> I've heard it so often) is that it's > great if the mother can keep the babies inside for 35 or 36 weeks, and that > because there is so much premature labor with multiples, that the mother > shouldn't feel bad if the babies are born at 35 or 36 weeks -- in fact, she > should feel good that she kept them in so long. > Dare I disagree with someone I respect so much? Well, she told me not to be humble, so, here goes: No, no, no. The exact words I heard were "Just keep them in for 32 weeks, if you can." That was with my second set, after carrying my first to 39.5 weeks, and stating that I knew in my gut (you know, the thing situated just a bit closer to my brain and my mouth than my womb <g> ) that I could carry these ones to term. > And this confusion to the fact that babies can be conceived immediately > after the end of a menstrual period, > And I think I read something about fertility occuring earlier for mothers of multiples -- oh, no, right: that was menopause. Seriously. We mothers of naturally-occuring fraternal twins tend to be taller and reach menopause earlier. That would be another interesting thread. > "Twins/triplets ARE full-term at 35 weeks." In other words, that multiples > develop FASTER than singletons, and that if they are born at 35 or 36 > weeks, > they are NOT premature, but are full-term and ready to go. > Interesting point! They could well be thinking this. What if they were told, "Your babies are growing more slowly because they are not singletons, and they are not as far developed. You will have to carry them well past 39 weeks. Fortunately, most women are able to do this if they eat well and take care of themselves"? Jo-Anne, keeping the conversation going on this quiet day. *********************************************** The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM) mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html