Re: Baby born in midair on London to Boston flight
barbwyr
wahh wahhh wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997421/
> Flight diverted after passenger goes into labor
>
> Six weeks premature, baby is born in midair with help from crew
>
> Reuters
> Updated: 8:21 a.m. ET Sept. 25, 2006
>
> LONDON - A transatlantic flight from London to Boston had to make an
> emergency diversion after one passenger made an unexpected early
> arrival.
>
> A woman travelling on board the British Airways flight caused the
> drama when she went into labor after the plane had taken off on
> Saturday night.
>
> Unable to reach another airport in time, the baby was delivered
> mid-air by the cabin crew with the help of two passengers, thought to
> be medical students.
>
> "The passenger was experiencing some distress. The baby was born
> shortly before the aircraft landed," a BA spokeswoman said, adding the
> baby had arrived six weeks premature.
>
> The captain diverted the plane to Halifax in Nova Scotia, Canada,
> while the cabin crew moved some nearby passengers to make some space
> on board for the woman.
>
> When the plane landed, the mother and baby were taken to a nearby
> medical center.
>
> BA bans pregnant women from flying after 36 weeks although its staff
> are trained in birthing procedures.
>
> "It's very rare," the spokeswoman said.
I thought that's why you're not supposed to fly at ALL when you're in
the third tr!mester. Of course, no regard whatsoever seems to have been
given to the other passengers on board. Nevermind if THEY had somewhere
they need to be.
Barbwyr
Anne Rogers
> the third tr!mester. Of course, no regard whatsoever seems to have been
> given to the other passengers on board. Nevermind if THEY had somewhere
> they need to be.
if you're going to say that, you might as well say you can't go by air at
all in pregnancy, at any stage you could have a difficult miscarriage
requireing medical intervention, a 2nd trimester still birth or premature
delivery, anything. Flights get diverted all the time, very rarely is it due
to a pregnant women, much more likely to be a heart attack, so perhaps all
men over 50 should be banned from flying.
Cheers
Anne
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
barbwyr wrote:
Yeah, the terrorists on 9/11 were very inconsiderate of the
needs of the passengers on the planes they highjacked, too!
Even in the best regulated situations, unexpected
emergencies can happen. (Idiot!)
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Anne Rogers wrote:
>
> if you're going to say that, you might as well say you can't go by air at
> all in pregnancy, at any stage you could have a difficult miscarriage
> requireing medical intervention, a 2nd trimester still birth or premature
> delivery, anything. Flights get diverted all the time, very rarely is it due
> to a pregnant women, much more likely to be a heart attack, so perhaps all
> men over 50 should be banned from flying.
Why limit it to men? the incidence of heart disease among
women is on the rise, too. (And what about the pilots - I've
seen quite a few who appear to be in their fifties?) :-)
ChocolateChip_Wookie
Geez, why stop there. Since a fair number of women are unaware of their
pregnant status until month 2, we should rule out any woman of
chilbearing age on the basis that they might be pregnant. Add to that
any male over the age of 50 because of the risks of heartattack, women
too because of heart disease, all pesky children because they just
destroy the abiance of the flight and throw up and anyone how still has
an appendix as since this is a common scenario in airplane disaster
movies, it must happen allot (ever noticed that, any film with a plane,
there's someone with a burst appendix). Oops, hang about..what about
anyone who has EVER expressed a distrust of flying because clearly, they
might go a bit loopy and have to be restrained.
So, we're looking for a man, who doesnt have an appendix, is between the
ages of 18 and 50 and who has had a life long and demontratable love of
flying. Sorry no women (either child, child bearing age, or obviously
over the hill and dying of heart disease)..and god help the man if he
isnt blue eyed and blond haired because god knows, he could be a hijacker.
Wookie
ChocolateChip_Wookie
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I though the custom was toi adopt the nationality of wherever you land, for
> mid air (or sea?) births.. perhaps the captain took the better)?) option of
> Canada, rather than lumbering the poor child with USA heritage!
>
>
>
>
lol
Nan
<evg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>barbwyr wrote:
>> I thought that's why you're not supposed to fly at ALL when you're in
>> the third tr!mester. Of course, no regard whatsoever seems to have been
>> given to the other passengers on board. Nevermind if THEY had somewhere
>> they need to be.
>Yeah, the terrorists on 9/11 were very inconsiderate of the
>needs of the passengers on the planes they highjacked, too!
> Even in the best regulated situations, unexpected
>emergencies can happen. (Idiot!)
Oh, don't mind barbwyr. She (?) is posting from the childfree group.
They're so entitlement minded they can't see beyond the end of their
noses. "IT'S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEEEEE!"
Nan
nightjar
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ef91m...@news2.newsguy.com...
...
> Why limit it to men? the incidence of heart disease among women is on the
> rise, too. (And what about the pilots - I've seen quite a few who appear
> to be in their fifties?) :-)
The pilots get regular, comprehensive medicals and the intervals decrease as
they get older.
Colin Bignell
nightjar
"Bedders" <Bed...@dosentwantsapm.com> wrote in message
news:45181...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
..
> I though the custom was toi adopt the nationality of wherever you land,
> for
A aircraft or ship is part of the territory of the country in which it is
registered, so this child was born in Britain.
Colin Bignell
The Rocket Scientist
Commercial pilots are required to submit to an annual physical and may
not have any serious heart condition in order to keep their ticket.
And they are required to retire at age 60. Male or female.
Bill Sullivan
who, at age 54 and with congestive heart failure, is not contemplating
a career change to aviation right now.
Hatunen
Cool. Dual citizenship.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Rive...@direct.org
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997421/
>Flight diverted after passenger goes into labor
>
>Six weeks premature, baby is born in midair with help from crew
Why was that woman allowed to board packing all those fluids?
Anne Rogers
> rise, too. (And what about the pilots - I've seen quite a few who appear
> to be in their fifties?) :-)
and that was precisely my point!
with no prior symptoms or risk factors, the risk or premature delivery at 34
weeks is really very low, probably comparable to any other passenger
developing some medical condition requiring the flight to divert.
Cheers
Anne
Trish
"wahh wahhh" <wa...@wahh.wah> wrote in message
news:0ekfh2te3rg3tarrqhabt7014n5p5feu6p@news...
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997421/
> Flight diverted after passenger goes into labor
>
> Six weeks premature, baby is born in midair with help from crew
>
> Updated: 8:21 a.m. ET Sept. 25, 2006
>
> LONDON - A transatlantic flight from London to Boston had to make an
> emergency diversion after one passenger made an unexpected early
> arrival.
Is it true that in such circumstances the airline often gives the child free
flights for life or is that an urban legend?
--
Trish
Dublin
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
sionevar
news:s8fgh2tr2k5vanmp3...@4ax.com...
> Cool. Dual citizenship.
Not necessarily. Unlike the US, the UK does not grant British citizenship to
a child just because it was born on British soil (or air in this case).
Cathy Weeks
Trish wrote:
> Is it true that in such circumstances the airline often gives the child free
> flights for life or is that an urban legend?
Urban legend. I would think the airlines would NOT want to encourage
heavily pregnant women to fly. :-)
http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/airbaby.htm
Cathy Weeks
Kent_AOL
Nan wrote:
> >> I thought that's why you're not supposed to fly at ALL when you're in
> >> the third tr!mester. Of course, no regard whatsoever seems to have been
> >> given to the other passengers on board. Nevermind if THEY had somewhere
> >> they need to be.
>
> >Yeah, the terrorists on 9/11 were very inconsiderate of the
> >needs of the passengers on the planes they highjacked, too!
> > Even in the best regulated situations, unexpected
> >emergencies can happen. (Idiot!)
>
> Oh, don't mind barbwyr. She (?) is posting from the childfree group.
> They're so entitlement minded they can't see beyond the end of their
> noses.
Y'all STILL do not get it.
A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
attention than a flight attendent can give. Heart attacks,
appendicitis, et al are completely UNEXPECTED events. Not at all the
same as someone who is 8+ months pregnant and KNOWS, for a fact, that
labor is coming sometime, just not exactly when. It was extremely
inconsiderate of her to fly KNOWING that labor might result. But, we
know that new mothers don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and
their BAYBEEEE, so shouldn't be surprised.
Anne Rogers
> attention than a flight attendent can give. Heart attacks,
> appendicitis, et al are completely UNEXPECTED events. Not at all the
> same as someone who is 8+ months pregnant and KNOWS, for a fact, that
> labor is coming sometime, just not exactly when. It was extremely
> inconsiderate of her to fly KNOWING that labor might result. But, we
> know that new mothers don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and
> their BAYBEEEE, so shouldn't be surprised.
ahh yes, but the being alive, must at some point result in death, so perhaps
all those that are alive should not travel.
All airlines operate rules, which vary wildly, most have an absolute ban on
travel after some point and a point after which it requires a doctors note.
In the world we live in, it is going to be necessary for pregnant women to
travel, and heavily pregnant women are unlikely to travel for fun, it's just
not pleasant.
Anne
Hatunen
wrote:
Not even if the mother is a UK citizen (which I gather to be the
case here)?
Hatunen
wrote:
>
>Nan wrote:
>
>> >> I thought that's why you're not supposed to fly at ALL when you're in
>> >> the third tr!mester. Of course, no regard whatsoever seems to have been
>> >> given to the other passengers on board. Nevermind if THEY had somewhere
>> >> they need to be.
>>
>> >Yeah, the terrorists on 9/11 were very inconsiderate of the
>> >needs of the passengers on the planes they highjacked, too!
>> > Even in the best regulated situations, unexpected
>> >emergencies can happen. (Idiot!)
>>
>> Oh, don't mind barbwyr. She (?) is posting from the childfree group.
>> They're so entitlement minded they can't see beyond the end of their
>> noses.
>
>Y'all STILL do not get it.
>
>A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
>attention than a flight attendent can give. Heart attacks,
>appendicitis, et al are completely UNEXPECTED events.
No they're not. For me, who has already had a quintuple cardiac
artery bypass operation and three angioplasties, a heart attack
would not be unexpected.
Marten Kemp
> Oh, don't mind barbwyr. She (?) is posting from the childfree group.
> They're so entitlement minded they can't see beyond the end of their
> noses. "IT'S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEEEEE!"
Actually, it's "No, it's not all about you and your kids."
Each child, like each snowflake, is unique; there are no
two exactly alike. This does not, however, make any one of
them special nor does it confer any special status upon the
woman who produces it.
To paraphrase the immortal Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili:
"One birth is a miracle; a million is a statistic."
Then, of course, there's the sentiment that "Humans are a
renewable resource. They can be created by unskilled
labor, and the lack of workmanship shows in many cases."
--
-- Marten Kemp
(Fix name and ISP to reply)
-=-=-
... "It's hard to be religious when certain people are never
incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin, "Calvin & Hobbes"
* TagZilla 0.059 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
OG
"Kent_AOL" <kmp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159220767.5...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nan wrote:
> Y'all STILL do not get it.
>
> A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
> attention than a flight attendent can give. Heart attacks,
> appendicitis, et al are completely UNEXPECTED events. Not at all the
> same as someone who is 8+ months pregnant and KNOWS, for a fact, that
> labor is coming sometime, just not exactly when.
Read the post,
Not 8+months, no way - not in this case.
sgall...@rogers.com
>
> Not necessarily. Unlike the US, the UK does not grant British citizenship to
> a child just because it was born on British soil (or air in this case).
True. Although, so as not to confuse anyone, they used to, at least
prior to 1983. Before that year, birth in the UK was suffcient to
grant UK nationality to a child. However, in 1983, and beyond, a
person born in the UK will not receive British citizenship unless a
parent is either a British citizen or is "settled" in the UK. Settled
means ordinarily resident with no time limit on his or her stay.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> for mid air (or sea?) births...
> A aircraft or ship is part of the territory of the country in which it
> is registered, so this child was born in Britain.
Bloody hell. Think of the consequences if the plane had been a US one.
Is there such a thing as insurance against having your children born
American? Or would it be nullified by contributory negligence, as
births with foetal alcohol syndrome presumably are?
[followups to rte]
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
nightjar
Thanks, but I didn't really need any reassurances. :-)
(Merely being alive means taking risks, but I've never
regarded that as a reason to avoid activities in which I
want to participate.)
>
> Colin Bignell
>
>
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Kent_AOL wrote:
> Y'all STILL do not get it.
>
> A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
> attention than a flight attendent can give.
But not usually three weeks before it is due! Do you really
think a mother-to-be would DELIBERATELY get on a plane if
she expected to go into premature labor in flight?
Presumably she had some compelling reason for traveling, so
late into her pregnancy. (The news item seems mute on that
topic.)
Cathy Weeks
> Nan wrote:
> Y'all STILL do not get it.
>
> A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
> attention than a flight attendent can give. Heart attacks,
> appendicitis, et al are completely UNEXPECTED events.
And it appears that you don't get it either.
It's all a numbers game. A woman who is 32 weeks isn't very likely to
give birth while in route. It's rare, but it does happen.
Heart attacks are the LEADING cause of death in this country. In fact,
MOST people die of heart attacks, eventually. 250,000 per year die of
them.
http://www.mamashealth.com/Heart_stat.asp
Approximately 12 percent of babies are born prior to 37 weeks
gestation. Of those, 85% are born AFTER 32 weeks. That means that
about 1.8% of all babies are born prior to 32 weeks.
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1157.asp
According to this website, there are 4,058,000 live births each year in
the US.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html
1.8% of 4,058,000 is a mere 73,044.
Sooooo... 73,044 babies born prior to 32 weeks gestation each year, and
250,000 people die of heart attacks each year. Sounds to me that the
"unexpected" heart attacks are much more of a concern to the airlines,
than pregnant women prior to 32 weeks gestation.
Now.... if I could find stats about health problems cropping up during
flights, that would be a much more useful thing....
Cathy Weeks
Heather
previous comments. It's not like she did this on purpose. As I'm sure
she probebly doesn't want to see her child on machines struggling for
it's life. Yes true doctors ADVISE pregnant women not to travel the
last two months. But this women was barely into the last two months and
she might of thought that she was not as far along. Especially since
there are only estimated guesses by doctors how far along you are.
As for all the comments on the predictabilty of death. Let me explain
the whole no travel thing. Depending on where you are traveling to you
sometimes you experience a sudden change in cabin pressure. It is the
reason that your ears may pop. It has been very common that if an
almost ready pregnant women experience a change in the pressure around
her (hurricanes, tornados, airplanes, anything that air pressure
drasticly changes), her bag of water may not be able to take the
sudden change and bust, prematurly causing labor. So because it is more
preditible than a heart attack, doctors do advise to not do it. But
that's in the US too who knows what her drs told her.
Frank F. Matthews
nightjar <nightjar@ wrote:
But birth in Britain only counts for citizenship for legal residents.
They are not like the US. Actually almost no one bases citizenship on
birth location.
Frank F. Matthews
Hatunen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:39:39 GMT, "sionevar" <sion...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Hatunen" <hat...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:s8fgh2tr2k5vanmp3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>Cool. Dual citizenship.
>>
>>Not necessarily. Unlike the US, the UK does not grant British citizenship to
>>a child just because it was born on British soil (or air in this case).
>
>
> Not even if the mother is a UK citizen (which I gather to be the
> case here)?
>
That should do. Even legal UK residence would suffice.
VainGlorious
<headers trimmed a bit>
On 25 Sep 2006 18:09:53 -0700, "Heather" <Momm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The way I look at it is this women should not be judged so harshly in
>previous comments. It's not like she did this on purpose. As I'm sure
>she probebly doesn't want to see her child on machines struggling for
>it's life. Yes true doctors ADVISE pregnant women not to travel the
>last two months. But this women was barely into the last two months and
>she might of thought that she was not as far along. Especially since
>there are only estimated guesses by doctors how far along you are.
That's the crux of it, but you seem disinterested in discovering this
woman's motivation for flying when 7.5 months pregnant. If she needed
to fly to Boston for medical necessity, a change of residence or as an
employment requirement, I could understand. But I'll bet you dollars
to denarius that she just "wanted to go on a trip". I'm sure she felt
that she was a "liberated, free-spirited person" who "enjoys acting
spontaneously" and decided to hop aboard and ruin everyone else's
flight.
If this was indeed a pleasure trip that resulted in problems for her
fellow passengers, then I think she should have her baby stripped from
her and forwarded to a family that has some brains. She should then
spend 3 weeks in irons in the public square where everyone who has had
a business trip or holiday ruined because of some selfish idiot could
gleefully kick her in the face till she cries blood bubbles.
- TR
- a business traveler who is fed up.
mrtravel
>
> If this was indeed a pleasure trip that resulted in problems for her
> fellow passengers
Yeah, 6 weeks short of the due date, she decided that flying
transatlantic would be a very comfortable, enjoyable experience..... NOT
nightjar
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6j0Sg.50$DU3...@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>
> nightjar <nightjar@ wrote:
>
>> "Bedders" <Bed...@dosentwantsapm.com> wrote in message
>> news:45181...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> ..
>>
>>>I though the custom was toi adopt the nationality of wherever you land,
>>>for
>>>mid air (or sea?) births...
>>
>>
>> A aircraft or ship is part of the territory of the country in which it is
>> registered, so this child was born in Britain.
>>
>> Colin Bignell
>
> But birth in Britain only counts for citizenship for legal residents.
That is something of a simplification of the eligibility criteria.
> They are not like the US. Actually almost no one bases citizenship on
> birth location.
Being born outside Britain, even to British parents, can, under certain
circumstances, adversely affect the child's rights to British citizenship.
Colin Bignell
Nan
>
>Nan wrote:
>
>> >> I thought that's why you're not supposed to fly at ALL when you're in
>> >> the third tr!mester. Of course, no regard whatsoever seems to have been
>> >> given to the other passengers on board. Nevermind if THEY had somewhere
>> >> they need to be.
>>
>> >Yeah, the terrorists on 9/11 were very inconsiderate of the
>> >needs of the passengers on the planes they highjacked, too!
>> > Even in the best regulated situations, unexpected
>> >emergencies can happen. (Idiot!)
>>
>> Oh, don't mind barbwyr. She (?) is posting from the childfree group.
>> They're so entitlement minded they can't see beyond the end of their
>> noses.
>
>Y'all STILL do not get it.
It appears YOU don't get it.
>A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
>attention than a flight attendent can give.
Sure. At 38+ weeks, which this woman was not.
>Heart attacks,
>appendicitis, et al are completely UNEXPECTED events. Not at all the
>same as someone who is 8+ months pregnant and KNOWS, for a fact, that
>labor is coming sometime, just not exactly when.
32 weeks isn't full term. She wouldn't reasonably be expected to know
she'd be going into labor soon.
> It was extremely
>inconsiderate of her to fly KNOWING that labor might result. But, we
>know that new mothers don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and
>their BAYBEEEE, so shouldn't be surprised.
It's extremely ignorant of you to think this situation plays into your
cf ranting.
Nan
Nan
<marten...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote:
>Nan wrote:
>
>> Oh, don't mind barbwyr. She (?) is posting from the childfree group.
>> They're so entitlement minded they can't see beyond the end of their
>> noses. "IT'S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEEEEE!"
>
>Actually, it's "No, it's not all about you and your kids."
Oh, I think it's a matter of perspective, don't you think? You see us
as selfish and we see you as sniveling, whiny children.
Nan
Kent
"Nan" <dontbo...@home.com> wrote
>>Actually, it's "No, it's not all about you and your kids."
>
> Oh, I think it's a matter of perspective, don't you think? You see us
> as selfish and we see you as sniveling, whiny children.
Actually, most CF people would be just fine if you'd keep YOUR "sniveling,
whiny children" AWAY from us, as well as your demands for fawning special
treatment just because something has grown in your uterus. It's a little
thing called "consideration for other people", ya know...
ChocolateChip_Wookie
>
> "wahh wahhh" <wa...@wahh.wah> wrote in message
> news:0ekfh2te3rg3tarrqhabt7014n5p5feu6p@news...
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997421/
>> Flight diverted after passenger goes into labor
>>
>> Six weeks premature, baby is born in midair with help from crew
>>
>> Reuters
>> Updated: 8:21 a.m. ET Sept. 25, 2006
>>
>> LONDON - A transatlantic flight from London to Boston had to make an
>> emergency diversion after one passenger made an unexpected early
>> arrival.
>
> Is it true that in such circumstances the airline often gives the child
> free flights for life or is that an urban legend?
>
Urban legend...but I have heard of a bunch of flowers being sent.
ChocolateChip_Wookie
Nope...Up until 1983, duel citizenship was contingent on the nationality
of the father, after that time, it was the mother's nationality. So, if
you have an English father and a foreign mother, you wont be English,
you'd be foreign. Before 1983, it was the other way around. I have duel
nationality with New Zealand and England and free right of entry into
Australia simply because I had an Australian mother, was born in New
Zealand and registered there and my father is English. My New Zealand
birth certificate gives (or gave, I havnt tested it lately) free entry
into Australia because of the special relationship between them. Also, I
dont need a sponsor to emigrate there either.
I know all this because some years ago, I went to Peterborough to get a
new passport. The last one I had was my original passport and entry into
the UK when I was a baby. We had a scary situation because I produced my
New Zealand birth certificate and my british passport as proof of
identity but they were unsure whether I was *really* british or not. For
a short time I had visions of being deported to a country I didnt
remember and had no tie to anymore. Happily, they decided that because I
was born before 1983, I was British because that is the nationality of
my father and that they could just overlook the lack of naturalisation.
They issued the UK passport.
Wookie
ChocolateChip_Wookie
> A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
> attention than a flight attendent can give.
Any woman can administer a birth and frequently do. Last I looked, it
was part of the general first aid training for cabin crew. As for
requiring more medical attention, I defy you to do an appendectomy at
23,000 feet if you dont know what you're doing. Appendicitis is life
threatening and if not treated quickly enough results in peritonitis and
death, no if's ands or buts about it. However, a normal pregnancy
results in a normal birth on or around the 40th week of gestation. The
fact that it is *early* does not necessarily mean that it is
complicated, simply that the dating was wrong.
Heart attacks,
> appendicitis, et al are completely UNEXPECTED events.
Heart attacks are generally preceded by angina or similar warning signs.
Appendicitis is preceded by flu like symptoms, nausea, vomiting,
tenderness in the abdomen etc approximately 23-48 hours before it
becomes acute. Neither of these conditions manifest without some warning.
Not at all the
> same as someone who is 8+ months pregnant and KNOWS, for a fact, that
> labor is coming sometime, just not exactly when.
That's just it. The very nature of the 40 week gestation is that you are
not expected to deliver until the 40th week.
It was extremely
> inconsiderate of her to fly KNOWING that labor might result.
None of us *knows* when labour will start. As for being the *result* of
the flight...not proven.
But, we
> know that new mothers don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and
> their BAYBEEEE, so shouldn't be surprised.
>
Now, that's just asking for a flaming.
Sancho Panza
"Kent" <kmp...@nc.IGNORETHISrr.com> wrote in message
news:hE9Sg.19935$Qg....@southeast.rr.com...
Would you care to repeat that for the "American Airlines Smacks Down"
thread?
Hatunen
<vainglor...@THIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
><headers trimmed a bit>
>
>On 25 Sep 2006 18:09:53 -0700, "Heather" <Momm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The way I look at it is this women should not be judged so harshly in
>>previous comments. It's not like she did this on purpose. As I'm sure
>>she probebly doesn't want to see her child on machines struggling for
>>it's life. Yes true doctors ADVISE pregnant women not to travel the
>>last two months. But this women was barely into the last two months and
>>she might of thought that she was not as far along. Especially since
>>there are only estimated guesses by doctors how far along you are.
>
>That's the crux of it, but you seem disinterested in discovering this
>woman's motivation for flying when 7.5 months pregnant. If she needed
>to fly to Boston for medical necessity, a change of residence or as an
>employment requirement, I could understand. But I'll bet you dollars
>to denarius that she just "wanted to go on a trip". I'm sure she felt
>that she was a "liberated, free-spirited person" who "enjoys acting
>spontaneously" and decided to hop aboard and ruin everyone else's
>flight.
Now I know why you call yourself "VainGlorious". What you bet the
woman's motivations were is totally irrelevant.
>If this was indeed a pleasure trip that resulted in problems for her
>fellow passengers, then I think she should have her baby stripped from
>her and forwarded to a family that has some brains. She should then
>spend 3 weeks in irons in the public square where everyone who has had
>a business trip or holiday ruined because of some selfish idiot could
>gleefully kick her in the face till she cries blood bubbles.
You obviously have some need for this woman to be trivialized.
Why?
Nan
wrote:
Yeah, yeah, we've all heard your tales of Pity Me I Have To Endure
Children. Good thing "Most CF people" I know don't behave as you do.
Nan
ChocolateChip_Wookie
Ahhh...'CF' definition anyone?
Wookie
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
VainGlorious wrote:
> That's the crux of it, but you seem disinterested in discovering this
> woman's motivation for flying when 7.5 months pregnant.
Do you really think it's anyone's business but her own?
(Certainly not YOURS, since you were not even on the flight
in question.)
> If she needed
> to fly to Boston for medical necessity, a change of residence or as an
> employment requirement, I could understand. But I'll bet you dollars
> to denarius that she just "wanted to go on a trip". I'm sure she felt
> that she was a "liberated, free-spirited person" who "enjoys acting
> spontaneously" and decided to hop aboard and ruin everyone else's
> flight.
Have you flown overseas much, recently? With all the
restrictions, there's not much spontaneity involved, these
days. You've obviously never been pregnant, either, if you
think flying (mostly "cattle class" nowadays) in the
advanced stages of pregnancy is a venture one embarks upon
lightly! (And how did her giving birth unexpectedly "ruin
everyone else's flight"?)
Jamie Clark
Child Free
--
Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03
Addison Grace, 9/30/04
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up
your own User ID and Password
ChocolateChip_Wookie
> ChocolateChip_Wookie" <"wookie[at]bluelotusblossom[dot]com wrote:
>> Nan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:09:33 GMT, "Kent"
>>> <kmp...@nc.IGNORETHISrr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Nan" <dontbo...@home.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, it's "No, it's not all about you and your kids."
>>>>> Oh, I think it's a matter of perspective, don't you think? You
>>>>> see us as selfish and we see you as sniveling, whiny children.
>>>> Actually, most CF people would be just fine if you'd keep YOUR
>>>> "sniveling, whiny children" AWAY from us, as well as your demands
>>>> for fawning special treatment just because something has grown in
>>>> your uterus. It's a little thing called "consideration for other
>>>> people", ya know...
>>> Yeah, yeah, we've all heard your tales of Pity Me I Have To Endure
>>> Children. Good thing "Most CF people" I know don't behave as you do.
>>>
>>> Nan
>>>
>>
>> Ahhh...'CF' definition anyone?
>
> Child Free
>
'Child Free'? By choice? Or by accident and biology (or lack of)?
Nan
<"wookie[at]bluelotusblossom[dot]com"> wrote:
Child Free.
I really shouldn't be playing with them, so I'll stop <G>
Nan
Nan
By Choice for most of them, I believe.
Nan
ChocolateChip_Wookie
Didnt that used to be called a 'spinster'? or am I confusing it with
'barren old hag'?
Hatunen
<"wookie[at]bluelotusblossom[dot]com"> wrote:
>Nan wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:11:04 +0100, ChocolateChip_Wookie
>>> 'Child Free'? By choice? Or by accident and biology (or lack of)?
>>
>> By Choice for most of them, I believe.
>
>Didnt that used to be called a 'spinster'?
A "spinster" is an unmarried woman.
>or am I confusing it with 'barren old hag'?
Being barren is not a choice. And I know a number of childless
women who are far from being hags.
hil...@fashionsintime.com
Hatunen wrote:
>
> Being barren is not a choice.
Sure it is. That's why many CF women have tubals.
sgall...@rogers.com
Hatunen
I guess ij that sense it is, but it seems a stretch to call these
women barren when truly barren women have a real problem.
Dave Frightens Me
<vainglor...@THIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
><headers trimmed a bit>
>
>On 25 Sep 2006 18:09:53 -0700, "Heather" <Momm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The way I look at it is this women should not be judged so harshly in
>>previous comments. It's not like she did this on purpose. As I'm sure
>>she probebly doesn't want to see her child on machines struggling for
>>it's life. Yes true doctors ADVISE pregnant women not to travel the
>>last two months. But this women was barely into the last two months and
>>she might of thought that she was not as far along. Especially since
>>there are only estimated guesses by doctors how far along you are.
>
>That's the crux of it, but you seem disinterested in discovering this
>woman's motivation for flying when 7.5 months pregnant. If she needed
>to fly to Boston for medical necessity, a change of residence or as an
>employment requirement, I could understand. But I'll bet you dollars
>to denarius that she just "wanted to go on a trip".
Just a spontaneous decision to take a trip while her entire life was
being governed by that thing in her belly?
Can I please bet against you?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
hdha...@gmail.com
> 'barren old hag'?
I am a married, 25 year old CF woman. I am voluntarily sterile. Not
so much barren, not so much old hag.
I have cloned a horse, harvested stem cells from an embryo, and
developed biothreat and clinical diagnostic tests that will probably be
used on your children. Rather than at a playground or piano recital, I
spend my free time and money advancing science.
My life will be, and likely already has been, far more productive than
yours and any of your childrens' that choose to be breeders.
Everything I do makes your life and your kids lives longer and
healthier.
Think about that the next time you feel the need to talk down to CFs.
hil...@fashionsintime.com
Hatunen wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2006 11:01:46 -0700, hil...@fashionsintime.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Hatunen wrote:
> >>
> >> Being barren is not a choice.
> >
> >Sure it is. That's why many CF women have tubals.
>
> I guess ij that sense it is, but it seems a stretch to call these
> women barren when truly barren women have a real problem.
CF women who are "truly barren" (no tubal needed) certainly don't
consider it a problem. Lots of women who "can't" have children never
wanted them in the first place.
Hatunen
For them, the first place was sometimes long ago. But in my andmy
wife's "business" of foster parenting we see a lot of children
being adoped by couples who can't have children, and it can't
always be the guy's fault. Apparently, many of them consider it a
problem.
Not to mention that not wanting to have children may simply be a
way for a woman who can't have them to find peace for herself.
Carole Allen
>VainGlorious wrote:
> If she needed
>> to fly to Boston for medical necessity, a change of residence or as an
>> employment requirement, I could understand. But I'll bet you dollars
>> to denarius that she just "wanted to go on a trip". I'm sure she felt
>> that she was a "liberated, free-spirited person" who "enjoys acting
>> spontaneously" and decided to hop aboard and ruin everyone else's
>> flight.
>
<evg...@earthlink.net> wrote:>
tions, there's not much spontaneity involved, these
>days. You've obviously never been pregnant, either, if you
>think flying (mostly "cattle class" nowadays) in the
>advanced stages of pregnancy is a venture one embarks upon
>lightly!
Perhaps she was relocating. My husband and I had to move to another
state for a job change 7 weeks before my due date - no choice in the
matter. My son was born 6 weeks early. Fortunately, our move was by
car, not plane, but this woman's trip was more likely necessary than
pleasure.
Show me a woman 7 months preggers who thinks she is "liberated,
free-spirited" and/or thinks she can act "spontaneously."
Nan
<hdha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Got a cure for cancer yet?
Nan
Cathy Weeks
hdha...@gmail.com wrote:
> My life will be, and likely already has been, far more productive than
> yours and any of your childrens' that choose to be breeders.
> Everything I do makes your life and your kids lives longer and
> healthier.
>
> Think about that the next time you feel the need to talk down to CFs.
And the next time you look down on breeders, you might remember that
it's us who will produce the doctors and nurses that take care of you
when you are too feeble to care for yourself.
Cathy Weeks
Cathy Weeks
> Show me a woman 7 months preggers who thinks she is "liberated,
> free-spirited" and/or thinks she can act "spontaneously."
Yeah, I had a road trip when I was about 5.5 months pregnant, and my
feet and ankles swelled up, and my back hurt like crazy. And I wasn't
even that far along! I couldn't imagine flying in the third trimester
- stuffy enclosed spaces, small seats, and no legroom to raise my feet
up to prevent them from puffing up again? No way would I have done it
lightly or frivolously.
What many CF probably don't realize, is that the farther along a
pregnant woman is, the more her instinct is to stay close to home (It's
called the nesting instinct). But... I suppose it's easier to think
the worst of people.
Cathy Weeks
Banty
hdha...@gmail.com says...
Do you *know* the accomplishments of the person you responded to??
Do you mean to imply that the scientific and technological acheivements of the
world were contributed only by people without children??
This is simply silly.
You, right now, are using a microprocessor with interconnections which use
scientific knowledge and application of that knowledge created by me, myself,
mother and engineer (licensed to my employer), unless you are using quite an old
system (but then I know the servers which have propogated your message use it in
their processors).
So, in the act of your writing your silly haughty message of how your
childlessness allowed you to devise clinical diagnostic tests and what a great
contribution to mankind that was, and propogating your message worldwide, you
used basic scientific work and applications on copper microprocessor
interconnects contributed to mankind by me, engineer and single mom.
So maybe you can get off your high horse about this, cloned or not, join the
rest of humanity, and consider that everyone has needs and interests and
problems, including needing to get from point A to point B on an airplane.
Banty
Banty
says...
The silly thing about this (well, *one* of the silly things) is that, if
pregnant women about to deliver were flying everywhere messing up people's
carefully-laid vacation or ever-so-important business flying plans, this would
not have made the news! Man bites dog and all that.
This is a *rare* event. If *anyone* were to avoid flying for the sake of a
*rare* event - no one would fly.
Would that the only things that messed up any of my plans were only things that
made the news! :-D
Banty
Kent
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote
> (And how did her giving birth unexpectedly "ruin everyone else's flight"?)
The flight was diverted, inconveniencing everyone else who had places to be.
Not to mention that the screams and goo of a childbirth are not exactly what
anyone wants to listen to/see--would you?
Kent
"Nan" <dontbo...@home.com> wrote
>>'Child Free'? By choice? Or by accident and biology (or lack of)?
>
> By Choice for most of them, I believe.
By definition, "ChildFREE" is by choice, or at least it's a good thing.
"ChildLESS" is by accident/biology is that is considered a bad thing.
Caledonia
I'd choose goo over sitting next to a "Jim Wilson" on a cross-country
flight.
Then again, the airline did give me free drinks -- I guess it's the
hidden bonus of the corpse seatmate.
Caledonia
Kari
It's also breeders who...
...fry their kids in hot cars because they "forgot" them
...lock their kids in closets when breederhood turns out
not to be so fun anymore
...molest their kids
...turn a blind eye while their kids are being molested
...poison their kids for insurance money
...use their kids as ashtrays
...starve their kids
...blame their kids for messing up their lives when the
kids didn't even ask to be born
...beat their kids to death when the kid "cries too much"
or "gets in the way"
...kill their kids because they are "demon-possessed" or
"because gawd told them to"
...claim that they "didn't know" that their kids were
making a bomb in the basement
...claim that their vermin will have the cure for cancer
(guess what...there's no cure for cancer yet, but there
are still plenty of serial killers and child molesters
out there)
...are breeding all the criminals--not the CF
...depend on their kids to give them status and definition
instead of finding these qualities within themselves
...force their kids to do things against their will in
order for other people to be impressed with their
parenting skills (a thing that is non-exsistent)
...wonder why their kids grow up to hate them
You won't see any CF people doing these things.
And yes, your kids will be taking care of me because they've
had all they can stand of you and have dumped you in a rest
home somewhere far away. If you don't believe me, you just
go visit a rest home sometime and ask the residents just how
often their kids come see them. So enjoy screwing up your
kids while you're still young enough to do so. And don't
complain if you don't like the results.
Kent
>>CF women who are "truly barren" (no tubal needed) certainly don't
>>consider it a problem. Lots of women who "can't" have children never
>>wanted them in the first place.
>
> For them, the first place was sometimes long ago. But in my andmy
> wife's "business" of foster parenting we see a lot of children
> being adoped by couples who can't have children, and it can't
> always be the guy's fault. Apparently, many of them consider it a
> problem.
Um, I believe the cohort of "foster parents" is not exactly a random sample
of the population! Sure, SOME women who are infertile consider it a probelm
(how else would we see the "fertility" industry that treats babies as
commodities?
The original statement is that "lots of women" who cannot have children
never wanted them to being with. This is absolutely true, as there are many
infertile AND childfree women.
> Not to mention that not wanting to have children may simply be a
> way for a woman who can't have them to find peace for herself.
What is there to "find peace" about? Not everyone's body works the same way;
infertility isn't a handicap and shouldn't keep someone from living a
fulfilling life unless they have self-esteem issues, and believe they can't
be "complete" without a biological child (granted society does a number on
little girls and indoctrinates them in this warped idea). Those who are
upset about their infertilify can adopt, so again, what "peace" is there to
"find" with oneself for being infertile?
Kent
Kent
"Nan" <dontbo...@home.com> wrote
>>My life will be, and likely already has been, far more productive than
>>yours and any of your childrens' that choose to be breeders.
>>Everything I do makes your life and your kids lives longer and
>>healthier.
>>
>>Think about that the next time you feel the need to talk down to CFs.
>
> Got a cure for cancer yet?
Is nothing in life worthwhile unless it's a "Cure for cancer"? Wow, you'd
better hope your kid is the one who finds it, or s/he's in for a life of
being Mommy's Big Disappointment.
Sheesh!
BTW Nan, when is YOUR cure for cancer going to be published?
Kent
"Cathy Weeks" <kath...@weeksfamily.net> wrote
> And the next time you look down on breeders, you might remember that
> it's us who will produce the doctors and nurses that take care of you
> when you are too feeble to care for yourself.
Possibly, but breeders will also produce the crackhead gangsta who kills
our spouse, or the drunk driver who paralyzes us (or you) for life, or the
rapist who gets hold of YOUR child. I can be certain that no chromosomes of
mine will be involved in any of the above, can you?
Kent
Sancho Panza
"Kent" <kmp...@nc.IGNORETHISrr.com> wrote in message
news:4HmSg.21100$Qg.1...@southeast.rr.com...
If you're so fearful, it might be a good idea to limit the intake of air to,
say, one breath every 3 minues or so. Be sure to let us know how that works
out.
Marten Kemp
BINGO! (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1522864)
--
-- Marten Kemp
(Fix name and ISP to reply)
-=-=-
... Code is the fourth kind of literature, after prose, poetry and
music. -- Steven J. Rush on alt.support.childfree
* TagZilla 0.059 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
mrtravel
>
>
> VainGlorious wrote:
>
>
>> That's the crux of it, but you seem disinterested in discovering this
>> woman's motivation for flying when 7.5 months pregnant.
>
>
> YOURS, since you were not even on the flight in question.)
>
I think it might be the business of the people that were delayed.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
I seriously doubt whether the human birth aloft took place
the equivalent of center stage! For reasons of hygiene
alone, the woman would have been kept as isolated from the
rest of the passengers as possible.
Actually, in reply to your question, I might have found it
interesting - I've never observed a human birth, although
I've midwifed a feline or two. But then, I'm not
particularly squeamish - I remember eating dinner while
watching a TV film of zoo vets performing a caesarian on a
mother tiger. (Only later did I realize that might not be
everyone's choice for dinnertime entertainment.) :-)
Anne Rogers
> feet and ankles swelled up, and my back hurt like crazy. And I wasn't
> even that far along! I couldn't imagine flying in the third trimester
> - stuffy enclosed spaces, small seats, and no legroom to raise my feet
> up to prevent them from puffing up again? No way would I have done it
> lightly or frivolously.
I also made a big trip at 32 weeks pregnant, we were living in Korea and I
wanted to have the baby in England (we are British), we travelled business
class and it wasn't too bad, but I wouldn't have wanted to do it any later.
Cheers
Anne
ChocolateChip_Wookie
I dont remember screaming...does anyone else? A bit of heavy breathing
and the odd moan, but definitely no screaming. Giving birth does not
require you to let rip with primal screams...that's just the
entertainment industry. Generally, giving birth is pretty boring to
observe, its only the last few minutes that things get a little hectic.
All the run up to it is pretty mundane and apart from the general
grimaces and moving position allot, you wouldn't know a woman was in
labour. As to 'goo'...there is some blood granted but not much more than
from a bad cut, this isnt a scene from Alien you know. Anyway, flights
get diverted all the time for all sorts of reasons, chances are, you
will never experience a diversion because of a birth. In any case, how
was she to know at 26 weeks that she would go into labour. I believe
that the general rule is 'no flying after 37 weeks', so by her
reckoning, she had another 13 weeks or 3 months to go.
Wookie
Cathy Weeks
Kari wrote:
> It's also breeders who...
<SNIP long list of child abuses>
> You won't see any CF people doing these things.
That's true. But you won't find any CF producing the next Einstein,
Mozart, philanthopist, Pasteur. You won't find a CF producing doctors,
nurses, teachers, world leaders, scientists, or even the good person
who stops to help you when your car is broken down by the side of the
road.
What you evidently fail to see is that producing those types of people
are IMPORTANT. Just as important as discovering the cure for cancer.
The cure for cancer makes it *possible* to live. Good people in the
world makes it *worthwile* to live.
And yes, there ARE bad parents in the world. I don't believe any of us
breeders would disagree. And in fact, we bash them ourselves, for many
of the same reasons you do - because they make the world a worse place.
However, most of you CF folks seem merely to revel in selfish
complaining. And that really isn't making a wonderful contribution to
the world. Whiners are rarely liked or appreciated (not that you'd
care).
That's the thing that seems so puzzling to me - you don't like whiny,
brattish children, but many of you just love to whine and act like
brats, as if the world OWES you something.
> And yes, your kids will be taking care of me because they've
> had all they can stand of you and have dumped you in a rest
> home somewhere far away. If you don't believe me, you just
> go visit a rest home sometime and ask the residents just how
> often their kids come see them. So enjoy screwing up your
> kids while you're still young enough to do so. And don't
> complain if you don't like the results.
Uh, Ok. But at least I did my part. You won't be left to die alone
where no one cares, and no one does anything about it until the smell
hits the corridor.
Cathy Weeks
Cathy Weeks
Marten Kemp wrote:
>
> BINGO! (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1522864)
<LOL>
You missed my point however. I don't care if you have kids or not. In
fact, I think it's best for everyone involved if you and every CF who
doesn't want kids DOESN'T.
I'm not sure if E2 has it on there or not, but I wonder if there's a CF
Bingo or not. You know, a list of all the ills of the world, and how
they were produced by breeders? Tired and worn out reasons why they
think other people SHOULDN'T have kids.
Since many of you seem to have blinders on, not only do all the bad
people in the world come from breeders, but so do the good people.
Cathy Weeks
Kari
> Kari wrote:
>
>
>>It's also breeders who...
>
>
> <SNIP long list of child abuses>
>
>>You won't see any CF people doing these things.
>
>
> That's true. But you won't find any CF producing the next Einstein,
> Mozart, philanthopist, Pasteur. You won't find a CF producing doctors,
> nurses, teachers, world leaders, scientists, or even the good person
> who stops to help you when your car is broken down by the side of the
> road.
Why is that always the obligation of the CF? Because
the breeders don't really want to be bothered with
actually raising the scientists, drs, nurses, etc.
They only want the fun part of making babies. The
actual rearing becomes a moot point.
I don't feel at all like I am breaking any laws by
choosing not to reproduce. Why would I want to
inflict a terrible life on an innocent being that
didn't choose to be here? That is the epitome of
selfishness.
Now if there are eny decent parents out there, that's
all fine and good. I just don't have the gumption to
be one myself. It would be a big mistake on my part
to make a baby.
> That's the thing that seems so puzzling to me - you don't like whiny,
> brattish children, but many of you just love to whine and act like
> brats, as if the world OWES you something.
I don't believe that the world owes me a thing.
Actually, it's the breeders that think that the world owes
them something. Breeders take alot more time off work for
maternity leave, go to all their kids' activities, or take
care of ill kids. The CF are usually forced to pick up the
slack.
Hatunen
<kmp...@nc.IGNORETHISrr.com> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <hat...@cox.net> wrote
>
>>>CF women who are "truly barren" (no tubal needed) certainly don't
>>>consider it a problem. Lots of women who "can't" have children never
>>>wanted them in the first place.
>>
>> For them, the first place was sometimes long ago. But in my andmy
>> wife's "business" of foster parenting we see a lot of children
>> being adoped by couples who can't have children, and it can't
>> always be the guy's fault. Apparently, many of them consider it a
>> problem.
>
>Um, I believe the cohort of "foster parents" is not exactly a random sample
>of the population! Sure, SOME women who are infertile consider it a probelm
>(how else would we see the "fertility" industry that treats babies as
>commodities?
You're complaining abou that in a reply I made to the flat
statement "CF women who are "truly barren" (no tubal needed)
certainly don't consider it a problem."
>The original statement is that "lots of women" who cannot have children
>never wanted them to being with. This is absolutely true, as there are many
>infertile AND childfree women.
Certainly it's true, but it's not the statement I'm responding
to.
>> Not to mention that not wanting to have children may simply be a
>> way for a woman who can't have them to find peace for herself.
>
>What is there to "find peace" about? Not everyone's body works the same way;
>infertility isn't a handicap and shouldn't keep someone from living a
>fulfilling life unless they have self-esteem issues, and believe they can't
>be "complete" without a biological child (granted society does a number on
>little girls and indoctrinates them in this warped idea). Those who are
>upset about their infertilify can adopt, so again, what "peace" is there to
>"find" with oneself for being infertile?
A guy named "Kent" is telling us what women think?
Hatunen
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
>> I seriously doubt whether the human birth aloft took place
>> the equivalent of center stage! For reasons of hygiene
>> alone, the woman would have been kept as isolated from the
>> rest of the passengers as possible.
>
>Hmmm. I don't know about the planes YOU fly on, but the ones I've been
>on don't have ANYWHERE "private" except the lavoratories, and good luck
>getting in there even if you aren't pregnant!
Check out the upstairs sleeping quarters for the crew on a 747
long-haul. It's in the rear. Not convenient for birthing, though.
Nan
wrote:
>
>"Nan" <dontbo...@home.com> wrote
>
>>>My life will be, and likely already has been, far more productive than
>>>yours and any of your childrens' that choose to be breeders.
>>>Everything I do makes your life and your kids lives longer and
>>>healthier.
>>>
>>>Think about that the next time you feel the need to talk down to CFs.
>>
>> Got a cure for cancer yet?
>
>Is nothing in life worthwhile unless it's a "Cure for cancer"? Wow, you'd
>better hope your kid is the one who finds it, or s/he's in for a life of
>being Mommy's Big Disappointment.
>
>Sheesh!
Oh, I'm simply pointing out to the poster who is full of him/herself
for being CF that his/her justification is a bit silly.
>BTW Nan, when is YOUR cure for cancer going to be published?
I'm not bragging about doing So Many Wonderful Things For Humanity
Because I Didn't Breed, hon.
Nan
Banty
says...
>
>
>Kari wrote:
>
>> It's also breeders who...
>
><SNIP long list of child abuses>
>
>> You won't see any CF people doing these things.
>
>That's true. But you won't find any CF producing the next Einstein,
>Mozart, philanthopist, Pasteur. You won't find a CF producing doctors,
>nurses, teachers, world leaders, scientists, or even the good person
>who stops to help you when your car is broken down by the side of the
>road.
>
>What you evidently fail to see is that producing those types of people
>are IMPORTANT. Just as important as discovering the cure for cancer.
>The cure for cancer makes it *possible* to live. Good people in the
>world makes it *worthwile* to live.
>
>And yes, there ARE bad parents in the world. I don't believe any of us
>breeders would disagree. And in fact, we bash them ourselves, for many
>of the same reasons you do - because they make the world a worse place.
>
It's really much sillier even than that.
The argument goes - 'I have not failed at endeavor "x" nor harmed anyone in the
process of endeavor "x" because I have resolved never to do endeavor "x"'.
Well, whoopdeedoo.
It's as if I were to claim credit, as a confirmed non ocean going transport-ship
pilot, for never having spilled oil into Prince William sound, or any other
waterway or shoreway.
Banty
Nan
wrote:
>Cathy Weeks wrote:
>> Kari wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's also breeders who...
>>
>>
>> <SNIP long list of child abuses>
>>
>>>You won't see any CF people doing these things.
>>
>>
>> That's true. But you won't find any CF producing the next Einstein,
>> Mozart, philanthopist, Pasteur. You won't find a CF producing doctors,
>> nurses, teachers, world leaders, scientists, or even the good person
>> who stops to help you when your car is broken down by the side of the
>> road.
>
>
>Why is that always the obligation of the CF? Because
>the breeders don't really want to be bothered with
>actually raising the scientists, drs, nurses, etc.
>They only want the fun part of making babies. The
>actual rearing becomes a moot point.
>
>I don't feel at all like I am breaking any laws by
>choosing not to reproduce. Why would I want to
>inflict a terrible life on an innocent being that
>didn't choose to be here? That is the epitome of
>selfishness.
Where's my CF Bingo card?
>Now if there are eny decent parents out there, that's
>all fine and good. I just don't have the gumption to
>be one myself. It would be a big mistake on my part
>to make a baby.
>
>
>
>> That's the thing that seems so puzzling to me - you don't like whiny,
>> brattish children, but many of you just love to whine and act like
>> brats, as if the world OWES you something.
>
>
>
>I don't believe that the world owes me a thing.
>
>
>Actually, it's the breeders that think that the world owes
>them something. Breeders take alot more time off work for
>maternity leave, go to all their kids' activities, or take
>care of ill kids. The CF are usually forced to pick up the
>slack.
Wow, 3 Bingo plays in one post. I would have won this round!
Nan
Nan
>The next best thing is the First Class cabin, and boy, you'd better
>believe I'd have something to say if I'd paid hundreds extra for a
>First Class seat, only to be kicked out so someone who should have
>stayed home in the first place could whelp a baby in it (or next to
>it)!
You all keep saying she should have stayed home, but you haven't
supplied any compelling reason for your assertion. Unless a doctor
grounds a pregnant woman, there is no reason not to fly.
Nan
Cathy Weeks
> Cathy Weeks wrote:
> > That's true. But you won't find any CF producing the next Einstein,
> > Mozart, philanthopist, Pasteur. You won't find a CF producing doctors,
> > nurses, teachers, world leaders, scientists, or even the good person
> > who stops to help you when your car is broken down by the side of the
> > road.
>
>
> Why is that always the obligation of the CF? Because
> the breeders don't really want to be bothered with
> actually raising the scientists, drs, nurses, etc.
> They only want the fun part of making babies. The
> actual rearing becomes a moot point.
It absolutely is NOT the obligation of the CF. I believe that if a
person doesn't want a kid, then they should NOT have one. All kids in
this world should be WANTED, and it does both the child and the parent
a disservice to be in any situation other than where the child is
wanted.
And there are plenty of bad parents out there who neglect their kids,
but there are plenty who do not, who find joy in the raising of their
children. It's the existance of the latter group that many CF seem to
ignore, apparently yourself included.
> I don't feel at all like I am breaking any laws by
> choosing not to reproduce. Why would I want to
> inflict a terrible life on an innocent being that
> didn't choose to be here? That is the epitome of
> selfishness.
Nope. that's not what is selfish. And the idea of a law like you
mention above is abborhent.
> Now if there are eny decent parents out there, that's
> all fine and good. I just don't have the gumption to
> be one myself. It would be a big mistake on my part
> to make a baby.
Good. You've got your head screwed on straight.
> I don't believe that the world owes me a thing.
>
>
> Actually, it's the breeders that think that the world owes
> them something. Breeders take alot more time off work for
> maternity leave, go to all their kids' activities, or take
> care of ill kids. The CF are usually forced to pick up the
> slack.
That's one of those statements that belong in the CF Bingo I mentioned
in another post. My employer gives all of it's employees the SAME
amount of time off. Parents do NOT get more time off than non-parents.
And not only that, if we do not take our vacation time, then we LOSE
it (gone are the days of carrying over vacation for years, then
retiring a year before your actual retirement date, and getting full
pay in the process). And taking care of a sick kid counts toward
*vacation* time in most cases. So everytime we stay home for that,
that means one less day I can go have fun.
I've had CF bosses who basically took zero time off - their life
appeared to be work. I've also had CF bosses who took LOTS of time off
-their personal life was every bit as important to them, as mine was to
me. I had one boss who regularly took time off to go see broadway
plays, and I didn't see CF people grumbling about others taking up the
slack for her.
I suspect that parents might actually take more time off than
non-parents. But the elderly employees (regardless of parent status)
seem to get sick more often than do us young ones - and do you CF
complain about that? We young ones have to take up the slack when they
have to be treated for cancer. And, we parents must take up the slack
when YOU get sick. I assure you, we don't bitch about it, unless of
course, it's to make a dig at you because you bitched about it to us.
Cathy Weeks
Kari
Well, in all honesty, the bad people do come from
breeders--especially the ones who don't raise them
to be civilized human beings.
There is a big difference between the childed and the
CF. People who choose not to have kids put alot of
thought into their decision. Breeders don't think
about their decisions at all until the babies arrive
and the buyer's remorse sets in. To each his own,
though.
For me, I have the hate-being-a-parent gene. It would
be best for me NOT to have kids. Babysitting was more
than enough for me.
Someone I am close to has the hate-being-a-parent gene
also. Unfortunately, she made two babies and has lost
custody of both kids. The only reason for her wanting
them around is to get free gubmint money. Sad.
Banty
>
>Where's my CF Bingo card?
Can I get mine? Where do we get those?
>
>>Now if there are eny decent parents out there, that's
>>all fine and good. I just don't have the gumption to
>>be one myself. It would be a big mistake on my part
>>to make a baby.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That's the thing that seems so puzzling to me - you don't like whiny,
>>> brattish children, but many of you just love to whine and act like
>>> brats, as if the world OWES you something.
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't believe that the world owes me a thing.
>>
>>
>>Actually, it's the breeders that think that the world owes
>>them something. Breeders take alot more time off work for
>>maternity leave, go to all their kids' activities, or take
>>care of ill kids. The CF are usually forced to pick up the
>>slack.
>
>Wow, 3 Bingo plays in one post. I would have won this round!
What did you win?
I mean, is there some reason we should care about CF bingo?
Banty
Puester
They might have been just as delayed by many other circumstances:
a passenger's heart attack, equipment problems, weather, air traffic
overload, security breach, etc.
Anyone who flies a long distance and plans for meetings or other
critical engagements shortly after planned landing time is deluding
him/herself, maybe arrogant and control freaks, too.
We flew from Denver to Hartford, CT years ago with a couple who were
irate that the plane was diverted due to heavy fog to Boston (~2 hrs.
away by charter bus which the airline provided) because they missed
their granddaughter's wedding ceremony. The wedding site was an hour
from the Htfd. airport and they had allowed one hour extra in their
plans for "contingencies". How stoopid was that?
gloria p
Cathy Weeks
> Well, in all honesty, the bad people do come from
> breeders--especially the ones who don't raise them
> to be civilized human beings.
Sigh... that's what I just said. And in all honesty, the GOOD people
do come from breeders -- especially the ones who do raise them to be
civilized human beings.
> There is a big difference between the childed and the
> CF. People who choose not to have kids put alot of
> thought into their decision. Breeders don't think
> about their decisions at all until the babies arrive
> and the buyer's remorse sets in. To each his own,
> though.
Yup.
See, that's the problem here. You are lumping all breeders into one
category here. Many of us DID put a lot of thought into it. But,
using your example, I can say the following: Those nasty, selfish CF.
They never want to give up their whining, selfish ways, and think they
are entitled to never pick up the slack for anyone, regardless of the
reason. They think the world owes them a spoiled, selfish existance
where they never have to put up with anything they don't like. <sarcasm
off>
> For me, I have the hate-being-a-parent gene. It would
> be best for me NOT to have kids. Babysitting was more
> than enough for me.
Sigh... as I said before, good for you. If someone doesn't want to be
a parent, then they should prevent it from happening. It's a fine
decision.
> Someone I am close to has the hate-being-a-parent gene
> also. Unfortunately, she made two babies and has lost
> custody of both kids.
Unfortunately?
Cathy Weeks
hdha...@gmail.com
> Mozart, philanthopist, Pasteur. You won't find a CF producing doctors,
> nurses, teachers, world leaders, scientists, or even the good person
> who stops to help you when your car is broken down by the side of the
> road.
Well, dear, instead of focusing on MAKING the wonderful next
generation, I'm busy BEING the wonderful next generation.
I agree that all of those roles are exceptionally important for the
good of mankind. But it's not going to do us any good if EVERY
generation only focuses on making another generation that will do good,
instead of filling those roles themselves.
> Uh, Ok. But at least I did my part. You won't be left to die alone
> where no one cares, and no one does anything about it until the smell
> hits the corridor.
You did your part to make my death confortable by breeding? I'd rather
die alone and in pain than have to deal with your children my entire
life.
And I could care less about nobody caring that I died. What a selfish
take on things..."I want to be so important in someone else's life that
they're upset when I'm not around, so I'll CREATE people to mourn for
me"?!? If I do enough good and my death is a loss for humanity, there
will be mourners. If I don't, there won't. Who cares anyway, I'LL BE
DEAD! Too bad for your kids to have to clean up my decomposing body,
though.
Cathy Weeks
hdha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > That's true. But you won't find any CF producing the next Einstein,
> > Mozart, philanthopist, Pasteur. You won't find a CF producing doctors,
> > nurses, teachers, world leaders, scientists, or even the good person
> > who stops to help you when your car is broken down by the side of the
> > road.
>
> Well, dear, instead of focusing on MAKING the wonderful next
> generation, I'm busy BEING the wonderful next generation.
>
> I agree that all of those roles are exceptionally important for the
> good of mankind. But it's not going to do us any good if EVERY
> generation only focuses on making another generation that will do good,
> instead of filling those roles themselves.
Uh, do you really think that the entirety of the curent breeding
generation isn't filling those roles? I betcha most doctors, nurses,
teachers, world leaders, scientists or even the good person who stops
to help you when your car is broken down (who are filling the roles
themselves) are also having children, and trying to produce the next
good generation too. So honestly, those people are even less selfish
than you, because they are doing the world good, AND producing the next
good generation. Makes your accomplishments look rather trivial.
> > Uh, Ok. But at least I did my part. You won't be left to die alone
> > where no one cares, and no one does anything about it until the smell
> > hits the corridor.
>
> You did your part to make my death confortable by breeding? I'd rather
> die alone and in pain than have to deal with your children my entire
> life.
Ok. That's your prerogative. Have a lonely, painful death. And if you
are as obnoxious in real life as you are here, no amount of good deeds
will create mourners. And in fact, do you *really* do your own good
deeds, merely to have mourners? That means you are every bit as
selfish, and not altruistic at all.
> And I could care less about nobody caring that I died. What a selfish
> take on things..."I want to be so important in someone else's life that
> they're upset when I'm not around, so I'll CREATE people to mourn for
> me"?!? If I do enough good and my death is a loss for humanity, there
> will be mourners. If I don't, there won't. Who cares anyway, I'LL BE
> DEAD! Too bad for your kids to have to clean up my decomposing body,
> though.
Gosh, I'm rather sorry for you. You choose to look at things in the
worst possible light. You must have a rather sorry, lonely life.
Fortunately, I've got loved ones who will be with me when I die - my
husband, brothers, and some close friends.
And I don't buy that arguement CF people are less selfish. Not wanting
kids, and then not having them is every bit as selfish, as wanting
kids, then having them. The truely unselfish person I knew was a woman
who WANTED kids, and thought she'd be a good mom, but her husband would
have been a terrible father, so she decided not to have kids, because
they wouldn't be born into a good home.
Cathy Weeks
Marten Kemp
> In article <jealh2tiotg8ogdq6...@4ax.com>, Nan says...
>
>>On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:22:52 GMT, Kari <felici...@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>Where's my CF Bingo card?
>
> Can I get mine? Where do we get those?
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1522864
>>>Now if there are eny decent parents out there, that's
>>>all fine and good. I just don't have the gumption to
>>>be one myself. It would be a big mistake on my part
>>>to make a baby.
>>>
>>>>That's the thing that seems so puzzling to me - you don't like whiny,
>>>>brattish children, but many of you just love to whine and act like
>>>>brats, as if the world OWES you something.
This is alt.SUPPORT.childfree, about the only place where we can
air our gripes and rants in the company of other childFREE people.
>>>I don't believe that the world owes me a thing.
>>>
>>>Actually, it's the breeders that think that the world owes
>>>them something. Breeders take alot more time off work for
>>>maternity leave, go to all their kids' activities, or take
>>>care of ill kids. The CF are usually forced to pick up the
>>>slack.
>>
>>Wow, 3 Bingo plays in one post. I would have won this round!
>
> What did you win?
>
> I mean, is there some reason we should care about CF bingo?
Breeder Bingo is a distillation of all the comments
that those who sprog make to those who don't. I you
want to make a true impression on us then come up
with something different.
--
-- Marten Kemp
(Fix name and ISP to reply)
-=-=-
... You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.
-- James Thurber, New Yorker, Apr. 29, 1939
"The Owl who was God"
Banty
hdha...@gmail.com says...
>
>> That's true. But you won't find any CF producing the next Einstein,
>> Mozart, philanthopist, Pasteur. You won't find a CF producing doctors,
>> nurses, teachers, world leaders, scientists, or even the good person
>> who stops to help you when your car is broken down by the side of the
>> road.
>
>Well, dear, instead of focusing on MAKING the wonderful next
>generation, I'm busy BEING the wonderful next generation.
>
>I agree that all of those roles are exceptionally important for the
>good of mankind. But it's not going to do us any good if EVERY
>generation only focuses on making another generation that will do good,
>instead of filling those roles themselves.
>
Instead of??
False dichotomy.
Banty