Father's rights

[I AM R U]

Mister George Kapland

Im just going to assume I'm the only one whose had a child in this entire conversation, and the rest of you are speaking from ignorance.

Was I there for the birth? Yes.
Would I have been pissed if I wasn't allowed in the room? Yes.
Did I really miss anything? No, not really.

Its really rather irrelevent as to whether any of us has children or not - it will largely be legal matter, not a "I'm a father and therefore I say XYZ".

Anyway, at least one court has spoken, and it makes sense - just because its a child being born doesn't mean the patients health and well-being stops being a consideration.

[Jessi Danger]

The Herald of War

Jessi Danger

Viscount

Dermezel2

How about be a man and just leave when she asks? It would be the honorable and respectable course of action.

How about you drop the gender-role shaming and accept that a father has the right to experience the birth of his child?

Now, for extreme situations, such as that shared by Chahklet, obviously we would have to make exceptions. If the mother feels the father presents a reasonable danger, then yes, the doctors should bar him from the room. However, the mother should be legally liable for making a fallacious claim such as that without any substantial evidence, if the father chooses to seek redress for the wrong. Otherwise, no, there is no reason to deny the father the same rights. His genetic material is present and he has automatic responsibilities to the child, so he has automatic rights to it as well.

Now, back to Dermezel: Using a specific group of abhorrent radicals to strawman an entire gender is incredibly cheap. It's almost like, I don't know, using Fred Phelps to demonize the entirety of organized religion.

I think someones should have to prove a clear and present danger. Not simply "Feel," threatened.

Jesse the liar thinks that women don't deserve a right to privacy from a dude that got them pregnant unless they can prove they're threatened. Even while undergoing a stressful procedure in a hospital.

Herald the troll doesn't appear to have a real opinion.

[Henrika]

Chahklet

Henrika

Chahklet

Fermionic

Yes

No, the details on a child's birth certificate have no relevance to the wishes of the mother, or father.

Currently a mother can decide not to put the father's name on the birth certificate. I did not put my lil girl's fathers name on the certificate because he is a violent man. Therefore he has no automatic rights to the child.

yeah but for health/family medical history type reasons?

I'm confused. What is the question?

Why wouldn't you put the child's full history on the birth certificate in case of medical family history issues?

[I Wake Up Early]

Quote:

"The father should be allowed in the room, because father."

That's not a ******** argument, and you should be ashamed for pretending it is.

I dunno, I think being the father is kind of a good argument to be in a room during a critical medical procedure involving your child.

[I Wake Up Early]

Henrika

Chahklet

Henrika

Chahklet

Fermionic

Yes

No, the details on a child's birth certificate have no relevance to the wishes of the mother, or father.

Currently a mother can decide not to put the father's name on the birth certificate. I did not put my lil girl's fathers name on the certificate because he is a violent man. Therefore he has no automatic rights to the child.

yeah but for health/family medical history type reasons?

I'm confused. What is the question?

Why wouldn't you put the child's full history on the birth certificate in case of medical family history issues?

I'd assume it sets a precedent for visitation, but I'm not from the states so I can't confirm that.

[And_Then_She_Snapped]

Chahklet

Do you think a mother should be able to kick a father from the delivery room even if they are still together?

Do you think a mother should have the ability to decide if a father's name should be on the birth certificate?

Personally, only speaking for myself:

Unless they posed a risk to my life or the child's life/well being, I would not kick the guy out even if I hated his guts and wanted to kill him.

Not to mention that it takes two to make a child so it would be good if the guy was in there with me, sharing my pain through that death grip I have on his arm lol.

With the amount of doctors and nurses that are already in the delivery room seeing my junk and helping with the birth, what's one more person? Someone who wants to be in a delivery room should be commended. I've witnessed births and let me tell you, as a woman I don't even want to see my delivery when I have a child.


The Answer To Both Questions:

In general? No not unless the guy poses a threat/risk to the woman's or the child's health/life.

EDIT: But every pregnancy situation is different.

[I AM R U]

I Wake Up Early

Quote:

"The father should be allowed in the room, because father."

That's not a ******** argument, and you should be ashamed for pretending it is.

I dunno, I think being the father is kind of a good argument to be in a room during a critical medical procedure involving your child.

The procedure is, primarily, on the mother - her rights as a patient come before the man's rights as the father. His rights really only come in once the child is actively born, and once the child is a person entirely separate from the mother.

[I Wake Up Early]

I AM R U

I Wake Up Early

Quote:

"The father should be allowed in the room, because father."

That's not a ******** argument, and you should be ashamed for pretending it is.

I dunno, I think being the father is kind of a good argument to be in a room during a critical medical procedure involving your child.

The procedure is, primarily, on the mother - her rights as a patient come before the man's rights as the father. His rights really only come in once the child is actively born, and once the child is a person entirely separate from the mother.

Primarily on the mother, sure, but you can't deny it's a major medical event in the child's life. At what point is the child completely separate? When it's crowning? When it's completely removed from the birth canal? When the cord is cut?

[I AM R U]

I Wake Up Early

I AM R U

I Wake Up Early

Quote:

"The father should be allowed in the room, because father."

That's not a ******** argument, and you should be ashamed for pretending it is.

I dunno, I think being the father is kind of a good argument to be in a room during a critical medical procedure involving your child.

The procedure is, primarily, on the mother - her rights as a patient come before the man's rights as the father. His rights really only come in once the child is actively born, and once the child is a person entirely separate from the mother.

Primarily on the mother, sure, but you can't deny it's a major medical event in the child's life. At what point is the child completely separate? When it's crowning? When it's completely removed from the birth canal? When the cord is cut?

I believe when the cord is cut would be generally accepted, but that's mostly speculation
..

[I Wake Up Early]

I AM R U

I Wake Up Early

I AM R U

I Wake Up Early

Quote:

"The father should be allowed in the room, because father."

That's not a ******** argument, and you should be ashamed for pretending it is.

I dunno, I think being the father is kind of a good argument to be in a room during a critical medical procedure involving your child.

The procedure is, primarily, on the mother - her rights as a patient come before the man's rights as the father. His rights really only come in once the child is actively born, and once the child is a person entirely separate from the mother.

Primarily on the mother, sure, but you can't deny it's a major medical event in the child's life. At what point is the child completely separate? When it's crowning? When it's completely removed from the birth canal? When the cord is cut?

I believe when the cord is cut would be generally accepted, but that's mostly speculation
..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_birth

It's all arbitrary. If the child is going to be born, and way past the point of abortion, it's pretty logical to consider it a child, there's no real physiological difference like 2 seconds before it's out, and when it's out.

There are calls that need to be made concerning the child's well being occasionally in child birth, if I have a right to see my son when he broke his arm (in a case where likely no dad will have anything useful to contribute beyond "he fell off his bike" unless he's a doctor), I don't see why I don't have a right to see his birth, just because more than 1 person is involved.

[I AM R U]

I Wake Up Early

I AM R U

I Wake Up Early

I AM R U

I Wake Up Early

Quote:

"The father should be allowed in the room, because father."

That's not a ******** argument, and you should be ashamed for pretending it is.

I dunno, I think being the father is kind of a good argument to be in a room during a critical medical procedure involving your child.

The procedure is, primarily, on the mother - her rights as a patient come before the man's rights as the father. His rights really only come in once the child is actively born, and once the child is a person entirely separate from the mother.

Primarily on the mother, sure, but you can't deny it's a major medical event in the child's life. At what point is the child completely separate? When it's crowning? When it's completely removed from the birth canal? When the cord is cut?

I believe when the cord is cut would be generally accepted, but that's mostly speculation
..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_birth

It's all arbitrary. If the child is going to be born, and way past the point of abortion, it's pretty logical to consider it a child, there's no real physiological difference like 2 seconds before it's out, and when it's out.

There are calls that need to be made concerning the child's well being occasionally in child birth, if I have a right to see my son when he broke his arm (in a case where likely no dad will have anything useful to contribute beyond "he fell off his bike" unless he's a doctor), I don't see why I don't have a right to see his birth, just because more than 1 person is involved.

Until the child is actually born, every decision regarding it must also take into account the mother's bodily integrity - its impossible to separate the two. However, once the child is born, it becomes its own legal entity, to which the father's parental rights may no longer come into conflict with.

[I Wake Up Early]

I AM R U

I Wake Up Early

I AM R U

I Wake Up Early

I AM R U

The procedure is, primarily, on the mother - her rights as a patient come before the man's rights as the father. His rights really only come in once the child is actively born, and once the child is a person entirely separate from the mother.

Primarily on the mother, sure, but you can't deny it's a major medical event in the child's life. At what point is the child completely separate? When it's crowning? When it's completely removed from the birth canal? When the cord is cut?

I believe when the cord is cut would be generally accepted, but that's mostly speculation
..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_birth

It's all arbitrary. If the child is going to be born, and way past the point of abortion, it's pretty logical to consider it a child, there's no real physiological difference like 2 seconds before it's out, and when it's out.

There are calls that need to be made concerning the child's well being occasionally in child birth, if I have a right to see my son when he broke his arm (in a case where likely no dad will have anything useful to contribute beyond "he fell off his bike" unless he's a doctor), I don't see why I don't have a right to see his birth, just because more than 1 person is involved.

Until the child is actually born, every decision regarding it must also take into account the mother's bodily integrity - its impossible to separate the two. However, once the child is born, it becomes its own legal entity, to which the father's parental rights may no longer come into conflict with.

The father being present has nothing to do with the mother's bodily integrity. He is not invading her body by being there. Also, separating the two is kind of what they're there for. The line for "born" is pretty arbitrary.

[Nadira]

Depends on the circumstances leading up to Question #1 and #2.

[Shama_okami]

1. Yes
2. No

[Nadira]

Henrika

Chahklet

Henrika

Chahklet

Fermionic

Yes

No, the details on a child's birth certificate have no relevance to the wishes of the mother, or father.

Currently a mother can decide not to put the father's name on the birth certificate. I did not put my lil girl's fathers name on the certificate because he is a violent man. Therefore he has no automatic rights to the child.

yeah but for health/family medical history type reasons?

I'm confused. What is the question?

Why wouldn't you put the child's full history on the birth certificate in case of medical family history issues?

No. To protect the child from a violent father, omitting the father's name from the certificate is the right move to make. There are now many health screenings for different diseases, and if the mother has model lifestyle habits, the child could come out relatively healthy.

A close friend of mine doesn't know his father, and he is not listed on his birth records. His father wasn't a good person, and to protect her son, his mother omitted him. He's grown up to be a respectable young man.

Another friend of mine (not so close), had an abusive father. Her mother felt guilty (battered women syndrome), and put his name on her child's birth certificate. The child eventually looked him up, reconnected with him, and learned exactly WHY her mother left him. Men who abuse women don't change.