Skip to main content

The New Jersey Law Journal reports today that in what appears to be a case of first impression for the entire United States, a New Jersey Superior Court judge has ruled that a father of an unborn child has no right to be informed when the mother is in labor or to be present at the birth of the child.

In a completely logical extension of right to privacy and a woman's right to control over her body and her pregnancy, Superior Court Judge Soheil Mohammed denied the "putative father" (presumably no paternity testing had yet been done) the right to be in the delivery room over the mother's objection. The parents involved were unmarried and estranged. In his opinion published yesterday, Judge Mohammed found:

"A finding in favor of plaintiff for both notification and forced entry into the delivery room would in fact be inconsistent with existing jurisprudence on the interests of women in the children they carry pre-birth," he wrote in Plotnick v. DeLuccia.

"It would create practical concerns where the father's unwelcomed presence could cause additional stress on the mother and child. Moreover, such a finding would also lead to a slippery slope where the mother's interest could be subjugated to that of the father's."

NJ Law Journal

The opinion is a logical extension of existing law, but so heartening in this age of attacks on women's rights to privacy and bodily integrity.
Mohammed, who sits in Passaic County, held a hearing Nov. 19, 2013, in which DeLuccia participated telephonically from the hospital, where she had gone into labor. He denied the relief from the bench. DeLuccia delivered the child later the same day.

Mohammed cited the doctrine of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), that women have the right to control their bodies during pregnancy. He also cited Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), which struck down a state law requiring married women to notify their husbands before having an abortion.

In addition, the New Jersey [Appellate Division] held in Kinsella v. NYT Television, 382 N.J. Super 102 (2005), that disclosure of a patient's hospital admission to the [press] would violate the New Jersey Hospital Patient Bill of Rights.NJ Law Journal

The father brought an emergency motion; the mother participated in the hearing by phone, while in labor!

Last night I went to sleep after reading reports of: 1. The student-posted "rape guide" website which has already targeted two women who were then raped at Dartmouth College; and 2. A Louisiana (Democratic, female!) legislator's proposal that the state keep a record of women who take the morning-after pill.

This morning I wake up to find that at least someone somewhere understands how to treat women as human beings.

1:18 PM PT: Hey peeps thanks for the recs - knew it would be a hot topic. I edited my comment about Dartmouth based the additional information some of you provided.

As heated as some of the comments get here, they're nothing to the haters who have weighed in on the NJ Law Journal article. Don't read those if you value your blood pressure.  

Originally posted to nutmegan on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Feminism, Pro-Feminism, Womanism: Feminist Issues, Ideas, & Activism, Sexism and Patriarchy, and Abortion.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (218+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nuclear winter solstice, wilderness voice, tardis10, Actbriniel, JeffW, CwV, mikidee, Cassandra Waites, Tamar, middleagedhousewife, gchaucer2, terrybuck, Dodgerdog1, lexalou, Lost and Found, The Jester, GreenMother, Susipsych, Most Awesome Nana, lunachickie, LinSea, howabout, bewareofme, Hayate Yagami, Arahahex, bakeneko, eru, La Gitane, musicsleuth, oslyn7, wintergreen8694, kat herder, Siri, susans, marina, Gowrie Gal, thomask, AnnieR, LSophia, Babsnc, No one gets out alive, Pandora, sfarkash, jan4insight, doingbusinessas, elfling, Avilyn, Penny GC, Nespolo, happymisanthropy, prettygirlxoxoxo, Calamity Jean, DeminNewJ, agiftagain, ZenTrainer, majcmb1, Radiowalla, bleeding blue, psnyder, tobendaro, hubcap, RandomNonviolence, wader, peacestpete, celdd, Laurel in CA, sgrAstar, CorinaR, Themistoclea, GeorgeXVIII, Eyesbright, TokenLiberal, Lujane, kimoconnor, IL clb, Heart of the Rockies, OldDragon, EastcoastChick, Brooke In Seattle, martydd, edsbrooklyn, NonnyO, mamamorgaine, allensl, Elizaveta, JoanMar, Marihilda, oortdust, awhitestl, Statusquomustgo, jhb90277, kerflooey, CPT Doom, cpresley, metal prophet, Helena Handbag, anodnhajo, twigg, Lost Left Coaster, doroma, greengemini, SneakySnu, AllanTBG, grover, i saw an old tree today, Aaa T Tudeattack, Liberal Mole, Catherine R, Nannyberry, Denise Oliver Velez, opinionated, exiledfromTN, VA Breeze, ratcityreprobate, Agathena, CA Nana, roses, postmodernista, vahana, GrannyRedBird, Sun Tzu, PhilJD, Catte Nappe, BluejayRN, filby, emmasnacker, PatConnors, zerelda, Josiah Bartlett, gypsytoo, nupstateny, NYWheeler, atana, kathny, AJayne, get the red out, FogCityJohn, nomandates, moviemeister76, sngmama, asterkitty, Batya the Toon, TheMomCat, sb, temptxan, vivadissent, mikejay611, CS in AZ, splashy, Railfan, tonyahky, cai, ColoTim, mslat27, mrkvica, desert rain, BlackSheep1, OllieGarkey, crose, arlene, Blue Bell Bookworm, enhydra lutris, Chaddiwicker, Stein, Louisiana 1976, karmsy, Rogneid, alice kleeman, where4art, Denny in Seattle, slowbutsure, Lily O Lady, sobermom, lotlizard, AaronInSanDiego, meg, Hastur, Joy of Fishes, Chi, klompendanser, royce, Brian1066, kcc, Ginny in CO, devis1, shesaid, denise b, BobBlueMass, CenPhx, radical simplicity, eeff, Foothills of Oblivion, JourneyInside, MRA NY, white blitz, Mathazar, myboo, ginimck, jodylanec, Safina, SphericalXS, Silvia Nightshade, Arkenstark, raspberryberet, Carojay, okpkpkp, mercedeslackey, gardnerhill, nyhcmaven84, kirnerpilstime, Flying Goat, ChariD, Voiceless, gooderservice, FindingMyVoice, SherrieLudwig, MyOwnReality, wishingwell

    "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."~~~ Horace Mann

    by nutmegan on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:00:00 AM PDT

  •  thank you for that. I live near Dartmouth and have (25+ / 0-)

    been trying to mentally block that story and file it under un-be-leeve-able. I've been waiting to see if it would make national news. (I don't facebook, I just wait for this stuff to bubble up to the surface.)

    We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

    by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:09:40 AM PDT

  •  Will Dad still have (13+ / 0-)

    financial obligations?

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:15:10 AM PDT

    •  Yes Dad will have rights & obligations after birth (69+ / 0-)

      This does not change existing law about parental rights & responsibilities - he will have full rights to share legal custody, have parenting time, and he will have financial obligations. This ruling only goes to the private nature of the birth itself.  

      "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."~~~ Horace Mann

      by nutmegan on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:22:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This varies by state. Legal rights are NOT (5+ / 0-)

        "automatically" granted to the father even if paternity has been established. In Massachusetts for example, legal custody is only awarded to the father if the parents are legally married. Otherwise the father would have to file a petition in court to have the legal rights granted after the fact.  

        Somos América, nuestros números lo dicen!

        by HGM MA on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:18:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If he has financial obligations, then he should (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mconvente, chrisculpepper

        have the right to be there at the birth. Maybe not hands on, looking at anything private, but be there somehow.

        My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

        by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 02:58:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whoa! (20+ / 0-)

          So wrong on so many levels.  Your comment seems to imply that viewing the birth is a commodity that can be paid for.  I'm really aghast at the cluelessness of some of the comments on this thread.

          It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

          by Radiowalla on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:08:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm getting the vapors!! Such cluelessness!!! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mconvente, chrisculpepper

            Hey, we women want it both ways, and it's not fair. Basic fairness. He should be able to participate in some way. I said not where her privacy is invaded, but something. He's the father.

            My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

            by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:23:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They are not married, and they are estranged. (13+ / 0-)

              Even if they were married, if he was abusive or posed any sort of danger to the mother or child, physical or psychological,  the mother or her agent is justified in barring him.

              Fatherhood, nor motherhood for that matter, will not automagically turn someone into all sweetness and light.

              •  You are now changing your argument (5+ / 0-)

                to one about people changing.

                This is so frustrating. It is not a subject we can discuss logically, because it is an emotional subject. This is how I see it:

                1. Man and woman get pregnant
                2. Woman has total say over what to do with the pregnancy; man has no say and no control
                3. Woman has abortion; man may be very opposed to this, but he has no say (and while I would be distraught if one of my sons' girlfriends had an abortion, I would understand that the decision is her's to make.)
                or
                Woman has baby. Man has no say in this. Man has to pay for 21 years.

                Number 3 shows how irrationally we view sex, birth, abortion, everything about the whole situation. I get it's the woman's choice. But that baby is his too. And he will have financial responsibility for that baby. And maybe, just maybe, wants that baby so much he wants to be there when that baby is born. I agree, he doesn't have the right to do so. But that he is willing to go to court to fight for that right doesn't, in my view, make him an evil stalker. It makes him a very concerned, emotional person over a huge event. And that's why I hate this "hate the man" brand of feminism I see here all of the time.

                And before you call me all sorts of anti-feminist names, I am old enough to remember when women couldn't have abortions, and old enough to know the names of the women who fought for us to have equal rights, which is much more that a lot of the younger women on this site know, I bet.

                My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

                by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:58:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You said (17+ / 0-)
                  If he has financial obligations, then he should (0+ / 0-)
                  have the right to be there at the birth.
                  The diary and the discussion about the court case concern whether the father has the right to attend the birthing process.  It is not about child support or abortion rights or anything else.   You stated that if he is going to have to pay to support the child, he should have the right to watch the birth.  

                  As I said before, watching a woman give birth is not a commodity that can be purchased.  It is mother's right and hers alone to decide about this.  

                  It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                  by Radiowalla on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:16:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I said he has the right to "be there" at the birth (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    chrisculpepper, aratinga

                    Not watch it. And then I said that he shouldn't be where he would be invading her privacy. So maybe he could be right outside and able to see the baby a few minutes after birth.

                    And I do agree that who is there is up to Mom. I just don't think he should be totally chilled out of the birth experience.

                    My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

                    by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 05:16:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He has no such right, and you're not addressing (6+ / 0-)

                      the arguments. You argued that he has such a right because he pays money. The response was that it's not a commodity. You agree but go back to claiming there's such a right. You  have no legitimate argument to that effect.

                    •  Sorry, he gave up "being there" to be in court (0+ / 0-)

                      trying to control her.  If he truly loved the child he would want the mother as calm and the birth as peaceful as possible.  It should have been his first opportunity to put his child's needs before his own.  Big fail there.  Incidentally, his understanding and support of the mother and child's needs at that time would have gone a long way perhaps to facilitate reconciliation between them.

                  •  SOME men (6+ / 0-)

                    "that's why I hate this 'hate the man' brand of feminism I see here all of the time."

                    Feminists don't hate ALL men. Just the jerks who would try to force themselves on women (rapists), force themselves into a birth (control freaks), force themselves into the decision whether or not to carry a baby to term (I wish anti-abortion men would just STFU about a matter that's not their decision to make...).

                    Women are not farm animals. Men who think they should be allowed to force a woman to have and/or carry a baby are treating women like animals. It's a privilege to father a child. Someone who wants to force their way into everything might not always receive that privilege. Men just have sex; women grow another life inside their bodies. Yes it's your DNA, but that's not going to be the way it happens forever. Soon, two women will be able to merge their DNA into a viable ovum. Deal with it.

                    When you can get pregnant, we'll all agree that you get to make the decision to terminate or continue that pregnancy, AND decide who will be present at the birth.

                •  KBJones (7+ / 0-)

                  The facts of biology, specifically sexual reproduction, are not intrinsically fair.  No one claimed they were.  This is neither good, nor bad.  It simply IS.  

                •  Just as (5+ / 0-)

                  cutting the baby in half is not a solution, sometimes there simply is no way to accommodate the opposing interests of two different people.

                  The woman is the one who has to carry and give birth to the baby. I don't see an alternative to her needs taking precedence.

                •  CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT (11+ / 0-)

                  Well written.  I am also of the age when abortions were performed with a coat hanger.  I am also a woman who fought to legalize abortion.  Only a women can make decisions about her body, not even a husband.

                •  You're right, you can't discuss it logically. nt (0+ / 0-)
                •  If a man doesn't want to pay (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Silina

                  maybe he should try being a little bit more picky where he plants his seed. Maybe his mom and dad should have made it a priority to teach him better. Or maybe the dna that runs in a particular family has the rabbit breeding gene in it and can't be taught responsibility and control.
                  Kidding aside ...
                  Personal responsibility, it's not just for women and a few responsible men. It should be a requirement for all.
                  And age is just a number. Mine is 53. Big deal, right?

                •  You got your #1 wrong (6+ / 0-)

                  Men and women don't get pregnant.

                  Women get pregnant.  Women get total say over what to do with the pregnancy.

                  I am fascinated that you actually use the word "control" when you say "man has no say and no control".  Because "control" over women is a big thing for men's rights groups and conservatives.

                  I'm probably older than you.  My mom sat me down when I was about ten or twelve and told me about a young man in her neighborhood when she was a girl, he was going off to fight World War II.  He had a girlfriend and pressured her into having sex with him, telling her he might get killed fighting Nazis and it was the only chance they had to be together.  He left, and she found she was pregnant.  She had an illegal abortion and died in her bedroom in a pool of blood, probably too afraid and ashamed to ask for help.  He came back, married another girl, they had kids, he bought the gas station up the corner from where I lived.  

                  Everyone knew what happened, but nobody had a problem welcoming him back from the war or buying his gas, treating him like a neighbor.  The two lovers did exactly the same thing and she paid for her "moral transgression" with her life.  He had an orgasm and a good life with some other woman.  That's because ONLY WOMEN GET PREGNANT.

                  You keep talking about "fair", so I'm guessing you think you have a good bead on what basic fairness looks like.  But I don't think you do.  I don't think the scope of your vision of what's going on is big enough to see the essential fairness of what the judge decided.  Fortunately, the judge did.

                •  You play (3+ / 0-)

                  Then you pay, that's how it goes. If a man impregnates a woman, and he "does not want her to have an abortion," then perhaps he should have worn a condom, as no pregnancy, no need for abortion. A man or any person, for that matter, has no right over another person's body.

                •  Some men... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Calamity Jean, MyOwnReality

                  who would go to court over their "right" to be present at their child's birth MIGHT be concerned or emotional.  But, they might also be controlling & manipulative.  You say it is his right to be present, a right he is assured because of the financial responsibility he is about to incur.  I suggest that his rights are (& forever will be) secondary to the rights & needs of his child; in this case his child's need to be born with as little stress & anxiety as possible.  Children are NOT chattel.  They do not belong to us, but are entrusted to our care.

            •  It has been awhile since I had a baby but... (10+ / 0-)

              There is NO way to be there and participate without violating her privacy. Childbirth is not a clean draped procedure with nothing showing.

            •  Well, I sure would like it "both ways", (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Silina, GrandmaTess, Calamity Jean

              which is to say, wouldn't it be totally fair if men could carry and birth a child, too?  All the same pain and discomfort, messed-up body, blood and feces squirting, and potential loss of life.  But I guess they can't, and that's not fair, no basic fairness at all!  So to balance it out, the only people who get to be in the delivery room or observing the delivery room during a difficult and dangerous time for a woman is whoever she chooses to allow to attend.  No intruders if she says no intruders!

              He has responsibilities to his child and rights to see his child, but that does not equate to rights to view the mother's body while she is giving birth.  It's two entirely different things and very, very fair.

              •  My mother used to say... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chinton, Calamity Jean

                If men and women had to take turns carrying and giving birth to a child. No family would ever have more than two children if the man had to have the first one. No man would voluntarily go through pregnancy more than once. Of course, that is impossible, so women can and do have several children.
                Take the case of Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned all five of her children. She was married to a fundamentalist Christian who, by authority of the Bible, had total control over everything, including his wife's body. After her third child, she had post-partum depression (PPD) and the doctors advised them to not have any more children. Randy Yates not only forced his wife to have two more children, but also within a short time period. Randy KNEW his wife was suffering from severe PPD when he left her alone with the children to go to work instead of waiting for his mother-in-law who usually stayed with Andrea and the children. She was running late that morning. Andrea had too much on her plate even without PPD. Now, Andrea is in an institution (the DA tried to get her the death penalty) and Randy is remarried and has more children.
                That, dear friends, is why a WOMAN must have control of her body. If she had been allowed to take birth control after the third child, three precious babies would still be alive. If the birth control failed, she and her doctor would decide if another pregnancy was safe for her psychologically as well as physically.
                It also illustrates why the government of Texas and many other states are being pro-BIRTH, but NOT pro-LIFE, by throwing up every barrier they can to getting a safe, legal abortion. Current Texas law requires an ultra-sound, which must be done vaginally, so the woman is forced to see what her baby looks like. That is rape with an object. Someone in as fragile a state as Andrea would have been totally traumatized by this with a very real possibility of suicide and/or murder.

            •  BTW, "the vapors" is a reference to abdominal gas. (0+ / 0-)

              Specifically, gassy as in farting, not gassy as in burping.

              •  No, the "vapors" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dconrad

                was a very old term used to describe fainting. It dates back to the 19th century.

              •  sorry, but that is incorrect. (0+ / 0-)

                While vapors can be odors here is the original Victorian meaning of the term "a case of the vapors."  Courtesy of Wikipedia:
                The term referring to illnesses known as the vapours (or vapors) is an archaic form for certain mental or physical states,[1] such as hysteria, mania, clinical depression, bipolar disorder, fainting, withdrawal syndrome, mood swings or PMS, ascribed primarily to women and thought to be caused by internal emanations. This is related to the similar term female hysteria. Vapours were considered to be the female equivalent to melancholy found in men.  end quote

                And remember that women wore tightly laced corsets which often caused them to faint as well.  I would be hysterical due to claustrophobia in that case.

            •  Sperm donor, not father (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GrandmaTess

              Perhaps she wants to release that child for adoption, and she should be able to do so, without the consent of the "so called father." They were estranged, not married, and perhaps he was abusive. It is still her body that carried that fetus to term. She is the one to make the decisions.

              •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                The law does not always agree with this...  If she has named a father, he will usually have to consent to the adoption...  Or raise the child himself, if he is suitable.  (If he is not, she could challenge his fitness.  But, if paternity is established, she'd better be able to back up her claims.)

            •  So rapists should have the right to be present... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Calamity Jean

              ...at the birth of "their" children?  That's the logical extension of what you're saying.

        •  Financial obligations would not (9+ / 0-)

          necessarily include delivery cost. Child support in many states.

          I thought the judge addressed the father's being present in the delivery room very well.

          "It would create practical concerns where the father's unwelcomed presence could cause additional stress on the mother and child. Moreover, such a finding would also lead to a slippery slope where the mother's interest could be subjugated to that of the father's."

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 06:27:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What a lovely quote of Audry (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Silvia Nightshade, Ginny in CO

            I raised four kids who were evicted by their adoptive mothers at 11-12 yrs old. Wish I had known it back then. Exactly how I feel.

            Life ain't like a box of chocolates. You pretty much do know what you're gonna get.

            by Nodin on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 12:04:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Children are amazing in their (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GrandmaTess, Calamity Jean

              resilience and recovery potentials. Even older folks respond to kind efforts on their behalf with remarkable grace.

              {{{{{{{{{{{{{Nodin}}}}}}}}}}}}}

              Raising four 11 -12 year olds evicted by adoptive parents... you rock!

              "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

              by Ginny in CO on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:53:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  He can go right down the hall to the nursery and (0+ / 0-)

          look in the window.  If he wants to be there at the birth all he has to do is marry her... if she's willing.

          •  Actually being married doesn't give him the right (0+ / 0-)

            to be at the birth either, unless the mother wants him there. Agree with you about the nursery!

            "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."~~~ Horace Mann

            by nutmegan on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 08:32:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  He'll have obligations... (11+ / 0-)

      Rights?

      Not so much.  As in alot of difficult, estranged situations his "rights" will largely depend on how much the mother is willing to honor them.

      •  As the grandmother of three boys, (18+ / 0-)

        I have a problem with the double standard.  If the mother has a right to terminate the pregnancy, and I agree that she does, then conversely, the father should have the right to terminate his financial obligation to the fetus and mother should the woman choose to give birth to it and keep it.
        If the father chooses to accept financial responsibility, he should have a right to bond with the infant immediately after birth if he so chooses.  

        It takes two to tango. No one has a right to make a woman abort or gestate and give birth, but beyond that, all things are equal.

        I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

        by dkmich on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:17:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is v. interesting, and I (16+ / 0-)

          don't know what to make of it.

          I think I disagree. But my rationale is, 'The dad should man up and be a man and treat his woman right, in a manly fashion.' Which isn't, perhaps, the most compelling logic. It's a pretty deeply-held belief, though.

          But in any case, there's a difference, I think, between 'immediately after birth' and 'during birth.' During the time in which giving birth is a medical process, there's no reason for him to be there.

          And frankly, as a father, I'm not sure why he'd want to be at the birth with a woman who doesn't want him there, other'n punishing her. I was there for my wife, not the baby, who didn't actually give a shit. (He gave a meconium, ba-dum!)

          I guess one could argue that the father wants to be there for himself, and he's got a vested interest his relationship with the baby. But we're back into 'man up' territory. His vested interest can wait an hour, and is less important than the mother's vested interest in emitting a human being from her vagina without some jerkass dude hanging around uninvited.

          "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

          by GussieFN on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:51:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I did say after.... (5+ / 0-)

            If she wants a right to privacy during birth, her call.  

            Man up??? As a woman, I think a woman has a responsibility to man up too.   We want our doors opened, but don't tell us what to do.   She was capable of making the decision to have sex, use or not use birth control,  risk pregnancy, and make a life and death decision regarding the fetus and/or child.   There is adoption.   That is her choice, too.   Affording the responsibilities and joys of parenthood is a part of the decision making process. Whoever chooses to keep the child chooses to be financially responsible.  Who knows.  Maybe the mother will want to give up her rights, and the father wants take the child.   Should the mother, who is willing to give up her rights, be required to support the father?  

            As I said, there is a line where all things need to be equal.

            I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

            by dkmich on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:47:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh! Did you? I missed that. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dkmich, Rita5018

              Sorry.

              And 'man up' is why I find this topic interesting: because my opinion is largely fueled by my sexism. I was raised to believe that the definition of a man is 'takes care of his woman.' (Which yeah, is infantilizing and removes a woman's agency; I know that, but the feeling still runs deep.) So I'm wondering if there's a rational basis for my preference.

              My suspicion is that putting the legal onus on men doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in a perfect world--or even, in many specific cases, in this world--but that it's still the best option we've got. It's kinda like Affirmative Action. Yeah, it'd be lovely if it weren't necessary, but it is.

              "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

              by GussieFN on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:00:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let's take the sexism out... (4+ / 0-)

                A person should accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, even if those actions were irresponsible at the time they occurred.

                This goes for both the man and the woman in this situation.

                The republicons moan, the republicons bitch. Our rich are too poor and our poor are too rich. Ferguson Foont

                by Josiah Bartlett on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:53:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So if a man should take responsibility for his (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dkmich

                  actions, and wants to keep the baby, and a woman doesn't want the baby, shouldn't he have a say in her termination?? I am not saying he should, I am just saying that if he wants responsibility in our legal system, he gets none. Nothing. No choice in the end of her pregnancy.

                  My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

                  by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:03:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Because granting him that option (9+ / 0-)

                    Would mean allowing him to force another person to:

                    - risk their health (and in some cases, life) for most of a year

                    - permanently alter their physiology

                    - experience significant pain in the later stages, and during and after birth

                    - experience a certain level of physical disability

                    - give up significant personal time and money for necessary checkups

                    - undergo invasive medical procedures (such as ultrasounds, blood draws, urine tests, and worse if there's any question about the health of the fetus)

                    - have private bodily functions, diet, and recreational activities monitored

                    - possibly lose time at work (or lose their job entirely).

                    all against their will.

                    THAT is why it is the decision of the person whose body is affected. The person whose body is affected is not a slave, and has autonomy over what will be done to and with that body.

                    Women are not breeding chattel, they are humans with the right of autonomy.

                  •  Before birth: No. After birth: Yes. (7+ / 0-)

                    Not sure why people have such a hard time with the concept of women having sovereignty over their own bodies.

                    If you don't want to get a girl pregnant, YOU have choices you can exercise BEFORE you stick your dick into her. Once you CHOOSE to stick your dick into her, knowing she could get pregnant, you do not gain extra rights of having a say about WHAT HAPPENS INSIDE HER OWN BODY. You cannot force her to give birth to your baby because you CHOSE to stick your dick into her without using a condom or other birth control. Neither can you escape the responsibility of financially contributing to the upbringing of your baby should she choose to keep it.

                    All that said, she cannot give it up for adoption without you also relinquishing your rights. So there's that.

                    Parents and grandparents can help by TEACHING BOYS TO USE BIRTH CONTROL. That they don't is just completely and utterly mind-boggling. But here they are bitching and moaning about their poor boys being victim of a female who "chose" to get pregnant. Pure and utter bullshit.

                    •  She gets a do over.... abortion and/or adoption (0+ / 0-)

                      She allowed the dick to enter (which could be true in more ways than one :D)  

                      It is a complicated subject.  She gets control of her body.  She does not get control of his.  If she can have a second change thru abortion, he can have a second chance by aborting his legal obligations to her decision.    

                      I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                      by dkmich on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:14:19 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Stop infantilizing the woman (0+ / 0-)

                      "If you don't want to get a girl pregnant, YOU have choices you can exercise BEFORE you stick your dick into her."

                      So does she. It would further the cause of equality and justice if you would stop pretending that the woman is a luckless, non-volitional cumdumpster who just happened to get impregnated against her will, and acknowledge that the reason she's pregnant is because SHE made a choice and that she should bear no more or less responsibility for caring for that child than a man would.

                      •  Really? (3+ / 0-)

                        Are you saying that men don't have a choice once a female decides she wants to have sex?

                        And no where do I characterize women that way. Women are human beings that have all the same rights to privacy and bodily sovereignty as a male. Most women are aware that they should use birth control if they don't want to get pregnant. We are told by parents, friends, teachers, doctors. And then we are faced with a constant onslaught to both our rights and our ability to access birth control. Show me how men have it that bad? Show me where in our culture we bombard men with messages that caution them to use birth control and then turn around and call them sluts for using it? Show me legislation that proposes restricting a male's access to condoms.

                        You are putting words in my mouth and spouting sheer nonsense that, if we take you literally, is pretty ridiculous.

                        Poor men, they have it so bad when women rape them just so we can get child support. It's sooo unfair that we force their dick into our vaginas against their will and then don't have the grace to get an abortion when they demand it of us. Poor, poor men, always taking ALL the responsibility for making bad sexual choices. Yep, that's your argument.

                        •  Can't you read? (0+ / 0-)

                          "Are you saying that men don't have a choice once a female decides she wants to have sex?"

                          What I'm saying is that men and women are equally responsible for pregnancy and that they should be held to the same standard - not abortion, adoption and legal abandonment for her because it's "her body, her choice" and 18 years of mandatory support payments for him because he needs to "man up".

                          If a woman doesn't want a baby, if she doesn't want to carry a baby, raise a baby, and pay for it, then she should KEEP HER LEGS SHUT. How hard is that?

                          "Women are human beings that have all the same rights to privacy and bodily sovereignty as a male."

                          Rights. Sovereignty. How about responsibility? Obligation? Funny how you think women are entitled to the good stuff but don't have to take the bad with it.

                          •  How hard is that? (0+ / 0-)

                            Depends on how good you were at sweet talking her, did you say you'd love her always, be there if she got pregnant, etc?  Now you're saying she shouldn't have believed you???

                          •  Kinda hard if she's raped (0+ / 0-)

                            Men are the cause of more unwanted pregnancies than women. Do the math. In the time it takes for one woman to have one child a man could impregnate thousands of women. If we didn't have such a misogynist culture, our logic would surely tell us that men are the ones most in need of birth control because men can and do make the most "mistakes."

                            How about we force unwed fathers to have vasectomies? And castrate rapists? Do that and I might reconsider their right to chain me or my 13-year-old daughter to a bed for nine months against our will.

                      •  In most states the child support is split (0+ / 0-)

                        Between the parents according to their incomes.  If they earn the same it's 50/50 and if he makes twice what she does its 2/3 him and 1/3 her.  It goes into the divorce decree.  However, if there is no marriage but a custody case, the states I know about figure it the same way but if either have another child the computation gets more complex.  If the mother and child receive state welfare then the state wants it's money back for the birth costs on a payment plan etc.
                        ies
                        Most states now have family court law and a computation that is part of that law and covers all contingencies except "I don't want to be responsible for this living child"  that is not an option for either party.

              •  Good on you for recognizing (5+ / 0-)

                the problematic aspects of your position.

                We've all internalized "moral lessons" that don't have a lot of basis.  Best thing we can do is work on unpacking them and reexamining them, and that's a long process.

            •  You're ignoring the child's interests. (26+ / 0-)

              Two people either decided to conceive the child or failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent conception.  Both parents are obliged to provide financial support for any child they conceive.

              Your suggestion focuses only on what is, in my view, a rather strange view of what constitutes "equality."  But putting that aside, you're completely ignoring the paramount interest of the child.  It's the completely innocent party in this situation.  It has no say in who its parents are.  It bears no responsibility for their decisions.  So no matter what the parents want or don't want, the child is entitled to support from each of them, both as a matter of law and as a matter of morality.

              There is no justification on earth for compelling a child to make do with half the support to which it is entitled merely because we disagree with the decisions of one or both of the parents.  

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:58:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Assumptions (3+ / 0-)

                There are two assumptions in the above, which may bear additional consideration:

                1) The child's interest is paramount.
                This is true after birth. Prior to birth, the child's interest is subordinate to the mother's interest, at least until viability. And even after viability, if giving birth via the normal mechanisms would jeopardize the mother's life, the child is still subordinate.


                2) The parents made bad decisions.

                Plenty of pregnancies result from failed contraception, or from careful planning that depended on economic or other realities that later turned sour.

                •  Um (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rita5018, jqb

                  1)  We were discussing a child that's already been born.  The issue of financial support for the child doesn't arise until then.

                  2)  Whether the parents made good or bad decisions is irrelevant to their joint obligation to support the child.  Juvenile dependency and family courts are filled with parents who made bad decisions.  The quality of the decision-making doesn't change the identity of the decision-makers, though.  And those decision-makers were most certainly not the child.  It is owed support from both of its parents.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:19:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, we were discussing a woman's right to (0+ / 0-)

                    choose.   It isn't born until she says it is.

                    I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                    by dkmich on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:15:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What's she going to do, stop her labor? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rita5018, jqb, Silvia Nightshade

                      This is a case in which the mother participated in the hearing while in labor.  Sure, I guess the child technically hadn't been born yet, but if you're hanging your hat on the fact that the baby hadn't yet cleared the birth canal, I'd say you're leaning on a pretty weak reed.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 09:25:05 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, no one owes the child anything. (0+ / 0-)

                Imagine a homeless man. Is he entitled to food? Shelter? Medicine, clean clothes? Anything?

                Our laws say "no". You get your property, and if you have money, you can buy more. If you don't, fuck off.

                Children are born into the world without property. Sucks for them. But nobody OWES children money, or food, shelter, etc.

                If society wants to declare that children are special and precious and must be provided for, then let society pick up the tab. Stop looking for financial scapegoats to pay for the child support you want but won't pay for yourself. Or else change the way we view property, and help both the baby and the homeless man.

            •  Mothers absolutely can be (11+ / 0-)

              obligated to provide child support.

              Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

              by elfling on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:17:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I have no need (6+ / 0-)

              for anyone to open a door for me.

              "Best interest of the child' a bad joke told by family courts.  

              Three issues are proven to be important to the well being of a child after divorce.  

              1.  Relationship between  the parents.
              2.  Relationship with custodail parent.
              3.  Financial wellbeing of custodial household.

              Everything else is based soley on the wants of the parents.

              Parents get their way regardless of the best interest of the child because kids don't vote and parents do.

              My kid of a single mom says this.

          •  Plus also too and: she's giving birth (6+ / 0-)

            which is potentially fatal to both mother and child, and having an extraneous person in the room -- especially one the mom doesn't want to have there -- is not good from a medical POV.

            OTOH if she wants him there just so she can hold his hand during labor (and if she holds it so hard bones get crushed, I'm okay with that) ... she should have the right to have him there if it won't interfere with the medical situation.

            LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

            by BlackSheep1 on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 02:28:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  um no (15+ / 0-)

          perhaps there could be an insurance policy men could purchase where child support could be paid if the bearer accidentally leaves his DNA lying around in a woman's vagina.

          Shame cannot survive being spoken. It cannot survive empathy. -Dr. Brene Brown

          by thankgodforairamerica on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:56:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I understand it (6+ / 0-)

          but when it comes to financial responsibility, the "fairness" switches from the parties to the best interests of the child once it is born.

          Society rightfully thinks both parents should be invested in supporting the child (both for public policy reasons, and for the more "selfish" reason that it reduces the need of society to step in (either under parens patriae or in aid to the child).

          Sure, the breakdown of "rights" pre-birth does not weigh in favor of the father, but we made that choice along a logical fault line, that the mother is the bearer of the child.

          We have some work to do I think in eliminating the bias of some who thinks the mother is automatically the best caregiver for a child, but other than that, I think things break down along the only logical lines they can break down under.

          I don't know that I fully agree with the idea that the father can't be present for the birth of his child, but the kicker to me is less about privacy and more about reducing stress to the mother during childbirth, which can be seriously detrimental to her health, the baby's health, or even death.

          I think the moment after birth though, that father should have equal access to the child.  

          If we reach the day that children are all born in vitro and carried to term that way, this stuff actually gets a whole lot less complicated (and more fair) but I suspect that day is a wee ways off.

          •  No, the decision to give birth (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mikejay611, mconvente

            precedes the child.   At that point it is a zygote.  

            I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

            by dkmich on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:53:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Doing what's right supercede "fair" (3+ / 0-)

            See the story of Solomon and the two mothers.

            Quit trying to be fair. Being "fair" by giving a bad parent equal time with the kids is a really bad decision. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

            If you really wanted to be fair, you'd realize that males who get women pregnant know full well that they could have used birth control BUT THEY DID NOT. Whining about the consequences after the fact and trying to take control over a woman's body because they don't like the consequences is NOT BEING FAIR. Even entertaining the idea that men have any rights at all when it comes to the woman's body he impregnated just encourages men to make BAD pre-sex decisions.

            The most fair thing to do is to encourage men to put their big boy pants on and USE BIRTH CONTROL. Problem solved.

        •  There really isn't a double standard. (34+ / 0-)

          Although I accept that it might feel that way.

          A woman's right to privacy in her healthcare is absolute. It is a constitutional right and we don't get to debate whether or not it exists in law, merely whether or not the law is being honored.

          So a woman is entirely free to make a decision to carry a pregnancy to term, or not, as she sees fit. There may be any number of considerations and influences, but ultimately it is her decision.

          That is not to be confused with the financial obligations to a child. A child exists, it breathes, eats, poops and needs to be cared for. The law deems the financial aspects of that to be joint, between the two parents.

          You cannot enjoin the two situations, and form some kind of co-dependancy.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:09:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I say above, I basically agree, but (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, adigal

            I'm not sure it's as clearcut as that.

            Say that during a passionate, drunken night at a 'How to Negotiate the Adoption Maze' conference, I give you $10,000 just for the fun of it. A week later, you tell me you want to use that money as 50% of the cost of adopting a child. I say I don't want a child. You say, too bad, you're adopting a child. The money is yours now.

            Fair enough.

            But then you expect me to pay child support? That strikes me as not logical. (Though again, I'm arguing against what I believe here, because I'm not sure that my beliefs are rational.)

            Now, the analogy breaks down because the father didn't contribute $10,000, he contributed genetic material. However, I'm not sure why we prefer genetic material over cash. And I suspect that the fact that we do either leads into sexism like mine ("because man up, that's why!") or into arguments like the pro-choice ones, 'all the genetic material necessary is there,  we should be pro-family, etc.'

            What'm I missing?

            "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

            by GussieFN on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:20:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well you are missing the simple fact (9+ / 0-)

              that if you have sex, a joint decision, then you are jointly responsible for the predictable outcome.

              If you can show you were misled in some way, you might be able to mitigate that a little, but basically ... You screwed so you are screwed.

              The laws are framed to protect the rights of the child, not yours or the mothers. Sometimes that is applied unfairly, but that's a different discussion.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:27:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But it's a completely (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                twigg, adigal

                avoidable outcome (given appropriate medical access). If it were inevitable, that's one thing. It's not. In my analogy, it's predictable that someone at an Adoption Seminal is interested in adopting. But that doesn't, I think, mean that someone giving away free money is on the hook for child support.

                (Obviously, in the case of pregnancy it's a more affirmative and medical decision; but for the sake of analogy, I think it works.)

                I don't know. I suspect that there's something pretty culturally conservative in here somewhere. I'm fairly culturally conservative, myself, so I'm comfortable with it. And I suspect that, in any case, it's the best possible option in the actually-existing world. Still, it makes me wonder what those culturally conservative assumptions are.

                "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

                by GussieFN on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:40:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am not culturally conservative (7+ / 0-)

                  in any way I can think of.

                  Even with the best of protection, babies will be born and not wanted (in this example by the father).

                  It sucks, but it happens, and when it happens no one should be able to heap the entire responsibility onto one side.

                  It is unthinkable that a decision to abort could be made by anyone but the woman, with whatever support she wants or can get, so there is a baby and joint responsibility.

                  Every baby has two parents. They are jointly and severally responsible. I don't see how the fact that one of the parents carries the child makes them more responsible than the other.

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  Who is twigg?

                  by twigg on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:10:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's not carrying the child that's the issue, it's (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mconvente, dkmich

                    the decision to have the child.

                    Hm. If a pregnant woman wants to terminate, and is (legally, somehow) prevented from doing so by the father, because he wants a baby, should she have to pay child support for him to raise it?

                    (Ignoring, for a moment, that the situation is horrible; I mean as a thought experiment, if we reverse the genders.)

                    I think that if a man doesn't want a baby and the woman has it anyway, then he should have to pay child support. But if the roles are reversed, I'm not so sure. That's what I mean by culturally conservative.

                    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

                    by GussieFN on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:51:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nope ... you have it backwards. (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mikidee, mrkvica, Chi, Rita5018

                      If a woman is pregnant, the decision is not to "have the child", the decision is whether or not to have an abortion.

                      As far as I am aware, there is no provision in law that allows a father to force a woman to carry a fetus to term.

                      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                      Who is twigg?

                      by twigg on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:04:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What's backwards? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        twigg, dkmich

                        I don't see the distinction. The decision 'whether or not have an abortion' is precisely the same as the decision 'whether or not to have the child,' isn't it?

                        And I also am not aware of any provision in law that allows a father to force a woman to carry a fetus to term, thank God. That's what I mean by 'thought experiment.'

                        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

                        by GussieFN on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:20:47 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Pregnancy is not (yet) completely avoidable. (8+ / 0-)

                  Birth control fails. Abortion access is severely restricted (as we see, worsening all the time) or too expensive, or the woman just can't bring herself to do it. It is fair that men and women share the responsibility for the results of having sex, even though the pregnancy and birth are experienced by only one of them.

                  "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."~~~ Horace Mann

                  by nutmegan on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:29:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A) I couldn't agree more! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dkmich

                    B) We are saying that men and women share the responsibility for the results of a mutual decision to have sex, while dkmich is saying that only one party has the responsibility for the results of that party's unilateral decision to have child. (In a perfect world, where abortion access is as accessible as it should be.)

                    (I think that's what she's saying. I don't mean to put words in her mouth.)

                    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

                    by GussieFN on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:04:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Many decisions play into it (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Radiowalla, Rita5018

                      Women have the most to lose so we are the ones who are expected to use birth control. Yet when it fails (or we don't use it/have it/have access to it) men get all upset because either they have no control over the pregnancy or they have a responsibility after the pregnancy. Yet if men were expected to use birth control as much as women we'd cut the abortion rate down to negligible and men could quit acting so surprised when they find out that their "mutual decision" to have sex led to an unwanted pregnancy.

                      Seriously...this "mutual decision" bull crap is the stuff of male entitlement. There's the decision to have sex and THEN there's each person's decision to use or not use birth control. Men who do not birth control themselves shouldn't act all whiny and surprised and shocked and angry when they get a woman unexpectedly pregnant. THEY did it. They stuck their dick into a vagina and got a girl pregnant. It's BIOLOGY. WTF did they think would happen?

                      They need to take their disgruntlement somewhere else and quit going after women's rights just because they refuse to understand basic biology.

                    •  You have my position clear. (0+ / 0-)

                      I cede control to the woman over the decision on what to do what the pregnancy resulting from mutual sex.   I do not cede providing the woman with the means and servitude of another human being to support her independently arrived legal decision.  

                      I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                      by dkmich on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:24:52 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  uh (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                twigg
                that if you have unprotected sex,
                FTFY.

                We do have some pretty nifty ways to ensure people don't get pregnant. You can even stack them to really make sure it doesn't happen.

                "Here, Beautiful, I'm using this condom, and spermicidal gel. Please use this Today Sponge.

                I like you. But I don't feel like walking away from this rendezvous permanently attached to you forever.

                K?"

                © grover


                So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                by grover on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:46:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No sex that results in a pregnancy (5+ / 0-)

                  was "protected sex".

                  With the best will in the world, sometimes there is an unexpected result and if that result is a baby, both parents remain responsible.

                  Sure, you can reduce the risks almost to zero, but you never quite get there.

                  What is a just outcome? Who knows, but it is unjust if the mom and baby are the only ones who carry the consequences.

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  Who is twigg?

                  by twigg on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:05:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I like your arguments... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Whatithink, mconvente

                    but I still feel a non-decision on abortion/termination is, in fact, a conscious decision to carry the child to term and bear it. Therefore a "choice" is made. Understandably, because the conception wasn't immaculate, the (un?)lucky male participant gets to be a supportive (even if only financially) father whether he wanted to or not. If a woman has a baby, isn't it because she wanted to (using the perfect world example of accessible abortion/pregnancy termination options)?

                    No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. Adelaide Proctor -7.25/-5.64

                    by mikejay611 on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:58:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The Today sponge? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Calamity Jean

                  Wow, does that ever take me back.  I was Elaine on the Seinfeld episode!  The sponge was better than the diaphragm.  I ended up getting pregnant, having an abortion, and getting sterilized - all at 24.  I got married one month later.  Now I'm 55 w/o kids and I most certainly don't regret having an abortion.

              •  Not jointly responsible for the outcome. (0+ / 0-)

                She and she alone controls the outcome.  He cannot force her to abort, give birth, keep or give away the child.   HE has zero decision making power.

                I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                by dkmich on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:20:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  You're not missing anything. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SpaK

              Your position is sexist, and it's sexist in exactly the way you think it is. You have an excellent grasp of the realities of the issue and I agree with your analysis.

            •  Conception and adoption are not the same (0+ / 0-)

              even thought they are both about a child. Adoption is a legal contract. Using money you got from someone else does not make that someone else party to the contract, there is no obligation.  

          •  She's entitled to anything she wants (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mikejay611

            including paying for her decisions.     Have to leave for a funeral - sorry.  Good conversation.   Thank you all for being so respectful.

            I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

            by dkmich on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:57:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you're more concerned with (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Radiowalla, Rita5018

              enforcing a bogus notion of "equanimity" than what's in the best interests of the child, it seems.

              Biology isn't about fairness. The fact that nature is such that it takes two to conceive a child (an act that honestly takes very, very little effort on the man's part, let's be honest) but only one of those two can carry it is just how it is. That doesn't magically render the body of the woman subject to a loss of agency. And the woman maintaining agency over her body does not magically eliminate the responsibility the man has for being half of the conception equation. That's because, in the end, the state must focus on what is in the best interest of the child, period. "Equanimity" between the parents is completely subordinate to the well-being of the child, as it should be.

              •  No, I as concerned with protecting the rights (0+ / 0-)

                of my grandsons as much as I am concerned with protecting the rights of my grand daughters.  Men are not slaves or subservient to women.  Not in marriage, divorce, or unwanted pregnancies.  

                THERE IS NO CHILD AT THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION.  THERE IS A ZYGOTE.  

                I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                by dkmich on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:32:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And while it's a zygote/fetus (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Radiowalla, Rita5018, SpaK

                  the woman has total control over her body and the zygote/fetus contained therein. Again, rail at nature for not making pregnancy a co-op deal. But that's how it is.

                  But the discussion DOES involve a child, because you're asserting that a man who impregnates a woman should be able to shirk any financial responsibility for the CHILD once it is born if she decides not to have an abortion. There's a great recipe. I can just imagine all the rich frat boys who will now see this as a license to prey on girls from poor families who they would now know they could just blackmail into having an abortion. Or just ditch them, why should they care?

                  Is it "unfair" that your grandsons might have to financially support a child they didn't want? Well, too bad. That's how it has to work for the best interest of the child. It's also, by the way, an arrangement that helps ensure fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place, which is in the best interest of society overall. Men will be a lot more careful about sex when they have the potential consequences of a child to support hanging over their heads.

                  But your stance is just a recipe for sexual exploitation and an increase in unwanted children.

                •  The best way your grandsons can protect themselves (0+ / 0-)

                  from financially supporting a child they do not want or that they are not raising or for whatever reason, teaching them to use birth control each and every time they have sex is very valuable. Teaching them that they must have protected sex all of the time , unless they and the girl are trying to have a baby, will do the most to insure that they do not become a father before they wish.

                  Sex education including contraceptive education as well as teaching our children and grandchildren respect for each other can go a lnog way.

                  Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

                  by wishingwell on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:57:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I think this argument splits hairs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dkmich

            and I have a real issue with it.

            If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, she has an absolute right to do so, even if the man wants to raise the child. Yet if she decides to keep the child, he is forced to support the child even if he wants her to terminate the pregnancy??

            Women get all of the rights and men get nothing. Really. Except child support bills for a child they may not want. I am a woman, and the unfairness of this angers me.

            If a woman wants to raise that child, then let's assume she is strong enough and resourceful enough to raise that child. This is so 1970s, poor mom needs daddy's help, even if she hardly knows daddy.

            My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

            by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:06:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I do not think it (6+ / 0-)

              "splitting hairs".

              The decision to terminate is a woman's decision alone. It is not a bargaining chip over child-support.

              "Don't terminate and I won't pay child support" is a terrible pressure to put on a woman, and it also deprives an innocent child of support it should get.

              The decision to have sex was mutual, and if pregnancy was a consequence, then that is a joint responsibility.

              Can you sit back for a moment and imagine the justifiable anger were it ever suggested that we should withhold child-support from any woman who didn't have an abortion when the guy who made her pregnant demanded that she should?

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:45:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So the decision to have sex was mutual - (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mconvente, dkmich

                that is your argument? Do you see how it is not a rational argument? If the decision to have sex is mutual, then the decision of what to do with the product of that sex should be mutual. Completing the pregnancy or not.

                I don't get why people don't see this very simple, very logical step. If a woman wants (and should have, in my view, so don't have a cow over this) control over her body, then she should also have control over what she does with that body, ie having a baby, and being responsible for it. Therefore, foot the bill and leave the man out of it. If it is her decision to terminate, and the man has NO say, why is the man suddenly held accountable if she decides to NOT terminate? Until this changes, men will rightfully resent having to pay for a child they didn't want.

                My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

                by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:50:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Write a Diary (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Radiowalla, Chi, Boston to Salem

                  Make that proposal, that we should change the law in that manner.

                  You will see what this community thinks of the idea.

                  You are making the mistake of equating the birth of a child to a pregnant woman, with a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

                  They are not the same, but if you feel they are, write the Diary.

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  Who is twigg?

                  by twigg on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:58:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are equating the correctness of my idea (3+ / 0-)

                    to the opinion of a community.

                    Just because a community holds an opinion doesn't mean it is correct. Have you ever gone over to free republic and read their opinions??

                    Again, you are not responding to what I said except to encourage me to write a diary that I know would be excoriated before I got two feet from my computer. But I won't, because I already know the outcome and it doesn't change my mind one bit.

                    That is what being an adult does for me.

                    My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

                    by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:14:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, I am merely suggesting (4+ / 0-)

                      that you test the value of your idea by opening it to wider discussion.

                      I have answered your points, you simply disagree with the answer.

                      So, it might help if you canvassed more views and opinions, hence the Diary suggestion.

                      You may be correct, I am not persuaded.

                      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                      Who is twigg?

                      by twigg on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 05:24:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  His suggestion is funny and a distraction. (0+ / 0-)

                      If by community he means daily kos, that's a real knee slapper.  If by community he means country, they don't believe in abortion as birth control so it should be banned.

                      You are right on target.   They keep talking about babies, and we're talking about zygotes.   They're talking about protecting their woman, and we're talking about equality regarding the decision on the zygote.  We have a diary lauding the correctness of a court decision to deny a father rights because .....  A father has no rights with his children from inception through divorce.  

                      You made my point...

                       If a woman wants to raise that child, then let's assume she is strong enough and resourceful enough to raise that child. This is so 1970s, poor mom needs daddy's help, even if she hardly knows daddy.
                      If we are talking about the best interest of the child, then in many instances that would be an abortion or adoption given the abject cycle of poverty, # of grandparents raising babies, and trail of battered,  bloodied and dead babies (not zygotes, babies).  Yet no one is talking about forcing a woman to abort or adopt because it is in the best interest of the child.

                      It is such an emotional topic for so many that it clouds out logic.    

                      I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                      by dkmich on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:49:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Which community? dailykos? lol! (0+ / 0-)

                    If you mean the larger community, they don't believe in abortion as birth control.  So there you go.  Guess it should be outlawed.

                    I will not vote for Hillary. What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                    by dkmich on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 04:35:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  This is so twisted I can't believe (6+ / 0-)

                  anyone on a progressive site would argue it.

                  First off, nature has made it so that pregnancy isn't a "fair" situation. Nature isn't "fair," so we just need to get over that particular bit of nonsense as it relates to human pregnancy. It's not "fair" to women that they have to shoulder 100% of the biological responsibility for pregnancy after conception (an act which, if we're honest, involves very little relative effort for the man). But since that's how it is, we have to live in that reality.

                  Nothing about the fact that pregnancy isn't biologically equitable suddenly renders the male's responsibility for the child once it's born null and void. That's because the legal status of paternal responsibility after birth is solely about the best interests of the child.

                  People who thoughtlessly argue as you do are essentially saying that the interests of the child should be subordinate to making sure the father feels he's being treated fairly by the universe. Bull-fucking-shit.

                  •  You've got it backwards (0+ / 0-)

                    A guy can have sex with a woman, get her pregnant, and walk away free from consequence. Period.

                    That's not fair, but it is biology. If you're going to argue that biology trumps fairness, then we need to end child support right now.

                    OTOH, if we're going to have fairness, then let's make it actually fair, not "well, let's screw the man in favor of the mom and cry 'it's for the children', the dumbest justification ever invented for enacting oppressive policies".

            •  If a man does not want to be a father, he should (0+ / 0-)

              insist on having protected sex each and every time. He should wear a  condom each and every time and take every precaution.  

              Teaching our kids about birth control and sex education is very valuable. It can solve a lot of problems before they happen,.

              Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

              by wishingwell on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:00:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not a terribly huge fan (6+ / 0-)

          of a system that burdens anyone with the costs of child rearing where said costs are unwanted, regardless of when the decision is made.  I'd much prefer the public as a whole assume responsibility for unwanted children.

          That said, it's not actually a double standard.  Once the child is born, that child too has an interest at stake.  Absent a public commitment to share responsibility for the well being of children, the next most appropriate candidates to assume that responsibility are the parents or legal guardians.  That is an entirely separate issue from whether or not someone makes a personal health decision as to play host to offspring.

          •  You mean to fob off the responsibility (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chi

            of raising a child on the taxpayer?  Well, it happens all the time, but that doesn't make it right.  It would be much better for everyone if all parents, fathers and mothers,  stepped up to the plate.

            It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

            by Radiowalla on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:23:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well (0+ / 0-)

              it is here choice and her choice alone whether to have a child, which means that with that sole choice come also sole responsibility.  Sure, it'd be better if all parents stepped up, but then, it would be better if women opted to have children when they have partners to help out too.  Children unfortunately have to deal with the consequences of their parents' decisions all the time.

            •  Yes, on the taxpayer (0+ / 0-)

              We should stop pretending society doesn't have a vested interest in how children are raised and--as a society--assume a principal financial stake in their future.  We're already on that path with the meager support to lower income families; might as well go whole hog.

        •  In a world where so many fathers abandon their (10+ / 0-)

          children, I just don't understand why some people argue in favor of making that even easier.

          I may be a little biased on this subject because, while I had the good fortune of growing up with a loving father, he did not. He was just a small child when his father decided that being a parent was no longer for him and took off, never to return. Being a poor family, and this being over fifty years ago, his mother had no recourse and raised the kids on her own, on public assistance. If only she could have sued for child support, right?

          I know that you're arguing in favor of the legal right of the father to abandon his offspring before birth, but to me, the consequences are the same, and it would mean even more children growing up in poverty like my dad did.

          The father holds a lot of cards here. Pregnancy and parenting simply isn't an equal investment of the two. It can come closer with a dedicated and loving father, but in the end it is his choice whether to stay or go, in a practical sense (but no longer in a legal sense, which I think is progress). The mother, on the other hand, has the pregnancy to endure, all the potential health complications, lost time at work, the headache of finding childcare or quitting her job, post-partum mental health challenges, etc., etc., not necessarily all of the above, but these are the risks that she will have to bare alone, no matter what, if the father decides that he really didn't want that child.

          If a man does not want to produce an offspring from sexual intercourse, then it is his responsibility to ensure that proper contraception is used. When the child is born, obviously the man does have a legal right, as the father, to be a parent of that child, to have that child in his life, to apply for custody, etc., and unless she can prove that he's abusive or something in court, then a mother has no right at all to keep the child away from his or her father. But the father does not have any control over the woman's body, period. She has not surrendered any rights of her body to him. Thus, the decision to bear or not bear the child to full-term is hers to make alone, in the end. He doesn't get to tell her what to do with her body.

          "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

          by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I find that most who argue (5+ / 0-)

            that men are treated unfairly in family court are men or their second wives.

          •  That argument is an old one. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mconvente
            If a man does not want to produce an offspring from sexual intercourse, then it is his responsibility to ensure that proper contraception is used.
            That same point is made with respect to women also, but in the context that women shouldn't have rights over their own bodies in having a right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.  If the notion that control over reproduction ends when you have sex, that argument applies with full force to women too.  I don't think that's an argument anyone here ought to be giving such credence too.
            •  All I'm saying is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SpaK

              that a man shouldn't be able to just come back and say, I didn't want to have this child, so I shouldn't have to support it. Some people are arguing exactly that point here, comparing it to a woman's choice to have an abortion, but we just can't put the two people on the same level here. The woman has to bear the pregnancy; the man does not.

              "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

              by Lost Left Coaster on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 01:11:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  all things are not quite equal (18+ / 0-)

          Birthing a child is still a risk for dying even here in the US - according to the CDC - maternal mortality rates here are rising.

          So a woman "carrying" is at risk - not the male progenitor. Therefore she should have control over her own body (only one reason - I have others but I only want to talk about a medical reason) .

          After a child is born it has needs that require more than mother's milk -food, clothing,shelter- later on education.

          The responsibility for that child by law must be shared.

          No matter the marital status of the parents.

          If no sperm met no egg  this would be a moot point.  

          Many of the men I've worked with as an ethnographer in sexual/medical/STD research studies show an amazing resistance to condom use even when they are being supplied free of charge.

          They are aware that pregnancy can be the result of sexual congress. In many cases they feel the burden of prevention should be on the female - vis a vis - the pill - but I'm always careful to point out that pills are not foolproof. Nor are condoms - they break.

          "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

          by Denise Oliver Velez on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:13:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Biologically it is dangerous (4+ / 0-)

          For anyone to be around that makes the mother uncomfortable. That's the bottom line.

          Stress hormones counteract the birthing hormones, and can stop the process in its tracks, putting both the mother and baby at risk of harm or even death.

          Once everything is done, and the placenta has been passed, it's another story.



          Women create the entire labor force.
          ---------------------------------------------
          Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 02:02:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree 100% - prepare to be flamed (0+ / 0-)

          What applies to one should apply to the other. If she can terminate without his consent, then he should be able to do the same financially. And I have two boy and a girl.

          My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

          by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:00:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Flame on (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            martydd, Calamity Jean

            She can terminate because it's her body and her health at risk. The father can't force termination because (duh) it's not his body growing the baby.

            Once the baby is born, NEITHER parent can terminate financial responsibility. This isn't a social system that picks on men. A mother who does not choose to pay for or raise her own offspring can be sued for child support, just the same as the father can.

            And in the end, the issue is NOT whether birth control works or fails. The issue is your DECISION to have sex.

            Tip to men who want to never pay child support: Don't have sex.

            •  Yes I had a female colleague who paid child (0+ / 0-)

              support as her son wanted to live with his father because of the school. He was on the wrestling team and he wanted to finish high school in that school district with his friends and teammates.  

              So she paid child support even though he stayed at her house every weekend and on all holidays, all summer and so on. But she still paid child support.

              I have know several women whose children are living with their dads in shared custody cases ..but most of the time with dad mostly because of the school issue.....kids of school age sometimes prefer to stay in their school if the mother moves or the father moves...kids might want to stay with the parent in the school district they like.

              Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

              by wishingwell on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:12:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with you on the first point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SpaK

          I don't think anyone should be forced into parenthood.

          But I disagree strongly on the second point. And I can't imagine what kind of person would want to impose his presence on the woman against her wishes. What a depressing future these people are likely to have with each other.

        •  The true double standard is that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          a pregnancy and giving birth is uncomfortable, painful, and can actually kill or maim a woman... and men cannot get pregnant.  The double standard you claim to have a problem with isn't a double standard.  If two people have a child, they both have a financial responsibility for that child and the right to see that child, per the court's direction.  That's completely fair and equitable.

          You're confusing a fetus-and-terminated-pregnancy with an actual child.  When a woman chooses to have an abortion, it's a fetus, not yet a baby or child.  I've no idea of your stance on choice but I've noticed a lot of anti-choice people make this mistake--you're actually using the word "fetus" when you say "the father should have the right to terminate his financial obligation to the fetus" -- he has a financial obligation to the CHILD that is born, not the fetus.  Because if a woman decides not to have an abortion and give birth to a child, that's not a fetus anymore and a man must and should have a financial responsibility to the child that carries his DNA.

          The dangers of pregnancy and of any operation, including abortion, and the fact that adult people get to make all the medical decisions about their own bodies means that a woman gets to make that choice of whether or not she gives birth or has an abortion, and no one else.  It's her body, therefore her choice.  If a man could get pregnant and give birth, it would be his choice whether or not to carry to term or have an abortion.  But he can't, because of the double standard.  That unfair double standard.

        •  Oh come on Grandma... (0+ / 0-)

          you know as well as I do that being present at the birth and bonding with the baby that same day are two different things.  The baby must bond with the mother to nurse and that should come first, the father can bond in the nursery without seeing the mother.

      •  boo fucking hoo (14+ / 0-)

        labor and delivery is hard enough with supportive people in the room. if that dirty motherfucker had any concern for his baby, he'd have given his ex peace during the most difficult task she's ever going to face.

        she had to participate in the hearing while she was in labor? fuck that guy. he needs help.

        Shame cannot survive being spoken. It cannot survive empathy. -Dr. Brene Brown

        by thankgodforairamerica on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:50:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. He'll also still have financial obligations (19+ / 0-)

      even though he can't break into the other parent's house in the middle of the night when the doors are locked.

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:27:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes...AND the right to some form of custody... (19+ / 0-)

      Unless I misunderstood the ruling, this was solely about the right to be informed of the impending birth or to be in the delivery room. The father can still sue to determine and establish paternity...after which he can assert his rights.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:47:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the right to sue, not to custody. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrkvica

        There's no guarantee he'll get custody if it's not in the best interests of the child.

        America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

        by Back In Blue on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:40:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, he has the right to SOME form of custody... (0+ / 0-)

          ...be it partial or full...unless a court deems him unfit. The mother has ZERO control over that...regardless of her feelings.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 08:36:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I worked with single moms on welfare for AZ (0+ / 0-)

      collecting child support in America is a joke.

      Life ain't like a box of chocolates. You pretty much do know what you're gonna get.

      by Nodin on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 11:58:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course he will. (0+ / 0-)

      Many people see no contradiction in telling a father he has no right to be present at his own child's birth, but then demanding that he fork out child support payments for a child that he's been denied any right to see. Apparently, men are fathers only at women's convenience.

      Neither do many state governments - who, after all, profit directly from child support payments as they get a cut AND it saves them money on welfare and other aid programs. Why, you don't even have to be the real father; there are cases where even a paternity test showing that the alleged father wasn't actually the child's biological parent didn't get him off the hook for 18 years of debt.

      •  That's because there is no contradiction (0+ / 0-)

        Bearing a responsibility to the kid he helped create isn't dependent upon whether he gets his own demands and/or emotional desires met. He participated in becoming a father which creates an obligation completely separate from what he perceives to be his right. Are you seriously suggesting that not being allowed to be present during labor absolves him of his parental responsibility? I'm trying to imagine my father telling me as a child that since my mother or the courts won't allow him to see me, he therefore doesn't have to contribute to my financial support: Too bad for you, Kid, my feelings are hurt so I'm cutting you off, good luck with your life.

        Your comment about the convenience of women is offensive.

        "Tea is soothing. I wish to be tense." - Rupert Giles

        by CelticOm on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 08:50:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure there is (0+ / 0-)

          "Are you seriously suggesting that not being allowed to be present during labor absolves him of his parental responsibility?"

          Just as seriously as you're suggesting that being obligated to care for the child gives him no rights to see it.

          "I'm trying to imagine my father telling me as a child that since my mother or the courts won't allow him to see me, he therefore doesn't have to contribute to my financial support: Too bad for you, Kid, my feelings are hurt so I'm cutting you off, good luck with your life."

          Maybe you should imagine your father being told that he has to spend the next two decades paying for a child that's his in name only. I can't believe you have the gall to evoke empathy for yourself while throwing your father under a bus.

          •  Nice try (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nutmegan

            But no. First, this is about the father wanting to be present at labor, not about general visitation rights. Second, even if it were, I stand by what I said, and there is no contradiction. You don't get to cut your kid off from your financial support regardless of whether you have visitation rights. I am amazed that you don't recognize the utter immaturity of such an act. When visitation is denied, there is normally a good reason, and that reason is never the fault of the kid. You seem to think the father's rights take precedent not only over the mother's, but over the child's as well.

            Your last paragraph is simply absurd, as this isn't about me or my father (who would never do what you are suggesting), nor about evoking empathy, nor about throwing anyone under a bus. You are also conflating different scenarios, and I suggest you go back and read the diary again.

            "Tea is soothing. I wish to be tense." - Rupert Giles

            by CelticOm on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:43:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Why not? Just because he did not witness (0+ / 0-)

      the birth, doesn't change the baby's paternity.  I'd be having a DNA test on the baby post haste because that jerk will now try to get out of his duty.

  •  Here's the decision (30+ / 0-)

    This seems right:

    By implication, the Courts’ opinions in the women’s choice context subordinate the interests of a father to a mother. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the joint opinion of the Court opined that it was “an undue burden” on the mother to require spousal notification before an abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, supra, 505 U.S. at 589,112 S. Ct. at 2830, 120 L. Ed. 2d at 726. There, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Pennsylvania Abortion Act that was designed “to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child.” Id. at 908, 112 S. Ct. at 2836, 120 L. Ed. 2d at 735. (appendix to joint opinion) The court recognized that a husband has a "deep and proper concern and interest…in his wife's pregnancy and in the growth and development of the fetus she is carrying." Id. at 895, 112 S. Ct. at 2830, 120 L. Ed. 2d at 727 (opinion of the court) (quoting
    Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 69, 49 L. Ed. 2d 805, 96 S. Ct. 2841  (1976)). Nonetheless, the court noted that even between a husband and wife the mother’s interests prevail...
    •  interesting in comparison to what happened to (17+ / 0-)

      the pregnant woman who dared to move to New York (to go to school at Columbia):

      http://www.slate.com/...

      That case scares the hell out of me (well, not for myself but for my daughters and other women of childbearing age).

      While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

      by Tamar on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:45:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My SIL lives in NJ and she couldn't move (0+ / 0-)

        out of the state with her daughter when she got a divorce. I remember being stunned. But her ex has two lawyer sons.

        My dog is a member of Dogs Against Romney: He rides inside.

        by adigal on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:11:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's different when we're talking about a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rita5018

          living child with 2 parents, each with their own claims.
          The woman in the story in Slate was pregnant and the judge came down on her for moving to New York while pregnant.
          Your SIL probably wasn't allowed to take her daughter out of state but could have left herself, not that that's a solution for her problem because I'm sure she didn't want to leave her daughter. But still, she had the right to move wherever she wished by herself.
          But restricting the movements of a pregnant woman is a form of imprisonment.

          While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

          by Tamar on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:32:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  while I am not an attorney, it seems to me that (14+ / 0-)

      many of these anti-abortion statutes tend to treat the fetus as if it is property, with each parent having a "share" interest in said property while their rhetoric is that a fetus is not property but is possesses "personhood" and is a human with rights at conception.  It just seems that some states that appear to be moving towards both "personhood" statutes and more traditional anti abortion legislation will find themselves philosophically contradicting themselves (so what else is new?)

    •  I think the only really way to distinguish this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nutmegan, middleagedhousewife

      case from Casey is to argue that the right to an abortion is already explicitly constitutionally protected, while the right to choose who is in the delivery room is not.  

      I think there's also a weak argument that O'Connor's Casey opinion was really concerned with abusive men effectively getting a veto over a woman's choice to have an abortion because of the notification requirement, and less concerned with the absolute right to reproductive choice.

      I don't buy either of those arguments, but I think those are the most compelling counterarguments.  

      •  It is a logical extension of the right to privacy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        misslegalbeagle, mrkvica

        in Roe and Casey. You're probably right about those arguments as what would be raised on appeal.

        I think the concern with abusive men getting a veto is still valid in the giving birth scenario. What if there's a "life of the mother or life of the child" decision to be made during delivery? How would that be influenced by the estranged father if he were present?  

        "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."~~~ Horace Mann

        by nutmegan on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:33:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  re: What if there's a decision to be made (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          misslegalbeagle

          Interesting point.  I've never had to face this situation and I hope never to.  I do know someone who did and it was one of the most traumatic moments he has ever faced.  Thankfully, in his case they both made it.

          "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

          by blackhand on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:44:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  What is truly sad is that I found myself (41+ / 0-)

    genuinely surprised by this perfectly reasonable ruling.  I am very glad, however, for the ruling.

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:33:51 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't seem to be based on a right to privacy. (0+ / 0-)

    It seems to recognize two people with valid interests, and weighing the benefit to the husband versus the  potential harm to the mother.

    I agree with the decision, but don't quite get the "slippery-slope" argument.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:52:12 AM PDT

  •  My daughter's husband just finished adopting (37+ / 0-)

    her little girls.  For the past 8 years, their biological father has not been in their lives, has not provided a penny of support, and blinded my daughter in one eye as a result of one beating he inflicted on her.  All he has done is to parachute into their lives to interfere with their mother's personal life, to take money from them that was needed for their care because he had yet another drug deal needing to be financed, and to make years of therapy mandatory.

    Yet through it all, his wishes had to be respected because the court system respected his rights as the "father" of the girls, even when he finally was sent to prison.  Even then, we had to tiptoe around his rights and even pay for some of his legal fees in order to be "fair" to him (yeh how twisted is that?).

    He is out of their lives now and I am glad to see another setback for the MRA crowd who feel fatherhood is all about rights and privileges and nothing about duties and responsibilities  

  •  Thank you Judge Mohammed! (36+ / 0-)

    And really and emergency order while SHE is in labor?

    What a controlling shit. He probably didn't even expect to get in, it was just an attempt to stress her out while she was in the process, a little reminder that he is there, waiting.

    When will she file a VPO against this piece of crap? Cause this looks a lot like stalking and harassment to me.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 08:04:29 AM PDT

  •  What a controlling bastard. (21+ / 0-)

    Thank you, Judge Mohammed.

    "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." - George Carlin

    by Most Awesome Nana on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 08:14:05 AM PDT

  •  This is bad news for Chris Christie. (25+ / 0-)

    Judge Mohammed was his appointee in 2011, one that generated all manner of frothing from the right wingers.  

    Now I'm sure they're all shouting "I told you so" about Christie's radical Muslim feminist judge.

  •  more rights for women and children (21+ / 0-)

    are always a good thing

    can't even imagine how shitty a person one would have to be to demand to be in the room when the mother doesn't want them there

    what a total fucker

  •  Our bodies, ourselves... (8+ / 0-)

    Everyone else, get out of town!

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:39:18 AM PDT

  •  I am pleasantly surprised (9+ / 0-)

    that a judge would actually consider a pregnant woman a human being with the ability to make her own decisions, and not a mere delivery vehicle, subject to the desires of everyone around her.

    Refreshing.

    My dogs think I'm smart and pretty.

    by martydd on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:31:50 AM PDT

  •  I doubt this (0+ / 0-)

    Will be a popular stand around here, but if a woman refuses to allow for any kind of positive, nurturing fathering going on by the biological father, whom has done nothing to wrong the woman and his child, then I fail to see why he should be expected to pay child support.  

    I say this in what is probably a statistically minute amount of these cases, but  one shouldn't be allowed to lock out one parent from their child but then be expected to provide financially for them.  If a woman takes affirmative steps to preclude the father once again I repeat, a man that hasn't done anything wrong, should be absolved of responsibility.  

    That to me seems logical and fair.  I only say this since it is happening to a good friend of mine that is being forced to pay for his child that he desperately wants to be a part of their life, but his ex has essentially barred him from doing so.  It's pretty cruel from what I see.  The courts seem to be of little remedy to him and have proved particularly uncaring and unhelpful to him.  

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

    by dankester on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:42:31 AM PDT

  •  This is an overall ugly situation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi

    That is undoubtedly going to get even uglier and the child(ren) will be the one(s) to pay the price.

    There are also a lot of ugly comments in response to this diary.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:45:35 AM PDT

  •  As a man and father (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MusicFarmer, rduran, mrkvica, mconvente

    I completely agree with the judge that the man should have no right to view the birth. I do not know the back story, but based soley on the information in the diary, I do disagree with the judge that the man has no right to be informed of the fact the woman is in labor with their child.

    Society can't have it both ways, if it mandates the father has a financial obligation for 18 years (or more) NO MATTER what he wants, he should have a right to bond with the infant child shortly after the birth. If you agree it is HIS child too, you have to agree he has rights and not merely obligations.

    I admit this is a sore spot with me. I pay dearly in child support and though I have 40% custody, I lost the right to have equal custody solely because my ex-wife refused to work during our marriage and I supported the family. Supposedly she provided most of the care. The fallacy is that I worked from home and have been as involved in their lives and parenting every bit as much as her. I know their teachers and friends. We live in the same county 5 miles apart. Their schools buses (as they are in a gifted program) route anywhere in the county to pick up the children.

    The net is I pay an absurd amount of support (even when I was out of work, damn near destitute -- I had to file bankruptcy -- and she was working) and she is essentially deliberately under-employed. She made good money when I met her. She stopped working 2 months into her first pregnancy. Now she works and makes less than half of what she did before. Meanwhile, I still work from home yet the kids are often home alone at her place (and the oldest only just turned 13) when they could be with me, at home.

    Women don't like to hear it, buts the courts maintain a harsh bias against the father.

    I grew up in a very equal family in terms of gender. I resent the bias and if women demand equality, it should go both ways.

    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

    by pajoly on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:51:36 AM PDT

    •  A right to be informed of the birth I can go with (9+ / 0-)

      A right to be informed of labor is much harder, because if that truly is a right, it creates a responsibility on the part of the mother to inform him, a responsibility she may not be logistically able to fulfill, let alone the emotional implications of having to call someone you don't even like.

      I didn't even have an opportunity to call my mother - it was all we could handle to get to the hospital and then deal with all the hospital logistics and then, you know, being kind of busy and out of breath for about 15 hours.

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:05:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can agree with that to some extent (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elfling, mrkvica

      if he is the father, he should be informed when the child is born.

      This is a tough situation because they aren't married, and there is no paternity, so you have to be careful about blanket giving this right to a putative father (who may not actually be the father).

      On the other hand, you can't get there until you do a paternity test, which means at some point, he has to know the child was born.

    •  I don't think what you wrote (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Batya the Toon, Radiowalla, cai

      Matches what the judge ruled. The mother just didn't want to inform the father of when she was in labor, and she didn't want the father to be there while she was in labor. I would imagine that the second part is very much tied to the first for her. The ruling says nothing about not informing the father after the baby has been born.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:12:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If he was informed of labor, he might show (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        moviemeister76, elfling, sngmama, Chi

        up.  The hospital personnel might let him in.  He might make a scene, or even commit violence.  Even if he does none of the above, the idea that he might could add stress to the laboring woman.  And, like you said, there may just not be a good way to let somebody know about labor, particularly if it's a fast or complicated delivery.

        If a woman doesn't want somebody informed that she's in labor, that's her right.  It should be as confidential as any other medical information.

        The baby being born is different.  Once the baby is born, it is separate from the woman, and custody, visitation, etc., can be arranged without violating her rights.

        © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

        by cai on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 02:31:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cai

          I was definitely thinking that if she specifically didn't him wanting him in the delivery room, then she would definitely not want to let him know when she went into delivery out of fear that he might show up and butt his way in when she's at her most vulnerable.

          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

          by moviemeister76 on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 02:45:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The mother has all rights (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpaK

      Until a man proves his paternity in a court of law.

      If I don't want you involved then I don't put you on the birth certificate. If I want you to take responsibility (financial) then I'll put you on the birth certificate. In either case you can contest it by taking me to court. Provided you even know I'm pregnant. If it was rape you will probably never know because I sure as hell am not putting your name on the birth certificate.

      So it's a fine line and the error needs to be on the side on the mother because she's the most vulnerable party here.

      If a man doesn't want to be put into this situation then he needs to make better decisions about birth control and about having sex. Quit trying to rationalize away womens' rights in the name of so-called "fairness." Men have all the control they need...it's just PRE-sex. Complaining about it after biology has taken its course is the height of male privilege.

    •  My nephew then is fortunate to have joint custody (0+ / 0-)

      but it involved several court appearances. His ex tried to say he deserted her and their baby because he was deployed to Iraq. While he was in Iraq and just survived a mortar attack, she emailed him to say she was leaving and taking all the money in their bank account ( his checks were automatically deposited back home) and she left him for her old boyfriend. So she took the baby and moved across the country.  He could do nothing from Iraq. When he returned home, he was only able to afford to go from CA to CO for  a custody hearing. The judge upheld the joint custody but said he could not see his child without supervision because he had been away from her because he was at war.

      Finally 3 yrs later, after he remarried and got transferred to CO, did the mother of the child finally agree that he could see his child but only at McDonalds and only with her present. Another year passed and now he finally sees his daughter at least on weekends and holidays.

      Even with joint 50/5o custody, he still pays child support.  All he was told is that Yes he has equal custody but the mother gets the child support. The judge is concerned that the father is in the military and he could be deployed anywhere and that the mother is always going to be in the area...where the child is going to school..or something like that.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

      by wishingwell on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:08:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  this comment is response to pajoly but it is so (0+ / 0-)

        far down, it looks like a response to the topic..sorry we got off track but was responding directly to pajoly;s story and comments.

        Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

        by wishingwell on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:19:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Since you live so close, I assume the ex is not (0+ / 0-)

      willing to let the kids come to your house after school if she is still at work and you are home? Living 5 miles away, do you have regular visitation with the kids and is she flexible about it ?  As I have friend in a similar situation and the mother is there with the kids in the morning and gets them off to school but the father picks up the kids after school and takes them to his house as he is home early from work...and the mother picks them up at the dad's place.  
      It all works good for the kids as whichever parent is not at work before or after school is with the kids.  

      Also, now that you have a child who is 13, a lot of times this is when things change. Judges will often listen to what the teen child wants in terms of where they wish their primary residence to be? So if say when your kids are in their teens and one or both decide they want to move into your house and then see Mom half the time, it is possible the judge will take that into consideration and then child support can be adjusted.  

      I worked with a couple with 2 kids who solved the child support thing by each having one kid move in primarily with them since they lived near each other..then No one paid child support as one child was living with one parent and the other child with the other parent....even though the kids were often together anyway...it can be worked out but both parents have to agree to share that and work with that,.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

      by wishingwell on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:16:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Labor and delivery (13+ / 0-)

    are just about the most stressful physical and emotional experiences that a woman will ever endure in her entire lifetime. It takes one's entire focus to use breathing and other techniques to ride out the contractions and avoid pushing before  the appropriate time.

    From personal experience, I can tell you that with the peak of each contraction, I was just at the hairy edge of losing any remaining control I had. And that was with a loving, supportive husband at my side. Seriously, if someone  so much as jiggles the bed....your focus goes right out the window.

    This is absolutely NOT the time you want someone who has any animosity towards you whatsoever.....to be in the same building, let alone the same room!

    The guy is a selfish A-hole to even think of doing this to the mother of his child.

    •  I had epidurals so I was relatively (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cai, mrkvica

      pain free, and I still wanted to be able to control who was in the delivery room.  A mother is very vulnerable during delivery.  I was happy to have my husband there but if we were at odds for some reason I can't imagine being forced to have him in the room.

  •  Dartmouth didn't refuse to take down anything (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rduran, Catte Nappe, mrkvica

    The website in question is not housed on Dartmouth's servers, so they can't do anything to take it down. The complaint is that they aren't blocking it on Dartmouth's network.

    While I understand the concern, I don't think it's a good idea for a university to start censoring external websites, whatever their content. Considering the huge amount of potentially objectionable material available on the internet, demanding the school start selectively blocking ones is a big ol' slippery slope.

    Note that this isn't a defense against the other complaints about the Dartmouth administration regarding sexual assault responsiveness. The fact that they are not already immediately expelling people convicted of sexual assault is mind-boggling, and that needs to start happening. And it's absolutely a valid point that the school's Greek culture is neolithic and is desperate need of a kick in the pants.

    •  On the other hand, it's a private network (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Back In Blue

      And Dartmouth should be free to balance its interests in academic freedom with providing security for its community.

      •  Doesn't that run contrary to Net Neutrality? (0+ / 0-)

        If we're going to object to Comcast being able to block websites on their private network for whatever reason, then I believe the same objection should hold for a university blocking content to their students. We're talking about adults who don't have any other choice with regards to their ISP while on campus, after all.

        Bear in mind that blocking the website from campus probably wouldn't change anything anyway. It's a private message board that is viewable to members only. Any Dartmouth student who is already going through the trouble to become a member on it likely wouldn't be deterred by it being blocked by the school's ISP, as there are ways around that (such as accessing it via one's mobile phone carrier).

        The bottom line is that Dartmouth's problem with sexual assaults isn't due to some disgusting assholes posting on a message board. The problem is a cultural one (esp. with the fraternities), and an administration that hasn't punished the perps to a degree that any sensible person would find sufficient.

        •  Would you say the same about a cafe (0+ / 0-)

          blocking access to pornographic websites on their complementary network?

          No, I don't think net neutrality, which concerns last mile common carriers, has much of anything to do with purely private networks.

          •  The difference is that nobody lives at the cafe. (0+ / 0-)

            Most Dartmouth students live on campus and therefore are "held hostage" by the ISP. They don't have any choice when accessing the internet in their domiciles.

            Places of business blocking sites for employees/customers is a different matter, as those people can go home and use their own internet and have (theoretically, at least) a choice of ISPs to patronize. If anything, Dartmouth campus residents have less freedom of choice with their ISP than those of us who have to rely on Comcast or other "last mile" carriers.

             

            •  Held hostage? (0+ / 0-)

              No one is required to go to Dartmouth.  And what of customers/employees who have no Internet access at home?

              •  Come on, this is borderline deliberate obtuseness. (0+ / 0-)

                The fact is there's a clear difference between a place of employment vs. a residence. Saying "no one is required to go to Dartmouth" is little different than someone saying "no one is required to live in area where Comcast is the only high-speed cable provider."

                I must say, I'm a bit shocked to see someone on a progressive blog making the case that university students shouldn't be guaranteed unfettered access to the internet...

                •  Nothing obtuse about it at all (0+ / 0-)

                  Comcast is the sole available provider to tens of millions of private homes across huge swaths of the country.  Dartmouth is home to less than ten thousand students who competed for entry and agree to abide by a code of conduct upon admission.  

                  Again, I'm sympathetic to the principle of academic freedom at stake here, but not overly so.  If Dartmouth's policies become so burdensome that the reward is no longer worth it, students have plenty of other options.  

    •  I amended what I said about Dartmouth above. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrkvica

      My point was that it's good to hear some recognition of women's person-hood in the face of all the news that points the other way. Including neolithic attitudes towards rape at Dartmouth.

      "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."~~~ Horace Mann

      by nutmegan on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:23:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The father certainly has a right to be notified. (0+ / 0-)

    Sure, keep him out of the ER. That's pretty reasonable. But he has every right to be in the waiting room to see his kid.

    Dads aren't just check writers and sperm donors. That kid is essentially a 50/50 DNA composite of mother and father, no matter who carried him/her to term.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:54:03 PM PDT

    •  See comments above -- informing someone (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elfling, Boris Godunov, Safina

      during delivery is not always possible.  Plenty of women give birth without the people they WANT there, because you can't schedule it like a tennis match.

      After delivery is time enough.  That is the time where paternal claims can kick in without violating the rights of the pregnant/laboring woman.  

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 02:33:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The funny thing is, 40 years ago if you told dads (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, mrkvica, A Citizen, mconvente

    they couldn't be in the delivery room, they'd sigh in relief and go grab a smoke in the wating room.

    But at least they'd be in the waiting room.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:08:42 PM PDT

  •  If a father didn't want to be present... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla

    Should he be forced to be in the delivery room?  A lot of very strong, caring, loving men don't want to see childbirth.
    It will be interesting to see how this father chooses to handle his responsibilities toward his child.

  •  My sympathy for the child. (5+ / 0-)

    Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, I pity the poor child that is going to grow up in a lifetime of animosity between the two parents.

    I don't doubt that the mother has a right to privacy during birth.

    I don't doubt that the two parents are estranged.

    I don't doubt that the father has at least some interest in the child.

    I DO doubt the maturity of the people involved, and think that someone ought to pony up for all the psychological counseling this kid is going to need in the future.

    Damn, but life is unfair.

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:33:39 PM PDT

    •  Ain't that the truth?! So sad. nt (0+ / 0-)

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:47:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

      We should do a much better job of teaching boys to use birth control and to not have "mutually decided" sex so much without it.

      Then your "concern" would be a moot point. Perhaps we could all pony up for a public service announcement that taught men how to use birth control? And what happens if they don't? That would be a bigger bang for the buck and prevent all sorts of needless suffering by the children.

    •  False equivalency. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sorry for this child too, because if this guy is the father, he's a real piece of work.  I don't see that the mother did anything wrong, except possibly to make the really bad choice of having sex with this man.  

      •  How do you know? (0+ / 0-)

        Granted, the details of the reason for the separation are not known, so it's hard to know who I might side with whether that be known.

        But why is this guy automatically at fault? Because he wants to be present at his child's birth???

        It seems to me that women the world over are crying for their men to be more involved in their children's lives.

        That's what this guy is trying to do.

        And HE'S the villain?

        Granted, giving birth is a woman's domain, and she has every right for that to be how she would want it to be. After all, potentially HER life is in jeopardy.

        But I think a lot of the outright hatred toward men evidenced by some of these comments is way off-base and totally unwarranted.

        What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

        by equern on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:35:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No.Going to court to compel a woman who's in LABOR (0+ / 0-)

          let someone into the room with her while she gives birth is NOT "wanting to be involved in a child's life."  It's control, pure and simple.  The guy has all the hallmarks of a serious abuser.  

          •  Ignorant? Maybe. Abuser? Doubtful. (0+ / 0-)

            If the guy was simply an abuser, he'd have bailed after the birth. As it was, he stuck around until after deliver and was handed the baby after delivery.

            I don't doubt that the guy has poor taste and exceptionally bad manners, but abuser?

            Just chalk this up to one of the many times I'm glad I'm gay. Leave me out of the "battle of the sexes." Too many women have an automatic disposition to think poorly of men and too many men have an automatic disposition to think poorly of women.

            I'm outta here.

            What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

            by equern on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:57:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  It's just basic biology (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Batya the Toon, martydd, cai, SGA

    If you want a birthing to go smoothly, you must reduce stress on the mother. That's a basic thing.

    Stress hormones interfere with birthing hormones, and can turn a normal birth into a life-threatening situation, for both the mother and the baby.

    The bottom line is whatever makes the mother more comfortable is what has to happen, no matter what it is.



    Women create the entire labor force.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:48:17 PM PDT

  •  I bet the court will give him the "right" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente

    to pay child support though.

    Just sayin'


    "Legalizing pot won't make more pot-smokers. It will just make fewer criminals. - Me

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:43:15 PM PDT

  •  I strongly disagree with the ruling. (0+ / 0-)
    •  On what basis? n/t (0+ / 0-)

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 06:42:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Explain the logistics (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martydd, SGA

      of forcing a hospital to admit someone to the delivery room that the patient doesn't want present.

      First off... how do you go about proving the person is actually the father? Because he claims he is? Or are you going to force the mother to subject her fetus to a paternity test?

      Given what goes on during a delivery and what the woman undergoes, anyone who thinks she should forced to endure anyone's presence at that time has to either be completely ignorant of reality or a complete Neanderthal.

  •  All Sides Covered (0+ / 0-)

    So she doesn't want the kid (abortion) and he does - the father has no say. So she want's the kid and he doesn't - he has no say. He wants to watch the birth of the child he will be paying for the next eighteen years - he has no say. Somehow both are equally responsible for the pregnancy but he has no say. Insert any other situation and you get an idea of how ridiculous this is.

    •  Brilliant (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martydd, SpaK

      So as a male who wants a child all I have to do is go out and ravage a bunch of women, willing or not. If I decide I don't want a child with one of them all I have to do is tell her she needs to have an abortion and I'm off the hook for child support! If I DO want to have a child with her then I can ignore her medical needs and chain her to a bed for nine months. She should be okay with that because I'll make it all right with child support.

      Your arguments are not ridiculous at all.

      /snark

      P.S. REAL MEN USE BIRTH CONTROL. IDIOTS MAKE IDIOTIC ARGUMENTS AFTER NOT USING BIRTH CONTROL.

    •  Ah well, sex is expensive /nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Article (0+ / 0-)

    If she doesn't want him there, then he should not be there. However, if he is the child's father, he should be notified that she is in delivery and he should be taking immediate action to have a paternity test done!

  •  I suspect this is a ploy to get out of paying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    child support.

    My bet is that he didn't really want to be there, he just saw this as one (I'm also betting "one ong>more") way to make her life a living hell so that she wouldn't pursue child support. Since his plan even involved getting her on the phone with a judge while she was in labor (unbelievable!!) it's clear there's no limit to what he'll try to do.

    Frankly, her best move is to get as far away from this creep as possible. Child support be damned.  No child should have someone like that in their life for any reason.  

  •  So fathers have no rights but (0+ / 0-)

    DO have responsibilities.  Sounds like what conservatives say about women -- 'if you don't want to get pregnant, stop having sex.'

    Seriously -- if we are going to live in a country where fathers are legally responsible for SUPPORT of the offspring, then the fathers need to have SOME RIGHTS in regards to the offspring.

    I do not know the particulars of this case, but it sounds like a typical male-bashing mentality.  If the child is his, then he should be able to participate in its important events.

    As an aside, I also find it fascinating that the author of this article labels all those who disagree with him as "haters" in his last lines.  Nice -- he clearly has learned a lot from the extreme right on suppressing disagreement by labeling opponents as worthless.

    •  Sad. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpaK, gardnerhill, Calamity Jean

      Why is it every time this community discusses the rights of women, a few men have to jump in and complain about child support.

      What we're talking about here is a woman's right (yes, her fucking RIGHT) to medical privacy.  She is not a cow, or some other production animal, whose body is claimed and used by others.  

      She decides what goes in her vagina, and what comes out her vagina.  She decides who gets to view her most personal moments.  

      What next, are one of you fuckwits going to agree with Rush Limbaugh and say that if you pay for someone's birth control, you get to watch them have sex?  Because you've bought and paid for that privilege?

      The child may be his, but the woman isn't.  Get over it.

      My dogs think I'm smart and pretty.

      by martydd on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 03:52:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Heh - fathers have no rights? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martydd, Calamity Jean

      They have plenty of rights. Why do some men still feel the need to tromp on women's rights?

      Forcing your way into a medical procedure? Seriously.

  •  As a man (0+ / 0-)

    who had always been completely pro-choice, I'm nowhere nearly as certain now.

    About 20 years ago, I was in a very serious relationship with a woman. We planned to have at least one child and to get married. We were so certain of this that we mutually made the decision to not use any birth control, knowing full well what might and probably would happen: that she would become pregnant (which we both wanted). No other variation to our plans was made - pregnancy and marriage were our goals and we proceeded and acted toward them.

    Of course, she did get pregnant and we both were thrilled. Within the first two months of her pregnancy, she had a change of heart and decided to have an abortion without letting me know beforehand. Two days before the procedure, I did - by accident - find out about it. When I confronted her, she simply said that she had changed her mind and that it was her decision alone.

    I felt betrayed on a number levels: politically, I understood then (and now) the SEEMING necessity that the choice belongs strictly to the woman. Personally, however, I no longer see it that way and no longer fully support the "our bodies, ourselves" one-sidedness that exists. A number of folk have mentioned it here: if the situation were reversed - if a man backs out while the woman chooses to have a child - it is completely inequitable and he has no option other then to pony-up support. Most father's fate - whether he wants to be closely involved, or not - is left to the woman's decision and  our extraordinarily biased women/mother-oriented legal system.

    Before I'm attacked here - which I suspect will happen - let me note that I have no great answers or ideas. I don't believe the government - legislative or judicial - should have a role in this, but alas, that horse has left the barn. I DO believe, however, that a promise supersedes personal politics including the VERY political idea - and yes, it IS political - that a person can do whatever she/he wants with their body - even when it directly impacts someone else.

  •  Wow, this thread really brought out the MRAs. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    martydd, Calamity Jean

    I can't help but feel that some of these guys are putting a whole lot of energy into deliberately not-understanding everything being said here.

    Thank God, the Bob Fosse Kid is here! - Colin Mochrie

    by gardnerhill on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 09:35:59 PM PDT

    •  When they talk about the courts being unfair to (0+ / 0-)

      men, little do they know how it once was for my grandmother and so many other women like in the 1930s.

      My grandfather deserted my pregnant grandmother who also had an 18 month old little boy, my dad.  The judge refused to make my grandfather pay child support. He said my grandmother must have done something wrong for her husband to leave her.

      he said,

      You will not be getting child support from your ex husband. You must be a pretty poor hen if you cannot scratch for your chickens. If you were a good wife , he would not have left you for another woman.  So either give your kids up for adoption or figure out how to suppor them yourself.
      Do men and even some women want to go back to when the courts always ruled against men paying child support and when the courts always ruled against women and mothers? I mean ..really think about it. Yes things have changed but for the better when you think about the alternatives.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

      by wishingwell on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:32:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  COMMON SENSE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS PREVAIL! (0+ / 0-)

    Actually, with so many Republican-led states altering or outright abolishing laws that protect women's reproductive health rights nowadays, this decision by a New Jersey superior court judge upholding a mother's right to prevent the alleged father from attending the child's birth is rather shocking. Still, this was the correct ruling. Besides, almost any man can physically "father" a child, but actually being "A FATHER" is another proposition entirely.

  •  Judge Mohammed (0+ / 0-)

    will most certainly be vilified by a certain segment of our society for his name alone.  The words "Sharia law" will undoubtedly also be in their rants, regardless of the facts.

Joe Bob, Radiowalla, AaronInSanDiego, Pandora, meg, Stein, mslat27, celdd, eeff, awhitestl, sobermom, grover, musicsleuth, dpeifer1949, hubcap, Heart of the Rockies, eyeswideopen, opinionated, TheMomCat, Babsnc, susans, BlackSheep1, Agathena, mikidee, roses, sngmama, splashy, kcc, psnyder, emmasnacker, mrkvica, Eyesbright, exiledfromTN, Evolution, annetteboardman, lcrp, zerelda, ybruti, vivadissent, oortdust, Gowrie Gal, sb, CPT Doom, A Citizen, BluejayRN, Lying eyes, one of 8, Bill Section 147, Brooke In Seattle, eru, bleeding blue, majcmb1, Sun Tzu, where4art, lotlizard, Hastur, Rogneid, peacestpete, kathny, Denny in Seattle, poco, myboo, Themistoclea, Esjaydee, dangangry, aloevera, philipmerrill, twigg, gooderservice, middleagedhousewife, justiceputnam, CA Nana, doingbusinessas, suspiciousmind, Statusquomustgo, postmodernista, AllanTBG, ZenTrainer, PatConnors, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, cpresley, krwheaton, Tamar, devis1, LSophia, karmsy, edsbrooklyn, crose, gchaucer2, RudiB, thankgodforairamerica, martydd, JeffW, kimoconnor, filby, Calamity Jean, Lujane, royce, Cassandra Waites, RandomNonviolence, TokenLiberal, get the red out, Parthenia, JamieG from Md, watercarrier4diogenes, prettygirlxoxoxo, Louisiana 1976, greengemini, LinSea, CanyonWren, CaliSista, Denise Oliver Velez, moviemeister76, sfarkash, Livvy5, Railfan, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, mamamorgaine, FogCityJohn, The Jester, Observerinvancouver, catwho, CS in AZ, klompendanser, JoanMar, NYWheeler, Actbriniel, Onomastic, kerflooey, Miniaussiefan, Lost Left Coaster, Catherine R, slowbutsure, vahana, La Gitane, asterkitty, mikejay611, thomask, Ojibwa, tardis10, MRA NY, wintergreen8694, enhydra lutris, Safina, PhilJD, Liberal Mole, sound of progress, Marihilda, bakeneko, Vatexia, Hayate Yagami, ratcityreprobate, jham710, nyer11Oak, No one gets out alive, Laurel in CA, Mathazar, OldDragon, anodnhajo, Voiceless, Flying Goat, leathersmith, Siri, ahumbleopinion, LefseBlue, AnnieR, LittleSilver, jan4insight, radical simplicity, Arahahex, bewareofme, doroma, OllieGarkey, lunachickie, surreal times, Most Awesome Nana, Foothills of Oblivion, allensl, Silvia Nightshade, nuclear winter solstice, Lily O Lady, Blue Bell Bookworm, Chaddiwicker, nomandates, desert rain, atana, gypsytoo, Joy of Fishes, alice kleeman, howabout, GreenMother, Avilyn, GrannyRedBird, ET3117, ChristineM, oslyn7, Brian1066, Batya the Toon, Dodgerdog1, Elizaveta, Bartskid1, Penny GC, wiseoldsnail, ginimck, agiftagain, Arkenstark, AJayne, kfunk937

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site