rictus58 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I believe the child can be moved if joint custody is not awarded/pursued.Can the father then ask the judge to relieve him of his financial obligation? No. He cannot. Child support is not a "I get to see my kid fee". ---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 03:51 PM ---------- No one has said that. What has been said is that he is MORE financially burdened than she is, because HE has to provide for two households.And if you're too ignornant or bullheaded to see that, you're in precisely the same boat as those you're accusing. You know how that can be avoided. But you fail time and time again to either understand or admit to it. 18 years of potential child support is a CHOICE a man makes when he has unprotected sex. All the women are nasty life suckers. The exist solely to extort men for cash and sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 First, the women's nine months aren't trumping EVERYTHING the man has. Prior to conception, the man has a lot of say about whether there is a baby. Both are responsible for creating the baby unless rape. Two people create this life Then suddenly that changes from a "2 party responsibility" to a "one person decision" regarding the life of the baby for 10 months until it's born Then strangely after that 10 months it goes back to a "2 party responsibility" where both are again responsible for the life of the baby until that baby reaches adulthood Why when the baby is inside the mother should that make it a one decision difference when before conception and after birth its both parties responsibility? I think if the woman was single then she deserves every right what to do with that baby. I think it changes when she legally says to a man that she would be with him for the rest of her life. At that point I think they should both be given a voice. If you can come up with a compromise that keeps this a 2 party decision through the entire process it would be best for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No one has said that. What has been said is that he is MORE financially burdened than she is, because HE has to provide for two households. The man supports the children that are his. So does the woman. The technical term for this is "equality". ("Responsibility" fits, too.) ---------- I have decided, though, that I need to modify a statement I made. And rather than edit my post and run the risk of it being missed, I think that modifying it here would be better.) When I asserted that It is a fact that, once the fetus is born, then the parent's responsibilities, and authorities are equal. A more accurate statement would be "should be equal". I'll freely admit that it's possible that our current system isn't being equal. (Although I would assert that proving it might be real tough.) And I would further assert that if our current system of providing support for the children of separated parents isn't equal, then this is completely irrelevant to the abortion issue. But yeah, if our current system of providing support for the children of separated parents isn't equal, then I'll wholeheartedly agree that it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The loons in here, including you, are claiming that the man's interests are greater than the woman's. By making the even more ludicrous assertion that the woman's involvement in the child completely ceases once it's born, and that, from that point on, the father is the only person supporting that child, through the crushing physical burden of providing money. You are 100% wrong. I NEVER said that. And you NEVER answered the question of how the woman's involvement completely trumps the man's, EVERY time, which is the real issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 All the women are nasty life suckers. The exist solely to extort men for cash and sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Am I the only one who noticed that I wrote that the child's interests matter too? That seems important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Girls=evil Where'd you get the notes for Honorary Hog's campaign speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I waded through 7 pages before I stopped, so if someone has already commented on my particular point, please point me in the right direction. In the article I read on this, the woman miscarried but the man thought she had an abortion. I don't think he has any kind of proof that she had an abortion or miscarried. So because he doesn't have access to her medical records, he has made a supposition and put up a billboard with his supposition and not fact. So does this change things if in fact she did miscarry and did not have an abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 You are 100% wrong. I NEVER said that. And you NEVER answered the question of how the woman's involvement completely trumps the man's, EVERY time, which is the real issue. He didn't answer the question about who is more financially burdened either. And yet we're the unreasonable ones. To us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The purported father does not know what happened to the fetus, per his own comments in this article. From a June 2nd article in the Albuquerque Journal: http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/06/02/upfront/alamogordo-billboard-blames-ex-girlfriend.html Alamogordo Billboard Blames Ex-Girlfriend By Leslie Linthicum / Of the Journal on Thu, Jun 2, 2011 Greg Fultz is a computer tech, a pagan and a fan of Norse mythology who lives in Alamogordo. In recent weeks, he has been called an idiot, a coward, completely sick, a nut job and a disgusting excuse for a human being. Let me be the first — I think — to add “not the ideal ex-boyfriend” to that list. [billboard picture text: Alamogordo resident Greg Fultz had this billboard erected in the southern New Mexico city. Right to Life New Mexico, which endorsed the billboard, paid to have its name removed from the billboard last week. (RICHARD PIPES/JOURNAL) The background is this: Fultz and his girlfriend broke up more than a year ago. She had been pregnant, and then she wasn’t any longer. People close to the girlfriend say she miscarried; Fultz says he doesn’t know how the pregnancy ended because she wouldn’t tell him. Still stinging from the experience, Fultz, 35, designed a billboard and paid for a prominent space on White Sands Boulevard, Alamogordo’s main drag. The billboard that went up last month looms above a Chinese restaurant and shows a photograph of Fultz cradling a chalk-outlined drawing of an infant. The text says in bold letters: This Would Have Been A Picture of My 2-Month old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child! Another way to describe Fultz is “not subtle.” “I knew it would be controversial,” Fultz told me on the phone a few days ago when I called him to try to get a handle on what he thought he might accomplish by this gesture. Controversial, yes. But it turns out that no one is spending much time debating the merits of abortion or even a father’s role in making the decision to seek an abortion or bring a pregnancy to full term. Instead, Fultz’s billboard has become a referendum on Fultz. Right to Life of New Mexico, which had endorsed the billboard, paid to have its name removed from the sign last week. Its president, Betty Eichenseer, said the anti-abortion organization no longer wanted to be associated with the billboard after details of the relationship between Fultz and his ex-girlfriend (details Eichenseer she didn’t want to go into) were brought to her attention. I don’t know the identity of the woman, and so I haven’t been able to ask her how she feels about having an accusation about her personal life splashed on a billboard, but I can imagine what her answer might be. Fultz has been savaged on Internet discussion threads that have grown to more than 1,000 comments since the billboard went up. People have weighed in to express embarrassment that out-of-towner visitors to Alamogordo will be turned off by the billboard. And they have pointed out the obvious — that its message reads as a personal rebuke to one woman based on an unproven theory. One comment summed it up: “This is just crazy. … I can’t believe this billboard is in our town; why didn’t we just allow a public stoning of this woman?” Fultz seemed surprised by the direction the controversy has taken. And he surprised me by saying he didn’t think anyone would interpret the billboard as a personal attack. “It wasn’t about my particular situation,” Fultz told me. “It was just about an anti-abortion message that could have happened to some father, somewhere, you know.” But it’s Fultz’s photo, and the text says “my baby,” I pointed out. Isn’t that pretty specific? “I’m not accusing anybody of anything,” Fultz said. “I’ve always been honest and to the point about the fact that I don’t know what happened.” I told Fultz I didn’t know how the billboard could be any clearer in intimating his child was aborted. “People have labeled it something it is not— an attack or vendetta, which wasn’t the intention,” Fultz said. “There was nothing but good intentions when I thought of this billboard. I’m doing this for my own personal healing. It’s been a rough time for me, too.” Fultz told me he’s always been against abortion, although he’s never been an activist. He said he was moved to become active after he lost his child. It would stand to reason, then, that Fultz would be just as active a spokesman about the tragedy of miscarriage since he says he doesn’t how his baby was lost. When I asked him whether he intends to take on the pain of miscarriage as an activist, he said he might. “I’m looking into some options,” Fultz said. “Maybe I’ll do something about miscarriage after this billboard expires.” UpFront is a daily front-page news and opinion column. Comment directly to Leslie at 823-3914 or llinthicum@abqjournal.com. Go to www.abqjournal.com/letters/new to submit a letter to the editor. — This article appeared on page A1 of the Albuquerque Journal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 If Bill doesnt have a girlfriend and wants to put up that billboard, is that legal? If it is, then the fact that this guy HAD a girlfriend is immaterial. He didnt mention her. Doesnt mean it's not a ****ty thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 If Bill doesnt have a girlfriend and wants to put up that billboard, is that legal? It's legal now. You haven't been paying attention. If it is, then the fact that this guy HAD a girlfriend is immaterial. He didnt mention her. Aside from saying "my girlfriend." If I wrote "PosterX's wife is a whore," did I mention PosterX's wife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It's legal now. You haven't been paying attention.Aside from saying "my girlfriend." If I wrote "PosterX's wife is a whore' date='" did I mention PosterX's wife?[/quote']Hey, PosterX is gonna be PISSED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No, but you mentioned PosterX, which I would think establishes it as libel. I would think that makes the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No, but you mentioned PosterX, which I would think establishes it as libel. I would think that makes the difference. The guy's face is on the billboard and he said "my girlfriend." Unless he has a lot of girlfriends that he accuses of having abortions, it's obvious who it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Why when the baby is inside the mother should that make it a one decision difference when before conception and after birth its both parties responsibility? Because there has to be a "tie breaker" and possession in 9/10ths of the law. I think if the woman was single then she deserves every right what to do with that baby. I think it changes when she legally says to a man that she would be with him for the rest of her life. At that point I think they should both be given a voice. There is no legal way to say that you are going to be with somebody the rest of their life. That part of marriage is religious in nature; not legal. If you can come up with a compromise that keeps this a 2 party decision through the entire process it would be best for everyone. But there isn't. That's the problem. In the event of one person wanting an abortion and the other not, there is no compromise. You can't have a 10th of a pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Interesting update: Here is a letter Fultz wrote to the New Mexico legislature: I'm 35 years old and have always wanted to have a family i.e. a child and for whatever reason I've never been able to achieve that dream up until last year when my then girlfriend got pregnant. I had finally conceived a child and i was more thrilled then the girlfriend. it was fine for a short time but then things went wrong we had separated and the dream was short lived the pregnancy was terminated I'm not sure how it was terminated weather it be a natural miscarriage or intentional termination. that remains unclear as she refuses to speak on the matter and from her actions and behavior leading up to the point i believe that she intentionally terminated the pregnancy either by abortion or other means. Which brings me to my request; I'd like to get a bill created in honor of my baby (Baby Fultz) for all fathers. My idea is to get a bill introduced that gives biological fathers equal rights as to the welfare and decisions being made of the unborn child with exceptions to those of rape and incest and other means of illegal fatherhood http://jezebel.com/5806347/woman-sues-over-ex+boyfriends-heinous-miscarriage-billboardNani Lawrence's (his ex) lawyer has said that she didn't have an abortion. That the baby was lost to miscarriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No one has satisfactorily explained how any of this would work (except addicted who doesn't seem to give a damn about privacy laws and civil rights). Woman gets pregnant. There is an exception created to HIPAA that requires the physician to notify her husband. How he knows there is a husband is beyond me. Anyway....physician contacts husband and says, Your wife is pregnant and she wants to terminate the pregnancy. May I? The husband says, no. The physician tells the wife to, I guess, go home to a really pissed off husband. What happens next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No one has said that. What has been said is that he is MORE financially burdened than she is, because HE has to provide for two households. I don't think this is accurate with regards to child support. I can't speak for the support order in your case, but in the cases I know about, the woman pays for her own household, the man pays for his, and if the woman has custody, the man may pay more over to the woman for the specific costs of raising that specific child that he fathered. Or vice versa, in some cases, where the man has custody. I have never heard of child support being used to support the mother's expenses. It certainly isn't supposed to work that way. And believe me, I know plenty of divorced people (as do we all). In every case, the woman works and pays for her own household. Maybe it's a California thing. So I'm not buying the argument that the man is MORE burdened in any way. I will buy the argument that it sucks that he doesn't have an equal say with the woman on whether to carry a child to term, but I just don't see any way around that without turning the woman into a second-class citizen. ---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 02:49 PM ---------- No one has satisfactorily explained how any of this would work (except addicted who doesn't seem to give a damn about privacy laws and civil rights). At least addicted is trying to create a framework that is as equitable as possible from his point of view. I don't agree with him, and the law gets in the way, but he is trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No one has satisfactorily explained how any of this would work (except addicted who doesn't seem to give a damn about privacy laws and civil rights).Woman gets pregnant. There is an exception created to HIPAA that requires the physician to notify her husband. How he knows there is a husband is beyond me. Anyway....physician contacts husband and says' date=' Your wife is pregnant and she wants to terminate the pregnancy. May I? The husband says, no. The physician tells the wife to, I guess, go home to a really pissed off husband. What happens next?[/quote'] Hubby probably demanding a DNA test to see if the kid is his followed by divorce proceedings if its not and hopefully if he is the right state she only gets what she had prior to the marriage and only what she accumulated during it with no alimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I have never heard of child support being used to support the mother's expenses. It certainly isn't supposed to work that way. And believe me, I know plenty of divorced people (as do we all). In every case, the woman works and pays for her own household. Maybe it's a California thing. Here in FL and I suspect elsewhere too a women who receives "child support" court ordered or not is under no obligation whatsoever to account to anyone how that support is spent. drugs, gambling, boyfriends/girlfriends are all fair game for the CS receivers. I'd hope that many do spend it on the child for "the best interest of the child" but legally there is no mandate. IMO it's all a big game with one desired outcome and with "in the best interest of the children" the biggest misnomer in the annuals of legalese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 You are 100% wrong. I NEVER said that. And you NEVER answered the question of how the woman's involvement completely trumps the man's, EVERY time, which is the real issue. Gee, now where could I possibly have gotten the impression that you, and others, were attempting to argue that the woman's contribution in raising a fetus to adulthood consisted of nine months, whereas the male's contribution is decades of sacrificing his body, his very health, and that therefore his opinion is the one that should apply to the decision on whether the woman donates her body to The Cause? You guys are soooo worried about 9 months of inconvenience. But 18 years of paying through the nose is fine. Wait, the mother physically being impacted for 9 months overrides the man being physically impacted for a minimum of 18 years? Semantics is a powerful tool, when you reduce the man's sacrifice to "writing checks".The financial burden affects the man in every way the pregnancy affects a woman, if not more. The financial burden affects him mentally, emotionally, and physically, and as has been stated already, for much longer, as well. To reduce it and label it just "writing checks" is not only completely wrong, it's an insult and a kick in the face to the man who has to go through it. How does the decision vastly affect the woman so much more than the male ? Then what's the logic to support an argument that a women has full authority, simply due to her having 20 times less of an effect ? No, it doesn't. How is the woman's life affected by the financial burden, when the man is the one going through the mental, emotional, stressful, and physical effects of earning the money, and perhaps his health suffering because he possibly cannot afford proper diet, healthcare, etc as a result of it ? I still havn't heard a real argument about how the women's 9 months, trumps EVERYTHING the man's got. I count six posts, there. Four of them from you. Not one recognizes that women contribute anything whatsoever to the raising of a child, other than pregnancy. One of them refers to the pregnancy itself as "nine months of inconvenience." You had no problem whatsoever with that statement. However, referring to a purely financial obligation as "writing checks", well, that person is playing semantics and grossly distorting the reality of the crushing, long-term, physical and emotional devastation that supporting your own child constitutes. (But, only if you're a man. The woman doesn't have that burden in any way. Nine months, and she's done.) Every one asserts that the man sacrifices for 20 years for his child. Not one recognizes that the woman does, too. But you're right. You never said that, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I waded through 7 pages before I stopped, so if someone has already commented on my particular point, please point me in the right direction.In the article I read on this, the woman miscarried but the man thought she had an abortion. I don't think he has any kind of proof that she had an abortion or miscarried. So because he doesn't have access to her medical records, he has made a supposition and put up a billboard with his supposition and not fact. So does this change things if in fact she did miscarry and did not have an abortion? Interesting. I wonder how many of us actually read the article.... Could this be considered libel then? This guy sounds pretty out there. (I don't think it affects the general discussion about the father's rights that the thread has turned into though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 He didn't answer the question about who is more financially burdened either. And yet we're the unreasonable ones. To us! Funny, I find multiple places where I've commented on that aspect. (And I'll admit that, while going back through multiple pages, finding quotes of myself, I don't see a single place where you asked such a question. But it's possible that I missed it, since I was looking for my own posts, only.) But I hope you're having a great time, wherever it is where you've asked a question, and I haven't answered it. As to my comments on the subject: In response to somebody's assertion that women pay vastly more to the rearing of children: Uh, I'd be really skeptical of any such statistic. (Even if you'd provided one. )Now, I'd argue that there are a lot more burdens of raising a child than just the amount of the check that gets written. And that these burdens are really tough to quantify. (What's the "cost" of being the one that has to take the kid to the Doctor's, for every checkup and health problem?.) (I'll point out that I've read that it's a pretty good conclusion that the biggest reason why women make less money than men, is because they take a lot more time off to be with their families. Could you argue that all (or even most) of the lower wages women make, is a "cost of child rearing"?) My suspicion is that if you only confine yourself to those expenses of child care which can be directly and precisely quantified, that it would at least appear that the men contribute far more. The financial burden affects both, equally. Both parents are responsible for the raising of the child. Or here's a response I made to one of your posts: The man supports the children that are his. So does the woman. The technical term for this is "equality". ("Responsibility" fits, too.) ---------- I have decided, though, that I need to modify a statement I made. And rather than edit my post and run the risk of it being missed, I think that modifying it here would be better.) When I asserted that A more accurate statement would be "should be equal". I'll freely admit that it's possible that our current system isn't being equal. (Although I would assert that proving it might be real tough.) And I would further assert that if our current system of providing support for the children of separated parents isn't equal, then this is completely irrelevant to the abortion issue. But yeah, if our current system of providing support for the children of separated parents isn't equal, then I'll wholeheartedly agree that it should be. ---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 06:32 PM ---------- Hey, PosterX is gonna be PISSED! Well, it's his fault for marrying her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I will buy the argument that it sucks that he doesn't have an equal say with the woman on whether to carry a child to term, but I just don't see any way around that without turning the woman into a second-class citizen. Since we do not count a fetus as a person,yet it certainly changes to a financial liability with the father's rights overruled during the time it is in her body,perhaps we should treat it as communal property during a divorce? :evilg: How about the woman having to pay for the loss to the man of his child if they disagree on the aborting of the child. If I hide or destroy communal property it can be punished in a divorce settlement right? What's a life worth?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.