Would you be OK if the QB from your favorite team missed a game? (1 Viewer)

[Hoss Style]

ETA: If you have a job that requires you to "make an enormous personal sacrifice" like missing the birth of your child and you're fine with that, your priorities are far out of whack.

It's not that simple. Like I said in an earlier post - it's each man's choice and I wouldn't fault them for any decision they make. A lot depends on the wife, as well. But to say that someone's priorities are out of whack is... well, out of whack. There are plenty of jobs out there where not being there physically for the birth of your child is a distinct possibility. With all the options for communication these days (cell phone, video chat, etc) you can almost "be there" without actually being there. Being there for your child's birth is your desire - not your child's. If missing it means that you are working on a job that is going to secure his future (and possibly his children's future), and means that you'll be able to help with things that he actually will remember later in his life - then I'd do it.I'll repeat, though, that if it's in the contract that he can miss these things then he should go. If not, then stick to his responsibilities; sacrifice his wants for his family's needs. Of course he should discuss this with his wife as well. Hopefully she realizes that he'll be there unless it's absolutely unavoidable and she's ok with that.

I know the wife part's a BIG "if".

 

[tombonneau]

Just FaceTime it. Same thing.

 

[SSOG]

I think he should have thought things through more and planned out the baby to be born in the offseason...

Let's hear it for the state of sex education in America!

 

[Hoss Style]

I think he should have thought things through more and planned out the baby to be born in the offseason...

Let's hear it for the state of sex education in America!

I remember it was horrid back in my day. Taught to us by the same teacher that taught us kickball and tug-of-war. I remember one time in Sex-Ed class we watched "Hoosiers".It can't be worse than that now; Can it?

 

[Lambert]

Two separate issues here:

1) From Big Ben's perspective, I don't have any problem with his desire to be there for his child's birth. A lot of guys, including myself, would feel the same way.

2) Having said that, from the team's perspective, unless one of the terms Ben negotiated for in his contract provided that he was allowed to miss games for such a reason, I think the team management wouldn't be at all unreasonable to expect him to live up to the terms of his contract and play in all 16 games. Now I doubt that Steeler management would publicly push their side of the argument for fear of bad publicity, but they have every right to expect him to live up to the terms of his contract.

 

[chinawildman]

Is this thread a joke?

THIS is the reason why the NFL is so sterile and boring. Not because of Goddell or suspensions, but because every little player action that falls beyond the boundaries of modus operandi is tweeted, debated, judged, then plastered everywhere on the airwaves. Mark Sanchez got #### for eating a hot dog... EATING A HOT DOG. And now criticism is served up because someone wants to be there for the birth of their child. WOW.

I grew up watching the NFL not just for the amazing plays, but also for the rivalries, the personalities, the violent hits, coaching tirades, etc... The latter items are almost extinct thanks to the public panel of opinion watchdogging the personal lives of the players. Watch NFL films's "top 10 things we loved about the 80s" and try to remember why football is the popular sport it is. These are people that play a game, with lives and flaws. Just leave it alone.

 

[bbuster]

does the woman who he impregnated want him there?

Since we are talking about his wife, she probably wants him there. Regardless, Ben wants to be there and he should be able to be there. In regards to inducing, that doesn't always work either. My daughter was induced. All that happened was she was incredibly uncomfortable for many hours and they ended up sending her home. As some others have said, I actually have a bit more respect for Ben wanting to be there. Sounds like maybe he's grown up a bit.

 

[renesauz]

My girlfriend finds this poll extremely funny. Her answer was an emphatic "NO...not OK".

Men being at a birth isn't about the family, or the man himself....it's about the woman and supporting her. If his absence brings in 700k, or is saving a life, etc....most women will approve.

 

[renesauz]

Is this thread a joke?THIS is the reason why the NFL is so sterile and boring. Not because of Goddell or suspensions, but because every little player action that falls beyond the boundaries of modus operandi is tweeted, debated, judged, then plastered everywhere on the airwaves. Mark Sanchez got #### for eating a hot dog... EATING A HOT DOG. And now criticism is served up because someone wants to be there for the birth of their child. WOW.I grew up watching the NFL not just for the amazing plays, but also for the rivalries, the personalities, the violent hits, coaching tirades, etc... The latter items are almost extinct thanks to the public panel of opinion watchdogging the personal lives of the players. Watch NFL films's "top 10 things we loved about the 80s" and try to remember why football is the popular sport it is. These are people that play a game, with lives and flaws. Just leave it alone.

Seriously? Old school player wouldn't have thought twice about it. They'd be on the field. Your argument is circular and nonsensical.

 

[Hoss Style]

Is this thread a joke?THIS is the reason why the NFL is so sterile and boring. Not because of Goddell or suspensions, but because every little player action that falls beyond the boundaries of modus operandi is tweeted, debated, judged, then plastered everywhere on the airwaves. Mark Sanchez got #### for eating a hot dog... EATING A HOT DOG. And now criticism is served up because someone wants to be there for the birth of their child. WOW.I grew up watching the NFL not just for the amazing plays, but also for the rivalries, the personalities, the violent hits, coaching tirades, etc... The latter items are almost extinct thanks to the public panel of opinion watchdogging the personal lives of the players. Watch NFL films's "top 10 things we loved about the 80s" and try to remember why football is the popular sport it is. These are people that play a game, with lives and flaws. Just leave it alone.

Seriously? Old school player wouldn't have thought twice about it. They'd be on the field. Your argument is circular and nonsensical.

+1

 

[Dismattle]

My girlfriend finds this poll extremely funny. Her answer was an emphatic "NO...not OK". Men being at a birth isn't about the family, or the man himself....it's about the woman and supporting her. If his absence brings in 700k, or is saving a life, etc....most women will approve.

I think you nailed it, But Im not exactly sure she would want the absence. She would possiblly say it, but it might still be more showing submssion (love) I think she still want the man there. I posted earlier, and guess I wasnt too clear (sorry).The man loves, just as the woman submits. Sob showin alot of love to other kids etc, Id be damned if he shouldnt show love for wife.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

ETA: If you have a job that requires you to "make an enormous personal sacrifice" like missing the birth of your child and you're fine with that, your priorities are far out of whack.

If missing it means that you are working on a job that is going to secure his future (and possibly his children's future), and means that you'll be able to help with things that he actually will remember later in his life - then I'd do it.

I agree mostly, but that's not really relevant to what I said. If you have to, as stated before, "make an enormous personal sacrifice" because of your job, most people are doing it for financial reasons, like you said. They probably aren't "fine" with it though. It's probably in the name of the greater good (again, like you said) but not something that they have absolutely no problem with. Example- If your mother just died and you have to miss her funeral to work because you have 3 kids and are on the border of having your house repossessed, being fired, you can't find another job, etc. then I understand missing the funeral. If you have to miss your mother's funeral and you're completely "fine" with that though, it doesn't even bother you in the slightest that you can't be there, something seems off to me. Idk, maybe I'm not articulating what I mean very well. Either way, just my opinion.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

Is this thread a joke?THIS is the reason why the NFL is so sterile and boring. Not because of Goddell or suspensions, but because every little player action that falls beyond the boundaries of modus operandi is tweeted, debated, judged, then plastered everywhere on the airwaves. Mark Sanchez got #### for eating a hot dog... EATING A HOT DOG. And now criticism is served up because someone wants to be there for the birth of their child. WOW.I grew up watching the NFL not just for the amazing plays, but also for the rivalries, the personalities, the violent hits, coaching tirades, etc... The latter items are almost extinct thanks to the public panel of opinion watchdogging the personal lives of the players. Watch NFL films's "top 10 things we loved about the 80s" and try to remember why football is the popular sport it is. These are people that play a game, with lives and flaws. Just leave it alone.

Seriously? Old school player wouldn't have thought twice about it. They'd be on the field. Your argument is circular and nonsensical.

I don't have much of a stake either way if someone agrees or disagrees with Roethlisberger, but to say old school players wouldn't think twice about it and calling an argument circular and nonsensical without providing any reasoning, logic, or evidentiary support is, itself, nonsensical.

 

[Hoss Style]

ETA: If you have a job that requires you to "make an enormous personal sacrifice" like missing the birth of your child and you're fine with that, your priorities are far out of whack.

If missing it means that you are working on a job that is going to secure his future (and possibly his children's future), and means that you'll be able to help with things that he actually will remember later in his life - then I'd do it.

I agree mostly, but that's not really relevant to what I said. If you have to, as stated before, "make an enormous personal sacrifice" because of your job, most people are doing it for financial reasons, like you said. They probably aren't "fine" with it though. It's probably in the name of the greater good (again, like you said) but not something that they have absolutely no problem with. Example- If your mother just died and you have to miss her funeral to work because you have 3 kids and are on the border of having your house repossessed, being fired, you can't find another job, etc. then I understand missing the funeral. If you have to miss your mother's funeral and you're completely "fine" with that though, it doesn't even bother you in the slightest that you can't be there, something seems off to me. Idk, maybe I'm not articulating what I mean very well. Either way, just my opinion.

Fair enough. Point taken.

 

[coolnerd]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

My overall thought is that it is ______ familiy's decision and my liking it or not is unimportant.

 

[Zeff]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

Washing your hands after taking a #### hasn't always been standard practice, either. You on board?

 

[GreenNGold]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

Washing your hands after taking a #### hasn't always been standard practice, either. You on board?

Please list all the long-term health benefits that science has proven that having the husband in the delivery room provides as opposed to be not being present.

 

[Witz]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

Washing your hands after taking a #### hasn't always been standard practice, either. You on board?

Please list all the long-term health benefits that science has proven that having the husband in the delivery room provides as opposed to be not being present.

Slavery, apartheid, preventing women from voting, prohibition....I'm sure I can go on and on. All things that used to be in place but are no longer in place. Using the argument that something wasn't done in the past so why should it be done now is silly.

 

[coolnerd]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

Washing your hands after taking a #### hasn't always been standard practice, either. You on board?

Please list all the long-term health benefits that science has proven that having the husband in the delivery room provides as opposed to be not being present.

Slavery, apartheid, preventing women from voting, prohibition....I'm sure I can go on and on. All things that used to be in place but are no longer in place. Using the argument that something wasn't done in the past so why should it be done now is silly.

Lots apples to oranges there...the only thing that sillier is how at least two posters ignored the fact that I said it is the family's choice and none of my business as to what they do in this regard.

 

[Hoss Style]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

Washing your hands after taking a #### hasn't always been standard practice, either. You on board?

Please list all the long-term health benefits that science has proven that having the husband in the delivery room provides as opposed to be not being present.

Slavery, apartheid, preventing women from voting, prohibition....I'm sure I can go on and on. All things that used to be in place but are no longer in place. Using the argument that something wasn't done in the past so why should it be done now is silly.

Lots apples to oranges there...the only thing that sillier is how at least two posters ignored the fact that I said it is the family's choice and none of my business as to what they do in this regard.

Yeah, good lord. I agree, coolnerd. A bunch of over the top, exaggerated comparisons to prove something that can't be proved. Just because one thing (let's pick...let's see... aparthied) isn't done anymore in no way relegates every comparison from the past as useless. Or "silly", as they put it. Comparisons shouldn't be made like this unless they are extremely similar.Simple proof is some things done in the past were correct and some were not. Crazy idea, I know; but true.

All of which has pretty much nothing to do with his original point - Dad's weren't in the delivery room not too long ago and there was no outrage about it. There never was any outrage about it. It slowly changed over time as the mothers, doctors and - most importantly - dads became more comfortable with it. It's not as big of a societal deal as some here are making it out to be. A dad's personal choice to be there? Fine. Trying to dump on someone like it's a moralistic outrage because they choose not to be there? Pompous.

 

[Multiple Scores]

As a father and also a worker this is a no brainer.

 

[Witz]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

Washing your hands after taking a #### hasn't always been standard practice, either. You on board?

Please list all the long-term health benefits that science has proven that having the husband in the delivery room provides as opposed to be not being present.

Slavery, apartheid, preventing women from voting, prohibition....I'm sure I can go on and on. All things that used to be in place but are no longer in place. Using the argument that something wasn't done in the past so why should it be done now is silly.

Lots apples to oranges there...the only thing that sillier is how at least two posters ignored the fact that I said it is the family's choice and none of my business as to what they do in this regard.

Yeah, good lord. I agree, coolnerd. A bunch of over the top, exaggerated comparisons to prove something that can't be proved. Just because one thing (let's pick...let's see... aparthied) isn't done anymore in no way relegates every comparison from the past as useless. Or "silly", as they put it. Comparisons like this should be taken on a case by case basis unless they are extremely similar.Simple proof is some things done in the past were correct and some were not. Crazy idea, I know; but true.

All of which has pretty much nothing to do with his original point - Dad's weren't in the delivery room not too long ago and there was no outrage about it. There never was any outrage about it. It slowly changed over time as the mothers, doctors and - most importantly - dads became more comfortable with it. It's not as big of a societal deal as some here are making it out to be. A dad's personal choice to be there? Fine. Trying to dump on someone like it's a moralistic outrage because they choose not to be there? Pompous.

It's really quite simple - you can make x number of arguments on why he should not miss the game for the birth of his child, but saying that it wasn't done in the past (it wasn't only coolnerd but others) so why is it a big deal now is baseless and not even relevant (that's all I was saying on the subject). That's all I said in that post, yet you took it to be moralistic dumping. Interesting take on things. I'll give you style points though where you state this "A bunch of over the top, exaggerated comparisons to prove something that can't be proved." and than follow it up with these statements "Dad's weren't in the delivery room not too long ago and there was no outrage about it. There never was any outrage about it. ". I got a good laugh out of that one.

 

[Ryan99]

The question was "Would you be ok (with it) ..." not "Evaluate the morality of ...". People are trying to justify their opinions by citing the relative recentness of fathers being in the delivery room. There's nothing wrong with this justification, but ultimately either side is just an opinion.

Having said that, if you wouldn't have a problem with your QB missing the game, you're a fraud of a fan. You probably root for Dallas or a New York team.

(edit) Lolz, unfollow topic.

 

[Shawn]

not OK!

 

[Hoss Style]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

Washing your hands after taking a #### hasn't always been standard practice, either. You on board?

Please list all the long-term health benefits that science has proven that having the husband in the delivery room provides as opposed to be not being present.

Slavery, apartheid, preventing women from voting, prohibition....I'm sure I can go on and on. All things that used to be in place but are no longer in place. Using the argument that something wasn't done in the past so why should it be done now is silly.

Lots apples to oranges there...the only thing that sillier is how at least two posters ignored the fact that I said it is the family's choice and none of my business as to what they do in this regard.

Yeah, good lord. I agree, coolnerd. A bunch of over the top, exaggerated comparisons to prove something that can't be proved. Just because one thing (let's pick...let's see... aparthied) isn't done anymore in no way relegates every comparison from the past as useless. Or "silly", as they put it. Comparisons like this should be taken on a case by case basis unless they are extremely similar.Simple proof is some things done in the past were correct and some were not. Crazy idea, I know; but true.

All of which has pretty much nothing to do with his original point - Dad's weren't in the delivery room not too long ago and there was no outrage about it. There never was any outrage about it. It slowly changed over time as the mothers, doctors and - most importantly - dads became more comfortable with it. It's not as big of a societal deal as some here are making it out to be. A dad's personal choice to be there? Fine. Trying to dump on someone like it's a moralistic outrage because they choose not to be there? Pompous.

It's really quite simple - you can make x number of arguments on why he should not miss the game for the birth of his child, but saying that it wasn't done in the past (it wasn't only coolnerd but others) so why is it a big deal now is baseless and not even relevant (that's all I was saying on the subject). That's all I said in that post, yet you took it to be moralistic dumping. Interesting take on things. I'll give you style points though where you state this "A bunch of over the top, exaggerated comparisons to prove something that can't be proved." and than follow it up with these statements "Dad's weren't in the delivery room not too long ago and there was no outrage about it. There never was any outrage about it. ". I got a good laugh out of that one.

I simply said that your comparisons of apartheid, slavery, etc had no comparative value when you were responding to another poster talking about how dads were just recently seen on a regular basis in the delivery room. And I searched online for any "outrage" that would even be considered 1/100th of the examples you used. Nothing. I'll take that as proof as far as relying on recorded history can be trusted.At least you got a chuckle. I'll take it.

*Edited to add* - the moralistic dumping wasn't aimed at your comment. Yours was tame compared to others stating how they view men that might choose to miss a birth.

 

[SSOG]

I think he should have thought things through more and planned out the baby to be born in the offseason...

Let's hear it for the state of sex education in America!

I remember it was horrid back in my day. Taught to us by the same teacher that taught us kickball and tug-of-war. I remember one time in Sex-Ed class we watched "Hoosiers".It can't be worse than that now; Can it?

For me, it was mostly about showing slides illustrating how horribly disfigured human genitalia could be by STDs and constantly reinforcing that sperm were magical heat-seeking missiles that could seek out eggs across distances of hundreds of yards. Pregnancy was a natural and inevitable consequence that would follow exactly 9 months after unprotected sex, protected sex, oral sex, dry humping, or giving your bf a handy in the hot tub. You can decide for yourself whether that qualifies as "better" or "worse". Sounds like some in this thread had a similar curriculum, though.

My girlfriend finds this poll extremely funny. Her answer was an emphatic "NO...not OK". Men being at a birth isn't about the family, or the man himself....it's about the woman and supporting her. If his absence brings in 700k, or is saving a life, etc....most women will approve.

Again, it's all a matter of perspective. Ben wouldn't be saving a life. He'd be bringing in 700k, but as I mentioned, that means a lot less to someone with an 8-figure net worth than it does to someone with a 6-figure net worth. Ask an average American woman whether she'd want her husband to miss out on a 700k bonus to be there, and she'd say hell no. Ask whether it would be worth it to miss a $1000 bonus, and the answer might be very different. Well, 700k to Roofles is about as much as 1k to the rest of us.

 

[Hoss Style]

For me, it was mostly about showing slides illustrating how horribly disfigured human genitalia could be by STDs...

I laughed out loud at this. I had forgotten those films.

 

[SSOG]

For me, it was mostly about showing slides illustrating how horribly disfigured human genitalia could be by STDs...

I laughed out loud at this. I had forgotten those films.

You're one of the lucky ones, my friend.

 

[Zeff]

I think he should have thought things through more and planned out the baby to be born in the offseason...

Let's hear it for the state of sex education in America!

I remember it was horrid back in my day. Taught to us by the same teacher that taught us kickball and tug-of-war. I remember one time in Sex-Ed class we watched "Hoosiers".It can't be worse than that now; Can it?

For me, it was mostly about showing slides illustrating how horribly disfigured human genitalia could be by STDs and constantly reinforcing that sperm were magical heat-seeking missiles that could seek out eggs across distances of hundreds of yards. Pregnancy was a natural and inevitable consequence that would follow exactly 9 months after unprotected sex, protected sex, oral sex, dry humping, or giving your bf a handy in the hot tub. You can decide for yourself whether that qualifies as "better" or "worse". Sounds like some in this thread had a similar curriculum, though.

My girlfriend finds this poll extremely funny. Her answer was an emphatic "NO...not OK". Men being at a birth isn't about the family, or the man himself....it's about the woman and supporting her. If his absence brings in 700k, or is saving a life, etc....most women will approve.

Again, it's all a matter of perspective. Ben wouldn't be saving a life. He'd be bringing in 700k, but as I mentioned, that means a lot less to someone with an 8-figure net worth than it does to someone with a 6-figure net worth. Ask an average American woman whether she'd want her husband to miss out on a 700k bonus to be there, and she'd say hell no. Ask whether it would be worth it to miss a $1000 bonus, and the answer might be very different. Well, 700k to Roofles is about as much as 1k to the rest of us.

Roofles? Probably not something you should call a man, unless you've had his #### in your mouth.

 

[SSOG]

Roofles? Probably not something you should call a man, unless you've had his #### in your mouth.

It's an old nickname that I've been calling him since long before any of his... extracurriculars. It's a lot quicker and easier to type (and spell) than Roethlisberger.

 

[TakiToki]

I personally think that a lot of ceremonious stuff that people go crazy over is a bit silly (e.g., graduations, weddings), and I think a father "being there for the birth of a child" somewhat fits into that. It's a helluva lot more important what he does over the next x years raising the kid. One can be a great father after missing the birth, and conversely one can be a terrible father even if he was in the delivery room.

 

[CalBear]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

"Standard Practice" for approximately 10,000 years was to have the baby at home with family."Standard Practice" from about 1920 to 1960 was to have it in with the woman isolated in a hospital.The idea that childbirth is a family event is not novel.

 

[Billy Bats]

There are 6 other days in the week that she can have the kid with him by her side. And if by chance she goes on a Sunday, then maybe they can let Big Ben FaceTime with her between series on the sidelines. If she's selfish enough to go into labor on a Sunday, then that's on her.

 

[chinawildman]

Is this thread a joke?THIS is the reason why the NFL is so sterile and boring. Not because of Goddell or suspensions, but because every little player action that falls beyond the boundaries of modus operandi is tweeted, debated, judged, then plastered everywhere on the airwaves. Mark Sanchez got #### for eating a hot dog... EATING A HOT DOG. And now criticism is served up because someone wants to be there for the birth of their child. WOW.I grew up watching the NFL not just for the amazing plays, but also for the rivalries, the personalities, the violent hits, coaching tirades, etc... The latter items are almost extinct thanks to the public panel of opinion watchdogging the personal lives of the players. Watch NFL films's "top 10 things we loved about the 80s" and try to remember why football is the popular sport it is. These are people that play a game, with lives and flaws. Just leave it alone.

Seriously? Old school player wouldn't have thought twice about it. They'd be on the field. Your argument is circular and nonsensical.

You completely missed the point. I'm not saying whether they should or shouldn't go, I'm saying we shouldn't give a #### regardless of what they do.

 

[TakiToki]

I have only glanced through this thread, so this may have been stated. the idea that the man be in the operating room with his wife for the birth of his child is a fairly recent cultural change. Until the 1970s, maybe even into the 1980s, this was considered womens' business and men at best stood in a waiting area if not just came and saw the family when he was finished working. Not that society needs to return to that per se, but being there for the birth of the child has not always been standard practice.

"Standard Practice" for approximately 10,000 years was to have the baby at home with family."Standard Practice" from about 1920 to 1960 was to have it in with the woman isolated in a hospital.The idea that childbirth is a family event is not novel.

And for the 200k years preceding that, the standard practice was to shoot it out and then run like hell from the tracking lion. The idea that the father isn't holding the mother's hand, yelling "Push, honey! Push!" during childbirth is not novel, either.

 

[Daywalker]

Pujols missed Tuesday's game for birth of his child. Baby was born on Sunday.

 

[Short Corner]

Pujols missed Tuesday's game for birth of his child. Baby was born on Sunday.

Good for him.

 

[two_dollars]

I voted yes It's ok, because life is more important than sports.

 

[belljr]

Pujols missed Tuesday's game for birth of his child. Baby was born on Sunday.

Colby Lewis, Neftali Feliz, Mark Teixeira all have

 

[renesauz]

Pujols missed Tuesday's game for birth of his child. Baby was born on Sunday.

Colby Lewis, Neftali Feliz, Mark Teixeira all have

Apples to Oranges again. A baseball player missing 1/163 of the season is hardly equivalent to a football player missing 1/16th.Again...for a team with a competant backup NOT in a hotly contested playoff race...no big deal. For a team who is...a VERY big deal.People forget that other folks make money when you make the playoffs. A QB missing a game isn't just taking money from himself or his owner, but from HIS TEAM-MATES. It isn't just about the money...but the guys on the end of the bench probably aren't going to be real happy if his decision costs a playoff birth and a 25 or 30K bonus.It sucks, but there are certain jobs that you simply don't walk away from to go witness a childbirth.

 

[Da Guru]

With todays technology you can video the birth then watch it at home in HD with surround sound so you can hear the high pitched crying...probably even better than being there in person. PLAY BALL!!!

 

[Jewell]

Congrats to Joe Flacco and the Flacco family.

Joe Flacco's wife gives birth to baby boy Sunday, but quarterback plays