From Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk:
More than a few NFL players have made known this year their intention to miss a game in lieu of missing the birth of a child.
If push comes to shove, however, should they choose to be present for the pushing and not the shoving?
It's a thorny issue. My position was and is that the players have made a lifestyle choice that entails being available 16 days per year, no matter what. If they choose not to plan their nine-month family expansion activities to coincide with the eight months per year when their work activities don't entail playing games that count, why should their teams suffer the consequences?
"Nine-month family expansion activities" That means fucking, right? I feel like he's talking about fucking.
But wait! Things get even weirder in the video essay at the bottom of that post. At about the 2:15 mark he hits us with some earnest, cringe-inducing advice about fucking, stopping just short of putting a condom on a banana:
There are ways to ensure that your spouse, significant other, fiance, girlfriend, whatever, won't be giving birth between the months of September and January. You [hesitates] plan your [hesitates] family around those months. So the spouse, significant other, fiance, girlfriend, whatever is having the child at at a time when you're not playing football. [...] I tell you what, if I'm an NFL coach, hell, a college coach, first chance I get, every chance I get, I'm telling guys, "Look, if you're thinking about having a child, or if you're thinking about doing anything that could result in having a child, here are the months when you can be a little less careful."
Oh go family-expansion activity yourself, Florio.
Players missing games for babies being born raises plenty of questions [PFT]