Baby born in midair on London to Boston flight

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.

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

nightjar

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...
...

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.

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

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.)

Kent_AOL wrote:
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/professi...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

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

"Bedders" wrote in message
...
..

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.
They are not like the US. Actually almost no one bases citizenship on
birth location.

Hatunen wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:39:39 GMT, "sionevar"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
. ..


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.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

"Bedders" wrote in message
...
..

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

On 25 Sep 2006 14:46:07 -0700, "Kent_AOL" 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.

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

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:17:38 GMT, Marten Kemp
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

"Nan" 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...