Can you imagine? Nearly 14-pound baby born in Des Moines

The AP is reporting that a baby boy weighing 13 pound and 13 ounces was born vaginally last Thursday in Des Moines. (The article has some photos.)

From AP:

“Asher Stewardson was born Thursday at Mercy Medical Center in Des Moines, measuring 23 ½ inches.”

“Mercy officials say only a tenth of 1 percent of all newborns weigh more than 11 pounds at birth.”

“The boys’ mother, Kendall Stewardson, endured six hours of labor without an epidural injection. She says she and her husband, Joshua, wanted to avoid cesarean delivery because that wouldn’t have been good for her or Asher.”

Holy Toledo that is a huge baby. That baby is almost double the size of my biggest baby. I can’t imagine what that will do to your vagina. I hope they stitched her up tight and threw in a little vaginal rejuvenation for her. Poor mom!!

I totally respect that she didn’t want to have a cesarean but I hope she’s OK in the long run. My good friend had a 10-pounder and that baby threw her coccyx out and messed her up pretty bad.

I want more from AP on this: How big is her husband? (He looks pretty normal size in the photos  but he is sitting down.) How big was he when he was born? Does this just run in the family? Was there any gestational diabetes at play – that can make babies bigger? Did they know ahead of time? Should she have delivered earlier?

What do you think about delivering a nearly 14-pound baby?

33 comments Add your comment

Dawn

January 31st, 2012
6:37 am

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

motherjanegoose

January 31st, 2012
7:16 am

Ditto Dawn! Our son was 10 lbs. 8 ounces and 22 1/2 inches but C section. Daughter was 8 pounds 11 ounces VBAC. No diabetes here. My Dad is 6 foot 6 inches but my sisters and I were not big babies. Guess it skipped down? My son is 6 foot 2 inches now. My nephews are taller but weighed less than my son, at birth. I taught with someone who was just over 5 feet and her husband about 5 ft. 7 inches and their son was 10 pounds. Who knows?

Augusta

January 31st, 2012
8:26 am

I cannot believe it was delivered vaginally…..My best friend had to have a c-section, as her baby was over 10 pounds. I cannot imagine pushing anything that large out of me….I would have performed MY OWN c-section.

Janice

January 31st, 2012
8:28 am

that’s a bowling ball….no thank you!

Old Man

January 31st, 2012
8:46 am

She’s horribly misinformed if she thinks a section is “not good for the baby”. Wonder if she’s a religious nutcase.

JATL

January 31st, 2012
8:53 am

A friend of mine had a home birth -VBAC -and delivered an 11 lb baby. It does happen! My uncle weighed 12 lbs and was born in 1935 at home -of course no meds. My own dad weighed 10 lbs 10 oz. The day I was born, another woman gave birth to an almost 13 lb boy -vaginally -at the same hospital. My mother said she was a tiny little woman. Most bodies WILL stretch! It really depends on the individual. Some women have much larger “birthing apparatus” than others, some don’t have nearly as much pain or problems delivering, etc. You can’t just tell by hip width and size of the parents either. I’m personally delighted with pain medication and that my boys were very normal -7lbs.12oz and 8lbs.5oz. That was big enough for me, but I don’t doubt that I could have had a 10 pounder at least with a few more stitches.

ABC

January 31st, 2012
9:05 am

Ouch and eww. I’d have been begging for the c-section even with the longer recovery time.

JOD

January 31st, 2012
9:22 am

@Old Man – I wondered that, too.

DD was 8 lbs even and a C-section was required, so I probably would have exploded with a 13-pounder. That’s not a baby, it’s a toddler! It may not always be the case, but it does sometimes seem that gestational diabetes plays a role in big ‘ole babies.

If they did any prenatal measurements/ultrasounds, the doctors should have known how big the baby would be, and I’d be surprised if they didn’t recommend a C-section. To each her own, though; if you want to blow out your stuff, knock yourself out!

shE BE RUINED

January 31st, 2012
9:22 am

Suppose she will breast feed this monster in public?

DB

January 31st, 2012
9:43 am

Oh, dear goodness . . . that is a biiiigggg baby! I don’t think genetics has much to do with it — I’ve seen so many petite women spit out bowling-ball babies, and everyone plays the guessing game of trying to figure out “where” this size came from. It’s just genetic roulette. My first was almost 10 lbs., and I ended up with a c-section, but I don’t think it was the size — his head circumference was on the high side, and after two days of labor, he never got past zero station, thus the c-section. Of course, he’s 6′3″ now, so I think that genetics kicked in. :-) My second was almost 9 lbs. and she was an easy VBAC, so I don’t think a big baby automatically means a c-section. Gestational diabetes often plays a role with the big ones, too, but no in my case. They were keeping an eye on my second one because of my history with my first pregnancy, and only let me go a week past my due date, to keep her from getting too big.

I can sympathize with not wanting a c-section, though — the recovery on mine was long and painful, it was months before I was back to normal. I’m always amazed when people choose to have one, but also realize that my experience was probably atypical.

Theresa Walsh Giarrusso

January 31st, 2012
9:52 am

DB – I agree those C-sections are major surgeries and shouldn’t be taken lightly. They are cutting through all the muscle in your stomach. I had multiple friends have stitches rip open. Another mom I used to sit for ended up injuring herself after one climbing up and down stairs too much. If you don’t HAVE to have one then don’t do it. Obviously if the doctor says you need one for your safety or the baby’s safety people should do it.

Theresa Walsh Giarrusso

January 31st, 2012
9:54 am

She won’t be needing the newborn sizes or probably even the 3 months sizes — He’s seriously probably starting in 6 month sizes.

The other funny thing about this story is how AP worded it — I think they didn’t want to use vaginally in the story because they chose to say “without surgery” or something like that — I called my AP husband to complain. I was like why are they so afraid to say vaginally — that’s what she did — she delivered vaginally!

Theresa Walsh Giarrusso

January 31st, 2012
9:55 am

It was even worse than I remember — without the aid of surgery. — wordy to avoid one word.

mystery poster

January 31st, 2012
10:03 am

@TWG
So, does without the aid of surgery also mean no episiotomy?

Voice of Reason

January 31st, 2012
10:12 am

14 lbs is not a baby, 14 lbs is a turkey.

Voice of Reason

January 31st, 2012
10:13 am

Also, sex from now on for them is going to be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway….just saying.

Scratch n Sniff

January 31st, 2012
10:13 am

What’s your obsession with the vagina? You mention numerous times.

Is your new boyfriend actually a girlfriend?

Soccer MILF

January 31st, 2012
10:20 am

If I had a fourteen pound baby I would make it get a job to pay for my tummy tuck!

jarvis

January 31st, 2012
11:11 am

Two words: kegel exercises

Augusta

January 31st, 2012
11:20 am

I wonder if there’s a way to block the immature posts.????

jarvis

January 31st, 2012
11:31 am

If you find a way let me know cause I’d like to block their uptight responses.

K's Mom

January 31st, 2012
11:33 am

I had an 8.5lb baby with a big head and had to have a c-section because of 2 days with no progression. I am looking forward to my planned c-section this time. I’d had 3 female surgeries prior to my first c-section and I was dead set against it because of the recovery. The surgery I had just prior to my pregnancy was a hard 10 week recovery. My c-section was a piece of cake, the only skeevy part was being awake and that did freak me out. I felt FANTASTIC by the time I got home and in 2 weeks I was back to normal activity.

I cannot imagine bringing home a 14 pound baby. I too wondered if this was a case of gestational diabtes and I also wondered what sort of prenatal care this woman got. I wish them luck. If he was born at 14 pounds, I cannot imagine feeding him when he is 15.

catlady

January 31st, 2012
11:33 am

My first baby was ten pounds. My second and third were in the 9+ lb range–my second was 23 inches long put looked so thin! None were easy to have, and I lost weight all 3 pregnancies. That part was great! Coming out of delivery I was 20-30 lbs lighter than when I conceived!

I’ve always thought that if I could have had a small (7 lb) baby I would have just dropped it walking down the hall.

shE BE RUINED

January 31st, 2012
11:34 am

Really Augusta? Last week you went on a childish tirade and now you want to censor others?

Veteran of a Thousand Psychic Wars

January 31st, 2012
11:48 am

Can we call it something other than vagina?

How about silk lined love purse?

Starring Don Adams in Get Smart

January 31st, 2012
11:57 am

Willacoochie

January 31st, 2012
1:08 pm

Right, Voice of Reason…it’s going to be like giving a whale a Tic Tac!

Jamie

January 31st, 2012
2:14 pm

I had an 11 lb baby without a c-section or drugs and it was fine. Actually it was a million times better than my c-section for my first child. JD and Old Man, a big baby — even a an unusually big baby like this child — can be born healthy without surgical assistance. Though it is a common surgery, it is not a risk free one for mother or child and I am very grateful that my baby was not born via c-section like my first. Not wanting one doesn’t make me or this mom any sort of religious nut. Like every parent should, I determined what was best for me and my baby in our individual situation, considered risks in every situation, and would not sacrifice his health and well being. I hope she did the same. Others might opt for surgery or induction, but they don’t have to if it is not appropriate to them. Big babies happen even without gestational diabetes, with good prenatal care and regular ultrasounds, and they don’t have to “blow out your stuff” or make you explode.

JOD

January 31st, 2012
5:52 pm

@Jamie – No one said anyone who doesn’t want a C-section is a religious nut. The question was posed to those who think the procedure is inherently harmful to babies. Everything isn’t black and white.

Doodle-oo

January 31st, 2012
6:33 pm

HUGE baby! More than likely the mother had gestational diabetes which can result in extra large babies. When you read stories of jumbo babies, that’s typically the reason.

aubrey

January 31st, 2012
6:52 pm

the c section itself may not be horrible but i think she is referring to her ability to part immediately following.

tracey

January 31st, 2012
7:56 pm

well, ouch. seriously though, she must have had a fairly easy labor. 6 hours is not that long. but, if she was struggling through labor, continuing to do so would have been more dangerous for her and the baby. i’m not an ob nurse, iv therapy is my gig, plain old med surg. but, i can’t imagine the docs letting her continue to labor if she or the baby had been in distress.

Anj

February 1st, 2012
5:27 am

Generally speaking, standard practice is to induce once a pregnancy gets to about 38 weeks if the baby is large. The two biggest problems with large babies is delivery (the obvious one) and less obvious one of placental insufficiency. Placentas only get so big, and the baby can outgrow the placenta’s ability to support it.

There are a lot of things that can be damaged attempting to birth a large baby. Muscles and connective tissue don’t just “stretch”, they can tear. Cervical tears can cause bad bleeding. The tears can need reconstructive surgery. Even with surgery, women may suffer pain during intercourse.

So the story ends at just the right point – where they can say “Look! It worked, she did it!” while carefully not mentioning if there was any damage, or as I suspect, how much damage.