Doesn't affect us, but still a good clarification (fathers allowed in delivery room)

LINK

A woman had to go to court to bar the father of the fetus from being in the delivery room.

Quote

Any interest a father has before the child’s birth is subordinate to the mother’s interests

Good. That kind of suit could have been just another chisel notch on the right of self-determination for women to have control of their bodies.

Childbirth, no matter how some might want to gussy it up as a miraculous, holy process, is just a medical procedure. The woman does not have to have anyone around other than those people absolutely vital to the successful conclusion of that procedure.

ETA: oops. suffered word dyslexia this morning. Need to slap myself awake before I post

I will never understand why these stupid women have children with men they have acrimonious relationships with. Court cases take time, surely this didn't all happen in the last two months of pregnancy! Abortion is the only sensible option, and yet these morons sign up for 18+ years of fighting with another idiot.

Quote
yurble
I will never understand why these stupid women have children with men they have acrimonious relationships with. Court cases take time, surely this didn't all happen in the last two months of pregnancy! Abortion is the only sensible option, and yet these morons sign up for 18+ years of fighting with another idiot.

From reading other articles, the couple had been estranged for some time, allegedly not communicating beyond a few inconsequential texts. There's more here

What the biofather claimed publicly seems to be at odds with what the judge ruled

Quote

Plotnick’s attorney, Laura Nunnink, said he never asked to be in the delivery room, only to be able to see the baby at the hospital as soon as possible after the birth.

We have no idea what sort of acrimonious private exchanges might have been held to take the case as far as it went.

Now, on the subject of women becoming pregnant ......

I wonder why a woman, knowing that she was going to be downsized before the end of the year, in a relationship with an equally work-challenged fellow, would decide to get pregnant? (true story of co-worker. she decided to use the downtime, while collecting unemployment and COBRA, to have a kid. what she would do when that ran out, she had no clue)

I don't know why a woman, married into a family of nutcases, with a spouse who is too afraid to stand up to them, would want to have a kid with him. You see plenty of that on the Mother-in-law stories forum; she now has nutty in-laws who interfer with raising the kid (including a MIL who throws a nuclear tantrum that she can't be in the delivery room).

I don't know why my sister, at the time that I'm buckling down and getting an education to pull myself out of my family's poverty hole - seemingly setting an example to her - would decide that she'd rather work at a minumum wage job, party, and be careless, getting pregnant.

I don't profess to understand, at all, the blithe mindset of some women in regard to pregnancy. Either in purposely getting pregnant, or allowing one to continue, knowing that the birth and subsequent childrearing will be endured under untenable circumstances.

I'm just glad that further erosion of a woman's right to autonomy in medical procedures was denied. I'm sure there are judges who might have gone the other way, even if it was explained to him/her that their ruling went against federal protection laws. We see enough of that with politicians attempting/succeeding in getting legislation passed that impedes on a woman's medical autonomy.

Quote
Dorisan
I wonder why a woman, knowing that she was going to be downsized before the end of the year, in a relationship with an equally work-challenged fellow, would decide to get pregnant? (true story of co-worker. she decided to use the downtime, while collecting unemployment and COBRA, to have a kid. what she would do when that ran out, she had no clue)

I chalk this up to Ticking Clock Syndrome with a dash of "Gawd Will Provide". I observed a similar thing happen with an ex-boyfriend. They were both in their early 30s, he had been unemployed for a while after a layoff but they decided to sprog anyway - I think she wanted to because of her age; he wanted to in order to "seal the deal" and thought a baybee would "prove their love" or something. Typically, they split up a year after baybee was born.

Quote
Dorisan
I'm just glad that further erosion of a woman's right to autonomy in medical procedures was denied. I'm sure there are judges who might have gone the other way, even if it was explained to him/her that their ruling went against federal protection laws. We see enough of that with politicians attempting/succeeding in getting legislation passed that impedes on a woman's medical autonomy.

Yes, I could understand your interest in the case. The question of Why??? was just the first thing that came to my mind.

Quote
yurble

Quote
Dorisan
I'm just glad that further erosion of a woman's right to autonomy in medical procedures was denied. I'm sure there are judges who might have gone the other way, even if it was explained to him/her that their ruling went against federal protection laws. We see enough of that with politicians attempting/succeeding in getting legislation passed that impedes on a woman's medical autonomy.

Yes, I could understand your interest in the case. The question of Why??? was just the first thing that came to my mind.

The reason is clear: Any case, where rights of a sperm donor over a fetus, are considered to be more important than the rights of the fetus' host, can be used to impede a woman's access to abortion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... what's one more once you've already got two shedding on the couch?"

Quote
trekkie monster

Quote
yurble

Quote
Dorisan
I'm just glad that further erosion of a woman's right to autonomy in medical procedures was denied. I'm sure there are judges who might have gone the other way, even if it was explained to him/her that their ruling went against federal protection laws. We see enough of that with politicians attempting/succeeding in getting legislation passed that impedes on a woman's medical autonomy.

Yes, I could understand your interest in the case. The question of Why??? was just the first thing that came to my mind.

The reason is clear: Any case, where rights of a sperm donor over a fetus, are considered to be more important than the rights of the fetus' host, can be used to impede a woman's access to abortion.

Excellent point.

But even if I've never been a childbearing female, cases that impact them piss me off at the thought that choices can be impeded by the whim of men or evil decisions by courts. It's a principle of "first they came for them ..."

Anyone familiar with the Bode Miller case?

Sara McKenna and Olympic skier Bode Miller entered into a brief relationship that ended with her being pregnant. From evidence KcKenna presented to the court, Miller did not want to be involved with the pregnancy and was not happy that she was going to continue the gestation.

Quote

“U made this choice against my wish,” according to a text she released from him.

McKenna decided to leave the west coast to attend school in New York. Her previous experience as a Marine and firefighter proved that she was a person who took responsibilities seriously, McKenna viewed Columbia College as an ideal place to continue her education. Miller, in the mean time, married. At some point (some believe because his new wife miscarried) Miller filed a petition in California to assume paternity of McKenna's child. McKenna, after the birth of her son, filed a petition for custody in New York to assure her rights to a child she bore in that state. A New York judge ruled against McKenna, sending the custody case back to California, saying " “her appropriation of the child while in utero was irresponsible, reprehensible.” Basically "how dare you remove your person to another state with this man's child in your body."

The California court took precedence, forcing McKenna to relinquish her child to Miller and his wife. In months to come, an arrangement was worked out between McKenna and Miller, returning the child to its mother and supposedly crafting a more amenable custody agreement.

While the story seems to have had an amicable ending, the notion of controlling a woman's freedom, because she is pregnant and her plans run cross to the wishes of the father of the fetus, with whom she no longer has a relationship, is scary.

I'm no fan of preggos, given their too-often entitled views, but their freedom of movement and right to make decisions that impact their own future cannot be taken away. It becomes a slippery slope that might well dictate further patriarchal views.

ETA: just like this asshole.

"...a wife should have sex with her husband — regardless of her “mood” — because it was one of the “mutual obligations” of being married. "

There was a time when the fathers had to wait outside of the delivery room and the baby was brought to them or they saw it behind glass. When did all that change?

Quote
JohnDrake
There was a time when the fathers had to wait outside of the delivery room and the baby was brought to them or they saw it behind glass. When did all that change?

Good question. I can't imagine my Dad--a combat veteran--would have even wanted to be in the delivery room with Mom. Of course, I was born in the mid 60's. I'm not sure whether my brothers had that option with their wives in the early 70's. Still doesn't seem like something one would want to watch, but who knows?

My sister and I were born in the mid and late 70s and my dad was in the delivery room for both of us. The woman is draped at the waist so the dudes don't see anything unless they want to. All my friends had the father's in the delivery room with their consent. Frankly, if a dude is such a delicate flower that he can't sit on his ass and hold the woman's hand instead of sitting on his ass in a lobby he shouldn't be making kids.

Well, I suppose that's true. I should clarify that Dad served in the ETO from June 1944 to November 1945 and saw action at the Bulge. A delicate flower he was not. Still, I know of some folks who have taken lots of photos of their sprog's birth and want to show said photos to everybody. Oh my.::brbl

My favorite comedienne wrote in her book, that in her opinion, men should stay away from the delivery room. " It's gotta be traumatic for a guy to see his favorite place in the world get 911'd. That hole you received so much pleasure from is now the size of a trash can lid."She's CF. Another comedian said:"It's like watching a wet St-Bernard trying to come in through the cat door." Every time they showed videos of birth during first aid class, I had to rush out of the room. ::brbl Three freaking times, as I worked for three different airlines. My opinion is, if a dude can avoid it, he should.
Oddly, animal births do not bother me as much.

I'm not completely certain this kind of ruling doesn't affect CF women. I don't think it was about concern for the loaf at all. It was about control over a woman. As was mentioned in a living room thread, how long before this kind of crap filters down to the CF?

Quote
satansbitch
I'm not completely certain this kind of ruling doesn't affect CF women. I don't think it was about concern for the loaf at all. It was about control over a woman. As was mentioned in a living room thread, how long before this kind of crap filters down to the CF?

'zactly. In protecting the right of autonomy to our bodies and sense of privacy, I'd align myself with a pregnant woman.

I forget which article had the comment, but one man said that he would divorce his wife if she denied him the right to be present at the birth of their child. Her feelings didn't matter, she was giving birth to 'his' child, therefore his wishes abrogated hers.

That's a marriage that would end, tout de suite, if the guy pulled that kind of high handed bullying on me.