On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:55:49 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Padraig Breathnach
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Magda <[email protected]> wrote:
...
... >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.
... >
... Don't be silly, Magda. It's not to sterilise rags. It's to cook the
... baby.

Hmm... I must have a recipe for baby soup somewhere... :)

Kent wrote:
    > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> 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?
    >
    >


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

Antun Paulin wrote:

    > On 25 Sep 2006 22:58:50 GMT, Brandy Alexandre
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>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.
    >
    >
    > Regardless of that, Baby have right to citizenship in a country where
    > aircraft is registred. This is international law!
    > If you are born for example in Zagreb, Croatia onboard canadian
    > aircraft, baby will be canadian! Aircrafts are extended teritory of
    > country of registration!
    >
    > Ontopis baby will be British, because it was BA flight!

So you claim there would be a right of citizenship that would exist for
a birth on an aircraft that would not exist for a birth on the actual
territory?

Charles Newman wrote:

    > "Terry Lomax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] oups.com...
    >
    >>wahh wahhh wrote:
    >>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997421/
    >>>Flight diverted after passenger goes into labor
    >>>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.
    >
    >
    > There is nothing wrong with that, as long as they enter the
    > country legally. As long as they enter the country legally, and
    > don't try to sneak into the USA, I have no problem with
    > mothers coming to America to give birth to their children.
    > if they get a visa and enter the country legally, I have no
    > problem with them coming here to give birth to their children
    > as long as they mothers dont overstay their visas.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

I see no reason that the USA should be an exception to the normal
standards for citizenship around the world.

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



The baby was born in the pressurized cabin of an inflight aircraft
The baby was not born "in midair" any more than the writer of the
article was born "in mid-outerspace"

bermuda999 wrote:
    > The baby was born in the pressurized cabin of an inflight aircraft

The article doesn't say that. It says it was born in midair. We must
take them for their word. Newspapers never lie. If the media says so, it
must be true. And you should expect the World Weekly News tyyo shortly
publish exclusive pictures of the event. But their headlines is more
likely to be "unmarried teenage virgin gives premature birth to space
alien in midair but new baby abducted by UFO before plane could land".


    > The baby was not born "in midair" any more than the writer of the
    > article was born "in mid-outerspace"

How do you know that the writer was born on earth ? In case you haven't
noticed, there is a rather large "international" airport in new York
with main entrance under the brooklyn bridge tower which processes
millions of people from other planets entering/leaving earth each year.
It is very common. And this facility has its own people who deal with
illegal aliens, and they all dress in black with black sunglasses.

bermuda999 wrote:

    > 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > The baby was born in the pressurized cabin of an inflight aircraft
    > The baby was not born "in midair" any more than the writer of the
    > article was born "in mid-outerspace"
    >

I think they were probably born in mid-innerspace.

nobody wrote:

    > bermuda999 wrote:
    >
    >>The baby was born in the pressurized cabin of an inflight aircraft
    >
    >
    > The article doesn't say that. It says it was born in midair. We must
    > take them for their word. Newspapers never lie.

Well, the baby was surrounded by air at some point.

Antun Paulin wrote:
    > On 25 Sep 2006 22:58:50 GMT, Brandy Alexandre
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>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.
    >
    >
    > Regardless of that, Baby have right to citizenship in a country where
    > aircraft is registred. This is international law!
    > If you are born for example in Zagreb, Croatia onboard canadian
    > aircraft, baby will be canadian! Aircrafts are extended teritory of
    > country of registration!
    >
    > Ontopis baby will be British, because it was BA flight!

Would you care to try to justify why the baby would have citizenship
rights because of birth on a British aircraft that it might not have if
actually born in Britain. Hint -- not every baby born in Britain has a
right to British citizenship. The US is not in accord with usual
international usage with regard to this.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:35:04 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Antun Paulin wrote:
    >> On 25 Sep 2006 22:58:50 GMT, Brandy Alexandre
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>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.
    >>
    >>
    >> Regardless of that, Baby have right to citizenship in a country where
    >> aircraft is registred. This is international law!
    >> If you are born for example in Zagreb, Croatia onboard canadian
    >> aircraft, baby will be canadian! Aircrafts are extended teritory of
    >> country of registration!
    >>
    >> Ontopis baby will be British, because it was BA flight!
    >Would you care to try to justify why the baby would have citizenship
    >rights because of birth on a British aircraft that it might not have if
    >actually born in Britain. Hint -- not every baby born in Britain has a
    >right to British citizenship. The US is not in accord with usual
    >international usage with regard to this.

Goodness. The post you're answering is three days old. The thread
has been all through this now.

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

Hatunen wrote:

    > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:35:04 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Antun Paulin wrote:
    >>>On 25 Sep 2006 22:58:50 GMT, Brandy Alexandre
    >>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>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.
    >>>Regardless of that, Baby have right to citizenship in a country where
    >>>aircraft is registred. This is international law!
    >>>If you are born for example in Zagreb, Croatia onboard canadian
    >>>aircraft, baby will be canadian! Aircrafts are extended teritory of
    >>>country of registration!
    >>>Ontopis baby will be British, because it was BA flight!
    >>Would you care to try to justify why the baby would have citizenship
    >>rights because of birth on a British aircraft that it might not have if
    >>actually born in Britain. Hint -- not every baby born in Britain has a
    >>right to British citizenship. The US is not in accord with usual
    >>international usage with regard to this.
    >
    >
    > Goodness. The post you're answering is three days old. The thread
    > has been all through this now.
    >

The post is from yesterday. He keeps posting the same misleading
information. Never does try to justify it just repeats it.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:28:37 -0700, Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:17:08 -0500, George Max <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:04:15 -0400, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>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 ?
    >>>:-)
    >>That'd be fun! The trajectory, not the birthing.
    >There's a reason the NASA plane is called "the vomit comet".
    >

Of course. Think rollercoaster. Fun.

x-no-archive: yes

"Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Antun Paulin wrote:
    >> On 25 Sep 2006 22:58:50 GMT, Brandy Alexandre
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>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.
    >> Regardless of that, Baby have right to citizenship in a country where
    >> aircraft is registred. This is international law!
    >> If you are born for example in Zagreb, Croatia onboard canadian
    >> aircraft, baby will be canadian! Aircrafts are extended teritory of
    >> country of registration!
    >> Ontopis baby will be British, because it was BA flight!
    > Would you care to try to justify why the baby would have citizenship
    > rights because of birth on a British aircraft that it might not have if
    > actually born in Britain. Hint -- not every baby born in Britain has a
    > right to British citizenship. The US is not in accord with usual
    > international usage with regard to this.

Their parents' citizenship and where they were born. They can choose which
way they will go when they have grown up. My dad had duel citizenship until
he was in his 20s.

Kathy M. wrote:

    >
    > Their parents' citizenship and where they were born. They can choose which
    > way they will go when they have grown up. My dad had duel citizenship until
    > he was in his 20s.
    >

I take it that you mean "dual" citizenship, unless you are talking about
someone like Aaron Burr.
Where the person is born matters in the US, but not in many other
countries. This baby wasn't born in the US. The UK laws on citizenship
are quite different. As I understanad it, if someone with British
citizenship got it from their parents, and never lived in the UK, then
that person would not be able to pass citizenship to thier children.

x-no-archive: yes

"mrtravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
    > Kathy M. wrote:
    >> Their parents' citizenship and where they were born. They can choose
    >> which way they will go when they have grown up. My dad had duel
    >> citizenship until he was in his 20s.
    > I take it that you mean "dual" citizenship, unless you are talking about
    > someone like Aaron Burr.
    > Where the person is born matters in the US, but not in many other
    > countries. This baby wasn't born in the US. The UK laws on citizenship are
    > quite different. As I understanad it, if someone with British citizenship
    > got it from their parents, and never lived in the UK, then that person
    > would not be able to pass citizenship to thier children.

Of course. Maybe it was a Freudian slip thinking about some of these
newsgroup people. ;)
My dad's parents were US citizens but he was born in Canada. The US told
him to go in the army or go to Canada and never come back. He chose the
army. I guess it really is that bad.