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.
