Mothering Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I had a c-section 3 months ago and I was wondering how long do I have to wait until I can get pregnant again? Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,971 Posts
I think usually they say 18 months, but really a scar is a scar and once you've healed and have a scar it's not like the tissue will get stronger if you wait longer. So I don't think you really have to wait that long. My doctor never even gave me a waiting period, except no sex for 6 weeks, you know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,256 Posts
A mama friend of mine who was researching this last year posted that the minimum was considered to be 2 years, with 3 years being optimal. My own OB confirmed this...but I don't know where she got her reference points from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,954 Posts
no matter which exit the baby takes, no mom should really get pg before the 24 month mark. if you are practicing ecological breastfeeding, you may not even be able to conceive for that long, or maybe longer, and that is a good thing!

i think i might have read that the area of the uterine incision is actually stronger than the surrounding tissue. this was in the context of explaining away the mistaken belief of uterine rupture being common. but, i dont recall the article saying how long it would take for the scar to reach max strength. if you wait that minimum 2 yrs though you should be fine.

an added plus...you have 2 yrs to research vbac!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,050 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by blessedwithboys
no matter which exit the baby takes, no mom should really get pg before the 24 month mark. if you are practicing ecological breastfeeding, you may not even be able to conceive for that long, or maybe longer, and that is a good thing!
Just curious, why is 2 yrs the magic mark?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,594 Posts
I would at least wait until your baby isn't as dependent upon your milk. Some women dry up right away when they get pg, and you never know if you'll be one of them. A toddler might continue to comfort nurse anyway, and has other food to sustain her. It would be very rough on a nursling infant who has to be weaned to formula.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
I was told to wait at least a year before trying again. This was from the high risk OB that ended up delivering DD - and I also have a classical vertical incision.
With a uterine rupture it is not usually the scar that rips (if it has healed properly) - it is muscle that has thinned out (usually) near the scar that ruptures. This is usually not a problem for women who have transverse (bikini) incisions - which is why you lucky ladies get to go on and have VBACs.

You can not count on BFing to stop you from ovulating. My PPAF came back at 7m - DD didn't start solids until 7-8months old, so I was still BFing her exclusively when I started ovulating again.
I will say if you are BFing and want to do so for any length of time it is best to try and wait. I have not had any problems nursing DD - but she is also older and doesn't nurse as frequently now. I know some women who got pregnant while their babies were less than a year and while some were able to nurse the whole time during pregancy a lot of them did have problems with supply after a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,624 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Benji'sMom
I think usually they say 18 months, but really a scar is a scar and once you've healed and have a scar it's not like the tissue will get stronger if you wait longer. So I don't think you really have to wait that long. My doctor never even gave me a waiting period, except no sex for 6 weeks, you know.
Thats what my doc said...there are NO guarantees. I waited aabout a yr and a half before I got preg last time and still ruptured...but...still I think the longer the better. IMO, I don't think the risk of rupture goes down....my SIL got pregnant 6 weeks after a c section and carried to term w/no problems...me...I waited 1yr+ and ruptured and have fatal results. It mostly depends on your body and scar tissue. I'm going to a mat-fet specialist next month to get evaluated by u/s so they can look at my scar tissue better...I do plan to have another baby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,954 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by OldFashionedGirl
Just curious, why is 2 yrs the magic mark?
coupla reasons...one, every baby is entitled to 24 months of mothers milk. getting pg b4 that point could potentially deprive the child of that. also, in our culture of substandard nutrition, most mothers are not FULLY recovered enough from one pg to perfectly sustain the next. an old friend of mine is a perfect example. she got pg at 5 mos pp. (nursing, but she had outpatient surgery around the 3 mo pp mark, and he got a few bottles that week) her son weaned b4 a yr old, and her dd was born small for dates...4 lbs at 40 wks. (her dd went on to nurse for 3+ yrs tho.
) also, think of how much easier it is to divide yourself between 2 kids when one is already potty trained and sleeping through the night. of course, some have done it back to back and been ok.

"I keep reading that bfing is a great natural method of bc, but the number of women I PERSONALLY know who have gotten preg. while bfing is astonishing."

there is a huge difference between bf'ing, bf'ing exclusively, and ECOLOGICAL bf'ing.

if a woman is nursing too infrequently, fails to practice babywearing, limits skin to skin contact while nursing, doesnt co-sleep, allows occasional "relief" bottles, and starts solids too early...well, she could well get pg while nursing. most women are not that crunchy. i did ecological bf'ing, and still got my period back at 5 mos, and at 11 mos. ds1 was sleepy and had a weak suck, ds2 was alert and had a strong suck, thus, imo, the difference. we always co-slept and i used a sling with both. it has been suggested on mdc that the simple act of using a carseat daily (and thus not having contact w/baby...of course no one is advocating abandonment of car seat use) is enough to bring back O sooner than if we were more like cultures where car use was limited or not available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,801 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by blessedwithboys
coupla reasons...one, every baby is entitled to 24 months of mothers milk. getting pg b4 that point could potentially deprive the child of that. also, in our culture of substandard nutrition, most mothers are not FULLY recovered enough from one pg to perfectly sustain the next. an old friend of mine is a perfect example. she got pg at 5 mos pp. (nursing, but she had outpatient surgery around the 3 mo pp mark, and he got a few bottles that week) her son weaned b4 a yr old, and her dd was born small for dates...4 lbs at 40 wks. (her dd went on to nurse for 3+ yrs tho.
) also, think of how much easier it is to divide yourself between 2 kids when one is already potty trained and sleeping through the night. of course, some have done it back to back and been ok.

"I keep reading that bfing is a great natural method of bc, but the number of women I PERSONALLY know who have gotten preg. while bfing is astonishing."

there is a huge difference between bf'ing, bf'ing exclusively, and ECOLOGICAL bf'ing.

if a woman is nursing too infrequently, fails to practice babywearing, limits skin to skin contact while nursing, doesnt co-sleep, allows occasional "relief" bottles, and starts solids too early...well, she could well get pg while nursing. most women are not that crunchy. i did ecological bf'ing, and still got my period back at 5 mos, and at 11 mos. ds1 was sleepy and had a weak suck, ds2 was alert and had a strong suck, thus, imo, the difference. we always co-slept and i used a sling with both. it has been suggested on mdc that the simple act of using a carseat daily (and thus not having contact w/baby...of course no one is advocating abandonment of car seat use) is enough to bring back O sooner than if we were more like cultures where car use was limited or not available.
Ok, I just HAVE to comment at this. I am kind of confused as to what you are saying. I personally also know many women who are excellent AP moms and get their period only a few months after having their baby. myself included. I don't think you can generalize when women get their period back based soley on their AP / nursing practices. I also got pregnant while nursing several times.

I had my babies 19 months apart and the doc said I recovered beautifully from the first and thought I could even have 3 more c-sections if I wanted.(he knew I had wanted 5 kids, and was kind of sad along with me that it ended up a c-section for a second time)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
I also consider myself relatively AP (co-sleep, extended bf, etc.); but, I also work full-time. The funny thing is I did not get my first AF until 29 months pp!!! I think it is very individual--it really depends on how sensitve your body is to the bf hormones. It also might have something to do with age -- I am 37
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,125 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by blessedwithboys
one, every baby is entitled to 24 months of mothers milk.
Many children self-wean before 24 months. I know lots that have self-weaned at 21 months.. seems to almost be a magic age.
Mine self-weaned at 24 months + 2 weeks. I was pregnant when he was 20 months, but he was already nursing only nap time and bed time - it was purely for comfort, not for nutritional needs. If I missed a nursing session, I had no engorgement or anything, and when he self-weaned, I felt nothing in the breast area. It was very easy, actually. And he suddenly self-weaned - ie, decided one day he didn't want it at all anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessedwithboys
also, in our culture of substandard nutrition, most mothers are not FULLY recovered enough from one pg to perfectly sustain the next. an old friend of mine is a perfect example. she got pg at 5 mos pp. (nursing, but she had outpatient surgery around the 3 mo pp mark, and he got a few bottles that week) her son weaned b4 a yr old, and her dd was born small for dates...4 lbs at 40 wks.
I think people need to be careful about saying that the reason a baby is small is poor nutrition. While it *could* be the cause, it could also be something entirely different. You don't know why your friend's baby was small. There are women who have horrible diets and grow 9-10 lb babies, and there are women who eat healthier than 99.9% of the people in this country, and they end up with an IUGR baby anyway. And it's hurtful to the IUGR moms when someone says "this baby was small because of poor nutrition in the mother", when that is not really a known fact. So please be careful about saying such things.

I myself don't have the greatest diet in the world, because I'm a horribly picky eater. I still grow large babies. This one is already measuring 2 weeks ahead as of 20 weeks (by u/s). He'll probably be about 9 lbs, which is what I'd expect my body to grow. One thing to remember about nutrition - baby will get what it needs before mom does. So if mom seems to be healthy and not malnourished, chances are the baby is not malnourished either. I think it'd have been really noticeable if your friend was truly malnourished to the point that it caused her baby to only be 4 lbs at 40 weeks. I highly suspect something else was going on.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top