Page 76 of 104 FirstFirst ... 2666747576777886 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 760 of 1032

Thread: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room[W:829]

  1. #751
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) you should reread the OP and thread nobody took his parental rights away. he is allowed to be there, just not in the room when the birth is going on if the patient doesnt want him there
    2.) correct and that factually did not happen here
    3.)he has not right to witness the birth, ZERO.
    4.) he is already
    5.) medical standards apply here and privacy rights, the baby wont be moving "immediately" anywhere until theres some checking of him. SOrry you have to use reality here
    6.) yes and not seeing the birth wont change this
    7.) and why would we do this? why not simply do the easier thing of waiting to the room and patient is ready to let others in or once the baby is determined to be medically sound then move it LOL

    this is hilarious.

    can you tell me the right that is violated of the dad by not allowing him to violate the right of the mother?
    I can't respond to your post or the previous one because you edited my quote without indicating that it was edited by you. Please do not edit my comments, even if it is just to change the way my comments are being formatted (e.g., 1) 2) etc). Generally when quoting another person it is allowable to use (snip) or (...) to indicate you are taking a part from the person's comments, or to add names in brackets for example: adding [President Obama] inside of brackets to clarify a quote where a person used "he" and you have added the name in brackets in the quote so it was clear who are are speaking of in your response (to clarify who he/she might be).

    Basically it is proper etiquette when using the quote function to avoid edits inside the "quote tags" unless it is clear that you did so for reason that I indicated. To do otherwise runs the risk of blatant intellectual dishonesty, which I do not believe was your intention.

    Thanks
    Last edited by Del Zeppnile; 03-16-14 at 08:50 PM.

  2. #752
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    When the child is born it is not a fetus anymore. When the child comes out of the vagina is usually the point that it born. If the father has parental rights as soon as the fetus is a child, he should be allowed to be there when HIS CHILD IS BORN.

    I believe the judge got this one wrong. No one person's rights can be interpreted to fully eliminate another person's rights. What the court should have said is that the father has no right to be in the room during the labor, but does have a right to be there at the moment of the actual birth if the circumstances permit. The father should be allowed to bond with his child the same way the mother is allowed to bond with the child.

    Otherwise it would only be fair to at the moment of birth remove the child immediately to another room where the waiting father is and allow him to bond with the baby before the mother does. Would that be fair? Would you be in favor of a decision like that?
    Why not, it is his child too right? That would not be "invading her privacy" to give the father first access to their baby would it?

    But until that child is born or the mother allows him in her hospital room (HER hospital room and nobody else), he has not business being there.

    It is not enough to just have the child born, there is also something like the paternity being settled. I agree the man (if the father) has the right to visit the child. But, the mother still does not have to allow him in her hospital room if she does not want him in there. And again, she has already testified that she will allow the man to visit the hospital and his child but he just does not have any right to be in the delivery room at birth.

    The father does not have to bond with that child at the exact second it comes out of the mother for him to have a bond with that child. The law is quite clear, he has not right being in that delivery room, full stop, no need to stomp his feet and throw a big temper tantrum. The man has no rights in this scenario and that some men have a problem with that is not important.

    You believe the judge is wrong but thank goodness a person with a much better understanding of the law has found that he is right and you are wrong. The judge, the law, statutes and case-law states that the man has no right to be there against the wishes of the mother. And that is what this whole case about, men have every right to be present at the birth as long as the mother agrees to have him there. If not then the man according to law has zero rights to that.

    And no, the child does not have to be removed to "bond with the dad" right at the moment of birth. Again this is the desire of a totally selfish arrogant man who wants to have his will over what is best for the mother and child. After birth the child normally is put on the mother and that is how it should be. Last time I checked the man did do nothing more than donate some sperm, the egg, the nine months in the womb and the delivery are all down to the woman, after all that some jerk wants to deny the mother the first seconds with her baby? I am sorry, but this is not in the best interest of woman or child.

    As soon as the baby is clothed and can be put in her cot, the man can bond to his hearts desire, but again it is the mother who will be changing, (breast)feeding this child and not the man because the two do not live together. There is a need for father and child to bond, but not at the expense of the primary care-giver.

    Isn't it completely obvious he has no grounds for his wishes? When he filed his motion he did not provide any legal standing on which he based his demand to be present during the childbirth.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  3. #753
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    But until that child is born or the mother allows him in her hospital room (HER hospital room and nobody else), he has not business being there.

    It is not enough to just have the child born, there is also something like the paternity being settled. I agree the man (if the father) has the right to visit the child. But, the mother still does not have to allow him in her hospital room if she does not want him in there. And again, she has already testified that she will allow the man to visit the hospital and his child but he just does not have any right to be in the delivery room at birth.

    The father does not have to bond with that child at the exact second it comes out of the mother for him to have a bond with that child. The law is quite clear, he has not right being in that delivery room, full stop, no need to stomp his feet and throw a big temper tantrum. The man has no rights in this scenario and that some men have a problem with that is not important.

    You believe the judge is wrong but thank goodness a person with a much better understanding of the law has found that he is right and you are wrong. The judge, the law, statutes and case-law states that the man has no right to be there against the wishes of the mother. And that is what this whole case about, men have every right to be present at the birth as long as the mother agrees to have him there. If not then the man according to law has zero rights to that.

    And no, the child does not have to be removed to "bond with the dad" right at the moment of birth. Again this is the desire of a totally selfish arrogant man who wants to have his will over what is best for the mother and child. After birth the child normally is put on the mother and that is how it should be. Last time I checked the man did do nothing more than donate some sperm, the egg, the nine months in the womb and the delivery are all down to the woman, after all that some jerk wants to deny the mother the first seconds with her baby? I am sorry, but this is not in the best interest of woman or child.

    As soon as the baby is clothed and can be put in her cot, the man can bond to his hearts desire, but again it is the mother who will be changing, (breast)feeding this child and not the man because the two do not live together. There is a need for father and child to bond, but not at the expense of the primary care-giver.

    Isn't it completely obvious he has no grounds for his wishes? When he filed his motion he did not provide any legal standing on which he based his demand to be present during the childbirth.
    So basically the father has no right to bond with his child at birth? If the paternity is clear (based on the mother's comments) then why are her parental rights more than his?

    I said that during the labor it would be reasonable to keep the father out of the room. But at the moment of the actual birth I don't see where keeping the father out is right. That is HIS BABY being born, a moment that will never come again.

    Either fathers have equal rights to their children or they do not. You can't have it both ways. They made a baby together and they now need to share all aspects of that baby together--- or you change the laws and say that if the mother does not want the father around, then she is not entitled to his support with the child.

  4. #754
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    So basically the father has no right to bond with his child at birth? If the paternity is clear (based on the mother's comments) then why are her parental rights more than his?

    I said that during the labor it would be reasonable to keep the father out of the room. But at the moment of the actual birth I don't see where keeping the father out is right. That is HIS BABY being born, a moment that will never come again.

    Either fathers have equal rights to their children or they do not. You can't have it both ways. They made a baby together and they now need to share all aspects of that baby together--- or you change the laws and say that if the mother does not want the father around, then she is not entitled to his support with the child.
    Did I say he does not have a right to bond with his child? He does, but not at the expense of the mother or the child.

    And again, it is her room and her right to deny him entry in the delivery room. That some men disagree with that is not that important. Bonding for the father is not dependent on immediate access to a child. That would make every soldier, government employee who lives away from the mother, inmate, etc. have the right to sue the state for not giving them their mandated right to be present within seconds of birth.

    And no, just after birth the mother has more legal rights to that child than the father, which is logical, can a father breastfeed? Rights are only rights if they are mandated in law/statures.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  5. #755
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    Did I say he does not have a right to bond with his child? He does, but not at the expense of the mother or the child.

    And again, it is her room and her right to deny him entry in the delivery room. That some men disagree with that is not that important. Bonding for the father is not dependent on immediate access to a child. That would make every soldier, government employee who lives away from the mother, inmate, etc. have the right to sue the state for not giving them their mandated right to be present within seconds of birth.
    You are missing the point, the child belongs to both of them, that is the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    And no, just after birth the mother has more legal rights to that child than the father, which is logical, can a father breastfeed? Rights are only rights if they are mandated in law/statures .
    Oh so now you want to use logic? Okay I'm game for that.

    So what if the mother can't breastfeed, not all women can produce milk? Then what happens, the child goes to whoever can hold a bottle?

  6. #756
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,023

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    So basically the father has no right to bond with his child at birth? If the paternity is clear (based on the mother's comments) then why are her parental rights more than his?

    I said that during the labor it would be reasonable to keep the father out of the room. But at the moment of the actual birth I don't see where keeping the father out is right. That is HIS BABY being born, a moment that will never come again.

    Either fathers have equal rights to their children or they do not. You can't have it both ways. They made a baby together and they now need to share all aspects of that baby together--- or you change the laws and say that if the mother does not want the father around, then she is not entitled to his support with the child.
    Neither parent has the right to be with the child any time they choose. For instance, the court normally tries to be fair when it comes to holidays because many times both parents are going to ask for the right to have the children for a particular holiday, such as Christmas. Can both parents have the child on Christmas wherever they want them, even if it two separate houses? People act as if there is some ultimate guidelines that mandates exactly when parents who are not together get to see their children. There isn't. Or they think that a parent has an ultimate right to see a child when they want, no matter how impossible that is. What if parents can get two weeks off each for vacation and both want to take it during spring break with their children and only their children (no exes)? Which parent has the ultimate right to the children and taking them where they want to go? Which parent has the bigger right to this vacation time alone with their child? Or, could it be that this generally decided beforehand, attempting to give each equivalent time, even if separate and not necessarily when they would like? Perhaps alternating years, as often happens with major holidays and Christmas?
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #757
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    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.

    Thoughts?

    I call this social engineering...

    Training people to believe that government (or those in authority) are right and the concerned husband in this situation is wrong.

    I'd love to see them try that with me....

    Then again I'm a big fan of home births so that would never happen to me.

  8. #758
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Thoughts?

    I call this social engineering...

    Training people to believe that government (or those in authority) are right and the concerned husband in this situation is wrong.

    I'd love to see them try that with me....

    Then again I'm a big fan of home births so that would never happen to me.
    You bring up a good point: Home births.

    Would an estranged boyfriend - or the cheating ex husband - have the right to demand access to someone's private home to watch her give birth?
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  9. #759
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Neither parent has the right to be with the child any time they choose. For instance, the court normally tries to be fair when it comes to holidays because many times both parents are going to ask for the right to have the children for a particular holiday, such as Christmas. Can both parents have the child on Christmas wherever they want them, even if it two separate houses? People act as if there is some ultimate guidelines that mandates exactly when parents who are not together get to see their children. There isn't. Or they think that a parent has an ultimate right to see a child when they want, no matter how impossible that is. What if parents can get two weeks off each for vacation and both want to take it during spring break with their children and only their children (no exes)? Which parent has the ultimate right to the children and taking them where they want to go? Which parent has the bigger right to this vacation time alone with their child? Or, could it be that this generally decided beforehand, attempting to give each equivalent time, even if separate and not necessarily when they would like? Perhaps alternating years, as often happens with major holidays and Christmas?
    The hell they don't - this isn't a 1984 Orwellian utopia yet for the authoritarians.

    This is why you don't have your kids in hospitals.

  10. #760
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Neither parent has the right to be with the child any time they choose. For instance, the court normally tries to be fair when it comes to holidays because many times both parents are going to ask for the right to have the children for a particular holiday, such as Christmas. Can both parents have the child on Christmas wherever they want them, even if it two separate houses? People act as if there is some ultimate guidelines that mandates exactly when parents who are not together get to see their children. There isn't. Or they think that a parent has an ultimate right to see a child when they want, no matter how impossible that is. What if parents can get two weeks off each for vacation and both want to take it during spring break with their children and only their children (no exes)? Which parent has the ultimate right to the children and taking them where they want to go? Which parent has the bigger right to this vacation time alone with their child? Or, could it be that this generally decided beforehand, attempting to give each equivalent time, even if separate and not necessarily when they would like? Perhaps alternating years, as often happens with major holidays and Christmas?
    I agree with all of that, but the child is only born once, how do you divide that into two? Allowing the father to be present during the birth, not the labor, is reasonable if it does not interfere with the birth. Because even given everything you said above, you aren't saying that one parent can not attend a bar mitzva or a high school graduation are you?

    I think the point here is that where events cannot be divided, they must be shared. A child can have separate birthday parties, but not separate births.

    I'm not saying the legal decision will be changed. I'm just wondering why most people are automatically siding with the woman in this case? I'm a man, and the birth of my children was a very special moment, actually the highest moment in my life. I just find this woman to be selfish for her own reasons in denying the father that moment. She is taking a position for herself, and not even for her child.

Page 76 of 104 FirstFirst ... 2666747576777886 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •