It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
It is a baby's life that is at stake
and all that agonizing sounds a lot like premeditation, if the victim were just a little older.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't really expect you guys to understand.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh come on BH, you don’t think a guy, the father, agonizes over such a situation too?
We may not physically carry the baby, but we can have just as strong of an emotional tie to it as the mother.
I don't care how tough you think you are, this is a very powerful emotional topic and one that is very hard on all sides.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Uh... okay.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What? How tough I think I am? I don't know what you mean. Regardless. I never said it was easy on anyone. I don't claim that.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Once they're impregnated, the women have us just where they want us. All the victimhood rhetoric aside, it's payback time.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
What, you don't think its possible?
No, no, you misunderstood me, my fault, it was one of those statements aimed at those guys, or people, who say I’ll never feel like that, blah blah, macho stuff, you know.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Once they're impregnated, the women have us just where they want us. All the victimhood rhetoric aside, it's payback time.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That cracked me up! Yeah, Grady, that's our mission... You've figured out our plan. It's all about getting you where we want you and paying you back for... something.
Originally posted by Astronomer70
I think if a man's wife gets pregnant then he damn well should have a say in whether or not it gets a chance to become a baby.
Adulterine bastard, though not used in many places, is a term used to describe a child born to a married woman when the woman's husband is not the father of the child. This may occur if a woman becomes pregnant by someone other than her husband during the marriage; if a woman enters the marriage already pregnant (by someone other than her husband); or if a woman, without her husband's consent, becomes pregnant through artificial insemination by donor.
In the past, many divorcing husbands attempted to evade paying child support in these situations, claiming that the children were adulterine bastards and therefore not "theirs." Many states, however, have laws which irrebuttably presume (that is, the presumption cannot be disproved) that a child born during a marriage is the child of the husband, regardless of who the biological father is."
www.statelawyers.com...:75
Presumed Father
If any of the following are true, a man is presumed to be the father of a child, unless he or the mother proves otherwise to a court:
•He was married to the mother when the child was conceived or born, although some states do not consider a man to be a presumed father if the couple has separated
•He attempted to marry the mother (even if the marriage was not valid) and the child was conceived or born during the "marriage"
•He married the mother after the birth and agreed either to have his name on the birth certificate or to support the child, or
•He welcomed the child into his home and openly held the child out as his own.
In some states, the presumption of paternity is considered conclusive, which means it cannot be disproven, even with contradictory blood tests. In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's presumed father statute as a rational method of protecting the integrity of the family against challenges based on the due process rights of the father and the child. A presumed father must pay child support.
Link
A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if:
...
(a) he has acknowledged his paternity of the child in writing filed with the vital statistics bureau of the public health division of the department of health;
(b) with his consent, he is named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate; or
(c) he is obligated to support the child under a written voluntary promise or by court order;
(4) while the child is under the age of majority, he openly holds out the child as his natural child and has established a personal, financial or custodial relationship with the child; or
(5) he acknowledges his paternity of the child pursuant to Section 24-14-13 NMSA 1978 or in writing
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't know what I can add to that, except to say that the marriage "playing field" seems to be slanted in a direction other than that most often alluded to by some.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I KNOW!!! Don't you think they should??? That's when the man needs to think with his brain. He knows very well what could happen. If he doesn't want to be in the position of having another person decide whether or not his child will be born, he needs to stop and think about it, talk about it, be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN all protection against possible pregnancy is being used because he's about to completely give up all 'say' in the matter. He knows this ahead of time! If he goes ahead with it, then he's made his choice.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This states that paternity is presumed, but one can certainly challenge that.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He can challenge the paternity and not be held responsible, but if he has been supporting the child and has acknowledged the child as his, he can't just stop that when he gets divorced.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's presumed father statute
Carole D., ... and Gerald D., ... were married...
Carole became involved in an adulterous affair with ... Michael H. In September 1980, she conceived a child, Victoria D...
Gerald was listed as father on the birth certificate and has always held Victoria out to the world as his daughter...
Carole and Michael had blood tests of themselves and Victoria, which showed a 98.07% probability that Michael was Victoria's father...
Superior Court granted Gerald's motion for summary judgment, rejecting Michael's...
What Michael asserts here is a right to have himself declared the natural father and thereby to obtain parental prerogatives...
Originally posted by WestPoint23
So, should he still be made to support that child even though he was probably deceived into doing so?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They weren't fighting to claim the child, not to disown her. The court awarded parantage to the husband.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not saying it's right and I certainly would support punishment of the woman somehow, but not the child. Sorry.