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.
What is with the false dichotomies today? There is no need for a mass database.
There is no need for mandatory testing either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
The mother would be on the hook to identify the father. Its know as a paternity suit. In this case the judge my order the test.
The father would be on the hook to make sure he isn't raising someone else's child. It shouldn't be the mother's responsibility to protect his rights. Let him bring a lawsuit. In that case, the judge may order the test. Easy, right?
When a person has a child at a hospital they will put a band around the child and the parents so as not to mix them up.
This is exhausting...
Yes, it's exhausting. The reasoning for tagging new borns is not to mix them up. The reasoning for the assertion of DNA testing does not cover avoidance of mixing them. Redisca has already shown where this argument falls apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
That's clearly not a legal definition of a patient. A patient is someone who is receiving medical treatment. Having a tissue sample taken for purely legal purposes doesn't qualify.
Very well, I'll run down my list of qualifications for you. I am a litigator with nearly a decade of experience in two of the busiest jurisdictions in this country. (If you don't know what "litigation" is, please look it up. I'm not not going to explain it for you.) For the most part, I defend doctors and hospitals in medical malpractice suits, most of which allege, at least in part, a lack of informed consent; I also represent hospitals in state proceedings when the government seeks to either obtain records or perform tests without the consent of the patient. Therefore, I am well-versed in such issues as the doctor-patient relationship, the constitutionality of involuntary testing, all the aspects of informed consent, and the implications of procedures performed for legal, rather than medical, reasons. I am also a published author, with an article in a scholarly law journal which examines in detail the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in light of modern technological advancements, so I am thoroughly versed in those issues as well. (And no, I will not give the citation to the article just to prove that it exists. Judging by your posts, I doubt you have sufficient interest in legal issues to actually read it for its content, and thus the only effect of me citing to the article would be to reveal my identity, which I don't want to do for reasons that should be obvious.) With respect to divorce and child custody -- it's not my bread and butter, but I HAVE been involved in matrimonial and custody litigation at the appellate stage and on peripheral issues, so I am competent in that area as well. I've handled two major matrimonial litigations that were quite complicated. Incidentally, in both of those cases, I represented the husbands, and I've done very well for them.
And now, I would appreciate it if you reciprocate. What exactly are YOUR qualifications as a purported "expert" on this topic? I mean, other than the fact that you are a man and therefore superior by definition, or that you "care" about these issues. Regale us, if you will, with your actual credentials.
I hoped he would have the "bleep" to respond with his credentials. All well lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutz76
Quite frankly I agree with you. All men should have a discussion at some point during the early stages of the relationship about their standards & expectations and what happens if/when the woman doesn't measure up. One of my bullet points is I ever get married
Don't you mean if you ever get married again?
Quote:
That violates the new social bargain between genders. It used to be understood that an any children born to a married couple were automatically that of the husbands. To reinforce this point, back in that system those kids were essentially considered to be his property and as such automatically went to him in the case of divorce. Things have changed drastically since those days and the new social rules are changing in response, hence trust but verify. This is one of the unintended consequences women will have to deal with in growing numbers as time marches on.
I'm inspired to start a site similar to FSTDT (fundies say the darndest things) with a slight change to MSTDT. This post will be the first on the list!
Quite frankly I agree with you. All men should have a discussion at some point during the early stages of the relationship about their standards & expectations and what happens if/when the woman doesn't measure up. One of my bullet points is I ever get married I'll have to get a prenup and if a child is born a paternity test will be required. So long as they're reasonable statements and (more importantly) delivered correctly, no reasonable person will take issue with them.
If a woman barks about a prenup or paternity test and tries to pull the trust card then you know you generally cannot trust them since they want you to trust but not verify. That violates the new social bargain between genders. It used to be understood that an any children born to a married couple were automatically that of the husbands. To reinforce this point, back in that system those kids were essentially considered to be his property and as such automatically went to him in the case of divorce. Things have changed drastically since those days and the new social rules are changing in response, hence trust but verify. This is one of the unintended consequences women will have to deal with in growing numbers as time marches on.
If you have to verify, you're not trusting. Verification MEANS you don't trust us. Tell me why, for one second, I'd want to stay with a man who thinks I'm a ****????? I can't think very highly of myself if I would stay with him.
Seriously, if you don't trust me, tell me up front. Don't wait until I'm knocked up and there's a child in the mix. Tell me BEFOREHAND so I can leave and find someone who does trust me.
I have never cheated on my husband and never would. For him to demand a paternity test would be, tantamount, to him calling me a liar AND a cheat. Exactly, why would I want to stay in a relationship with someone who thinks so lowly of me????
Would you want to be with a woman who demanded you take a lie detector test to prove fidelity on a regular basis?
I would be willing to bet everything I have that if you weren't in the room giving your husband the stink eye, threatening divorce or some other potential consequence that he wouldn't care.
I think I know my husband a little better than you do. He is a passionate civil libertarian, perhaps even more so than I am. And your suggestion that he only believes what he believes because I am giving him "the stink eye" and threatening divorce is a profound insult to this great man. Speak for yourself. Nobody makes up his mind for him. I find it rather amusing how purported advocates for men's rights actually insult men by describing them as pliable, feeble-minded creatures, who alternatively can't control their impulses and are easily intimidated by women. If men's faculties are indeed so weak, they shouldn't be allowed to drive or operate heavy machinery. Or vote. [/end sarcasm]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
And please... stop trying to make it sound like it's a biopsy or some incredibly invasive procedure... it's not. It's a (literally) 2-second procedure of sticking a q-tip in your mouth. Nor is it a non-medical reason... knowing the true biological father is a medical reason. Genetics and family history play a huge role in providing the proper care for a person.
Once again -- invasiveness isn't the point. It wouldn't physically hurt you if the government read all your correspondence -- and it could glean important medical information that could help you later -- but that's not a justification to actually do it. Moreover, as someone who works closely with the medical field, I can tell that you are vastly overstating the importance of genetics and family history for providing medical care. The circumstances under which the biological father may be called upon to be an organ donor for his child are rare -- and even when they occur, the biological father can't be compelled to donate, and is unlikely to do so voluntarily if he has no close relationship with the child. If a person gets a serious genetic illness, knowing who he got it from won't prevent it or help him treat it -- the science is just not there yet. As for "family history", the child won't know that unless he has a close enough relationship with his biological relatives to be aware of their ailments so that he can then report it to the doctor. At any rate, the benefits clearly do not outweigh the costs.
Isn't it given that I am the superior being as a man? (No... I'm not serious... lol) But neither did I purport myself to be an 'expert' in the topic with statements that I must be superior because I am a lawyer... I just merely contested the arguments riddled with fallacies and illogical arguments.
As to having been published in a journal... it is far from uncommon for anyone with a professional degree to have written an article or two for a scholarly journal. But I digress... we're getting too far from the issue.
The issue is this:
A man and wife are married. The man trusts his wife completely. She has a child. Years pass. The wife decides to divorce her husband and during the proceedings it is discovered that the child is not biologically related to the man. The man then has to make child support payments, minimally until the child is 18, even though he is not the father.
How do you protect the man? Since the reverse of this simply cannot occur... a man cannot have a child and have the wife think it is hers unknowingly... please don't attempt to reverse it. Ignore non-issues such as cost and DNA database storage.
The husband has no reason to ask for a paternity test at birth, yet is on the hook for child support for a non-biological child if he does not.
There are two possible solutions (paternity testing mandatory in each case):
1. Determine paternity at the time of the divorce, and change the laws to release him completely from having to pay any child support.
2. Determine paternity at the time of the birth.
The end result is basically the same, the non-biological father does not have to pay child support. The difference is how long he potentially has to spend parenting a child that is not his own. Would it not be more fair to the non-biological father to determine paternity at birth?
Sorry, the court is going to, rightfully, do what is right for the child. Once a man has established himself as the legal father, he's the legal father. My suggestion is you guys think with your big head not your little one and make sure the little one ends up in trustworthy places.
If you don't trust a woman, you should not marry her and make babies with her. It's really quite simple. However, if you choose to do so and you have established yourself as the father, be the father. I really don't get thinking you owe nothing to a child you have raised as your own because of a DNA test. The child deserves better than that.
I have to give my dh a round of applause here. He not only raised one that isn't his, he took custody of him when he and his ex divorced. Even knowing the boy was not his, he did what was right for the child. Now there's a man for you!!!
If someone came to me today and told me one of my kids wasn't mine, there's no way I'm giving her back!!! I'd be curious as to where my child is and I'd want to make sure she's ok and want to meet her but I would not stop loving the daughter I have raised. DNA be damned, these are MY kids. If it were to turn out one of them didn't grow in my womb that means little because she grew in my heart.
Do some men simply not bond with children or is DNA the only thing that matters to you? I can tell you my husband loves the child that isn't his as much as the others and I would continue to love my kids even if it turned out their DNA didn't come from me.
Yes, it's exhausting. The reasoning for tagging new borns is not to mix them up. The reasoning for the assertion of DNA testing does not cover avoidance of mixing them. Redisca has already shown where this argument falls apart.
Evening Braunwyn,
Please do not take this the wrong way but a man thinking he is the father, when he is not, is not a mix up?
Bwaaaaaahaaa ha ha ha ha
Its a shell game. Mixing up the babies is mixing up the parents .
Please do not take this the wrong way but a man thinking he is the father, when he is not, is not a mix up?
Bwaaaaaahaaa ha ha ha ha
Its a shell game. Mixing up the babies is mixing up the parents .
Bwaaaaaawww ha ha ha LOL X 100
Uh oh, it's getting late where you are? I thought you were in the US. Have some of my wine. Any way, Redisca's argument that all men would need to be on paternity fraud genome map has been rejected by your side, so the analogy falls apart there.
when it comes to marriage...isn't it kinda too late then? I mean mostpeople check whats under the hood bfore the pick up the car...(meaning couples usually sleep with eachother for years or at least months before marriage...
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.
