Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room
But AgentJ is right, the right to privacy of ones body has been factually established through law.
So what? It doesn't answer the question I posed. My question imparts philosophical implications; which is the basis of all law, and rationale. I acknowledged what the judge had ruled, but with the caveat that it was her opinion. That's why they call them rulings based on the courts
opinion... get it now?
And you not minding my point of view :lamo puhleeaze? I disagree with peoples opinion and if I disagree with them I try to explain my opinion even if that other person does not agree with that.
Well of course..
Usually it is a fact of respecting someones opinion even if you do not have that same opinion, don't minding someone to have an opinion is IMHO one of the few attitudes that does not belong on a forum because it disrespects you fellow debaters.
Not sure I follow how you get there from here? When I say I do not mind you having an opinion, I thought it very clear that this means that your opinion is shared by many, and for good reason. It's actually a tacit approval of your viewpoint as being well reasoned, and not lacking merit, however in opposition my position may be. I do not respect others opinions UNLESS they have merit. I respect their right to have them, but I do not always respect another opinion unless there's damn good reason too. Minding someone's opinion is a show of respect. You have it backwards.
AgentJ mentions facts if she believes they are a fact, you can disagree with that and call that into question, but that does not mean that she is stating something is a fact to have a way out of a discussion. If you believe something is not a fact that is even a better discussion point than just disagreeing with someone’s opinion. If you can disprove one of those facts than please do so, discuss the facts or the false facts but your assertion that
But I did, I did senior..
Sorry little joke there; dude seriously though, are you suggesting I haven't provided an effective opposing argument? So what you're saying is that you do not "respect" my opinion on the matter?
Do you mind if I continue to have it?
is totally nonsense because AgentJ, my own and others pointing to the ruling is because that ruling has all the grounds mentioned in it that most of us have pointed to.
The is the correct ruling is not just simply because a judge says so, but because the reasons he mentions are valid and relevant. Why does AgentJ have to posts all the reasons the judge mentions that he agrees with?
I never asked her to? I asked her to answer my questions regarding the facts in the case, and I pointed out her inconsistency with regard to equal rights for all. She particularly does not want equal rights for all humans if she supports the right for a woman to terminate her unborn human.
I am pretty sure AgentJ has mentioned the right to privacy. I have mentioned the right not to have ones solitude imposed upon by unwanted individuals. I have also mentioned (as has the judge) that there is no pre-birth parental right on the side of the father that would warrant denying the woman her right to privacy during birth.
The father has no pre-birth rights at all, and that's kind of the point. You argue that the woman is connected to the child physically, but can't the same be said of the father? Can't the same also be said about the preference in law for a physical connection outweighing a psychological one? Are they any less important?
If you want to know why people say because the judge said so, you should try and read that ruling. I did read it and a lot of points we have mentioned are also in it.
I did read the ruling…huh?
1. the man's demand to have parenting time is not ripe for judicial consideration at this time because in accordance with N.J.S.A. 9-2-4 courts have to conduct a best interest analysis. A lot of these things are mentioned there but there is no basis for the father to demand parenting time before a child is born. The law does not mention the right to visit a fetus.
So then, why not?
2. the statutes (you can read which ones these are in the judicial ruling, I will post the link to the ruling at the bottom of my post) nowhere expressly defines the legal definition of a "presumed father" as existing before the birth of the child.
If he’s the father, is he not presumed to be?
3. the appellate court has decided that even mentioning the name of the father does not constitute a legal finding of parentage.
Why not?
Ok..
Tim-