- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
So we are assuming she cheated? :lol: Ok.
Yeah, yeah, because the **** she asks for doesn't cause that. Does no one really get the point of my argument earlier? Do people realize that the pain meds women get can very well kill the child and adversely affects it's chances of survival? This whole thing women need it is to the most part ****. All child births are painful and besides the exception to the rule the stress to the child is not above the norm.
What did I say exactly that is hating on women? lol. She doesn't own the room, and being in the room is not acting on her body. Both are facts. There is no reason that she would have a right to control the room and who is in it. Here is the thing, she is in a room owned by someone else with her ***** out for all to see. Anyone can come into that room and see it. The father saw the ****ing thing already, so really, wtf is your complaint about exactly? That he will see it again? It's kind of weird to **** a dude, decide to have his kid, and then complain he might see your *****.
21 pages and nothgin has changed
the mothers rights were upheld and the fathers also remain intact
That's a nice theory but lacks in credible evidence since it is a rather recent phenomenon. Again, history suggests a tight emotional bond may be developed without the father's presense at birth. Considering all the child is seeing at that point are blobs I doubt the father's presense has any impact upon the child at birth at all, other than upsetting the mother.
Why would any man want to be there if she has that big of an objection anyway???
but she doesnt because there are no rights of the father being lost was my point
i do agree the the mother chooses who is in the room and sees her yahoo and that is the end of story.
but the question was asked why does the mother get GREATER rights, she doesnt, she only gets her rights which are NORMAL since there is no right of anybody else to see her yahoo, not even the guy that does or used to google her yahoo
Never heard it called a yahoo before lol. I'm amazed at how many have such difficulty with the word 'vagina' but I was raised by a nurse who had no tolerance for 'cutesy' names for body parts, functions etc.
New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room - ABC News
Thoughts?
So the elements in question:
1) Is being a witness to a birth essential to bond with said child?
2) Is the birthing room a matter of the mother's personal privacy?
Of course, this isn't a broad ruling that applies to everyone (every state, etc). Hospitals have their own rules and guidelines they follow - and so forth. States can rule to the contrary. If hospitals they want to change their guidelines they must make an effort to do so. Most err with the side of the mother (which is what led to this case).
I support the ruling and the concept: Being a witness to a birth is not a right. It is a privilege that should be extended to fathers at the decision of the mother per her comfort.
Personally, I think it's somewhat fascinating that this was even something that needed to be a court case. Nobody should be required to be in the presence of somebody they don't wish to be. While I'm sure people can think of exceptions, this ain't one of them.
I think it's ****. If I'm the father I have a right to see the child.
Oh, I don't know, maybe because that child will be a part of his life until the day he dies and the bond he has with that child might be the most important thing in his life. You know, maybe.
And who is a better advocate of the mother's wishes than her husband? In medical treatment there is express consent and implied consent. Once she is in enough pain or on enough drugs the doc can simply declare her incompetent and go to implied consent, which could be "of course would have wanted to go Ceasarian" or "she would have wanted potosin if she thought about it". Who better than her husband to be sure her wishes are kept than her husband?
But the father, exercising his parental rights, declares that his baby wants him in there. By what reasoning do the mother's rights override the rights of the baby?
Which no one can explain how it makes sense.
This is shockingly petty even for you.
They're estranged, and she's under no obligation to allow somebody to be present at a personal medical procedure whatever his claim to rights may be.
Oh, I don't know, maybe because that child will be a part of his life until the day he dies and the bond he has with that child might be the most important thing in his life. You know, maybe.
I don't see anyone arguing that them being estranged makes a bit of difference to the situation. People here are arguing the man has no rights at all in the situation no matter his relation with the woman. I think it is absolute **** and I don't care if I'm being petty about it.
But that bond has nothing to do with being in the delivery room against the mother's wishes. That bond will be just as tight if he sees her an hour after birth or even later. The moment he holds the child in his arms he will feel that bond. Again, there is no right to impose your presence upon a mother about to deliver.
Female Privilege is a terrible thing to behold. Society needs to work to overthrow the Matriarchy.
How about I just not show up then? I will stay at home watching tv and she go to the hospital alone. Then whenever I get around to it I will hold the child. Seems legit.
Under that hypothetical scenario, if that were the maturity level of the husband then the mother's choice for him not being present in the first place would make itself extraordinarily clear.
Once again, incorrect. It's medical privacy.
Indeed. She can take care of the kid alone. **** her.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?