If they were screaming uncontrolled monsters that ran up and down the aisle and threw food for 5 hours, yes I would. This has happened to me twice in FC with stupid parents and children in the terrible two's. It is great going into the bathroom after a flight and getting Cheerios out of the back of your shirt.



------------------
As God as my witness, I will never fly coach again. <sorry Scarlet>
I am not real smart, but I can lift heavy things.

All these points have been made ad-nauseum in prior FT threads. But since some people can't seem to get enough of the debate, here goes:

Seth,

The parents you call stupid know their children much better than you do. What may appear to you as indifference toward their kids' behavior is very possibly the the lesser of two evils. Most kids' crying fits are a lot worse than their harmless play.

I really feel for you. How could anyone be expected to put up with the dreaded Cheerios?!?

Your money, elite status, miles, or even the important meeting you need to prepare for don't entitle you to freedom from the rest of the human race. And that includes misbehaving babies and toddlers. Sorry.

Ethically, your rights end where another's nose begins. That means if you can't make your children behave, then you should either sedate them or leave them at home.

There's no moral right to making others miserable just because your life is.

The point that Seth and some others are missing is that it's no more or no less acceptable for children to misbehave in FC than in coach. It's unpleasant for the parents and other passengers (and sometimes the kids) either way.

I don't like screaming children any more than anyone else, but life isn't perfect. And if the parent is legitimately in FC, then the lap child should be there, loud or not. First class passengers have no more or no less right to a screaming-kid-free flight than coach passengers.

Young children act the way they do because they do not know any better. It would be the same as if a FC passengers displeased about a screaming child started yelling at the parent and/or the child. The difference is that adults are capable of understanding things like etiquette, whereas many small children are not. Can you imagine what would happen in an adult were to do this?

You speak about "rights" and sedating children in the same thought?

Ummm, ok. I hope that you never actually try this on your children.

It was SOP when I was a kid. If my younger sister acted up in church or on a plane, my mom would take her out to a quiet area and calm her. If that failed, she'd give her the recommended dosage of paregoric or dimetapp (children's medicines). This invariably did the trick as I recall, and I'm told it did the same for me at an early age.

So your point is what? That only sedated babies are OK in public? Since no parent can guarantee a baby's behavior in advance any other way, then I guess all parents need to sedate all babies every day before they dare expose the public to this ethical menace?

You say "Ethically, your rights end where another's nose begins." OK. Since your rights end where a crying baby's nose begins, you should have no complaint.

[This message has been edited by dhacker (edited 06-20-2002).]

I'm saying that if the parents are unable to calm the child in a confined public setting, they should consider administering something to quieten the child. Odds are that the child has a cold (resulting in equalization problems on a plane) or is teething, and requires the medication in the first place.

As for the ethics, think about it...

There's a big difference between medication for teething or a cold and sedation to shut a kid up. IMO, a much more important ethical issue than the moral right to quiet you seem to be claiming.

Usually, it's the same reason. If it's not, where's the harm in a normal dosage to calm the kid?

As for ethics, it's derived from libertarianism. Basically, the individual should be left alone to do as he/she sees fit, EXCEPT when doing so causes others harm.

In the case we're discussing, you and the child can do whatever you like, as long as you're not adversely affecting others. If you are, AND you have acceptable means to mitigate it, then you would have a moral duty to do so.

In short: you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, and we'll all be happy. You actively try to calm the child, I'll shower and avoid beans before the flight, and we'll both be the better for it.

Now, if a little tyke hurts himself, etc., and can't be calmed, then it's perfectly understandable b/c it wasn't foreseeable.

Libertarian or not, you have no rights to be excused or protected from the everyday annoyances we all deal with. Get real.

Oh, so you're asserting a right to make everyone else in the area miserable because you're too lazy, uncaring, or incompetent to take care of your kid?

I do not expect freedom from the rest of the human race. I do, however, expect people to control their kids. Again, it comes down to the arguement that YOUR kids should not infringe on MY rights to a reasonable flight.

This arguement will never be settled, as both sides have clear views of what is right and wrong.


------------------
As God as my witness, I will never fly coach again. <sorry Scarlet>
I am not real smart, but I can lift heavy things.

My experience is that babies will cry maybe 10 minutes, and then remain quiet. It may seem like longer, you may tell people the baby cried for hours, but unless there is a real medical problem, it ain't true.

If we've already established that those of a certain age should be compelled to ride steerage, perhaps we can think of some other human physical characteristics for sending to Coventry others of whom we disapprove?

Love my NC-10s!