-
@Mrs. Jump Rope: Like I said above to twist-- I was obviously just talking about a perfectly uncomplicated birth. Of course skin to skin isn't always possible. Breastfeeding isn't always possible (or the option the mom has chosen). When other medical requirements are in the way those obviously take precedent. But I think in those circumstances it is even more understandable why the dad would have some delay in seeing the baby and not have the baby whisked away 10 seconds after the cord is cut. I was just saying, even in the BEST most uncomplicated of circumstances, it is still best for the baby to stay with mom for an hour or two.
-
@Mae: I did read that... After I posted! It took a million years to finish my comment because I was making lunch.
I really do agree with you, though.
-
@Silva: just to play devil's advocate in regards to this statement: "A truly supportive co-parent would only want what is best for his child, which means first and foremost protecting the relationship with the mother." Would you not agree with the reverse that "A truly supportive co-parent would only want what is best for HER child, which means first and foremost protecting the relationship with the FATHER"
-
@MamaMoose: sure, but that may mean he isn't in the room so that she can focus on the delivery/baby. Balancing our own needs with our childrens needs is tricky, and sometimes they are in contradiction, There isn't really a great solution here- I just don't think anyone has any business telling a woman who HAS to be present for her labor and delivery.
-
@MamaMoose: but I do take your point that in my statement I was expecting the father to adapt to the mothers wishes "fort he child", which probably comes from cultural standards that place mom as "primary" caretaker. Worth thinking about.
-
@Silva: yes that's where I was going. If they are truly equal partners in parenting this child (which to me is the ideal) then shouldn't they both be focused on protecting the relationship between them? I'm struggling because I really want to know the true backstory. Was this guy some jerk who had nothing to do with the rest of the pregnancy and now he wants to be in the room just to upset her? Has the woman blocked him out all along because she's upset with how the relationship ended? I want to know these things. But then I think, you really can't put too much focus on those details because the judge is charged with setting a precedent that will impact all future cases of this nature. I just think it's a lot less black and white than some people are making it.
-
@MamaMoose: agreed. I don't think this is, at least morally, as black and white as some of the comments above make it out to be. Legal precedent is another thing...
I actually agree with lots of people's points on here which to me just solidifies my thoughts that it's just complicated.
-
I kept my husband out of the room when I delivered. No regrets!
-
@Silva: I completely agree with what you've said in this thread about this being symptomatic of a lingering misogyny in our society.
I also don't believe that giving birth and having or not having certain preferences for yourself gives you the right/ability to dictate another woman's preferences.
Obviously, should any woman find herself in this situation, and want an ex in the room, they could choose to have him or her. But I'm glad that it's been legally established that the woman chooses who attends the birth.
-
@junebugmama: Like a PP asked later, though, what defines abuse in each case? And how much distress must a father's presence cause the mother before it's reasonable to allow her to keep him out of her room? I just think that there are far too many variables in each relationship that make it dangerous precedent to say "dads can force themselves into the delivery room except for x, y, or z situations."
@googly-eyes: And part of the reason I may come off so black and white (I'm assuming mine was one of comments you referenced because I was pretty firm on what I posted) is because I am an attorney, so I viewed this from the legal perspective first. The moral implications and fairness to both parents is a second consideration for me in this type of situation, the legal precedent is first (since this was framed under a lawsuit situation).
-
@loveisstrange: Exactly what you said.
-
@indi: ditto. Moral questions of "should she allow him there" are much harder (and maybe not for anyone else to judge?) than the legal "should there be a legal mechanism in which he can force his way in if she says no." I think people who litigate for a living are far less likely to trust the law the make case by case decisions.
-
@indi: honestly I don't remember who but that's fair enough.
the only b&w thing about this is the legal part but I felt like there were a lot of judgments being made about the dad as well. Maybe I'm just reading some of the comments wrong. I did skim a bunch.
-
@googly-eyes: @MamaMoose: Morally and legally are two different things (ETA: not that either one of you has missed this point at all!) . . . It is for these reasons--the recognition of that distinction-- that women now have access to, among other things, birth control and abortions. A woman has the right to protect and maintain her bodily integrity. That issue is absolutely black and white . . . how people feel about in certain situations, however, isn't. It is this situation exactly that clouded up the legal system (for decades!) and kept women from freely accessing the medical care they so desperately needed.
Thank jeebus Sandra Day O'Connor was a sitting Supreme during that time . . . but for her . . . *shudder*
-
One interesting update that I found out is that the man suing his ex in this story is a lawyer. =)
-
@MsLipGloss: no disagreement there...better safe than sorry in the delivery room.
the only b&w thing about this is the legal part but I felt like there were a lot of judgments being made about the dad as well. Maybe I'm just reading some of the comments wrong. I did skim a bunch.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
135 comments