stage have higher morbidity and mortality rates than babies born by those same methods after 39 weeks and than babies born naturally earlier. Having a c-section at 38 weeks just because the baby *might* be above average in weight? Irresponsible medicine.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:47 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

  • I had a csection because my previous child was born with shoulder dystocia - he was too large to fit through the birth canal so they had to break his shoulder. They didn't give me an estimated size with him, but at 39 weeks he was 8 lbs 1 oz so with another week he could have easily been as large as my 8 lb 9 oz son that was too large for me. My current baby is scheduled to be delivered by csection at 39 weeks as well - due to concerns over another dystocia.

    "Why don't they just wait until there's ACTUALLY a problem before doing invasive surgery?"
    Because it's a lot safer for mom and baby to do a planned csection rather than en emergency one when a problem turns up.

    Answer by missanc at 2:51 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

  • I gave vaginal birth to a 9lb 8 ounce boy. I was fine. Those measurements are not always right. They were more than a pound off on my second baby. A c-section is much harder to recover from. I am recovering from lapband surgery right now, which sounds similar in recovery to my friends who have c-sections, and I can tell you it if FAR more painful than recovering from delivering my large baby boy who also ripped the heck out of me. I am not bashing c-section just wanted to share that my experience with three births (two pushing 9, and the one well over) were just fine.

    Answer by jamesonjustines at 2:53 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

  • Yikes. If it were you, I'd say, please don't do this. But IDK what you should say to your friend. As others say, their estimations are usually incorrect and c-sections or early inductions based on size are just plain wrong to do. I have a friend whose doctor did a c-section on her at 37 weeks and it turned out THEY HAD DATES WRONG even though she had many ultrasounds and he had to go to the NICU because he was premature. They said she would go into labor early and it would harm her (because of previous c-section). I think her second and third kids could easily have gone to term, but they didn't even frame it as a mistake and had her convinced she was doomed to have early labors (second & third kids she didn't even go into labor, 1st child was early labor and NICU). Anyway, c-sections and inductions should be emergency only, and I have a very narrow definition of that.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:57 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

  • they told me i was having a 7-71/2 lb baby. she was 8lb 8oz. and vaginal. i'm a small woman.

    Answer by jennifer588 at 3:01 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

  • "Why don't they just wait until there's ACTUALLY a problem before doing invasive surgery?"
    Because it's a lot safer for mom and baby to do a planned csection rather than en emergency one when a problem turns up.

    Best-case scenario: successful vaginal birth.
    Second-best: planned c-section (but NOT at 38 weeks)
    Third-best: emergency c-section.

    I would rather try for the first option and end up with the third than to aim for the second. The second is not without its dangers...
    But unfortunately, OBs are trained surgeons above anything else these days. They have a "sure" outcome, they can be taught an exact procedure. Birth didn't used to be an exact science... women's bodies know a lot more about getting their babies out than they are given credit for. Of course, I know that some babies and mothers would die if we didn't have c-sections. I have tried twice to give birth vaginally and it just ain't going to happen. But still...

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:07 PM on Jun. 9, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN