Baby born in midair on London to Boston flight

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?) :-)

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

"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).

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.

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.

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

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)?


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

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.

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.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...

Not even if the mother is a UK citizen (which I gather to be the
case here)?

Yes, that would be right. My apologies - I got things the wrong way round,
and thought the mother was American.

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."
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

"Kent_AOL" wrote in message
oups.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.

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).

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.