https://boards.hellobee.com/ Pregnancy, Baby and Parenting blog, by Hellobee en Mon, 06 Apr 2026 23:15:57 +0000 https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1318357 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 19:09:38 +0000 Crystal 1318357@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>I made it to 6 weeks, a few days before my ultrasound appointment. </p> <p>Either way, it was really hard. </p> <p>I am unsure of what kind to call it since I never saw the sac, but one should have been developed at that point. </p> <p>I dislike the term chemical pregnancy, only because it makes it seem like it wasn't something real. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1318331 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 18:37:34 +0000 FaithFertility 1318331@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@lovehoneybee: I agree with the later loss, sorry to hear! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1318328 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 18:35:46 +0000 lovehoneybee 1318328@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@septca: That's how I view it as well. I had one around...my 5th cycle trying. Got the faintest positive on a HPT a day or two before my period was due (D could see it, too) and then started my period a day later than expected. Slightly heavier than normal flow.</p> <p>As opposed to what I call my miscarriage, when I had dark positives, made it a bit over a week after my period was due before I started bleeding heavily + passed a sac. </p> <p>As far as I'm concerned they're both losses, but the latter hurt me a lot more than the former, because I had longer to get used to the idea? </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1318322 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 18:31:07 +0000 FaithFertility 1318322@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>My RE "Hates" the term chemical pregnancies....<br /> I have had 2 both cases I got positive betas and BFP on HPT but days later the numbers started to drop.......a loss is a loss in my book too! </p> <p>I think it gets the name chemical from there really being noting to show your PG other than the<br /> HCG chemical/hormone in your body! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1317008 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:14:57 +0000 septca 1317008@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>This is not a technical definition, but my definition of a CP is when you get a :bfp: , but then get your period - either on time or a few days late. So it's a MC that happens before many people would even know they were pregnant. </p> <p>Also, in my mind, a loss is a loss. So a CP is definitely a MC. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1317000 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:13:36 +0000 T.H.O.U. 1317000@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@jodyblair: Yes, I think since something was visible there, meaning your body had prepared for a pregnancy then it wasn't a chemical. It sounds like you may have even had more of a blighted ovum which is the next step that a a sac was forming but no baby was there. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1316988 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:11:41 +0000 jodyblair 1316988@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@T.H.O.U.: So if something is visible on the ultrasound, then it's not a chemical pregnancy? I lost a pregnancy in June 2012 (I think i was about 5 weeks) and we did see the sac on an ultrasound. I always thought it was a chemical pregnancy since it was so early, but I guess it was an early miscarriage. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1316964 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 10:06:44 +0000 Mrs.Someone 1316964@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@T.H.O.U.: Yep, good point :) </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1316845 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:36:36 +0000 T.H.O.U. 1316845@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@Mrs.Someone: Not quite. Its not that you just haven't seen anything on the ultrasound but that nothing would be visible on an ultrasound. So really it would be any loss before 5 weeks: </p> <p>"The baby and gestational sac will not develop enough to be visible on an ultrasound. The term "chemical" pregnancy can be confusing. In a chemical pregnancy, the sperm and egg do meet but the fertilized egg does not implant properly in the uterus, resulting in an early miscarriage.". </p> <p>Definitely still a loss, but nothing was developed. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1316837 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:34:25 +0000 Mrs.Someone 1316837@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@babycanuck: Yep. A loss is a loss in my book. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1316825 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:32:49 +0000 babycanuck 1316825@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@Mrs.Someone: Ah, thanks! So technically it still is a miscarriage, just very early on. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1316819 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:30:16 +0000 Mrs.Someone 1316819@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>Chemical pregnancy is the term for a pregnancy that you haven't "seen" proof of on an ultrasound. Usually before 6 weeks. I personally hate the term, because it makes it sound like a less significant miscarriage.</p> <p>I knew I had them when I got a positive pregnancy test, then the pregnancy didn't progress. I also suspect I had another one when my period was 2 days late and I happen to see a small sac in the flow. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/chemical-pregnancies#post-1316805 Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:27:02 +0000 babycanuck 1316805@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>So...what defines a chemical pregnancy and how do you know if you've had one?</p> <p>What's the difference between CP and MC? </p>