These legal scenarios are quite frustrating, and many of these laws aren’t necessarily for the interest of the decision-maker, but just the institutions who want to be as far removed from legal responsibility as possible. You really think the reason why a manager that gets reported for telling a racist joke is fired the next day is because a company or corporation cares about promoting equality or feels moral outrage? No, they just don’t want legal liability that will force them to pony up millions in a lawsuit or a settlement. They also care about their image, hence why corporation issue public apologies, framed in the most emotionally insincere and soulless verbiage legally possible.
To play devil’s advocate, there are cases where having the father present at a birthing might not be wise. Physically and sexually abusive spouses who women don’t report, or cases where the prospective father has been intentionally neglectful; their presence would only cause further stress that a woman in labor would not want. I can imagine that the sight of the man who has been beating a pregnant spouse for months in order to force an abortion, is probably not the person a prospective mother would like to see during labor.
It would still be punishing millions of men on a potential"what if"though. That logic would also cause lots of problems down the line because statistically speaking women are the majority of child abusers/child killers so what if fathers petitioned to make it illegal for mothers be with their children alone without the fathers consent…that kind of policy wouldn’t fly anywhere and rightfully so. Personally I’d just prefer equitable rights between men and women as crazy as that sounds.
The depressing thing in all of this though is that barely any major news outlets are covering this and no one is really making a big deal of it…on the plus I can at least look forward to seeing 20+ articles telling me I should feel ashamed of myself due to my male privilege.
It was a joke in response to the idea that there’s some widespread feminization conspiracy.
Women are over half the population and account for a small percentage of those in power politically or monetarily.
I think men are doing OK on a societal level.
This is precisely why the patient has the final say.
Also, considering the child and mother’s biological well being are intertwined during birth, a father who really cared about his child should be doing everything possible to keep undue stress off the birthing mother.
Just so you guys know too, this law doesn’t just affect men. In the case of a surrogate mother (a women who is coming to term with a child that is biologically not hers), the birthing mother could request that the biological mother not be present for the birth. Because again, the birthing mother is the patient. The biological mother’s claim that she contributed half of the child’s genetic material doesn’t matter in this situation.
Theoretically the mothers could create some legally binding contract before hand to alter this, but as patient rights stand by default the birthing mother would have to forfeit those rights.
If by men you mean a tiny minority of the male population represented at the top levels of society then sure…but the remaining 99% might have something to say about being "ok on a societal level"particularly the significant portion of them currently comprising the majority of the homeless and suicide population.
Again this logic is withholding the rights of fathers under a assumption that would account for a scenario that is not likely to happen in the vast majority of cases. This logic would be no different then withholding childcare from mothers due the statistical evidence that women are by large most likely to commit child abuse…collectively denying rights to a entire demographic of people to preemptively avoid a crime comes off just a tiny bit bigoted and illegal IMO. Furthermore throwing in the whole"it doesn’t just effect men cause this applies with surrogate mothers too"line isn’t really gonna change the fact that this situation will overwhelming apply in a man/biological birth mother matter. As such this will disproportionately be a slam against fathers just by the sheer nature of most births. It’s kind of like saying"child support laws aren’t sexist cause some women have to pay too" even when we all know it’s clearly a situation far more men then women will have to deal with.
Going by the statement that a baby and mother are biologically intwined I suppose this just future supports my initial statement that mothers are the true parents while fathers are only fathers to the woman’s discretion. I never argued this was a fact which is why I also recommended that child support and legal paternal surrender laws be revised to align more logically with this reasoning.
This isn’t a 1% vs. the 99%. I’m talking about looking at the walls of virtually any political building or company and looking at the pictures of leadership.
Because this is ultimately a patient rights issue, it doesn’t specifically target men. The laws are merely being kept consistent across various healthcare procedures. Most medical procedures are not births, and men are just as likely to benefit from these laws as women.
You keep trying to put more into this than is actually there. There is a difference between the medical rights of a patient and the rights of a legal guardian.
Having a genetic claim to a child doesn’t change the fact that you are not the patient during the birthing process. After the medical procedures are done then the father can become a full legal guardian and have rights to be involved in the child’s future procedures. At that point the child will be the patient, not the mother.
In the grand scheme of things I do not think this is a huge deal as long as the father can see the child right after the birth is done. What I am more worried about are things like up to 40 pct of women lying to the “father” about who the actual child’s father is and quite a few hospitals hiding information from the father about the paternity of the child due to “women’s safety”. It is a pretty fucked up situation that most people do not realize.
Most men in society aren’t in any real position of power either, just a few exorbitantly wealthy hegemonic class of mostly white men (and to a lesser extent, women) who control everyone and augment the rules for their own personal interests. Not saying that sex discrimination doesn’t exist anymore, but the average Western man cannot impress any more power than any other citizen, and any attempt will certainly put them on society’s “zeitgeist hitlist”. (ban bossy!)
Now, in the Middle East, you could definitely say the average man has real power, and the effects it has on the female population is far more palpable.
The issue is that this legal power can be easily misused (like with the myriad of child welfare laws) to take away the rights of individuals who normally would have an equal right to assess the welfare of their child (especially financially). It’s just that being in the most litigious nation on earth has made ordinary situations like giving birth into a legal minefield. Laws like these will have grave implications on how people interact in the future.
A law written with good intentions doesn’t necessarily mean it will always do good for everyone.
So in other words the apex fallacy…inferring that because a tiny segment of the male population have powerful positions that by extension men as a class all thereby share in this power collectively. I’ll remember this logic anytime sometime tries to tell me black people don’t have it bad anymore cause the president is black. Maybe I’ll tell girls in 3rd world countries who lack even basic grade school education that they are doing"just fine"cause the majority of educators and graduates in 1st world countries are women…I’m sure this logic will be very comforting.
I’ve already stated that mothers are legally recognized as the only true parent under this policy so I’m not going to dispute the implications or meaning of this new law. I argue that morally it’s wrong to make the father a lesser parent and completely to the discretion of the mother (which in no way benefits men so it was a dumb comment to make no offence) and that this presents a problem for women who like about paternity, however ultimately the law has already made up its mind. My only point from the start of this thread has been to realign other aspects of the law to reflect the logic of this policy. Namely that because the child at this point is considered 1 with the mother and the same person (hence the patient argument) that it should also follow to allow men the freedom to completely walk away from women during this time without any burden of child support or any such paternal responsibility. I think if were going to come out and say"during the process of the gestation the child and mother are legally recognized as 1 person"we should consider the shift in tone this presents for other laws as it pertains to unborn children.
In theory, the dad should be able to experience and see the life that he helped to create. If it’s a matter of privacy, I wish the simple solution is to essentially blindfold the dad until the baby actually pops out.
But I’ve been to, seen, and actually participated in a lot of deliveries. While some are easy, others can be quite difficult on the mother. It’s obvious that when it comes to labor, 2 lives are at risk. Whatever makes it best to save those lives, I’m pretty much for it. If that means kicking the father out, then sure.
This isn’t about who gets to see the kid off at its first day of school, it’s to make sure the baby gets born with as little complications as possible.
All things being equal you would expect a sample to reflect the demographics of a population. If it doesn’t, there’s a good chance something else is going on. For example, blacks are about 13% of the US population. We would thus expect them to make up about 13% of people in prison or business owners (Spoiler: they don’t). Women consist of over half the world population.
Honestly, I think you’re just trying to be obstinate.
Holy fuck, you just repeat the same thing. This is the last time I’m going to say this: This is not guardianship issue. It’s a matter of patient rights. After the child is born a legal guardian has a right to be involved in the health care of the child. But the birthing process itself is a medical procedure.
Genetic investment does not trump patient rights, whether applied to a father or surrogate mother. The birthing mother is the patient.
This is not a new law. It’s been like this for quite some time. It is challenged from time to time, but I’ve never heard of it making much ground. The patient holds the legal high ground by a long shot.
Outside of the legalities, I don’t really understand the ethical grounds you’re trying to cite. The father wants to be there. Ok, to do what? To watch? To have peace of mind?
The mother is the one who is putting her life on the line. Her well being impacts the child’s well being. If you are not a member of the medical staff it falls on either the patient or the doctors in charge. Even if a patient is OK with someone being there for a procedure the doctor can still refuse entry. The medical staff still has a job to do, and their performance has an impact on the well being of both the mother and the child. If either decide you’re not to be a witness to the medical procedure, you aren’t.
Once birth is complete the child is a separate entity. Your logic of trying to maintain this mother-child bond to support delinquent fathers later on makes exactly no sense.
As far as them being seen as a single entity, that’s a whole other debate. No matter where you stand on this debate I think most can agree that by the time the child is being birthed they are an independent being.
Unless you present new points this will be my last response to you.
Christ. I’ve never seen such obtuse, unwarranted imbecilery when faced with perfectly reasonable posts. Ladies: SenninSRK doesn’t speak for all dudes. Don’t judge us all by his stupidity.
Anywho, the woman giving birth has every right to say “get out of the room.” She’s the one who did like 90%+ of the work in the pregnancy by virtue of it being her body what must be encumbered 24/7 for 9 months. The most supportive partner in the world (man or woman) doesn’t get to go “but my 10% of the heavy lifting means I get equal say” without looking like a SenninSRK-level brick. Like seriously guys, think about what you’re arguing.
I’ll agree that child support is kinda scammy, and while I’m all for a pregnant woman being considered the real parent and to hell with anyone else unless said woman gives her okay, I’m also all for child support not working the way it does now. Then again, not paying child support isn’t exactly hard or uncommon. Take that for whatever it’s worth.
You’re initial comment was"men are doing quite fine"by the logic that the majority of people in power are men. This is the apex fallacy because you’re making the assumption that “all men must be perfectly fine” because 1% of men are in power. If you’re willing to overlook the majority of men clustered amongst the middle/ bottom rung of society in favour of a few at the top…well it’s no different then saying women in improvised countries are doing just fine in regards to education because the majority of graduates and educators in developed nations are women. I’m only using you’re logic against you…if you don’t like it I suggest maybe revising you’re thoughts on the matter because this is how idiotic you’re assertion comes off.
Why you seem unwilling to state the obvious is beyond me…everything you just stated here affirms my earlier comment that under the law (especially during this time of gestation) the mother is seen as the 1 true parent while the father is completely her discretion. You can spin it in it in as many roundabout ways as you want but the bottom line is the bottom line…stop being so dishonest about it and just call it for what it is.
If you’re trying to argue against my point it would help if you didn’t help explicitly prove it lol. The mother will almost always be the patient…thus under the law she is the"1 true"parent"as I’ve stated again and again. You might want to re-read and clear you’re head a bit before replying this time because you seriously seem to either be intentionally overlooking what you’re own words means.
Be there for the woman he loves and the birth of his child…but hey why do I expect you to have any sympathy you’re the same person who casually overlooks the millions of men in truly horrific circumstances and just says"hey their all doing fine cause a few dozen white guys call the shots at the top."
So in other words she is the 1 true parent as I’ve stated and as you’ve done me the favour of proving…again each time you make points like this you’re just confirming my argument. When someone says women are the true legal parent during the gestation period it doesn’t help disprove them when you make arguments that assert this legal claim…like I said take some time and clear you’re head before making anymore replies.
Lmao why are they delinquent fathers…maybe some men just don’t want the burden of fatherhood. Moreover you’re ignoring the point and intentionally overlooking the implication of you’re argument. Ill point it out for you just to give you a fighting chance.
The child and baby are legally considered 1 during the period of gestation by you’re own admission. The argument that women should be granted patient rights due to the biology of pregnancy means that at the time of gestation the baby and her are for all intents and purposes a single person. This would mean that until a actual baby is birthed there is no reason to legally conscript men preemptively into fatherhood via child support because technically as you have so generously demonstrated for us the only legal entity who exist before birth is the mother. Unless the father makes a legal claim once the child is born I see no reason why a man can’t just walk out on a pregnant woman…after all he’s only walking out on her (a single entity and all) and as far as I can tell it isn’t illegal to walk out on a woman so it seems perfectly fair. She gets patient rights because the baby and her are 1 and the man gets the mobility to remove himself from the woman because he has no legal obligations to her…equality swings both ways babe.
A
So lets review here.
-You say all men are fine because a tiny minority are represented at the top yet happily ignore the remaining % of men at the mid/bottom
-you say women who are pregnant are a single legal entity and as such deserve patient rights yet contradict this point when it comes to the issue of legal paternal surrender
-you refuse to acknowledge this policy legally recognizes mothers as the only true parent during the process of gestation in spite of making post that do nothing but affirm this status
In conclusion my last genuine response to all you’re ramblings and nonsense is…wtf are you serious?
Matriarch contradicts her own logic and believes men are collectively fine because a few of them are at the top…if you seriously have no problems with men being considered lesser parents and women being the true legal parents cause"she is doing all the work"then at least have the honesty to call it for what it is as opposed to these roundabout justifications.
I’d also ask to be a equal opportunist with this logic and apply it to all areas of childcare…not just the ones that benefit woman.
Why are you completely ignoring the part where Matriarch talks about the hypothetical situation of surrogate mothers and the delivery room? She’s saying it doesn’t matter if it’s the father or not, or if the doctors kick out a person in the room (like say if the mother/patient wants 5 people in the delivery room with her). Point is that whatever is making the delivery more stressful or complicated, it should be removed. If it’s the father who’s making the delivery stressful, distracting, and harder for the patient to deliver the baby, then he should be removed from the delivery room.
But whatever. I can’t wait to have this happen to you and your future first and only kid because your wife couldn’t perform vaginal delivery, had to do emergency c-section, there was uncontrollable bleeding and had to do emergency hysterectomy. All because you wanted to see the baby pop out.
Yes, I’m being overly dramatic. But if a woman can’t push her baby out, they’ll have to eventually do a c-section, which carries its own risks and one of them leads to hysterectomy.
I’d rather deal with the statistical reality and the logic this argument presents. I also don’t take someone seriously who is willing to attribute the success and status of a tiny minority to a entire population…just saying.’
While I do appreciate your agenda of equaling the rights, this is isn’t about mother vs. father. This is about patient safety vs. stressful situations.
Again I have no issue with the concept of women being the sole legally recognized parent. I just ask this concept be applied across all spectrums of childcare…I also ask there to be a safeguard in place to prevent women who lie about the fathers.
Does a person being in the same room as the delivery have a positive or negative effect of the delivery itself? That depends on a few things, but mainly how the patient feels. If it helps, then by all means stay in there and help her through the delivery. If it’s a negative impact and causes even extra stress on a difficult delivery, then it’s worsening the outcome. By merely being in the room, that person is threatening the life of both the mother and the child that’s going to be born. Doesn’t matter if it’s the father, grandmother, sister, etc.
If you can’t understand that, then I don’t know what else to say.
Meh, men haven’t had rights to children for awhile in the US. Every male family attorney I’ve ever met tells me they’ll never get married (again) after practicing family law for awhile.
But what makes this pretty funny is something I’ve mentioned awhile ago. People think these Arab countries are oppressive to women, and they are in parts, but the feminization is the same everywhere. This guy is just as liberal as any other feminist judge. And that is why this Islamaphobia thing is so funny. Feminism will destroy them even quicker than the US.
One of the reasons they pushed Obamacare so hard is because if you’ve ever seen these hospitals their delivery rooms are better than any hotel you’ll ever see. They have huge big screen TVs and the rooms are gigantic. It’s like living in a palace. Somebody has to pay for that stuff, because women certainly don’t feel they should have to. So forcing men to pay for it will work out for awhile, until the various special interests want more money anyway. Which always will be sooner rather than later.
I really don’t get why men get married. If you’re going to get married, at least make sure the woman actually is devoted to you. I don’t know why these dipshits get married, both sides hate each other in so many marriages. It’s like…do you even know each other?
Feminism is great, because it actually makes not getting married an option. Most women refused to put out before feminism came along. You’d have to get married first, and then you were stuck because divorce was hard to get and there usually were social stigmas associated with it. Now women put out for free and make it a real option to get pretty good diversity and no strings attached sex. In all honesty I think it’s worth the trade off. Only the stupid men get burned, and frankly they deserve it for being so damn stupid. The best part is if you don’t get married, as a man, your expenses are pretty low and you can retire pretty damn early.
If people would bother to read the article and its legal implications they would realize this policy isn’t just in effect for delivery rooms but personal health information regarding the pregnancy in general which is why I and someone else brought up the possibility of paternity fraud potentially becoming legalized by this practice.
I already stated I have no issues with fathers being treated like lesser parents so long as the logic of this policy is extending to other areas such as legal paternal surrender. If this isn’t a point you or any other people on this thread can understand then fine.