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.)

"Brandy Alexandre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > nicandal <[email protected]> wrote in alt.gossip.celebrities:
    >> Terry Lomax wrote:
    >>> > The captain diverted the plane to Halifax in Nova Scotia,
    >>> > Canada,
    >>> Good, give the Limey baby Canadian citizenship instead of
    >>> American. Am sick of all the mothers from Russia, Europe, and
    >>> India visiting America to give birth to give their kids American
    >>> citizenship.
    >> Really? Got a cite for the number of British mothers flying to US
    >> to get their kids US citizenship, Terry?
    > Paranoid little Terry can see a conspiracy in a toad fart. Somehow I
    > doubt any parent from UK would think US citizen would be a greater
    > advantage to their child. Indeed, it would not.
    > --
    > Brandy Alexandre

Ahh, Brandy, you little nymph you....

You're as xenophobic as old Jack. You do comprehend a well known bit of
statistics, that the number of Brits who apply for US citizenship each year
far out numbers USAians trying to take the Queen's begrimed shillings? It's
been that way for a long time, ever since all those seaman fled the ghastly
rigors of British naval and mercant service, causing the contretemps of
1812....

The puir wee bairn would have been lucky to have been birthed on US soil,
where the mother could have celebrated her ermergence from the rigors of
childbirth in the Chapel at JFK, and the babe could have been whisked into
town via a virew of Miss Liberty.
    >

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

Runge wrote:
    > who cares
    > You really answer only OT stuff, don't you ??
    > Duuh

I was disapointed to read that "Baby born in mid air" actually meant the
baby was born on a plane.

TOliver <[email protected]> wrote in alt.gossip.celebrities:

    >
    > "Brandy Alexandre" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > message news:[email protected]...
    >> nicandal <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> alt.gossip.celebrities:
    >>> Terry Lomax wrote:
    >>>> > The captain diverted the plane to Halifax in Nova Scotia,
    >>>> > Canada,
    >>>> Good, give the Limey baby Canadian citizenship instead of
    >>>> American. Am sick of all the mothers from Russia, Europe, and
    >>>> India visiting America to give birth to give their kids
    >>>> American citizenship.
    >>> Really? Got a cite for the number of British mothers flying to
    >>> US to get their kids US citizenship, Terry?
    >> Paranoid little Terry can see a conspiracy in a toad fart.
    >> Somehow I doubt any parent from UK would think US citizen would
    >> be a greater advantage to their child. Indeed, it would not.
    >> --
    >> Brandy Alexandre
    >
    > Ahh, Brandy, you little nymph you....
    >
    > You're as xenophobic as old Jack. You do comprehend a well known
    > bit of statistics, that the number of Brits who apply for US
    > citizenship each year far out numbers USAians trying to take the
    > Queen's begrimed shillings? It's been that way for a long time,
    > ever since all those seaman fled the ghastly rigors of British
    > naval and mercant service, causing the contretemps of 1812....
    >
    > The puir wee bairn would have been lucky to have been birthed on
    > US soil, where the mother could have celebrated her ermergence
    > from the rigors of childbirth in the Chapel at JFK, and the babe
    > could have been whisked into town via a virew of Miss Liberty.
    >>
    >
    >
    >

And the reverse is also true. People emigrate/immigrate all the
time. But to board a jet and expect your baby will arrive six weeks
early is WAY "out there."

--
Brandy Alexandre

--Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

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.

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.

Brandy Alexandre wrote:
    > TOliver <[email protected]> wrote in alt.gossip.celebrities:
    >
    >
    >>"Brandy Alexandre" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>message news:[email protected]...
    >>>nicandal <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>>alt.gossip.celebrities:
    >>>>Terry Lomax wrote:
    >>>>>>The captain diverted the plane to Halifax in Nova Scotia,
    >>>>>>Canada,
    >>>>>Good, give the Limey baby Canadian citizenship instead of
    >>>>>American. Am sick of all the mothers from Russia, Europe, and
    >>>>>India visiting America to give birth to give their kids
    >>>>>American citizenship.
    >>>>Really? Got a cite for the number of British mothers flying to
    >>>>US to get their kids US citizenship, Terry?
    >>>Paranoid little Terry can see a conspiracy in a toad fart.
    >>>Somehow I doubt any parent from UK would think US citizen would
    >>>be a greater advantage to their child. Indeed, it would not.
    >>>--
    >>>Brandy Alexandre
    >>Ahh, Brandy, you little nymph you....
    >>You're as xenophobic as old Jack. You do comprehend a well known
    >>bit of statistics, that the number of Brits who apply for US
    >>citizenship each year far out numbers USAians trying to take the
    >>Queen's begrimed shillings? It's been that way for a long time,
    >>ever since all those seaman fled the ghastly rigors of British
    >>naval and mercant service, causing the contretemps of 1812....
    >>The puir wee bairn would have been lucky to have been birthed on
    >>US soil, where the mother could have celebrated her ermergence
    >>from the rigors of childbirth in the Chapel at JFK, and the babe
    >>could have been whisked into town via a virew of Miss Liberty.
    >
    > And the reverse is also true. People emigrate/immigrate all the
    > time. But to board a jet and expect your baby will arrive six weeks
    > early is WAY "out there."
    >
If that was intended the early arrival foiled them. I doubt the flight
will count for citizenship.

<headers trimmed a bit>

On 25 Sep 2006 18:09:53 -0700, "Heather" <[email protected]> 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.

VainGlorious wrote:
    >
    > 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

wahh wahhh wrote:
    >
    > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997421/
    > Flight diverted after passenger goes into labor

Diverted because US authorities suspected the parents had spoken to the
baby for 9 months , teaching him about terrorist tactics, and that as
soon as he would be born, the baby would go on a terrorist rampage :-)
    :-) :-) :-) :-)

BTW, if the baby was born in mid-air, does this mean that the pilots put
the whole aircraft into a parabolic trajectory to give the mother a
period of 0G when she pushed the baby out while floating in the cabin ?

    :-)

Kent_AOL wrote:
    > A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
    > attention than a flight attendent can give.

Oh, come on, I've seen baby births on US sitcom television, and all they
need to do is to boil some water (for some reason which is never
mentioned) and just shout "push" "push" enough times until the baby pops
out within a few MINUTES :-) :-) :-) :-) :-);_)

Note that if the baby is premature, there is less chance of him being
too big to fit trough the opening and requiring surgery to widen the
opening. However, there are still many risks such as a tangled unbilical
which may deprive baby of oxygen for long enough to cause brain damage.

Also, many airlines (and I believe BA is now such equipped) have the
ability to contact a doctor and/or hospital and have the nurses act as
eyes, ears and hands of a doctor. And I think that this is where the
"legal" aspects come into play because such actions may not be allowed
in a country outside of where that airline is based (some countries do
not allow "paramedics" to perform any "doctor" duties for instance).

Note that very pregnant mothers usually will have already taken the
prenatal classes that teach them about the birthing process. And they
may also have seen their doctor just before the flight and gotten an
"OK" in terms of the baby being in good position/health/shape.

One thing though. A premature baby, depending on how premature he would
be, would need immediate care, so landing ASAP would be required.

The article did not mention how long the labour was. I wonder if the
crew felt it wasn't necessary to land at Gander or Iceland for instance
because they thought those were just spasms and not the real thing. If
labour lasted more than 90 minutes, they should have been able to land
before the baby was born.

nobody wrote:

    > Kent_AOL wrote:
    >
    >>A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
    >>attention than a flight attendent can give.
    >
    >
    > Oh, come on, I've seen baby births on US sitcom television, and all they
    > need to do is to boil some water (for some reason which is never
    > mentioned)

You don't watch enough TV. This has been explained many times in the
past, probably even on I Love Lucy... The idea behind boiling water is
to give the husband (or others) something to do, so the mother-to-be
isn't bothered by these people stressing out around her.

I heard the FA asked if that was really her baby or if it belonged to
Mo'nique.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:20:14 -0400, in rec.travel.europe, nobody <[email protected]>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Kent_AOL wrote:
... > A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
... > attention than a flight attendent can give.
...
... Oh, come on, I've seen baby births on US sitcom television, and all they
... need to do is to boil some water (for some reason which is never
... mentioned)

Apparently it's to sterilise rags. Why would they get anywhere near the baby with boiling
hot rags is yet another mystery.

and just shout "push" "push" enough times until the baby pops
... out within a few MINUTES :-) :-) :-) :-) :-);_)

I want to slap silly anyone saying "push" in such moments. What else do they think she is
doing??

On 25 Sep 2006 14:46:07 -0700, "Kent_AOL" <[email protected]> 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