Re: New Jersey Judge Blocks Dad From Delivery Room
For the sake of this argument, let's put some imaginary numbers into the equation.
The father claims that his connection and love for the child will increase by 100% by his being present at the child's birth. The emotional experience of witnessing the birth will be so great that this father will, as a result, be a better father to the child.
It should be clear to everyone that a child is better served by having a more committed father than a less committed father. The father in this case actually took this issue to court in order to be able to witness his child's birth. Clearly this issues means a lot to the father.
I can't see how a mother's selfish interest can, and should, override the interests of the child in having a more devoted, committed father in his life.
Fathers who weren't present for reasons like military deployment, sickness, having to care for other children (etc) don't have a weaker or lesser relationship with their children as a result.
And that's a moot point: we're discussing mothers and fathers who are not married or in a close relationship to begin with (which is what this is in regard to. If we were talking about happily married husband and wife and she just wanted to have a moment I'd have a bit of a different view.)
The delivery room is filled with medical equipment, nurses, the doctor, and usually only one or two people are allowed to be *with* the mother. Usually: they encourage the mother to only have people with her who will give her encouragement, support, and maybe fulfill the place of a Lamaze, dula, or breathing coach (etc). You know: get her ice chips, help her to the bathroom if needed, hold the vomit tray, check on her contractions and so on when nurses aren't present.
No one sits idle in a delivery room. Everyone must do something while in there. Even fathers in a normal loving marriage are asked to suit up (full out scrubs - it IS a medical procedure. Health and cleanliness is highly important) and 'hold this' 'don't touch that' and 'stand here' - etc.
To deliver all of my children I had to lay with my legs held Indian style in the air. My husband and a nurse had to hold my legs like that THE WHOLE TIME I was i hard labor (8 hours - 2 hours - whatever)
After the baby is born there's little to no 'bonding' going on. Maybe the mother can hold the baby for a minute before they have to see to the baby's needs. Twice: I didn't even have that much because the babies were taken immediately for health intervention. Normally: The healthy born baby is taken and weighed, examined, cleaned, etc. You cannot touch the baby during this time. Mother is seen to, placenta delivered, vagina stitched - and so forth.
There's no
time or room for people who are not serving a
beneficial role in any of these areas. He can see the baby later. That's how every man in this country did it before. My father wasn't present for the delivery of any three of us (me and my 2 sisters). not that big of a deal.
It was major medical guffaw that went on when mothers and fathers pushed to be allowed in the PAST. That doesn't somehow become a default standard extended to everyone just because. They did that for the emotional benefit TO THE MOTHER. I loved having my husband with me because he was my COMFORT in the most difficult time of my life. We love each other and I needed him there and he did everything needed of him. A man who is not in a relationship with the woman will NOT be serving that purpose.
It's not necessary. It's a false claim to 'necessity'.
All of this hubub comes form people who have no sense of what goes on IN A DELIVERY ROOM, it seems. If you're
not helping you're in the way - get the **** out.
