As far as the in-flight birth went, I'm glad it turned out okay. Could have been much worse up in the air, especially with it being a premature birth. I'm posting this for a different reason. The writer of the article and the airline itself did not consider the plane as having an additional passenger until the baby was born. The baby was not considered a person until it became an individual at birth. Now, should we take this writer's words and this airline's policies as reason to think of the baby as not a person until birth? Of course not. That's not the point. The point is, that's how we already think. That's how society already considers things. So much so that it's second nature and barely noticable unless you take a moment to think about it. Once you do, you realize that it is exclusively in the abortion debate that the baby transforms from not-a-person or future person into an an actual person. Now, even the pro-lifers fall into the normalized ways of talking about pregnancies, not actually acknowledging the baby as a person until it's born. But they do try and talk a big game about it during abortion debates. We all know a fetus isn't a person. Our customs and language have reflected that fact for as long as they've existed.
Most of that reason is probably due to the baby being shut up inside of the mother. Can't hear any crying, and the baby isn't going to be crawling around all over the place and doesn't need additional space. A baby in the womb is much lower maintenance than a baby outside, due to being less active, and since the woman's body automatically handles most of the bodily functions like feeding and waste disposal. In an ideal world they might charge a pregnant woman a small surcharge, but in reality that just wouldn't be practical since it is not always so easy to tell if a woman is pregnant, and that would make things overly complicated.
There was no "baby "shut up" inside the woman. They counted the pregnant woman as ONE passenger because she was ONE passenger... But hey, if a pregnant Anti-Chocer flies they can pay double, I'm sure the airlines won't mind.. Sure sounds like you don't like babies too much ….
Probably mostly because "out of sight, out of mind". Most people aren't going to think about the baby unless the woman raises up her shirt and the baby kicks so hard people can see it on her belly.
Uh, NO, because a pregnant woman is only one person.... And then what? They charge her double? I doubt it... So you think pregnant women on flights regularly expose themselves??? What???
Correction: She is usually conceptualized as "one person". That is different from actually being only one person. And why is she conceptualized as "one person"? Because she doesn't look all that different from a normal woman who's not pregnant. You can only see one face, one body. It looks like there are some airlines which won't let you fly on certain routes if you are more than 28 weeks pregnant: Flying while pregnant? Restrictions & other policies - The Points Guy Both British Airways and Cathay Pacific will not allow women more than 32 weeks pregnant if there is more than one baby in there. Singapore Airlines will not let pregnant women travel after 32 weeks.
Why is she seen as ONE person, because she is..... Do you really think pregnant women look just like women who are not pregnant? Maybe in the early stages ...but it doesn't matter....there is ONE person.....the fetus is not a person until birth no matter what YOU "conceptualize". And your blurb on flight restrictions has no bearing on the issue.
What do you tell those airlines who won't let a woman with twins travel after they are 32 weeks pregnant? Hmm, I guess the woman gets one "freebie", but bringing along two with her is too much.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why is she seen as ONE person, because she is..... What TF are you talking about ?....it has NOTHING to do with the topic.....need to go off topic AGAIN? Why would anyone tell the airlines anything???????? They make their rules.
LOL, good question....they weren't in Hawaii yet so they must've been over the ocean.....but I bet it's their home state which will register the birth
Well our republican colleagues think that Hawaii will give a birth certificate to anybody, including Kenyans (Generally it is done in the county where the baby disembarks the aircraft in the US if it is a domestic flight BTW. I googled it. )
Yes it does, you just don't want to or are unable to see it. If woman with twins is one person, why won't several airlines let her fly? And they seem to be saying that a woman pregnant with late-gestation twins is somehow different from other women.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Good point.....maybe Anti-Choicers who are pregnant should have to pay for two fares Are you a pregnant Anti-Choicer? Hey, if your choice is to fly to Hawaii no one's stopping you ….LOL Why wouldn't I like your choices...??????
FoxHastings said: ↑ LOL, good question....they weren't in Hawaii yet so they must've been over the ocean.....but I bet it's their home state which will register the birth What an odd response to the post of mine you quoted...really strange, totally unconnected whatsoever ….
I thought the moral of the story was going to be that the baby didn't have an active COVID test, and the family was turned away from Hawaii..... Or they were required to spend 2 weeks in isolation until the new child could be tested and quarantined.....
Because she's pregnant and pregnancy may be affected by flying... WHY DO YOU NEED THE OBVIOUS SPELLED OUT FOR YOU???? Well DUH, they are! Duh, they're pregnant... What's your problem?? Why don't you call an airline and have them explain "pregnant" and "flying" to you...
