PREGNANCY-BIRTH Messages for September, 2002: Re: Better if born at 7 months

search:

Re: Better if born at 7 months

From: Cherine (anonymous@obgyn.net)
Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:37:46 -0500 (CDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: patty: "Re: Clomid with normal ovulation"
Previous message: kelly: "cramping only at night??"
In reply to: anon: "Re: Better if born at 7 months"

I agree that it is absurd, and if you actually read my question I think you would understand that. I am asking why that myth is out there - where did it derive from? I'm not asking for whether or not it is true, I know it can't be true. I have never heard a dr. say it either, but I have heard many older women say their dr. told them this.

At Mon, 30 Sep 2002, anon wrote: >
>At Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Cherine wrote:
>>
>>The old wives' tale that babies are better off if born at 7 months
>>rather than 8 - where does this come from? I know it has to be false but
>>wondering why older women and I've heard dr.'s even used to quote this
>>myth.
>
>That sounds absurd, and I have never heard any doctor say this. Every
>day the baby remains in utero is a bonus. I cannot imagine a baby born
>around 28 weeks is going to require less intervention than one at 32
>weeks.

Next message: patty: "Re: Clomid with normal ovulation"
Previous message: kelly: "cramping only at night??"
In reply to: anon: "Re: Better if born at 7 months"

recommended search...

OBGYN.net forums endometriosis zone Web

use when must restrict search to only the pregnancy & birth forum...
Enter search keywords:
Returns per screen: Require all keywords:

Return to Report TECHNICAL Problems ONLY to: webmaster@obgyn.net
Last Updated: Thu Jun 18 14:04:29 2009

Women's Insurance Checklist from Auto Insurance Quote