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.
I love the description of the child as a meatbag to carry on genes. I've been thinking something like that but just couldn't articulate it.
ITA. Parenting is about more than just genes. If I found out my child wasn't mine, I would not stop loving her or taking care of her. Even if I found it that the baby mix up was deliberate. There is the fact, that I never would have met her without that mix up.
Hi Ivorytickler,
Its a borrowed muffin. I have seen "meatbag" pop up a few times. Its traceable to a fictional character in the Star Wars universe called HK-47. Personally I'd go with something original like a gene on a cat food raft. Perhaps you will run into Redisca at the next convenstion dressed up as a Hutt slave girl.
Though as I say, there seems to be some value to biology since people are fussy about it at maternity. An overriding social bond does not extinguish a biological bond. It merely overpowers it. Given the fratricide we have seen in the past for the pursuit of power, neither blood nor bonding was enough. Its simply a confluence.
Since I believe we are half beast, men are bred with far more jealousy in this regard. The weakness of the male is uncertainty in paternity. Thus there is a survivalistic driver powering the male impulse absent in females. The first thing male lions do is kill off the cubs of their rivals. Since we are humans, I believe the impulse is much weaker, however I seriously doubt it is all together absent.
Location: An overgrown 350K person suburb of Saint Paul
383 posts, read 900,470 times
Reputation: 248
Quote:
Why don't you go back and read through this thread? This thread is about mandatory paternity testing. You know, mandatory?
Much like mandatory child support payments. If CS payments are mandatory, finding out if you're the parent or not should be.
Quote:
No one is disputing the right of any man to demand a DNA test and to have a court order it, if he so desires.
Those court orders take up unneeded time and resources and usually are revoked.
Quote:
As to whether I would like the prospect of paying for a child that's not mine -- that really depends on the circumstances. I am not so hung up on the purity of blood, nor do I imagine myself as a friggin' Plantagenet.
What are you doing sitting on a messageboard and blowing your horn? Put your money where your mouth is and take over another man's CS payments.
Quote:
If it turned out my child wasn't biologically mine, I'd still pay for his expenses, and I would still care for him. I don't see him as an extension of myself or a meatbag for carrying on my precious genes. But that's just me.
Did you buy a giant bridge from this person wearing a trenchcoat when you were in Brooklyn?
Much like mandatory child support payments. If CS payments are mandatory, finding out if you're the parent or not should be.
Apples and oranges. You are required to support a child you beget. If you suspect the child isn't biologically yours, you are free to have a test done and have a CS order revoked -- unless of course, the child is adopted, or you consented to raise it as your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdRedRain
Those court orders take up unneeded time and resources and usually are revoked.
Those court orders are NOT usually "revoked". As for taking up "unneeded time", they certainly take less time than getting a restraining order against an abusive partner. Besides, we have already demonstrated at length that violating people's constitutional rights in the name of saving time is a non-starter. Otherwise we might just empower the police to execute suspected criminals on the spot to save time, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdRedRain
What are you doing sitting on a messageboard and blowing your horn? Put your money where your mouth is and take over another man's CS payments.
This is neither here nor there. I am required to support the children I have -- whether biologically, by adoption, or by consent. The rule is the same for men. I already have an obligation to support my child, and there is no reason I should assume anyone else's. Additionally, being in one of the highest income tax brackets, I probably pay more in taxes than you earn in gross -- in no small part because my tax money is needed to support all those children who are not supported by their fathers. In any event, this whole diatribe of yours is irrelevant to whether all infants should be tested at birth and whether all men should be compelled to submit a DNA sample so that infants can be tested against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdRedRain
Did you buy a giant bridge from this person wearing a trenchcoat when you were in Brooklyn?
No, but you clearly did. With some really bad weed throw into the bargain, apparently.
I have noticed a repetitive statement mostly by men in support of mandatory testing, a child has the right and needs to know with absolute certainty who their biological father is. But why? Why would it always be necessary especially if it would not be productive for the child.
Here are two situations:
My bro married his HS sweetheart who had a 3 month old. No one but her knows who this child’s Bio. father is but apparently he is trash. This child does not know as they had planned to tell but chickened out. The kid will be 18 soon. What would be the advantage for this kid to know his dad (my bro) is not his “real” father.
There is some doubt that my son’s child may not be his biologically. They were divorced when the child was conceived then she left again a yr. later (Jerry Springer deal). He was there at the premature birth, he has changed diapers, feeds, loves, plays ball, spend as much time as he can with him and pays CS for this child. Even if they don’t share DNA, my son does NOT want to know because no matter what, this is HIS child. What possible good would come of “proof” this isn’t his kid? What good would come of another man appearing in our lives possibly to disappear. What if my son lost parental rights now because they don’t share DNA? We would all be devastated. Do you really believe it would be best for these two children to be forced by the government to know who they thought and who they love as their dad is not their dad. What possible good could from this?
I have noticed a repetitive statement mostly by men in support of mandatory testing, a child has the right and needs to know with absolute certainty who their biological father is. But why? Why would it always be necessary especially if it would not be productive for the child.
Here are two situations:
My bro married his HS sweetheart who had a 3 month old. No one but her knows who this child’s Bio. father is but apparently he is trash. This child does not know as they had planned to tell but chickened out. The kid will be 18 soon. What would be the advantage for this kid to know his dad (my bro) is not his “real” father.
There is some doubt that my son’s child may not be his biologically. They were divorced when the child was conceived then she left again a yr. later (Jerry Springer deal). He was there at the premature birth, he has changed diapers, feeds, loves, plays ball, spend as much time as he can with him and pays CS for this child. Even if they don’t share DNA, my son does NOT want to know because no matter what, this is HIS child. What possible good would come of “proof” this isn’t his kid? What good would come of another man appearing in our lives possibly to disappear. What if my son lost parental rights now because they don’t share DNA? We would all be devastated. Do you really believe it would be best for these two children to be forced by the government to know who they thought and who they love as their dad is not their dad. What possible good could from this?
If a man does not want to know, that's fine. No one should stop him from finding out if he does want to know, though--good thing no one IS stopping him. It's a personal choice and should be left that way.
If a man does not want to know, that's fine. No one should stop him from finding out if he does want to know, though--good thing no one IS stopping him. It's a personal choice and should be left that way.
I agree. Thats the way it is now, one has the right to know. What Im not getting is why anyone thinks the child should have the right to know unless they are of age and request to know? Im not positive, but I dont believe an adopted child has the right to know who their bio. parents are?
I agree. Thats the way it is now, one has the right to know. What Im not getting is why anyone thinks the child should have the right to know unless they are of age and request to know? Im not positive, but I dont believe an adopted child has the right to know who their bio. parents are?
I believe you are correct about adoptions. The birth parents can request different levels of anonymity.
Good lord, you people really need to get outside during the weekend...
Apparently, a number of you have no idea (or refuse to acknowledge) what a Straw Man argument is. Do yourselves a favor and read up on it: Fallacy: Straw Man
It looks like we're mostly past the issue of the cost of the test, but I'm still going to address it since a few people are convinced it would bankrupt our nation (now that's a Straw Man... on my part). The argument Redisca used was that because the tests are conducted in a privatized environment, while being mandatory (and therefore high demand) that the cost of the test would skyrocket. That would be true... if left unregulated. However, only a fool would leave it unregulated. Determining a reasonable cost (given production and administration costs) and setting it as the fixed price of the test would not be difficult (and would end up far cheaper than it currently is).
I find Braunwyn's argument that Nutz76 being a 'PUA' bears any relevance to be rather amusing. If anything, her claim that "developing tools to pry those legs open" only serves to call women as gullible and brainless. A woman has her own brain, and is fully capable of making her own decision to sleep with a man or not... regardless of how talented a PUA that man is.
Having an unnamed father without a DNA test on the birth certificate is actually a pretty ingenious idea. It puts the situation back in the hands of the woman as to whether she wants insurance (read: child support) should their relationship go south. The only bit I would add to it is that the father can only be added to the birth certificate at the time it is originally created.
The argument Redisca used was that because the tests are conducted in a privatized environment, while being mandatory (and therefore high demand) that the cost of the test would skyrocket. That would be true... if left unregulated. However, only a fool would leave it unregulated. Determining a reasonable cost (given production and administration costs) and setting it as the fixed price of the test would not be difficult (and would end up far cheaper than it currently is).
Why should the government regulate it? It doesn't regulate other procedure fees, so I don't see why it would regulate this one. Although one of the previous posters mentioned the system of "reasonable and customary" rates that already exists, in fields that are the "seller's market" (such as autism-related services), providers don't give a fig what the government thinks "reasonable and customary" rates are. They want their fee and it's the customer's responsibility to pay it. Whether or not the insurance carrier will cover it -- that's a separate issue. And insurance companies won't cover this testing, since it's not medically necessary. People will have to pay out of pocket, and providers will be able to set whatever price they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
I find Braunwyn's argument that Nutz76 being a 'PUA' bears any relevance to be rather amusing. If anything, her claim that "developing tools to pry those legs open" only serves to call women as gullible and brainless. A woman has her own brain, and is fully capable of making her own decision to sleep with a man or not... regardless of how talented a PUA that man is.
Nutz believes women are gullible and brainless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
Having an unnamed father without a DNA test on the birth certificate is actually a pretty ingenious idea. It puts the situation back in the hands of the woman as to whether she wants insurance (read: child support) should their relationship go south. The only bit I would add to it is that the father can only be added to the birth certificate at the time it is originally created.
Of course, that would create a huge problem for fathers who want to be added to the birth certificate, but the mothers are against it. After all, the sword cuts both ways here. One woman may want "insurance" in the form of child support in the event that she and her husband divorce later; another woman may want "insurance" in the form of her husband having no rights to custody or visitation in the event of a divorce. That later form of "insurance" has tremendous benefits: you don't have to deal with that whole joint custody BS, you can change your place of residence freely, etc. The way I see it, such benefits greatly outweigh child support awards, which are usually measly, anyway. So under the system that you are proposing (you not being a "straw man", of course) the mother is empowered to absolutely prevent the father's name from being put on the birth certificate "at the time it is originally created". How, you may ask? Well, under the system you are proposing (you not being a "straw man"), until the father is ascertained, she is the child's sole parent and guardian -- which means, she is the only one who is legally empowered to consent to have the DNA test performed. And she can just not give consent, period.
Why should the government regulate it? It doesn't regulate other procedure fees, so I don't see why it would regulate this one. Although one of the previous posters mentioned the system of "reasonable and customary" rates that already exists, in fields that are the "seller's market" (such as autism-related services), providers don't give a fig what the government thinks "reasonable and customary" rates are. They want their fee and it's the customer's responsibility to pay it. Whether or not the insurance carrier will cover it -- that's a separate issue. And insurance companies won't cover this testing, since it's not medically necessary. People will have to pay out of pocket, and providers will be able to set whatever price they want.
It should regulate it for the obvious reason that I stated (preventing exorbitant prices). Just because it doesn't necessarily regulate other procedure fees, doesn't mean that it can't.
Quote:
Nutz believes women are gullible and brainless.
His beliefs have no context for my statement. Braunwyn's however do.
Quote:
Of course, that would create a huge problem for fathers who want to be added to the birth certificate, but the mothers are against it. After all, the sword cuts both ways here. One woman may want "insurance" in the form of child support in the event that she and her husband divorce later; another woman may want "insurance" in the form of her husband having no rights to custody or visitation in the event of a divorce. That later form of "insurance" has tremendous benefits: you don't have to deal with that whole joint custody BS, you can change your place of residence freely, etc. The way I see it, such benefits greatly outweigh child support awards, which are usually measly, anyway. So under the system that you are proposing (you not being a "straw man", of course) the mother is empowered to absolutely prevent the father's name from being put on the birth certificate "at the time it is originally created". How, you may ask? Well, under the system you are proposing (you not being a "straw man"), until the father is ascertained, she is the child's sole parent and guardian -- which means, she is the only one who is legally empowered to consent to have the DNA test performed. And she can just not give consent, period.
The system already does that... it just doesn't mandate a paternity test to have the father placed on the birth certificate. If the father really wants to have his name on the certificate and she does does not... he can take the same path that is currently in place with such custody battles.
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.
