violetcrush said:

benni said:

Sorry, I know I'm responding late in the game, but...

My pregnancies have all been high risk. With my last two pregnancies, they decided to do C-sections at 37 weeks because that is considered full term according to my doctors. Full term pregnancies run 37 to 40 weeks. Yes, a baby born at 37 weeks is considered early, but they are not considered to be premature. My oldest went over 40 weeks by 4 days and I had to have an emergency c-section. My second pregnancy resulted in still birth at 36 weeks. She was my first daughter. She was considered premature. My second son was born at exactly 37 weeks and he is considered a full term birth. They decided to do a c-section earlier than the planned 37 weeks with my second daughter due to concern for her survival. We were experiencing the same things with her as with my first daughter and she was born at exactly 36 weeks too and is considered a premie, or late pre term.

https://www.pregnancybirt...o-40-weeks

I'm so sorry about the loss of your daughter. I can't imagine the level of devastation, and I feel for you and anyone, including Mayte, who has lost a child at birth or at any age

*

My understanding has always been that - generally speaking - a baby born prior to the 39-40 week period is considered "early" or "pre-term" but not necessarily "pre-mature", which would be determined after the APGAR test is done to determine heart rate, muscle tone, lung function, etc. My due date was December 8th and I delivered by an unplanned C-Section (I was high risk at 39 and had very low amniotic fluid on the last Sonogram) on November 21st. Although I was 11/2-2 weeks early and my daughter was just 5 lbs 12 oz, the birth was considered "pre-term" and not "pre-mature", because she passed the APGAR test and did not need any additional monitoring in the NICU.

*

I guess the labels can vary by Doctor and/or hospital processes and protocol, and of course by the individual health and needs of the baby after birth. The discussion came up here, because I had mentioned that Mayte's birth had been reported as pre=mature and one month early. However, when she discussed it on camera in 2013 she stated she carried to term, which would indicate a birth that was not considered "pre-mature".

I just looked up AMA and apparently they have changed how they term births now. In the early 2000s, and prior, full term was considered 37 weeks through 42 weeks. Anything prior to that was preterm. Now, they define 37 up to 39 weeks to be "early term" but not preterm. 39 weeks to 40 weeks and 6 days is considered full term.

"In the past, a pregnancy that lasted anywhere between 37 to 42 weeks was called a term pregnancy. Health care providers once thought this 5-week period was a safe time for most babies to be born. In 2013, ACOG and SMFM updated the definitions for term pregnancies because research shows that every week of pregnancy counts for the health of your baby. Lots of important things happen to your baby in the last few weeks of pregnancy. For example, your baby's brain and lungs are still developing. Being pregnant for at least 39 weeks gives your baby’s body the time it needs to grow and develop.

These definitions can help more babies be born healthy by helping to prevent births that are being scheduled a little early for non-medical reasons. If your pregnancy is healthy, wait for labor to begin on its own."

[Edited 8/29/19 8:45am]

benni said:

violetcrush said:

I'm so sorry about the loss of your daughter. I can't imagine the level of devastation, and I feel for you and anyone, including Mayte, who has lost a child at birth or at any age

*

My understanding has always been that - generally speaking - a baby born prior to the 39-40 week period is considered "early" or "pre-term" but not necessarily "pre-mature", which would be determined after the APGAR test is done to determine heart rate, muscle tone, lung function, etc. My due date was December 8th and I delivered by an unplanned C-Section (I was high risk at 39 and had very low amniotic fluid on the last Sonogram) on November 21st. Although I was 11/2-2 weeks early and my daughter was just 5 lbs 12 oz, the birth was considered "pre-term" and not "pre-mature", because she passed the APGAR test and did not need any additional monitoring in the NICU.

*

I guess the labels can vary by Doctor and/or hospital processes and protocol, and of course by the individual health and needs of the baby after birth. The discussion came up here, because I had mentioned that Mayte's birth had been reported as pre=mature and one month early. However, when she discussed it on camera in 2013 she stated she carried to term, which would indicate a birth that was not considered "pre-mature".

I just looked up AMA and apparently they have changed how they term births now. In the early 2000s, and prior, full term was considered 37 weeks through 42 weeks. Anything prior to that was preterm. Now, they define 37 up to 39 weeks to be "early term" but not preterm. 39 weeks to 40 weeks and 6 days is considered full term.

"In the past, a pregnancy that lasted anywhere between 37 to 42 weeks was called a term pregnancy. Health care providers once thought this 5-week period was a safe time for most babies to be born. In 2013, ACOG and SMFM updated the definitions for term pregnancies because research shows that every week of pregnancy counts for the health of your baby. Lots of important things happen to your baby in the last few weeks of pregnancy. For example, your baby's brain and lungs are still developing. Being pregnant for at least 39 weeks gives your baby’s body the time it needs to grow and develop.

These definitions can help more babies be born healthy by helping to prevent births that are being scheduled a little early for non-medical reasons. If your pregnancy is healthy, wait for labor to begin on its own."

[Edited 8/29/19 8:45am]

Hmmm....my daughter was born in 2006 and was labeled "pre-term" at 37 weeks, so it seems that, although the ACOG may have officially updated their timeline in 2013, at least some Doctors and hospitals were using the more updated term labels.

violetcrush said:

You are kidding, right?? The "how Prince and Mayte met" stories are many and varied - even by Prince. Prince had actually stated (and it may have been during the Oprah interview), that he was in his car and saw her outside the concert venue through his window and thought, "there's my future wife..." The other story circulating was that Rosie Gaines said the "there's your future wife" comment to Prince after she was brought back stage to meet him. It was all just so completey ridiculous and far-fetched. I would put a lot of money on the fact that Prince wasn't thinking about any "future wife" at that concert, let alone a 16 yr old girl who probably could have cared less that she was there, other than that it may be a potential $$$$ situation - and even that was probably more her Mother's mindset than hers. Mayte has stated she had no attraction to him at all, and rightfully so, as he was old enough to be her Father - allbeit a young one.

.

There's a "Elvis & Priscilla" vibe WRT the mythology Prince built up aound Mayte.

violetcrush said:

amethyst68 said:

violetcrush said: You are a female, right? Excuse me for correcting you but no woman having contractions in her 7th month of pregnancy with the problems she had is carrying a baby to the projected due date. Her son was born 3 weeks early. Ask your doctor but most would consider 37 weeks to be full term or early term. No sense in dissecting every word she has said. Even if she conceived before their wedding date, there is no way she would have known it. A pregnancy test couldn’t confirm it. Learn a little bit about your body and conception. Pregnancies aren’t instantaneous. There was no rush to have a wedding. There’s an article published in early December that discusses rumors of their wedding date. She couldn’t have been pregnant then. That would mean she conceived in November.

....

*

All I am saying here is that I don't necessarily think their marriage was set in stone until the positive pregnancy test. Offering an engagement ring does not solidify a wedding, especially with someone like Prince.

-

You're right.

And surely not with Prince !

Solidify (something) ?!

lol

-

Think of Sheila,

Jill

Susannah,

Susan,

Kim,

etc etc etc,

-

Vannormal said:

Yes, we know Susannah had a 6 carat engagement ring for more than a year with no wedding. Granted, Prince was much younger with Susannah, but I just don’t think there would have been a wedding without a pregnancy.