2006-09-01 18:13:52 · 10 answers · asked by manglebaby1983@sbcglobal.net 1 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Pregnancy
my daughter was born 3 weeks later than her due date. I think she was overdue though. I was told by my OB/GYN that the ultrasound due dates are give or take two weeks because they are based on the average size and weight of a fetus at that point in the pregnancy.
2006-09-01 18:17:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes! Ultrasounds are really unreliable for predicting due dates unless they are done super early on in a pregnancy...like in the first week or two. Most people don't get an ultrasound until 20 weeks. By then it is much too late to predict without a 2 week plus or minus. If you are uncertain about when you conceived, you definitely shouldn't depend on an ultrasound to tell you the due date. There are a high percentage of babies born early because Drs. induced labor when the baby seemed to be "late". There are a lot of complications a baby can experience by being born even just 2 weeks early, so if you are uncertain, make sure your doctor or midwife will be conservative about what they consider to be "post dates".
2006-09-01 18:19:35 · answer #2 · answered by CAFEhonor 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since due dates are only estimates, there's a really huge margin of error, and it'd have to be waaaaay off to be considered a mistake.
Also, the earlier you have an ultrasound, the closer they can estimate the due date. My son's first dd (due date), based on my last period, was January 29, then after the first ultrasound, they moved it to February 1, and then on February 10, I had a c-section, since the boy refused to come out the proper way, and the doctor decided that induction probably wasn't the best route.
And since the 10th was well within the 2 weeks eitherway margin, I don't really think it could be considered a mistake.
2006-09-01 18:22:18 · answer #3 · answered by Queen Queso 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Date given by ultrasound are estimates, usually plus or minus 3 weeks. Ultrasounds late in pregnancy are very unreliable with dates, because babies grow differently. The 12 week ultrasound usually is the most accurate. Also, an ultrasound is only as good as the tech who is doing it and the doctor who reads it.
2006-09-01 18:40:54 · answer #4 · answered by Shanan D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I once heard that only 4% of the babies are actually born on their due date, so just remember that the due date is only a target date. Babies are typically born within two weeks either way of the due date.
My first child was born 2 weeks before her due date (based on ultrasound date) and the other was born one day after the due date.
2006-09-01 18:22:37 · answer #5 · answered by Searcher 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
due dates are only an estimate...that's why they say Estimated Due Date. They can be off by as much as 2 weeks because not all babies grow at the same rate and are the same size at birth. A normal weight for babies can be anywhere from 6-9 pounds
2006-09-01 18:16:55 · answer #6 · answered by Ryan's mom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mine were pretty accurate both 2 days after the expected date.
2006-09-01 18:20:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes they told me i was going to have my baby on May 2, 2006 but i had her on April 11, 2006
2006-09-01 18:17:22 · answer #8 · answered by datgurlronda 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
my baby was due a week later then the altrasound said.
2006-09-01 20:45:57 · answer #9 · answered by flytterby 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
all five of my sisters were wrong. it's not the most accurate thing but it's pretty darn close.
2006-09-01 18:19:23 · answer #10 · answered by vanilla_slvr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋