I have heard anecdotal evidence that claims "First babies are more likely to be late" and "First babies are more likely to be early." Have you noticed anything in your research that supports either?
Yes. The median length of a first pregnancy is 41 weeks, 1 day. So first babies are more likely to be "late," but only to the extent that you believe in the 40-week pregnancy as Holy Gospel. It would be more accurate to say that first pregnancies tend to be longer than subsequent pregnancies.
I think "first babies are more likely to be early" comes from counting up the time between the wedding and the birth. ;-)
On the other hand, neither my mother nor my sister went past 39 weeks with any of their children (they have seven between them). So I am keeping the possibility firmly in mind that the L'il Critter might come early.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-02 10:13 pm (UTC)Yes. The median length of a first pregnancy is 41 weeks, 1 day. So first babies are more likely to be "late," but only to the extent that you believe in the 40-week pregnancy as Holy Gospel. It would be more accurate to say that first pregnancies tend to be longer than subsequent pregnancies.
I think "first babies are more likely to be early" comes from counting up the time between the wedding and the birth. ;-)
On the other hand, neither my mother nor my sister went past 39 weeks with any of their children (they have seven between them). So I am keeping the possibility firmly in mind that the L'il Critter might come early.