What is your opinion of this article? I am appalled.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
This was an ordeal! It became apparent on Thursday night very late that Tim was not coming nor was he going to inform anyone. So, we worked ...
-
Remember these? Here is the recipe. I used Roma tomatoes the right size to insert in the squash and be even with the edges of the squash...
-
Saturday night, we started decorating for Halloween. I found the ghosts to hang from the dogwood tree. They were wadded and wrinkled, so th...
It's just another example of our government exerting their control over a woman's body. I am so disgusted with the overreach regarding women's physical, mental, and emotional health.
ReplyDeleteRhitter,
DeleteWhen a judge orders a mother of a four-month-old baby to stop breastfeeding, it is cruel for mother and baby. Soon, women will be order to breastfeed, very much overreach.
I, too, am appalled. However, it says the baby needs to be fed every hour and I find that hard to believe. It sounds like she is using breastfeeding as an excuse not to let the father have visitation. There are many mothers who breastfeed who also pump and use bottles at times. I think that could have been a nice alternative.
ReplyDeleteAlice,
DeleteI have no idea what is going on and neither does the judge. The fact that a judge would presume to tell a woman anything about breastfeeding is appalling.
I think feeding once an hour for a baby born in July is excessive unless there is an ailment involved. My granddaughter would pump so her husband could give the night feeding. I think this could be resolved with a little cooperation on both sides if they wanted to. However a baby that young should be kept with the mother. We have no idea if the father is capable of giving the baby the right care. This is a mess and the poor baby faces a lifetime of parents getting back at each other.
ReplyDeleteCarole,
DeleteThe baby was four months old when the judge made this decision.
"In a post-Roe v. Wade country, this is just another legal apparatus for the state to control people’s bodies, even at the expense of actual babies."
ReplyDeletePEOPLE'S BODIES??? Uh, NO. It's only women's bodies that laws are trying to control. The right to birth control as a paid benefit, the right to having tampons/pads in public bathrooms aong with toilet paper, the right to abortion. No one tries to control men's bodies in any way, shape, or form. it's women who are always the object of subjugation.
Feeding a baby once an hour is real. My daughter nursed every 2 hours, for an hour at a time. Breastfed babies feed on demand. They get hungry faster than a baby on formula. It's just like a man to think that his "rights" should come at the expense of a hungry, helpless infant.
This whole ploy is probably so that he can pay less child support.
But I agree that the mom should let him have the baby overnight. He'd stop whining for overnight visits pretty darn quick with the baby waking every 2 hours. A**hole.
Sue,
DeleteYou said it so well. I had not thought about the baby waking him all night long. Men were the ones (doctors) who advised babies should be put in their own room at birth. Of course, men wanted interrupted access to a woman. He did not want a woman distracted caring for a baby. This is in the era of men doctors "proscriptions" against infants and mothers.
Yikes! The government needs to stop trying to control us.
ReplyDeleteBelinda,
DeleteIt is almost unbelievable!
seems to me the Judge was just making a point that the Mother couldn't use breast feeding as an excuse to not give the father his parenting time and bond with their child. I'd guess that if the mother were more flexible (expressing milk and/or finding some co-parenting cooperation) the Judge would not have resorted to doing something so drastic. Divorcing someone does not mean you can interfere with the parent/child relationship of your ex spouse.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with your assessment of the situation.
Deletemore women's bodies = political who controls them.
ReplyDeleteUrspo,
DeleteBut, we won't stand for it.