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

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

AGENT J said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Del Zeppnile said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Peter King said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Del Zeppnile said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Peter King said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point, the child belongs to both of them, that is the law.

Peter King said:

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 .

Click to expand...

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?

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Del Zeppnile said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Aunt Spiker said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Mr.Nick said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

roguenuke said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

roguenuke said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Aunt Spiker said:

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?

Click to expand...

If they're the natural father then yes......

Hell, I have 2 brothers and a sister that were delivered at home the "old fashioned way" - at home.

I suppose there was no question as to who the father was but we - myself included - and my father were there, as well were many close family members and friends.

IMO, I think it's important for siblings to see their brothers and sisters born. It's a natural process and I'm grateful for having seen 3 live births in my life. IMO, only then you can really put life into context (not as a kid) but latter thinking about that experience..

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Mr.Nick said:

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.

Click to expand...

They don't. Ask any family custody lawyer or family court judge. Hell, just ask anyone who has been in the situation of sharing custody of their children.

For example, if a father is given custody of their children lets say for so many weeks over a summer or for every other Christmas, the mother cannot deny that to the father just because she wants to spend that time with them. She also cannot invite herself along to his house, wherever it is to be with them. Or lets use a case my mother had. My father had visitation rights to my siblings setup with the divorce. My mother planned a cruise for them all, 3 teenagers (16 and older) and a 14 year old. She had to get permission from my father to take them. For the first time she planned the cruise, he refused. My mother got in touch with her lawyer and took it to court. The lawyers told my father that his turning my mother down showed his own selfish reasons for denial rather than thinking of his children. He had no real reason to not allow my mother to take my siblings on that cruise. And there was no way the court was going to deny my mother if it came to that (after the talks with the lawyer, he gave the permission) because he couldn't show any reason such as my mother was planning to move the children out of the country or something to keep them away from him. So he couldn't have planned anything or expected to have the kids at that time. A non-custodial parent cannot take a child out of school for say a vacation or something like that without permission from the custodial parent. (Not even sure if they can pick the child up from school without permission from the custodial parent.)

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Del Zeppnile said:

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.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that the child is only born once. The child will only have one first Christmas, one birthday for each age, one first day of school, and many other firsts that it is likely only one parent will get to see. The mother's privacy in this case outweighs the father's want to be there for that one moment of thousands to come.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

OscarB63 said:

I'd tell her to go **** herself and be a dick about every ****ing support payment. ****, I'd take the time to go to the bank and pay her ****ing ass in pennies every month.

"hey, here's this month's child support. seventy-five thousand pennies." and make her sign a ****ing receipt for them

Click to expand...

This says a lot more about you than it does about her.....

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

And taking the line of reasoning further, do both parents have a right to be there for every first in a child's life, even if that would invade the privacy or cause a hardship to the other parent or perhaps even the child? For instance, do parents have to call to inform the other parent that perhaps the child is going to take their first step or lose their first tooth? Do both parents have a right to be at every single birthday celebration the child has, even if it is during one parent's time with the child and they are planning it at say a relative's house? Does a parent have the right to tuck in their child or read them a book every single night before they go to bed, even if it is in the other parent's home, possibly even after the other parent has remarried/found another mate, invading their privacy?

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

roguenuke said:

They don't. Ask any family custody lawyer or family court judge. Hell, just ask anyone who has been in the situation of sharing custody of their children.

For example, if a father is given custody of their children lets say for so many weeks over a summer or for every other Christmas, the mother cannot deny that to the father just because she wants to spend that time with them. She also cannot invite herself along to his house, wherever it is to be with them. Or lets use a case my mother had. My father had visitation rights to my siblings setup with the divorce. My mother planned a cruise for them all, 3 teenagers (16 and older) and a 14 year old. She had to get permission from my father to take them. For the first time she planned the cruise, he refused. My mother got in touch with her lawyer and took it to court. The lawyers told my father that his turning my mother down showed his own selfish reasons for denial rather than thinking of his children. He had no real reason to not allow my mother to take my siblings on that cruise. And there was no way the court was going to deny my mother if it came to that (after the talks with the lawyer, he gave the permission) because he couldn't show any reason such as my mother was planning to move the children out of the country or something to keep them away from him. So he couldn't have planned anything or expected to have the kids at that time. A non-custodial parent cannot take a child out of school for say a vacation or something like that without permission from the custodial parent. (Not even sure if they can pick the child up from school without permission from the custodial parent.)

Click to expand...

Usually this has nothing to do with courts and everything to do with authoritarian hospitals....

Usually they drug the mother up and pressure her into a c-section (the easy way out for a doctor)...

When it comes to births at a hospital I don't believe the mothers wishes or expectations are considered at all - these clowns just want to deliver the baby as fast as possible.

Long gone are the days when doctors where your family physician and they were there and delivered you and were your doctor until you were 25 (for example).

IMO, I think doctors view delivering children as a waste of their time, which is why they advocate c-sections 999.9% of the time.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Del Zeppnile said:

1.)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

Click to expand...

your post was not edited in anyway whatsoever that changes its content besides numbering your points.
I do this so all your points get addressed. I dont miss any and theres no confusion into what im responding to.
This is done as a courtesy so theres clearing communication. If this bothers you there is a simply solution, simply dont respond. You're welcome.

Let me know when you can address the things that proved your post wrong. thanks

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

roguenuke said:

They don't. Ask any family custody lawyer or family court judge. Hell, just ask anyone who has been in the situation of sharing custody of their children.

For example, if a father is given custody of their children lets say for so many weeks over a summer or for every other Christmas, the mother cannot deny that to the father just because she wants to spend that time with them. She also cannot invite herself along to his house, wherever it is to be with them. Or lets use a case my mother had. My father had visitation rights to my siblings setup with the divorce. My mother planned a cruise for them all, 3 teenagers (16 and older) and a 14 year old. She had to get permission from my father to take them. For the first time she planned the cruise, he refused. My mother got in touch with her lawyer and took it to court. The lawyers told my father that his turning my mother down showed his own selfish reasons for denial rather than thinking of his children. He had no real reason to not allow my mother to take my siblings on that cruise. And there was no way the court was going to deny my mother if it came to that (after the talks with the lawyer, he gave the permission) because he couldn't show any reason such as my mother was planning to move the children out of the country or something to keep them away from him. So he couldn't have planned anything or expected to have the kids at that time. A non-custodial parent cannot take a child out of school for say a vacation or something like that without permission from the custodial parent. (Not even sure if they can pick the child up from school without permission from the custodial parent.)

Click to expand...

The natural father of the child has every right to be in the room while the child is being birthed. I suppose there are some exceptions like sperm donors and such, or others that signed over legal rights to the child.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Mr.Nick said:

If they're the natural father then yes......

Hell, I have 2 brothers and a sister that were delivered at home the "old fashioned way" - at home.

I suppose there was no question as to who the father was but we - myself included - and my father were there, as well were many close family members and friends.

IMO, I think it's important for siblings to see their brothers and sisters born. It's a natural process and I'm grateful for having seen 3 live births in my life. IMO, only then you can really put life into context (not as a kid) but latter thinking about that experience..

Click to expand...

can you tell us what right that is?


what right is it of the man to infringe on private property rights and privacy rights of a home and person?

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Mr.Nick said:

1.)The natural father of the child has every right to be in the room while the child is being birthed. I suppose there are some exceptions like sperm donors and such, or others that signed over legal rights to the child.

Click to expand...

what right is that?

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Mr.Nick said:

Usually this has nothing to do with courts and everything to do with authoritarian hospitals....

Usually they drug the mother up and pressure her into a c-section (the easy way out for a doctor)...

When it comes to births at a hospital I don't believe the mothers wishes or expectations are considered at all - these clowns just want to deliver the baby as fast as possible.

Long gone are the days when doctors where your family physician and they were there and delivered you and were your doctor until you were 25 (for example).

IMO, I think doctors view delivering children as a waste of their time, which is why they advocate c-sections 999.9% of the time.

Click to expand...

Usually it doesn't matter because the two are normally together at least for the birth of the child. It is a lot less common for two people expecting to have broken up prior to the birth of a child than it is for them to breakup after.

And this case was about the mother's wishes and her privacy, nothing about the doctors.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Mr.Nick said:

The natural father of the child has every right to be in the room while the child is being birthed. I suppose there are some exceptions like sperm donors and such, or others that signed over legal rights to the child.

Click to expand...

No, he doesn't. There is no right to that. His fatherhood can't even be determined definitely until after the child is born in some cases. Plus, he has no right to unlimited access to the child, particularly not when the mother's privacy in her healthcare are a major factor in his seeing the child, like this case.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

AGENT J said:

your post was not edited in anyway whatsoever that changes its content besides numbering your points.
I do this so all your points get addressed. I dont miss any and theres no confusion into what im responding to.
This is done as a courtesy so theres clearing communication. If this bothers you there is a simply solution, simply dont respond. You're welcome.

Let me know when you can address the things that proved your post wrong. thanks

Click to expand...

I'll say it this way then DO NOT EDIT MY QUOTES AND PRESENT THEM AS MINE. Now you are being intellectually dishonest as well as arrogant. I do not need to have my quotes formatted the way you choose to format them inside the quote tags. Adding emphasis with bold or otherwise is not the same thing, as long as the bold part is what you wish to respond to. But actually making a quote appear differently then how a person wrote it is bad form. Besides, nobody really wants their quotes to be misspelled by you.

If you wish to number points outside of my quote then I have no problem with that. But I will not permit you to edit my quotes without taking issue with that.

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

Del Zeppnile said:

I'll say it this way then DO NOT EDIT MY QUOTES AND PRESENT THEM AS MINE.
2.) Now you are being intellectually dishonest as well as arrogant.
3.) I do not need to have my quotes formatted the way you choose to format them inside the quote tags.
4.) Adding emphasis with bold or otherwise is not the same thing, as long as the bold part is what you wish to respond to. But actually making a quote appear differently then how a person wrote it is bad form.
5.) Besides, nobody really wants their quotes to be misspelled by you.
6.)If you wish to number points outside of my quote then I have no problem with that. But I will not permit you to edit my quotes without taking issue with that.

Click to expand...

1.) I didnt
2.) 100% false, your posts in content were factually not changed
3.) already gave the reasoning and provided you with the solution
4.) sorry you feel that way, like i said you can simply not respond
5.) well since i only add numbers theres no risk of this LOL
6.) not your choice

like i said if you simply wish to not participate in my courtesy in making communication very clear you can choose not too

Please stay on topic and again let me know when you can address the points I made that proved your post wrong, thanks

Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room

roguenuke said:

It doesn't matter that the child is only born once. The child will only have one first Christmas, one birthday for each age, one first day of school, and many other firsts that it is likely only one parent will get to see. The mother's privacy in this case outweighs the father's want to be there for that one moment of thousands to come.

Click to expand...

Again, I am not saying that the father should be there during the labor, I would honor the mother's wishes for privacy then. But in this case we are not even talking about a father who became a father by way of a casual sexual encounter are we? If it were then I think in a case of a casual relationship, then it would at least be more reasonable to impose a strict separation of the two parties at the hospital. However in this case the father was her fiance. This woman made a decision with this man to not only make this baby, but also at one point to be his wife. I give more weight in this case to the father on those grounds. How much "privacy" did this woman have when she was sleeping with this man and living with him for a long time? I'm sorry, but without proof that there was abuse by this man, I think this woman is being a spoiled brat. She made decisions well before the point of delivering a baby that involved this man, and I think this judge got it wrong.