How do men know their kids are truly theirs? (playing, daughter, adult)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My brother and SIL adopted a child. Are they both being stupid?
I'm assuming most people haven't seen it, but Sarah Polley's documentary "Stories We Tell" is an interesting take on this subject. She found out in her 20s that her father isn't really her biological father, but the takeaway from her whole family (including her father) is that family is much stronger than genetics.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,930,903 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by nald
"In child's best interest" is to know their medical history. Also, in child's best emotional interest is to know who the biological parents are. If you aren't aware of it, numerous countries and states either already implemented the "anonymous childbirth" or they don't bother pursuing mothers who leave their children anonymously. Numerous countries in Europe have even made a special place for the mohers to leave their children already and those children will never know who their parents are, causing them emotional distress throughout their whole lives.
Medical history? Yes. Biological parents? Not really. Especially not if they have no reason to doubt their father is their biological dad. Have people been raised not realizing their dad isn't their sperm donor? Sure. So what. No reason to upset that cart, and the State certainly has no benefit in pursuing it. You seem to be confusing biological father and parents. They aren't the same. These kids, unless the State gets involved in breaking up the couple, WILL know who their parent is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nald
Like I said, laws are made "in mother's best interest" and even in child custody the laws are basically about mother's interest. How come that the child's interest is about mother's convenience? I.e. that it's the child's best interest to have the mother diminish the role of the other parent or to effectively make it either difficult or impossible - because mother's interest it to move away or to not bother with visitation terms. Unfortunately children are just used as excuse way too often - all the laws are deliberately written in mother's best interest and for mother's convenience. Not for the society - society never started treating women as adults and it goes way out of its way with numerous laws already. This will take a long way until it gets fixed, if it ever gets fixed.
Again, you're not addressing the benefit to the State. There is no benefit for the State getting involved and potentially breaking up marriages with small children.
If you want to confront the person you think you are having a child with about this, go right ahead. Your business.
42 yo man. Yes, I know. Not relevant to the discussion. This would just increase divorce of couples that are together, potentially causing the State to pick up some benefits for the single mother. There is a decent chance the biological father wouldn't be financially contributing. Nothing to be gained by the State.
Your missing that the request is the starting of mandatory testing by the state at every birth. Not how it works under the status quo. How does the state benefit by this change?
The state does not benefit from it, and neither does the mother. Two major reasons why mandatory paternity testing will not pass anytime soon. However, the father living in the dark and not knowing whether his kids are truly his, whether he will ever pass on his genes to the next generation, and spending 100s of thousands of dollars raising them and investing himself emotionally and in every other way, is perfectly ok. Do you ever wonder why today men commit suicides at 400% the rate they did 50 years ago, while women do it at the same rate they did back then?
You don't think people would be offended when you question their faithfulness?
Seriously?
I know I am. I've been questioned on it and convinced people I didn't cheat (when I didn't). You know what happens next? I end the relationship because they didn't trust me.
Like I said... are you offended that the PLC device is placed on your way out near the cashier in the mall? It basically does the check if any stuff is stolen or mistakenly not evidenced or if the employee missed the bar code. Nobody finds it insulting and nobody has the reason to oppose it.
Like I said already - the newest data claimed somewhere close to 400,000 court-ordered paternity tests being DONE. And there are probably even more paternity disputes that were stopped before it got to paternity testing. State actually funds the mother to do the testing and then it forces the father to cover the expenses. If the mother is at fault, it doesn't demand her to pay, which means that the taxpayers will be paying. The opposite isn't true in the case of the alleged father, if the father goes through the procedure... even if the paternity is automatically assigned to him due to certain circumstances. Those costs due to court orders for 400,000 cases each year are already higher than the potential costs of mandatory paternity testing for 4,000,000 children on the moment they are born.
I can also argue that numerous marriages actually fail irretrievably because of even a small doubt. And victims of paternity fraud are never the guys who had any doubt - since they will walk away and force the mother to file for court-ordered paternity testing.
The state does not benefit from it, and neither does the mother. Two major reasons why mandatory paternity testing will not pass anytime soon. However, the father living in the dark and not knowing whether his kids are truly his, whether he will ever pass on his genes to the next generation, and spending 100s of thousands of dollars raising them and investing himself emotionally and in every other way, is perfectly ok. Do you ever wonder why today men commit suicides at 400% the rate they did 50 years ago, while women do it at the same rate they did back then?
So let's be completely irresponsible and try to relate suicide rates in men with the lack of paternity tests....
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,930,903 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascension2012
The state does not benefit from it, and neither does the mother. Two major reasons why mandatory paternity testing will not pass anytime soon. However, the father living in the dark and not knowing whether his kids are truly his, whether he will ever pass on his genes to the next generation, and spending 100s of thousands of dollars raising them and investing himself emotionally and in every other way, is perfectly ok. Do you ever wonder why today men commit suicides at 400% the rate they did 50 years ago, while women do it at the same rate they did back then?
Ok, good, we have the answer. No benefit to the State, really none to society. State getting involved with this is really only to help males that don't want to address an serious, adult topic with their spouse.
I don't think the fear of potentially having raised a child that they were not the biological father of makes a bit of difference in male suicide rates.
If you're that on edge about living or not, probably best not to reproduce. I know several men, including family members, that have been parents to non biological children. Their still their parents and of course they love their children.
The state does not benefit from it, and neither does the mother. Two major reasons why mandatory paternity testing will not pass anytime soon. However, the father living in the dark and not knowing whether his kids are truly his, whether he will ever pass on his genes to the next generation, and spending 100s of thousands of dollars raising them and investing himself emotionally and in every other way, is perfectly ok. Do you ever wonder why today men commit suicides at 400% the rate they did 50 years ago, while women do it at the same rate they did back then?
The main issue with suicides is rather more mysterious when you see the fact that numerous issues that guys had 50 years ago are virtually non-existent today. Much less men are involved in war and much less men are involved in incredibly dangerous jobs - since suicide rates were also highly connected to PSTD and crippling injuries that people got while either working or waging war. Guys have it easier than ever in human history, to be honest. If anyone argues against it, walk into any "male" country that you might pick and see what a man is obliged to do and what are the circumstances... then come and complain.
because they don't interact or attach themselves with ditch pigs....the others all have reason to worry, because they have given themselves reason too by getting involved with the lowest common denominator and ignoring obvious red flags and warnings to take their dicks elsewhere.
Last edited by rego00123; 11-13-2013 at 03:17 PM..
To be fair, the OP appears to be on the autism spectrum, so his perceptions are not really universal.
Autism? That's you say to every person you don't agree with? Care to explain at least?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't think people would be offended when you question their faithfulness?
