I also disagree that the child ha no rights. The child has the right to life.
If we can say the child has no rights, that one parent can willingly endanger the child against the will of the other parent, then how can we say things like abortion is wrong?
No...the child cannot make the decisions but the child has rights.
NYC Judge Blocks Unvaccinated Father From Seeing Daughter: ‘Not In The Child’s Best Interests’
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Oct 15, 2021.
Page 2 of 3
-
With natural immunity, the body learns how to fight the virus. Even when the antibody count decreases, as it always does after the infection, the protection is there. The body will quickly respond to any exposure.
Concerning the delta variant, again, the studies are not reflective of the entire populations of those recovered vs those vaccinated, but rather the comparison is of the very small population of both groups that are reinfected.
The way the studies are presented gives a false impression of the risk of reinfection of those recovered from the virus.
That is deliberate misinformation. You should know better.
peace to you -
This is deliberate misrepresentation of scientific ctudies. You should know better.
The fact is natural immunity does provide limited protection, but the protection is not as effective as the vaccine. Covid has been proven to decrease t-cells (it had been assumed they would increase) while the vaccine increases the count.
Natural immunity has also been proven much less effective in regards to varients (the vacvine is effective due to the defence against a protein while vovid survivers are not adequatly protected against varients other than the one they to which they were exposed). -
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The judge was evil in this case and the Father had equal consideration regardless of who the daughter lives with.
-
The difference is suicide vs abortion. You can argue a man has a right to his own health decisions (and I agree) but you are wrong to suggest a man has the right to endanger a child over which he has no custody.
There are too many children dying of covid to simply dismiss the wishes of the mother in protecting her child. -
I answered the above question here:
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/deadbeat-dads.122292/ -
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
From USA Today on October 8th:
Of the 73 million children in the U.S., fewer than 700 have died of COVID-19 during the course of the pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rauch puts the figure into context using the number of people who can typically fit into a sports venue.
That's not too many children dying of covid to simply dismiss the mother who is uneducated on the matter and not following the science, but rather the liberal Democrat narrative.
This is ridiculous. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The judge and the mother are evil in their actions. Period
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Covid cases among children have risen (sharpley). Hospitalizations among children have claimed due to vovid. Deaths among children have been on the rise due to covid.
And we know (the science shows) that the unvacvinated are a primary cause.
The judge was right - regardless of the data - in protecting the parents right to protect the child under her custody.
The mother's decision was up to her. Having survived covid the father was at a decreased risk of getting it again....but he still posed a significantly higher risk of death to her child.
In the US we have had almost 700 children die of covid and the numbers are rising. 700 children may not sound like a large number to those who rely on statics - but to the rest of us these are 700 children.
One preventable death is too many. -
The question is"
Why did mom use that reason/excuse
Because she was genuinely concern
or
because she wanted to be vindictive.
So - does that child always wear a mask
does mom always wear a mask
Does mom do everything possible to stay 2 meters away from others.
Does mom............................................ -
The facts are the father could have taken measures to better protect his child but refused. The mother expressed a desire not to subject her child to a greater risk (regardless of how low the risk is, it is more than necessary).
The father rejects the science behind vaccines. He may rightly say he is a lower risk to his daughter having had covid BUT he is a higher risk having not been vaccinated. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Not all states grant dual custody (with a primary). The father, according to the report, had visitation rights. Visitation rights is not joint custody. This means there is no indication the father had any say in education and medical issues.
Shame on the father for caring so little about the life his own child.
Page 2 of 3