A mother wants to spend the first month of her son's life without the presence of his father: he goes on a rampage
The moment of the birth of a child is one of the most profound and unforgettable experiences for a couple who have always wanted a child. The attention, thoughtfulness, affection and care that a mum and dad give to a newborn baby has no equal, both parents play a fundamental role in the growth of the child, especially in the first, fundamental months of life. Yet, there are mothers who prefer to spend the first month of their unborn child's life alone, in the company of the child and without the presence of the father. Why would one make this unusual and curious choice?
via AITA/Reddit
A post published on a Reddit group sparked uproar and a lot of controversy. The author of the post is a close friend of the mother in question, and he told Reddit users about his experience of the couple that had recently had a baby. The author of the post says that he had suggested to his friend, the future mother of the child, that there were some articles with studies concerning the first month of life of the unborn child: many studies (unspecified by the author) suggested that to form an even stronger bond between the mother and child it was necessary to spend the first month without the presence of the father.
This choice, was one that was made by the mother, which the husband only discovered during the birth of the child and when he suggested to his wife to bring the baby home ...
On the confrontation that took place between the new father and his wife's friend, the author himself recounts what happened with these words: "He was very excited to see his baby for the first time and was actually about to cry when he saw him. When he found out that his wife would not take the baby home, he did not yell at his wife because she had just given birth, so he took me outside and started yelling at me saying this plan was stupid and that we were out of place to make plans like this behind his back. He asked me why should he be happy if he's not to be able to see his newborn son for a month just because we believe a stupid article we read. He also said that I have no say in what happened with the baby because I'm not one of his parents."
It was a very strong reaction from the father of the newborn child, but certainly understandable. On Reddit, users have generally lashed out at the decision made by the author of the post and the mother of the newborn, taking the side of the betrayed father, discouraged by not being able to see his child in his first month of life.
What side would you take in this absurd situation?
