religion

[Silverplum]

I guess that makes it okay, then.

Yes. It does.

In any event, I don't see why everyone who was so quick to bash the OP over the head with the truth that she can't unilaterally decide to baptize their child seems to have no problem with the father unilaterally imposing his choice for the (lack of) religious upbringing for their child.

In the undying hope that you will grasp the concept of reading and learning before whacking aimlessly at good advice , it's because they are speaking with MOM. Not DAD. If he were here, he'd be told what HE needs to hear. He's not. She is. So she is hearing what SHE needs to hear.

If your X wanted to perform an action with your child -- say, funky body piercing or tattooing or baptism in a church you do not agree upon, or whatever you might find objectionable -- and you objected, can you grasp that NOT performing an action is better than performing it, if the parents cannot agree?

 

[thedoctorisin]

I guess that makes it okay, then.

Yes. It does.

Clearly we disagree.

When I read your posts, I am often reminded of 1 Corinthians 13:1-2:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.​

 

[Silverplum]

Huh.

And here I thought I was the poster "throwing pearls before swine."

Clearly we disagree.

When I read your posts, I am often reminded of 1 Corinthians 13:1-2:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.​

You know, now that I concentrate, I can feel the love oozing out of you, bathing us in its pure light.

 

[thedoctorisin]

In the undying hope that you will grasp the concept of reading and learning before whacking aimlessly at good advice , it's because they are speaking with MOM. Not DAD. If he were here, he'd be told what HE needs to hear. He's not. She is. So she is hearing what SHE needs to hear.

She was told that her viewpoint regarding the child's religious upbringing was LESS important than the dad's. I think what she needed to be told was that it was EQUALLY important as the dad's, and that she should explore the dispute resolution mechanism present in the court order. Now she will never hear that message.

If your X wanted to perform an action with your child -- say, funky body piercing or tattooing or baptism in a church you do not agree upon, or whatever you might find objectionable -- and you objected, can you grasp that NOT performing an action is better than performing it, if the parents cannot agree?

Not to hijack the thread, but I am in that situation right now, in regard to a possible Gardasil vaccination for my 15-year old daughter. While the dispute is being resolved, it certainly makes sense that the vaccination not be administered. However, it doesn't make any sense that the final resolution of my dispute should be based on some random preference for permanent inaction.

 

[thedoctorisin]

And here I thought I was the poster "throwing pearls before swine."

Sorry, you only get full credit for biblical references if you cite chapter and verse.

 

[Silverplum]

Sorry, you only get full credit for biblical references if you cite chapter and verse.

Considering I've had more than enough time to google it, it would be unfair to grant me any "credit" at all.

 

[Humusluvr]

Not to hijack the thread, but I am in that situation right now, in regard to a possible Gardasil vaccination for my 15-year old daughter. While the dispute is being resolved, it certainly makes sense that the vaccination not be administered. However, it doesn't make any sense that the final resolution of my dispute should be based on some random preference for permanent inaction.

True that you can't UNDO the vaccine.

But, you also can't UNDO an STD. Or cervical cancer. What if you could have prevented those?

Anyone who chooses not to vaccinate their children is sitting on a time bomb that has the potential to explode in their faces. Sad sad sad.

 

[Isis1]

True that you can't UNDO the vaccine.

But, you also can't UNDO an STD. Or cervical cancer. What if you could have prevented those?

Anyone who chooses not to vaccinate their children is sitting on a time bomb that has the potential to explode in their faces. Sad sad sad.

i got to be honest, argueing NOT taking the vaccine won't do much in court. this isn't like kim bassinger having her son botoxed.

this is just " i won't agree to it just to be an arse about it"

when my daughter becomes of age, she's getting that same series of shots.

 

[Silverplum]

this isn't like kim bassinger having her son botoxed.

Sharon Stone is the botoxer.

Kim Basinger is the PAS Queen.

/pedantry

 

[Isis1]

Sharon Stone is the botoxer.

Kim Basinger is the PAS Queen.

/pedantry

ugh, you're right. how exhausting

 

[Silverplum]

ugh, you're right. how exhausting

It is, and I apologize to you for the exhaustion.

I've considered how amusing it would be to have a celebrity law section: for instance, Ms. Jolie's Adoptathon, Ms. Stone's botox-his-feet scariness, Ms. Basinger's PAS Forever Festival, etc.

 

[Humusluvr]

It is, and I apologize to you for the exhaustion.

I've considered how amusing it would be to have a celebrity law section: for instance, Ms. Jolie's Adoptathon, Ms. Stone's botox-his-feet scariness, Ms. Basinger's PAS Forever Festival, etc.

I believe we could have an ENTIRE Britney section......

 

[thedoctorisin]

I believe we could have an ENTIRE Britney section......

Okay, I don't feel so bad anymore about hijacking the thread.

Be sure to include a sub-forum to discuss K-Fed's parenting skills.

 

[Rushia]

True that you can't UNDO the vaccine.

But, you also can't UNDO an STD. Or cervical cancer. What if you could have prevented those?

Anyone who chooses not to vaccinate their children is sitting on a time bomb that has the potential to explode in their faces. Sad sad sad.

i got to be honest, argueing NOT taking the vaccine won't do much in court. this isn't like kim bassinger having her son botoxed.

this is just " i won't agree to it just to be an arse about it"

when my daughter becomes of age, she's getting that same series of shots.

By the time that our daughters would be ready for this shot more long term effects will be known. At this point in time, I would not give my dd these shots. I don't want them myself. I will also state for the record that I dealt with HPV (the cervical cancer variety) for 10 years. Somehow my body has finally rejected the virus. Even with having gone thru and dealt with the disease myself I would not give my child those shots.

 

[ErinGoBragh]

By the time that our daughters would be ready for this shot more long term effects will be known. At this point in time, I would not give my dd these shots. I don't want them myself. I will also state for the record that I dealt with HPV (the cervical cancer variety) for 10 years. Somehow my body has finally rejected the virus. Even with having gone thru and dealt with the disease myself I would not give my child those shots.

HPV leaves the bodily naturally after about a decade.. that's normal. But having gotten a strain myself, I still got the shots, and I would do the same with my children to prevent them from going through what I went through.

But if it's NOT court/state/whatever mandated, it's a parenting decision. I respect your decision and understand why you chose that.

And we're so off track of the OP it's kinda funny.