Amusment park rides cause MC!

[sg784]

How bizzare does that sound to you? Cause it sounds pretty ridiculous to me. DF's 88 yr old grandma tried to convince me that because I took DD to a water park a few weeks ago Im sure to miscarry.

In her words "You took her on rides knowing youre PG? Thats the BEST way to have a MC!"

I quietly responded, "um, actually, I dont think there is a BEST way to have a MC, it pretty much sucks no matter what." And I walked away. I know she only said it cause shes concerned, shes old, she doesnt know etc etc etc, but I cant help but fume a bit.

Anyone else get bizarre accusations that imply you are foolish and doomed to "fail"? Share with me!

[alegna]

Totally absurd.

'Cause, hey, if that worked, we'd have a lot less problem with unwanted pregnancies... ;)

-Angela

[hubris]

Actually, my understanding (and it makes biological sense to me) is that a ride that has abrupt/jerky movement can contribute to or cause a placental abruption. I used to roll my eyes at the warning, too, but then did some thinking and reading about WHY those rules exist (outside of just plain CYA legal stuff for the parks) and I don't think it's totally ridiculous.

There are probably better ways for somebody to communicate their concern about you, though. ;)

[sweeetpea]

When I was a teenager I worked at an amusement park - oh the stories I could tell! One of the most embarassing things we had to do was having to ask the "fluffy" ladies getting into the roller coaster car if they were pregnant. :bag:

On the rollercoasters and other thrill rides, the body is subjected to some pretty strong G forces, as well as bumps and jerks. Same concept as not going scuba diving or skiing while pregnant - not really worth the potential risk (although I did ski until 4.5 months pregnant with my last one - don't tell my MW!).

Water park slides would be fine, IMHO. You don't have a lot of G forces, bumps or jerks.

[Blu Razzberri]

The amusement parks have those signs to cover themselves legally. Miscarriages are common, and so are people who sue....put the two together and you have a disaster.

It's probably not the ride or the movement or anything more than biology and fate. If a miscarriage is going to happen, it's going to happen - it's out of your hands.

I wouldn't, however, get upset at her for saying so. She probably just believes the warning signs at amusement parks wholeheartedly. Don't forget what kind of world we live in today: doctors are superhuman, if it's on tv it must be true and you aren't a credible author without a PhD in something. :lol

[turtlewomyn]

On the rollercoasters and other thrill rides, the body is subjected to some pretty strong G forces, as well as bumps and jerks. Same concept as not going scuba diving or skiing while pregnant - not really worth the potential risk (although I did ski until 4.5 months pregnant with my last one - don't tell my MW!).


And I believe Eugenie Clark (founder of Mote Marine Lab in Sarasota, Florida, famous marine biologist) went scuba diving throughout all four of her pregnancies and had four healthy children.
I do think that sometimes when they don't have enough research about doing something during pregnancy to say yay or nay, they just tell women not to do it.
That being said, I don't know about what research they have done on pregnant women on roller coaster rides.

[Jessmcg]

totally OT, but as to the Scuba diving. I know there are plenty of people that dive pregnant, but I am not one of them :LOL. When you dive, the oxygen in your body is slowly replaced with nitrogen. This is why you have max dive time/depth and dive intervals, or else you get Nitrogen Narcosis. The reason to not dive while preg is that there is none/very little research or knowledge about what happens to the placenta, amniotic fluid (compression, not nitrogen issues) and the baby as to nitrogen absorption and residual nitrogen levels.

[SheBear]

I personally would not choose to go on a very thrilling ride if I knew I was pregnant, but considering that your dd is about the same age as mine, I very much doubt if the rides you took her on would qualify (at least, IMO) as "very thrilling! :wink

As far as hubris' post, I tend to agree....there is science behind the warnings, IMO, and it does make sense. I would much prefer that people trust me to make my own decisions based on good, sound information, rather than telling me I'm "not allowed" to do something because I am pregnant. But I do understand the CYA angle, too. :shrug What can ya do??? :)

Anyway, a friend of mine was involved in a minor car accident when she was @ 5 months pg. Minor meaning they sideswiped a vehicle parked on the shoulder in an area of poor visibility. She was riding in the passenger seat, so in the spot that probably bore the brunt of the force, but the air bags did not deploy. She suffered no apparent injury, discerned normal fetal movement, etc. in the weeks to come.

But the baby was born at 36 weeks and only weighed a bit over 3 lbs (her other babies were 9+ lbs!), and diagnosed as IUGR. And the placenta was in bad shape.....best they could piece together, the force of the accident damaged the placenta just enough that it couldn't keep up with the demands of the baby.

Granted, an uncontrolled car accident is quite different from a carefully designed thrill ride, but some of them are very jerky-jolting, and while they may provide head restraints to prevent whiplash, there's not much protection for baby and placenta, KWIM?

But again, I highly doubt that the sort of rides they would allow 3.5 year olds on would pose any danger to a pregnant woman, or her unborn baby! :D

Also, I love your response to your Gma.....Yeah, m/c pretty much sucks regardless.....there's definitely no better or best way to do it! :(

As far as bizarre comments during pregnancy....where to even begin?? :dizzy:

I think the real question is, how do you come up with a response quickly so you aren't left standing there fuming! :D As to that, I have no clue....I generally stand with my mouth gaping and only think of the really good responses MUCH later! :duh

[rabrog]

Don't worry about it now, after the fact, as there's nothing you can do about it. Most parks have warnings not to ride specific rides if you're pregnant.

Jenn

[MoreThanApplesauce]

FWIW, I "know" (via online) a woman who went into preterm labor at 17w pregnant after taking her three year old daughter on a child ride at an amusement park.

[tiffanymm]

I went to the water park with ds while pregnant. Infact we are headed to disney world and the water parks there this weekend and I am 30 weeks pregnant.

Tiffany

[Ironica]

My understanding of it is, rides with restraint harnesses have warnings about pregnant women for two reasons:

- The ride can put force on your abdomen that is inappropriate for pregnant women (same reason you're not supposed to do kickboxing while pregnant ;-).

- For those in later stages of pregnancy, the harnesses won't be able to properly restrain the body, as you've sorta got something in the way. This puts the mom at risk as well as the baby, as the harness might fly open or the mother might be thrown out even though it seems secure.

Those are the only specific reasons I've heard for not allowing pregnant women on thrill rides, and neither of them apply to waterparks. ;-)

[Jenlaana]

My rule of thumb has basically been... if my bump is showing, I stay off the roller coasters and gravitrons (and other "thrill rides"). I think its ridiculous to say that someone will miscarry early in pg based on a roller coaster ride. (but to each their own I guess) I was punched in the stomach hard enough that I passed out when I was very newly pregnant once and it did not affect anything (was a very very long time ago and not really a story I like to tell but just point in case).

[linzogonzerelli]

I personally don't go on amusement rides while pregnant because of the tiny risk. I would feel so bad if something did happen...

When I was pregnant with DD I tripped over a coffee table (at night, in the dark, so embarrassing!) and had a partial placental abruption which hurt like heck, and worried the snot out of me!
It was scary seeing part of her placenta black and brown a few months later when she was born, as they couldn't find anything wrong after I fell (other than I had a constant 48 hour contraction!)

Fortunately DD turned out ok, but I take things fairly easy when I'm pregnant now because I'm responsible for the little babe's well being.

[hubris]

I would much prefer that people trust me to make my own decisions based on good, sound information, rather than telling me I'm "not allowed" to do something because I am pregnant.
My feelings exactly. I don't think it's ridiculous to have warnings on rides if they're based on science, and I do think parks have a right to cover themselves legally (as somebody pointed out, early miscarriages are common and so are lawsuits), but I'd prefer that they allow women to make the decision to ride.

Like any of the pregnancy warnings (like soft cheeses, etc), it's not a matter of something being evil and all pg women should avoid it at all costs. It's a matter of cost/benefit analysis. Are there risks? What are they and how likely are they? Do you feel ok accepting those risks? Ok then...

I cannot imagine asking "fluffy" women if they're pregnant before getting on a ride. :duck:

[MommaCrystal]

The park near me doesn't allow you on the 5 mile an hour "train" or "trolly" that putts around the park.

Instead they'd prefer you walk.

[TrishWSU]

Anyone else get bizarre accusations that imply you are foolish and doomed to "fail"? Share with me!I'm in the military and work in an office with 5 men, so I get the "helpless, can't do anything pregnant lady" thing from them all the time. I was moving a 10 lb box of paper (really I was just shoving it off another box, not even lifting it) and 2 of the guys freaked out! They came rushing over and were like "Oh, you can't do that, you shouldn't be lifting heavy things!" Um, I have a 36 lb 4 year old at home; trust me, I can handle a 10 lb box!

While sometimes it can be a benefit, overall I get really annoyed with people thinking you are somehow helpless and can't do anything while preggo. Maybe we should all just spend the whole 9 months lounging around in bed and being waited on for our every want and desire!

I cannot imagine asking "fluffy" women if they're pregnant before getting on a ride. :duck:OT but I was a lifegurad in HS and we had big waterslides w/ a 250 lb weight limit-yeah, that sucked having tell someone they could not go down!

[melissakc]

How about the rules at spas that you can't get a pregnancy massage until you are out of your first trimester? It's the same thing--just legal CYA.

[GathererGirl]

How about the rules at spas that you can't get a pregnancy massage until you are out of your first trimester? It's the same thing--just legal CYA.

Wait, what's that about? How could a massage - a pregnancy massage at that - possibly hurt you in any trimester?


On the "bouncing and jolting" note, I know of more than one woman who went horseback riding throughout pregnancy, including jumping for one of them, and gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby. I see no problem with CYA and warning signs, but telling someone that they are sure to miscarry or even likely to after any activity is over the top. I'll decide what I can and can't do, thanks, based on the signals my body and my baby give me.

[Ironica]

On the "bouncing and jolting" note, I know of more than one woman who went horseback riding throughout pregnancy, including jumping for one of them, and gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby.

The way I understand the caution against horseback riding, it's not the normal riding (or even jumping) that's the issue... it's the risk of getting thrown from the horse and getting hit in the abdomen or stomach.

[melissakc]

Wait, what's that about? How could a massage - a pregnancy massage at that - possibly hurt you in any trimester?

I dunno, pressure points, chakras, energy lines, who knows? I bet someone sued and that's why they have this rule (at least they do at the spa where I go). It's probably just a coincidence that someone went for a massage and then had a MC, considering they are so very common, but you know, CYA!

[DoomaYula]

I would avoid amusement park rides just because your bp could go way up...

[Banana731]

...or they could make your m/s even worse!:lol

I love water parks though, if I thought a ride was safe enough for my 3yr old, I would go on it, even now.

I have a horsey friend too, she rode until about 6 months, but she's a very accomplished rider and rode her horse(whom she trusted), and I don't think we're talking stadium jumping here. I know her doc was okay with it too(though I'm not sure he knew how long she rode for).

[michaelasmommy]

.

[michaelasmommy]

If the behavior is risky, why do it? You are only pregnant for 9 months-is it too much trouble to give things up for such a short time? I'm sorry, but the arguments a lot of you have are a little silly. There was a time when women smoked through pregnancy because it wasn't proven yet that it was bad. Now we know better. Just because there isn't hard scientific proof yet, doesn't mean its safe. Some of the activities mentioned are less risky than others, but come on-scuba diving, roller coasters?:dizzy: My mom smoked through her pregnancy with me, and I turned out fine-does that make it safe?

[grumpyshoegirl]

I was on a school trip to Disney World when I was unknowingly pregnant with my daughter. One evening two (young, male) colleagues and I went into Epcot and of course they wanted to go on all the "boy" rides-- test track, the Mars one, all the ones that prohibit pregnant women. I even jokingly asked them if they were pregnant as we waited in line.

A week later, I came home, peed on the stick and I was pregnant! And eight months later holding a perfectly healthy baby girl.

[SheBear]

If the behavior is risky, why do it? You are only pregnant for 9 months-is it too much trouble to give things up for such a short time? I'm sorry, but the arguments a lot of you have are a little silly. There was a time when women smoked through pregnancy because it wasn't proven yet that it was bad. Now we know better. Just because there isn't hard scientific proof yet, doesn't mean its safe. Some of the activities mentioned are less risky than others, but come on-scuba diving, roller coasters? My mom smoked through her pregnancy with me, and I turned out fine-does that make it safe?

There's a lot of speculation that radiation from computers could possibly cause harm to the developing baby, but obviously, that is a risk you are comfortable taking, even though you could avoid computers for nine months. :shrug

I personally think the best solution is to give women access to good, solid, reliable information and then trust them to make the appropriate decision for themselves and their babies. Appropriate guidance is great--requiring every woman to make a choice that *you* feel comfortable with....not so great.

In fact, there are those who deem it "silly" to risk vaginal birth at all....and there are undeniable risks associated with vaginal birth...heck, with pregnancy itself. Don't even get me started on the *gasp!* risk of homebirth, refusing "routine" testing, refusing vaccinations.....and on, and on, and on.... I guess the big question is, WHO gets to decide what is "safe" and what is a silly, unwarranted risk? Personally, I'm not comfortable giving that kind of control over to just anyone. Hmmm.....I really can't think of *anyone* that i'd feel comfortable giving that control to....so I guess I'll just keep it for myself. And give you the freedom to keep it for yourself. :)

[michaelasmommy]

I personally think the best solution is to give women access to good, solid, reliable information and then trust them to make the appropriate decision for themselves and their babies. Appropriate guidance is great--requiring every woman to make a choice that *you* feel comfortable with....not so great.


No one is forced to quit drinking alcohol or quit smoking when they are pregnant either-its just highly suggested. I think amusement parks have every right to restrict who goes on their rides-same as airlines not allowing you to fly after a certain point in the pregnancy-It's on them as far as liability goes if something goes wrong. I am quite sure that most people here agree that activities that deprive your body of oxygen, or shake you violently are probably not good for a growing baby, especiallly later in pregnancy when you cannot be properly restrined because the rides are not intended for pregnant women. I am not forcing anyone to do anything-we all make choices related to risk as far as we are comfortable. My mother was comfortable smoking throughout pregnancy-I'm not. You may be comfortable riding a roller coaster-I'm not. And I wouldn't advise anyone to do either thing.

[SheBear]

I agree---the amusment park owners/operators have every right to post the restrictions, and I have the responsibility to follow their guidelines....or accept the consequences if I choose to ignore them. And if I am obviously pregnant, then they have the total right to refuse to allow me to ride. No question there--none at all! :)

And, as my previous post indicated, I am personally not comfortable riding a roller coaster or any sort of thrill ride while pregnant, nor would I *advise* anyone to do so....but there is a huge difference between saying that and saying what you did in your previous post. Questioning if it's "too much trouble to give things up for a short time" and then calling others' points-of-view "silly" very clearly implies that you believe any woman who would make such a choice while pregnant was taking an unwarranted risk and being selfish in her choices. Personally, I am uncomfortable making such a judgement about another mother, especially when the original question was regarding a kiddie ride!

I'd very much like to hear you address the other points in my last post:
There's a lot of speculation that radiation from computers could possibly cause harm to the developing baby, but obviously, that is a risk you are comfortable taking, even though you could avoid computers for nine months.

In fact, there are those who deem it "silly" to risk vaginal birth at all....and there are undeniable risks associated with vaginal birth...heck, with pregnancy itself. Don't even get me started on the *gasp!* risk of homebirth, refusing "routine" testing, refusing vaccinations.....and on, and on, and on.... I guess the big question is, WHO gets to decide what is "safe" and what is a silly, unwarranted risk? Personally, I'm not comfortable giving that kind of control over to just anyone. Hmmm.....I really can't think of *anyone* that i'd feel comfortable giving that control to....so I guess I'll just keep it for myself. And give you the freedom to keep it for yourself.

[Ironica]

No one is forced to quit drinking alcohol or quit smoking when they are pregnant either-its just highly suggested. I think amusement parks have every right to restrict who goes on their rides-same as airlines not allowing you to fly after a certain point in the pregnancy-It's on them as far as liability goes if something goes wrong. I am quite sure that most people here agree that activities that deprive your body of oxygen, or shake you violently are probably not good for a growing baby, especiallly later in pregnancy when you cannot be properly restrined because the rides are not intended for pregnant women. I am not forcing anyone to do anything-we all make choices related to risk as far as we are comfortable. My mother was comfortable smoking throughout pregnancy-I'm not. You may be comfortable riding a roller coaster-I'm not. And I wouldn't advise anyone to do either thing.

Sarah's point, though, I think, was that women should have *information* about the risks, rather than just blanket "Do this, don't that" rules. "Space Mountain is a roller-coaster attraction that includes high accelerations, quick turns, steep drops, and sudden stops. Due to the thrilling nature of this attraction, we are sorry, but people with heart conditions, stress disorders, and expectant mothers may not ride" does not give me information about what the actual risk is. It says "Roller coasters are risky!" They don't tell me what I'm risking or why. There have been several theories and understandings posted in this thread, including bruising of the placenta, placental abruption, risk of miscarriage, and inability to be properly restrained. Obviously, some of these risks would only occur for women during some stages of pregnancy. Without any info about *what* risks they're warning me on, I can't make an informed decision.

You raise smoking, which is an excellent comparison. When my mother was finally pregnant with me after many early miscarriages, they told her three things:

1) Sit around the house with your feet up for the first five months.
2) Quit smoking.
3) Don't gain any more than 10 pounds.

She looked at those restrictions, and basically laughed. She could see picking two, but not doing all three. Let's see... get no exercise, stop consumption of an appetite-suppressing and orally stimulating drug, and don't gain weight? Riiiight.

What they didn't discuss was what exactly the concerns were about each of those. The first, obviously, was that she might have another miscarriage. The second was effects on the developing baby. The third... honestly, I don't know what they thought was going to happen if a woman gained more than 15 pounds while pregnant (which was the standard recommendation at the time, but my mom was a few pounds overweight, so they chopped it down further). I think the issue was that she might lose her figure and not be able to get it back after baby was born. :-/ A frank discussion of exactly *what* the risks were of each (as they were known at the time) might have helped her make better decisions. (She sat around watching the Watergate hearings, smoked somewhat less, and gained 11 pounds. I was 6 lbs. 3 oz. at full-term, with a heart rate of 90 when I was born after a totally natural birth.)

So that's the point... not that pregnant women should be entitled to ride roller coasters, but that we should be advised of *what* the risk is, not just that there's some nebulous risk and DON'T DO IT. That way, people who do it by mistake have a better idea what they need to look for, and people who may want to bend the rules (say you're 5 weeks pregnant, and on a ONCE IN A LIFETIME trip to Disneyland Paris... Do you risk Space Mountain or not? Their version is truly amazing) can make an informed decision.

[sg784]

If the behavior is risky, why do it? You are only pregnant for 9 months-is it too much trouble to give things up for such a short time? I'm sorry, but the arguments a lot of you have are a little silly. There was a time when women smoked through pregnancy because it wasn't proven yet that it was bad. Now we know better. Just because there isn't hard scientific proof yet, doesn't mean its safe. Some of the activities mentioned are less risky than others, but come on-scuba diving, roller coasters?:dizzy: My mom smoked through her pregnancy with me, and I turned out fine-does that make it safe?

Your post is condescending and rude. Smoking during pregnancy is a whole different ball park. first of all, I did mention the 3 yr old dd right? So what could I POSSIBLY take HER on that would be dangerous for me? We went on water slides, the kids "flume" and the carosel. What kind of mother would take her 3 yr old DD on a "superman" type rolercoaster, or better yet, what kind of amusement park would allow a 3 yr old on a roller coaster that went 150+mph and had drops of 100+feet. I can understand that rides that had sudden drops spins etc would be dangerous, but seriously, use some common sense.



My

[Kontessa]

Your post is condescending and rude. Smoking during pregnancy is a whole different ball park. first of all, I did mention the 3 yr old dd right? So what could I POSSIBLY take HER on that would be dangerous for me? We went on water slides, the kids "flume" and the carosel. What kind of mother would take her 3 yr old DD on a "superman" type rolercoaster, or better yet, what kind of amusement park would allow a 3 yr old on a roller coaster that went 150+mph and had drops of 100+feet. I can understand that rides that had sudden drops spins etc would be dangerous, but seriously, use some common sense.



My

Wow, honestly I found your post more condescending and rude and hers had more logic, caring, and common sense. But then if I was trying to support my actions in doing something not safe I might be upset too if others did not agree with me or the warning signs such rides are not safe when pregnant.

[sg784]

Wow, honestly I found your post more condescending and rude and hers had more logic, caring, and common sense. But then if I was trying to support my actions in doing something not safe I might be upset too if others did not agree with me or the warning signs such rides are not safe when pregnant.

There was one warning sign in the whole park and it was on the ride that you pay 50 bucks to get tied to a cable brought up in the air and dropped. You then "fly" back and forth until it slows down and the next person goes.

needless to say we did not go on that ride.

[SheBear]

Wow, honestly I found your post more condescending and rude and hers had more logic, caring, and common sense. But then if I was trying to support my actions in doing something not safe I might be upset too if others did not agree with me or the warning signs such rides are not safe when pregnant.

You are making a pretty big assumption that there were warning signs posted at the rides she took her dd on. Since you mentioned logic, I have to admit I don't find any logic behind your assumption.

Really, all we have here is a mother who took her toddler to a water park, went on rides with her daughter--rides that her daughter, at three years old, was allowed to ride on--and mentioned it to her DF's grandmother, who was outraged at the mother's "risky" behavior. We don't have:

*any indication that the mother in question rode, or attempted to ride any "dangerous" rides.

*any indication that she disregarded any posted warnings, or that there were even any warnings posted at the rides she chose.

*any indication that any employee of the water park had a problem with her going on any of the rides she chose to ride with her daughter.

*any indication that she deceived or attempted to deceive any employees about her pregnancy or any other health conditions.

So, make all the assumptions you like, but the only *logical* assumption that can be made from the facts presented are that the grandmother--an 88 year old woman who's views of "proper" pregnant behavior are probably quite skewed, along with most of her generation--had a fit and said rude, hurtful things to this mother, without basing her comments on any real medical knowledge.

[Kontessa]

Did I miss something, the title of this thread is Amusment park rides cause MC! Not kiddy rides, not mean grandma who cares enough to speak up. And I happen to think the person who posted about why take the risk was caring, not rude, and using logic.


NOT all park rides are labeled. Infact a few years ago the news was making abig deal over how park rides are not government regulated at all. You get hurt, you can not even make a claim because it is part of the risk you take when you choose to go on the rides.

"The jarring force from even slow automobile accidents has caused placental abruption, miscarriage and other complications for women who are pregnant even when the trauma is not directly to the uterus. Although the jarring force is usually less with amusement park rides, it still warrants precaution."
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/amusementparks.html

How can anyone miss that logic?

Again, why risk it? Is there a good reason to risk it? I can not seem to find one.

[SheBear]

Hmm, well, I guess all you missed was the entire original post. :scratch You might want to go back and read it, just so you are on the same page as the rest of us.

And, saying "Why risk it?" is implying that there is a risk being taken. Is there ever a good reason to risk the health of your unborn child? Yeah, I'm sure there are some things that come under that category, but very few. Is enjoying a day (like the one described by the OP) at a water park with your toddler a risk to your unborn child? Not in my view, obviously not in the OP's view, nor the view point of many (most) posters on this thread.

*IF* joining your toddler on a kid-friendly ride was indeed something that could be absolutely classified as a "risk" then I personally would choose not to do so, and I would not advise anyone else to do so, either. But just because you (and a very few others) might somehow perceive it as a risk does not mean that it actually is a risk, and does not mean that the mother who saw no risk in doing so was in any way negligent or irresponsible.

I guess I'm just failing to see why it is that "amusement park ride" automatically equates with "risk" in your mind. I've been on the "small world" ride at Disney with my children (and no, I was not pregnant at the time, but if I had been, I still would have gone) and the Winnie-the-Pooh ride. I even went on the teacups! *gasp!*

I don't see how anyone could classify those rides as being in any way risky to a healthy person, pregnant or not. (Although if I'd been pregnant and having M/S, I would have most likely skipped the teacups!) So, I guess the point I am trying to make is, before you can use the argument of "Why take an unnecessary risk?" you have to establish that some risk was actually taken. I don't think you can legitimately say that was the case here.

[SheBear]

"The jarring force from even slow automobile accidents has caused placental abruption, miscarriage and other complications for women who are pregnant even when the trauma is not directly to the uterus. Although the jarring force is usually less with amusement park rides, it still warrants precaution."
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pre...mentparks.html


Also, based on the warning you quoted, I guess it is logical for me to assume that you have chosen to forego any vehicle usage during your pregnancy? I mean, why risk it? :shrug

[canadiannancy]

I went on tonnes of amusement park rides while in early pregnancy with dd1(so early I didn't yet know I was pregnant). She is fine....and I probably would do it again...I love fairs and things and would not want to never do any of them for fear I might be pregnant. Had I have miscarried I probably would have felt guilty and questioned that tilt a whirl...but I would have questioned everything that could have possibly cause it...it is in my nature.

While pregnant with dd2 I did none of those things at any time...because we hadn't the money or I don't know if I would have. While pregnant this time we received tickets to a circus and fair from our outreach worker. I know los of mamas here hav e objections to the circus altogether but we have had a tough time of things financially and we chose to have a family outing. I went on some rides with my dd(nt quite 2 at the time) I had a blast so did she..but I don't think I would feel comfortable doing it later on in pregnancy. I put mild amusement park rides in the same category as wine etc...you do what you are comfortable with within reason. For me I can't bring myself to be comfortable with even a sip of wine..but I know others are comfortable with a glass here and there.

[Ironica]

I totally agree with the sentiment that, while most of us are very risk-averse during pregnancy, there's no established risk to kiddie rides. There is CERTAINLY risk to riding in cars or even walking across the street, but we do that anyway. If I went to San Francisco, I'd probably cross the street even though my grandmother was hit by a cable car when she was 5 months pregnant and subsequently miscarried twins.

There is an assumption of risk that isn't fully explained. Do amusement park rides cause m/c? Do they cause placental abruption? IUGR? Birth defects? Premature labor? The signs don't say. They just say "Hey, this ride is thrilling, and that's bad for preggos, m'kay?" Besides which, my understanding is that the most established risk has nothing to do with harm to the baby, but instead, risk to the mother because of the shape of her body. That's a totally different risk category.

Life is risky. It has a 100% death rate. There are risks to drinking alcohol and NOT drinking alcohol. There are risks to drinking raw milk and pasteurized milk and no milk. There are risks to closing your eyes and leaving them open. Life is a process of learning what the risks are and balancing them. What's the risk that someone will resent their unborn child for ruining their once-in-a-lifetime trip to an amusement park? What's the risk that a small child will resent their sibling for preventing them from doing anything on such an outing? How easy is it to weigh that against the (essentially unknown, but postulated) risk of going on some rides during pregnancy?

If you want to take no risks during pregnancy, best not risk getting pregnant at all. If you want to be RATIONAL about the various risks and understanding what they are and balancing them, that's a different story.

[Kontessa]

Also, based on the warning you quoted, I guess it is logical for me to assume that you have chosen to forego any vehicle usage during your pregnancy? I mean, why risk it? :shrug


Why risk it? Come on, it is nothing the same and you know this, but again, defending such a choice I guess is natural.... just one more drink.... yadda yadda.

Why risk a car ride. Hum.... Food. We MUST eat right? And not all of us have friends and family who can help, not all of live in areas with public transportation or walking distance. Medical help, thats a need right? I go out when I need to and try to combine trips honestly and at least I know the van I am in has standards the amusements park rides do not.

Now what is the NEED again to get on rides that can not wait till when you are not pregnant?

Goodness, some people will defend anything. As much as I am sure it will sadden you to not have me to argue with, I am done with this thread and wish everyone here a happy and safe pregnancy.

[SheBear]

Excellent post, Ironica! :thumb Very well-written...much better than I could put it! :)

Kontessa, I apologise if I made it seem that my only purpose was to argue, with you or with anyone else. Arguing for it's own sake does not interest me, and is never my purpose.

The point I was trying to make--and yes, I used an extreme example, but it was the one that you provided--is that if our only purpose in pregnancy is to eliminate every possible risk, then a very strong and well-established risk such as riding in a car must surely outweigh the more theoretical risk of certain amusement park rides. (Not to even begn to mention all the other competing risks surrounding pregnancy and birth...hospital birth is undeniably risky...but then again, there are definite risks associated with homebirth...where then shall we give birth??)

But that is really a side issue in this case. The real issue, IMO, continues to be avoided. The real issue is that no one has even attempted to show that there is any level of risk imbedded in the sort of child-friendly rides this mother took her daughter on. I sincerely doubt that such an argument could be effectively made, which I suppose is most likely the reason it continues to be ignored.

But until/unless someone can show that these rides were, indeed, risky in nature, then IMO, it is ridiculous for anyone--the grandmother, park employees, those of us discussing it--to judge her actions as irresponsible or negligent.

[Ironica]

Why risk it? Come on, it is nothing the same and you know this, but again, defending such a choice I guess is natural.... just one more drink.... yadda yadda.

That slippery slope thing of comparing 10 mph roller coasters to drinking during pregnancy really doesn't sit well with me. It makes it clear that, since you *don't* have any rational reason to believe there's a risk to the mother's behavior, you have to switch to something that is a known risk.

Why risk a car ride. Hum.... Food. We MUST eat right? And not all of us have friends and family who can help, not all of live in areas with public transportation or walking distance.

Why would you choose to live in a place where you can't get by without a car? My husband and I made a different choice. Does that mean that I'm taking fewer risks with my baby than you? Maybe there are risks to where I live that don't exist where you do. There are always trade-offs, aren't there?

You can certainly justify riding in a car, but no, it's not NECESSARY for anyone. It's only necessary insofar as you chose to live in a place that makes it infeasible to do without.

Medical help, thats a need right?

Go tell that to the Unassisted forum ;-).

I go out when I need to and try to combine trips honestly and at least I know the van I am in has standards the amusements park rides do not.

The van is MUCH more dangerous. It achieves higher velocities, brakes and accelerates at greater rates, and shares the road with many other 2-ton metal boxes traveling at similar velocities, piloted by people who may or may not have the appropriate training, state of mind, or physical capacity to accomplish the task safely. Your van does not receive maintenance check-ups as often as most amusement park rides; automobile malfunctions happen far more often than malfunctions of amusement park rides during routine operation. That's why it's BIG NEWS when the brakes go out on Big Thunder Mountain, even though there were only bumps and bruises... but doesn't even get a blurb when someone's brakes fail on the freeway and causes a 3-car multiple injury, one fatality pileup.

We're not talking about pregnant women getting on the Tower of Terror, here. We're talking about rides that a 3-year-old is allowed on. There are only two rides at Disneyland with 36" height restrictions. All others have NO restrictions or higher ones. So, my 3-year-old can go on exactly two roller coasters; one is the kiddie coaster in Toontown, which doesn't even get up to 35 MPH (tell me the last time you made a trip in your van without exceeding that speed) and the other is the Matterhorn, which you couldn't *pay* me to go on pregnant or no, because it's such an uncomfortable ride. ;-) That one probably has the signs up, though.

Now, that's Disneyland, because that's the amusement park I know best. The OP was talking about a WATERPARK. Waterparks usually don't have "rides," they have slides. The only acceleration is that due to gravity, and deceleration is from friction. Very, very difficult to achieve potentially harmful rates under those circumstances, especially with stuff that a 3-year-old would be willing to go on.

Now what is the NEED again to get on rides that can not wait till when you are not pregnant?

Have you never, ever taken a 3-year-old anywhere? "I'm sorry, honey, I know we're at a water park, but mommy can't take you on anything." :-P Yeah, that'll fly. The other option, of course, is to let the 3-year-old in a bathing suit go on the ride ALONE. No risks there, of course!

I went to Disneyland when I was 7 months pregnant with my son. I skipped all the big coasters, and only went on the small stuff... the "dark rides" and the "boat rides" for those familiar. Can you explain to me what the risk was?

Goodness, some people will defend anything. As much as I am sure it will sadden you to not have me to argue with, I am done with this thread and wish everyone here a happy and safe pregnancy.

It sounds like your contention is "If there's no urgent need to do it, and there's no positive PROOF that it's safe during pregnancy, don't do it!" Which sounds like a perfectly miserable existence, frankly. There's no evidence that reading is safe during pregnancy, and there may be evidence that computer use isn't. There's a risk to going INSANE from doing nothing, too. Not to mention, getting no exercise isn't safe, either. I burn more calories in a day walking around Disneyland than I do sitting on my @$$ in the house. What's the risk to doing nothing? It's not zero.

[michaelasmommy]

Well, I went out of town for 2 days, but am going to try to respond to some of you about my previous posts. I was not really referring to the kiddie rides mentioned in the original post-I only responded after the conversation expanded to scuba diving, roller coasters, ect. I don't think that the little train going 5 mph on a flat track is going to hurt you. If it's ok for my 1 year-old, its probably safe for me. To the OP-my post was not aimed at you-the original post developed into a much broader spectrum, and I apologize for not addressing your original post. You are correct that your waterpark experience is not that big of a deal, but I bet an old lady is just misinformed-you know, old wives tales. I would probably have just laughed it off.

I don't think the government should have say about most of the things mentioned-but the businesses running those activities should, to protect themselves legally. They may be a little more strict than they need to be, but just look at what people sue over these days!

Your medical choices are not up to anyone but you, but if your baby needs medical attention after they are born, and you neglect it, the government will and should step in.

I did not intend to imply that pregnant women should live in a bubble for nine months, but if you make the choice to become pregnant, you should be prepared to make some sacrifices for that child-whether that be giving up alcohol, cigarettes, roller coasters, or scuba diving.

Sometimes one has to think about others before themselves.