Log In Sign Up

Custody/visitation with a newborn


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to [email protected].

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #81  
April 5th, 2007, 10:24 AM
babyreaves's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, U.S.A.
Posts: 575
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I dont' think a time limit should be set. A father should be able to spend as much time with his child as he wants if the mom has sole custody because of breastfeeding.[/b]
In theory, I agree. But if the parents can't stand each other for whatever reason, then I think an hour or two away from mom is reasonable. But not 8 hours, or a weekend.
[/b]
I don't think it's theory, I think if the mom is keeping the child (temporarily) due to breastfeeding (as that are her wishes) and the father is being respectful of that, I think the mother should in turn be respectful to the fathers wish of wanting to see the child as much as he wants.
[/b]
That would be nice...unless you have parents like mine who can't stand being in the same room, or an ex-wife like DH's....some people just can't stand to be around each other after a break-up or whatever...even when there are little kids involved, sad but true.
__________________
<a href="http://lilypie.com" target="_blank">
Reply With Quote
  #82  
April 5th, 2007, 10:25 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Quote:
That is your opinion it is a ridiculous rule, but it isn't. I've stated my opinions, but no parent is more important than the other EXCEPT in cases of a newborn where the baby doesn't UNDERSTAND not being around mommy 24/7. And if pumping etc are feasible, then it's not gonna kill the kid to be 1/2 with mom and 1/2 with dad, but pumping doesn't always work, so in the case of sole breastfeeding the mother should have the baby TEMPORARILY like I've stated ALL ALONG because for this short period of time it DOES make her more important because she is the FOOD SOURCE. But Dad should be able to come around AS MUCH as he wants to.[/b]
It can't go both ways.. By assuming the bf is a reason to not share a child with a father equally and making mom a primary caregiver, as many ladies have outright said and you agreed with, it takes away rights to the child and the father. In fact, by not figuring out an arrangement that includes scheduling dad, that alone will create the instability so many people are preaching about.


Quote:
And I'm sorry if I sounded condescending, but your under my last post made it seem like you were saying I've all along been saying that Dad shouldn't be in the picture because he's not important and that is NOT true.[/b]
Again, you have said things that seem like the conflict here.. I was asking to clarify.

Quote:
I don't think either parent should be forced from being away from their baby for long periods of time if either of them are uncomfortable about it.[/b]
What exactly is a long period of time?
[/b]
BOLD:::Michelle I have NEVER agreed to that DO NOT put words in my mouth! Go back to my LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG post and you will see over and over again me saying that the father should be able to spend as much time as he wants with his baby!
Long Period of TIme::::I dunno. *shrugs* If either parent wants to see their child they should have every right to, regardless if they don't get along. They need to put their issues aside for the sake of their child seeing both parents.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
April 5th, 2007, 10:26 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hudson, FL
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Fathers are, by nature, fathers just as mothers are, by nature, mothers. The mind of the father is natural to the man. The act of fathering is, in many ways, a biological crucible.[/b]
source

Quote:
A father's brain chemistry sets him up for a different kind of parent-child bond than the mother experiences
Testosterone and vasopressin mix with the male brain to create a particular kind of parenting called paternal nurturance[/b]
Quote:
Among humans, however, the father's biological role is the most comprehensive in any known species. Our fathers bond more directly with their offspring than do most male mammals. The human father's bond with offspring is one of the primary reasons humans flourish as a species. Human nature has adapted the father's biological role to parity with the mother's, and human children have advanced beyond the other mammals in their abilities, skills, and confidence.

Yet even as human fathers bond as powerfully to children as human mothers, the nature of the bond is different.[/b]
Right here, in scientific literature, it states that a father's bond to their children is AS POWERFUL as the mothers. Albeit different, but just as strong.

Quote:
Men share with women the instinctual connection to children. Men also share social, emotional, and psychological bonds with offspring.[/b]
Quote:
Simultaneously, a behavior does not occur without starting out as a series of brain chemicals and neurotransmitters interacting inside the brain. So while it is true that males bond with offspring, it is also true that their bond is biochemically different from a woman's bond. This biochemical-bonding difference leads to a father's tendency toward paternal nurturance, a parenting style that is crucial to children's growth, but often somewhat different from a mother's.[/b]
Quote:
Divorced From the Mother But Still a Father:
When children experience the divorce of their parents, the parent from whom they are most likely to lose emotional, physical, moral, and parental touch is the father.

The average divorced father spends two to four days a month with his biological offspring. This fact in itself indicates how profoundly the biological attachment of parent and offspring changes once divorce occurs. Children are no less hardwired to attach to their parents when a divorce occurs than they were before its occurrence; but when their environment changes considerably, their hardwiring is less supported.

In situations of divorce, fathers may stay involved in their children's lives but lose their full role as father. They become what I call half-fathers. This father, after a divorce, systematically loses his biological bonds with his children - mainly because of lack of physical proximity - and feels like half a father. Not wanting to lose that half, too, he foregoes much of who he is as a father - he gives up at least half his paternal identity, hoping to gain the identity of "friend." This carries immense dangers for the child, the society, and even for the mother, who within a few years will often discover that her children are acting out more than they were and presenting a higher incidence of mental and other disorders.

Though some men quickly abandon their children after a divorce, and still others are alcoholics, mentally ill, or otherwise dangerous to children, most fathers are good dads who find themselves half-fathers because of an inadequate cultural understanding of the father's and child's nature.[/b]
__________________
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
Reply With Quote
  #84  
April 5th, 2007, 10:27 AM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,149
Send a message via Yahoo to AmberL
Quote:
I don't think it's about just the BFing.

Some BFing moms pump, and are fine leaving their baby with someone else for 8 hours every day.

And other BFing moms can't pump, and are not fine leaving their baby for more than an hour or two.

And there are bottlefeeding moms who leave their baby at grandma's all day.

And also bottlefeeding moms that are not fine leaving their baby for more than an hour or two (just like BFing moms). They want to stay with their baby.

It's about the PARENTING style, not just bfing vs. bottlefeeding.[/b]
But why is it all surrounding what mom is okay with? What if dad is not fine leaving baby for more than an hour or two? Bottle feeding or breast feeding...a dad may still feel the NEED ( just like us moms do ) to actually BE WITH his baby.
__________________
~Amber~

Reply With Quote
  #85  
April 5th, 2007, 10:30 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great post red!

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That is your opinion it is a ridiculous rule, but it isn't. I've stated my opinions, but no parent is more important than the other EXCEPT in cases of a newborn where the baby doesn't UNDERSTAND not being around mommy 24/7. And if pumping etc are feasible, then it's not gonna kill the kid to be 1/2 with mom and 1/2 with dad, but pumping doesn't always work, so in the case of sole breastfeeding the mother should have the baby TEMPORARILY like I've stated ALL ALONG because for this short period of time it DOES make her more important because she is the FOOD SOURCE. But Dad should be able to come around AS MUCH as he wants to.[/b]
It can't go both ways.. By assuming the bf is a reason to not share a child with a father equally and making mom a primary caregiver, as many ladies have outright said and you agreed with, it takes away rights to the child and the father. In fact, by not figuring out an arrangement that includes scheduling dad, that alone will create the instability so many people are preaching about.


Quote:
And I'm sorry if I sounded condescending, but your under my last post made it seem like you were saying I've all along been saying that Dad shouldn't be in the picture because he's not important and that is NOT true.[/b]
Again, you have said things that seem like the conflict here.. I was asking to clarify.

Quote:
I don't think either parent should be forced from being away from their baby for long periods of time if either of them are uncomfortable about it.[/b]
What exactly is a long period of time?
[/b]
BOLD:::Michelle I have NEVER agreed to that DO NOT put words in my mouth! Go back to my LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG post and you will see over and over again me saying that the father should be able to spend as much time as he wants with his baby!
Long Period of TIme::::I dunno. *shrugs* If either parent wants to see their child they should have every right to, regardless if they don't get along. They need to put their issues aside for the sake of their child seeing both parents.
[/b]
It's a conflictation of interest to have a primary caregiver. Period. If you can't define the "long period of time" you constantly speak of, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
April 5th, 2007, 10:31 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
You don't seem to know much about biology if you believe that fathers have no parental instincts.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
After a woman gives birth, certain hormones (I think prolactin, and oxytocin) are released that cause her to bond with the baby and want to protect/be near baby. Dad doesn't have these[/b]
Men don't have any biological attachments to their children though, huh?
You really should go study some more.
[/b][/quote]

I really don't like the tone of this post. Very grating.

I didn't say dads have no parental instincts. I said they don't have the same hormones going through their bodies that women do after giving birth.

Go ahead, name a hormone that dads have going through their bodies after MOM gives birth.

It is one thing to say that dads have a bond with their kids. Because they DO. And another to say that they have the same biological attachment (they don't).
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #87  
April 5th, 2007, 10:31 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
But why is it all surrounding what mom is okay with? What if dad is not fine leaving baby for more than an hour or two? Bottle feeding or breast feeding...a dad may still feel the NEED ( just like us moms do ) to actually BE WITH his baby.[/b]
And he is 100% entitled to have it!
Reply With Quote
  #88  
April 5th, 2007, 10:33 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hudson, FL
Posts: 1,696
source

Quote:
new research shows that a father's touch is equally essential to a baby's health and well being. Health benefits for infants include fewer sleep problems, as well as strengthening and regulating the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems.[/b]

Another article relayed information on a study citing that fathers can also suffer from post-natal depression.
__________________
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
Reply With Quote
  #89  
April 5th, 2007, 10:33 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Go ahead, name a hormone that dads have going through their bodies after MOM gives birth.[/b]
testosterone

Quote:
Wynne-Edwards found that concentrations of the male sex hormone testosterone in saliva were, on average, significantly lower in 13 first-time, expectant fathers compared with 14 childless guys. Testosterone concentrations began to rise in the dads soon after their wives gave birth, she says, but remained lower than those in the men who did not have children.[/b]
source
Reply With Quote
  #90  
April 5th, 2007, 10:38 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hudson, FL
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
And another to say that they have the same biological attachment (they don't).[/b]
But they do, indeed, have a biological attachment that is just as powerful and strong as a mother's. Not the SAME, but a powerful and strong biological attachment just the same.

Quote:
Research indicates that this may have some biological basis. Statistics show that fathers' levels of testosterone tend to decline several months before the birth of the child (due, perhaps, to an inverse pheromonal chemical produced by the mother during pregnancy). Since high testosterone levels seem to encourage more aggressive behaviour, low levels may enhance the ability to develop a new relationship bond (for example, with the child).[/b]
source
__________________
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
<div align="center"></div>
Reply With Quote
  #91  
April 5th, 2007, 10:38 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Quote:
It is possible for dad to still spend time and bond with the child, AND mom to still bf. If they cooperate with each other and/or he only has short visits.[/b]

[/b]
See this post Michelle...you agree with this post...and this is what I've been saying ALL ALONG so I don't see how you are disagreeing with me when you already have agreed.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
April 5th, 2007, 10:40 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
But it has long been assumed that a father's attachment to his child is the result of a more uncertain process, a purely optional emotional bonding that develops over time, often years. Male animals in some species undergo hormonal changes that prime them for parenting. But do human dads? The two studies, conducted at Memorial University and Queens University in Canada, suggest that human dads do.

The first hormone, prolactin, gets its name from the role it plays in promoting lactation in women, but it also instigates parental behavior in a number of birds and mammals. Male doves who are given prolactin start brooding and feeding their young, Storey found that in human fathers, prolactin levels rise by approximately 20 percent during the three weeks before their partners give birth.

The second hormone, cortisol, is well known as a stress hormone, but it is also a good indicator of a mother's attachment to her baby. New mothers who have high cortisol levels can detect their own infant by odor more easily than mothers with lower cortisol levels. The mothers also respond more sympathetically to their baby's cries and describe their relationship with their baby in more positive terms. Storey and her colleagues found that for expectant fathers, cortisol was twice as high in the three weeks before birth than earlier in the pregnancy.

Biologist Katherine Wynne-Edwards, who conducted the research with Storey, explains that while cortisol is seen as the "fight or flight" hormone, it might more accurately be described as the "heads-up-eyes-forward-something-really-important-is-happening" hormone. It may help prepare parents for approaching birth. Cortisol levels normally increase in women as pregnancy advances; indeed, a cumulative rise in stress-hormone levels sets off labor and delivery.

The third hormone, testosterone, is abundant in male animals during mating but decreases during nurturing. If bird fathers are given testosterone, they spend more time defending their territory and mating than taking care of existing offspring. Research has shown that human males experience a surge in testosterone when they win sporting events and other competitions.

In Storey's study, testosterone levels plunged 33 percent in fathers during the first three weeks after birth. Levels then returned to normal by the time the babies were four to seven weeks old. However brief the dip in testosterone, it may have effects that endure for the life of the child. According to University of California at Riverside psychologist Ross Parke, it may "let the nurturing side of men come to center stage." The dip may set in motion the more-cooperative, less-competitive enterprise of parenting. By encouraging fathers to interact with their kids, this brief hormonal change might actually induce the bonding process.[/b]
source



Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is possible for dad to still spend time and bond with the child, AND mom to still bf. If they cooperate with each other and/or he only has short visits.[/b]

[/b]
See this post Michelle...you agree with this post...and this is what I've been saying ALL ALONG so I don't see how you are disagreeing with me when you already have agreed.
[/b]
I'm done. I won't say it again.. It's a conflictation of interest to have a primary caregiver. Period. If you can't define the "long period of time" you constantly speak of, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
April 5th, 2007, 10:41 AM
Cereal Killer's Avatar Aiming for mediocrity
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: in my house
Posts: 7,374
Quote:
Quote:
You don't seem to know much about biology if you believe that fathers have no parental instincts.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'>After a woman gives birth, certain hormones (I think prolactin, and oxytocin) are released that cause her to bond with the baby and want to protect/be near baby. Dad doesn't have these[/b]
Men don't have any biological attachments to their children though, huh?
You really should go study some more.
[/b][/quote]

I really don't like the tone of this post. Very grating.

[/b][/quote]
I find the implication that my husband lacks a biological bond to OUR children very grating. It is an unfounded assumption and Jenifer already debunked your opinion.
Quote:
I didn't say dads have no parental instincts. I said they don't have the same hormones going through their bodies that women do after giving birth.[/b]
You said that fathers don't have pregnancy hormones, which you seem to think prevent them from bonding with their children.
Quote:
Go ahead, name a hormone that dads have going through their bodies after MOM gives birth.[/b]
I will defer to Redifer's post.
Quote:
It is one thing to say that dads have a bond with their kids. Because they DO. And another to say that they have the same biological attachment (they don't).[/b]
That is ridiculous to say that father's cannot bond as well as mother's. It is very sexist and completely ridiculous. I can assure you that my husband is very bonded to our children, there is not a thing he would not do for either of them, he would give his life to save theirs.
__________________
Wife, Mother of 4, Homeschooling, and wine drinking.


Reply With Quote
  #94  
April 5th, 2007, 10:42 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
But it has long been assumed that a father's attachment to his child is the result of a more uncertain process, a purely optional emotional bonding that develops over time, often years. Male animals in some species undergo hormonal changes that prime them for parenting. But do human dads? The two studies, conducted at Memorial University and Queens University in Canada, suggest that human dads do.

The first hormone, prolactin, gets its name from the role it plays in promoting lactation in women, but it also instigates parental behavior in a number of birds and mammals. Male doves who are given prolactin start brooding and feeding their young, Storey found that in human fathers, prolactin levels rise by approximately 20 percent during the three weeks before their partners give birth.

The second hormone, cortisol, is well known as a stress hormone, but it is also a good indicator of a mother's attachment to her baby. New mothers who have high cortisol levels can detect their own infant by odor more easily than mothers with lower cortisol levels. The mothers also respond more sympathetically to their baby's cries and describe their relationship with their baby in more positive terms. Storey and her colleagues found that for expectant fathers, cortisol was twice as high in the three weeks before birth than earlier in the pregnancy.

Biologist Katherine Wynne-Edwards, who conducted the research with Storey, explains that while cortisol is seen as the "fight or flight" hormone, it might more accurately be described as the "heads-up-eyes-forward-something-really-important-is-happening" hormone. It may help prepare parents for approaching birth. Cortisol levels normally increase in women as pregnancy advances; indeed, a cumulative rise in stress-hormone levels sets off labor and delivery.

The third hormone, testosterone, is abundant in male animals during mating but decreases during nurturing. If bird fathers are given testosterone, they spend more time defending their territory and mating than taking care of existing offspring. Research has shown that human males experience a surge in testosterone when they win sporting events and other competitions.

In Storey's study, testosterone levels plunged 33 percent in fathers during the first three weeks after birth. Levels then returned to normal by the time the babies were four to seven weeks old. However brief the dip in testosterone, it may have effects that endure for the life of the child. According to University of California at Riverside psychologist Ross Parke, it may "let the nurturing side of men come to center stage." The dip may set in motion the more-cooperative, less-competitive enterprise of parenting. By encouraging fathers to interact with their kids, this brief hormonal change might actually induce the bonding process.[/b]
source



Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is possible for dad to still spend time and bond with the child, AND mom to still bf. If they cooperate with each other and/or he only has short visits.[/b]

[/b]
See this post Michelle...you agree with this post...and this is what I've been saying ALL ALONG so I don't see how you are disagreeing with me when you already have agreed.
[/b]
I'm done. I won't say it again.. It's a conflictation of interest to have a primary caregiver. Period. If you can't define the "long period of time" you constantly speak of, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
[/b][/quote]



I'm not understanding your post maybe by primary caregiver.....I don't see it as primary caregiver because I believe Dad should be able to be around as much as he wants and to come and go see his baby as he pleases....so to me, that is joint custody I don't see it as primary just because baby sleeps in mom's house so she can feed him/her.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
April 5th, 2007, 10:43 AM
mrobinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
That is ridiculous to say that father's cannot bond as well as mother's. It is very sexist and completely ridiculous.[/b]
I can't stress it enough.. Stacey is right ~ it's sexist to assume a parent over the other based on gender.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
April 5th, 2007, 10:45 AM
Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 542
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I DO know how beautiful and necessary it is...maybe not first hand, unfortunately, but I do not think for one second that a father is not important, that he cannot love a child just as much as a mother does. My point is, this is not about what is fair to the father, or what is fair to the mother, it is about what is fair to the baby. The baby needs stability, and if the two parents cannot co-exist for the sake of the child (which it sounds like you would do in this situation), again the next best thing is for the mother to have primary custody with the father having AMPLE visitation. No one is saying that the man should be kept from his child.[/b]
But my point is that I disagree with you. I do NOT feel the mother should automatically be assumed to be the best caregiver. That is NOT a given. Nor do I really feel it is ever a given.

And to the pp I meant exactly what I said, Rebecca has not raised a child with that child's father. Once you see that as a wife and mother, your feelings change. Before I met my dh, I believed as many of you do. But now that my dh has not only been involved atleast 50/50 in the parenting of our 2 biological children, also adopted and 50/50 parented my 2 sons from a previous marriage, I know what he is capable of. I know how important he is to all 4 of my children, and I know how important that bond is with Daddy from day 1. My dh is the best parent I know. Even better than me sometimes!

Mr. Robinson.....sounds like you've got a good one too!

E
__________________
"Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan



Reply With Quote
  #97  
April 5th, 2007, 10:49 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think a mother's bond to her baby is just the same as a father's bond to his baby. But I feel the baby's bond to mother is slightly more right after birth because they just came out of growing inside of her for 9 months. I cannot fathom thinking that the baby would be as attatched to dad as to mom straight away.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
April 5th, 2007, 11:00 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,925
These threads make me really sad. Men really draw the short stick when it comes to children.

Thank you Red for the information you posted,very enlightening

But I feel the baby's bond to mother is slightly more right after birth because they just came out of growing inside of her for 9 months. I cannot fathom thinking that the baby would be as attatched to dad as to mom straight away.

My babies were not more attached to me. The minute they were born their father was cuddling them. Seriously,none of mine have been more attached to me. They were also just as comforted on their dads chest listening to his heartbeat as they were mine.

I may have "cooked" the children but their dad also spent 9 mths feeling them move on the outside,listening to their heartbeat,seeing them on the scans,watching my tummy move,watching my tummy grow etc etc

Even while BF my babies were no more attached to me. Actually,as newborns they would be comforted by anyone,as much as I would like to think my babies were attached to me more than anyone else I could have left them with anyone and as long as they were fed and looked after they would be happy.

It always confuses me when people say babies are more attached to their mothers because it has not been my experience. Maybe I had horrible innards and they were pleased to not be living inside me anymore LOL

Great posts Stacy and Michelle and everyone else who agrees with them.
__________________
Mum to Ross, Elliot, Jack, Jasmine and Evie
Reply With Quote
  #99  
April 5th, 2007, 11:03 AM
Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 542
Quote:
These threads make me really sad. Men really draw the short stick when it comes to children.

Thank you Red for the information you posted,very enlightening

But I feel the baby's bond to mother is slightly more right after birth because they just came out of growing inside of her for 9 months. I cannot fathom thinking that the baby would be as attatched to dad as to mom straight away.

My babies were not more attached to me. The minute they were born their father was cuddling them. Seriously,none of mine have been more attached to me. They were also just as comforted on their dads chest listening to his heartbeat as they were mine.

I may have "cooked" the children but their dad also spent 9 mths feeling them move on the outside,listening to their heartbeat,seeing them on the scans,watching my tummy move,watching my tummy grow etc etc

Even while BF my babies were no more attached to me. Actually,as newborns they would be comforted by anyone,as much as I would like to think my babies were attached to me more than anyone else I could have left them with anyone and as long as they were fed and looked after they would be happy.

It always confuses me when people say babies are more attached to their mothers because it has not been my experience. Maybe I had horrible innards and they were pleased to not be living inside me anymore LOL

Great posts Stacy and Michelle and everyone else who agrees with them.[/b]
Exactly what she said.
__________________
"Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan



Reply With Quote
  #100  
April 5th, 2007, 11:05 AM
Pure Innocence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
These threads make me really sad. Men really draw the short stick when it comes to children.

Thank you Red for the information you posted,very enlightening

But I feel the baby's bond to mother is slightly more right after birth because they just came out of growing inside of her for 9 months. I cannot fathom thinking that the baby would be as attatched to dad as to mom straight away.

My babies were not more attached to me. The minute they were born their father was cuddling them. Seriously,none of mine have been more attached to me. They were also just as comforted on their dads chest listening to his heartbeat as they were mine.

I may have "cooked" the children but their dad also spent 9 mths feeling them move on the outside,listening to their heartbeat,seeing them on the scans,watching my tummy move,watching my tummy grow etc etc

Even while BF my babies were no more attached to me. Actually,as newborns they would be comforted by anyone,as much as I would like to think my babies were attached to me more than anyone else I could have left them with anyone and as long as they were fed and looked after they would be happy.

It always confuses me when people say babies are more attached to their mothers because it has not been my experience. Maybe I had horrible innards and they were pleased to not be living inside me anymore LOL

Great posts Stacy and Michelle and everyone else who agrees with them.[/b]
Yea...that is why I used the word slightly..... And again, I never said anything about the fathers bond to his baby. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

I guess *I* just see being pregnant a little more than "cooking" my child.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:56 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0