posted
Again, why does any of that need to be mandatory? DNA tests are possible, even without the mother even knowing about it.
How about pushing for an education campaign ("Suspect your wife is a liar and sleeps around? Be sure that kid is yours!") before mandatory testing, which causes a load of complications and is costly in very real terms.
I recognize the possible scattered benefits of a mandatory plan. I also recognize the huge costs of such a plan, and since DNA testing is avaiable for everyone anyway, the benefits don't outweigh the costs, not even close.
SW, I am not sure you recognize the costs of such a mandatory plan. What do you see the costs to be?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat...your assumptive and negatively emotionally charged posting style rubs me the wrong way nearly every single time I read one of your posts.
And the worst part is, that your points are sometimes valid, but because you jump to so many negative conclusions and are so combative that I want to argue with you whether or not I actually agree with your point.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The assumption behind the mandatory plan is that women cannot and should not be trusted - that every one should be double-checked to protect men against them.
It's inherently a mysoginistic stance. I'm not surprised you don't like hearing it called that. If it helps, I don't like hearing that sort of statement.
----
Look at the defense for the mandatory plan - pregnant, hormonal women are crazy and men shouldn't have to deal with them. Every aspect of this hinges on how men are victims of women and so all women should be trusted as liars - guilty of adultery until a DNA test proves them innocent. It's not an attractive stance.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, to your question...I'm against mandatory testing...but the cost...online you can find dna tests for $80, and if made mandatory that cost would go down a lot.
As to inherently misogynistic...I'm divided, I can see why you would think so, but again, if the system wasn't set up in a way to make it legally binding for life no matter what the dna says, then there would be no call for it.
Clearly it is a reactionary measure.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW, I think it's more accurate to say the legal system makes it binding until the presumption of paternity is disproven. Any presumed father can check on that if he wants.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The system is not, in fact, set up to bind a man for life (18 years, actually) regardless of DNA. If, however, someone has been a father in a child's life, in terms of behavior, *sometimes* he will be bound as the father regardless of DNA. That's a bit different, to say the least.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Any presumed father can check on that if he wants.
You say that like I don't know, instead of saying that myself within the last two minutes.
Remember here people, I agree that it shouldn't be made mandatory. I just understand why someone might want it to be that way.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Any presumed father can check on that if he wants.
You say that like I don't know, instead of saying that myself within the last two minutes.
I am sorry if I misunderstood. You seemed to be saying the system was binding no matter what the DNA says, and that was what I was responding to.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
My understanding is that there is a form that men sign saying they are the father, and that they have only 60 or so days to change their mind, and after that, the form is binding even if at a later date the dna shows that he is in fact not the father.
quote:Remember here people, I agree that it shouldn't be made mandatory. I just understand why someone might want it to be that way.
I too think I understand why some people might want it that way. It basically boils down to, they are misogynist jerks who think protecting men from the evil wiles of manipulative woman should be a social priority. I disagree.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So, do all threads by Sa'ed end here? (assuming Saed is Clive)
No, some of them begin here. I presume KirKis is also Clive?
It's certainly beginning to seem that way.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: kat...your assumptive and negatively emotionally charged posting style rubs me the wrong way nearly every single time I read one of your posts.
And the worst part is, that your points are sometimes valid, but because you jump to so many negative conclusions and are so combative that I want to argue with you whether or not I actually agree with your point.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps I am the one who is confused.
My understanding is that there is a form that men sign saying they are the father, and that they have only 60 or so days to change their mind, and after that, the form is binding even if at a later date the dna shows that he is in fact not the father.
Is this not true?
Sorry, I missed that you were talking only about the Texas situation described on the previous page.
Still, that understanding is not quite true.
quote:An acknowledgment of paternity may be rescinded by filing a motion to rescind within 60 days of the date of signing the acknowledgment. [TFC § 160.307]. A challenge to the acknowledgment may be filed after the 60 day period, but must claim fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The results of a paternity test showing that the acknowledged father is not the biological father constitutes a material mistake of fact. [TFC § 160.308].
Other sites claim the extended time limit is only 4 years, but I think it would be extremely rare to develop doubts after 4 years. This leaves me a bit uncomfortable - it's not impossible to make a mistake and not find out until more than 4 years later - but, such cases should be few.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prepare yourselves hatrack, here comes a scenario:
Robert's wife has a child, and he thinks nothing of it, and signs on the dotted line. Right after the deadline ends for him to foreswear as father, it comes out that he has testicular cancer and is infertile (I have no idea if medically this is true) and has been for years. He asks his wife how she got pregnant and she admits sleeping around on him. He immediately files for divorce and doesn't want anything to do with the child, who is still a baby. He is not obligated to pay child support for the next 18 years instead of the child's real father.
Nothing that Robert's wife did caused him to suspect she was being unfaithful. He had no reason to ask for a paternity test.
Of course I see your point that if paternity testing is made mandatory it is unfairly assuming the possibility of infidelity in the vast majority of women. Which is one of the major reasons I am not for it.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In most cases, if they are married, there is no signing on the dotted line necessary. Legally Robert is the father unless he takes steps to establish otherwise.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually when I ignore a topic for so long and I check in to see where the conversation has drifted to I find one person being a stubborn fool, and others declaring them to be so with as little tact as possible. But here I find SW and rivka involved in witty banter.
Hatrack, what has happened to you?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I expect if he wanted to know, he'd take the relatively simple and (unless he's screws it up) get the materials needed completely undetected, and have the test done. Easy. The mother need never know in the event of a match, that the man didn't trust her. If there is no match, then of course he can go forward from there.
The remedy to the problem you're mentioning is *already there*, perfectly available to any man who seeks it. Shall we require anyone signing a contract to take a test on the relevant law every time they do so, to ensure they are protected if they've made a foolish decision? When people buy a car, should they have to prove they personally understand its inner workings before they pay?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. No, I don't think I'd want to know. Independent of the question of whether or not my wife is cheating on me is the question of whether I would treat a child in my household differently if it were not my own. I submit that only selfish bastards care about the latter.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised by how judgmental your last statement is Tom. Only a selfish bastard would care if their children where theirs? Really?
We are not talking about an adopted child or raising your dead brother's child here.
Your wife cheating on you and the welfare of the child...how could you possibly make the two things independent? Yes the child's welfare is still important, but the child has a real father, and he is the one it should be important to.
In this scenario, your wife is cheating on you, and has been impregnated with his child, and is passing it off as yours. The hospital knows it's not yours, and you would rather not know?
I would never stay with someone who cheated on me, one strike you are out. My wife is the same way. It is not a small thing, marriage vows. I can't imagine how any self respecting person could just let that go.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm sure I could imagine it...but let's not be that literal.
If you cheat on someone, they should ditch you...that's what I believe, and yes, part of the reason you should is to respect yourself.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure this is a serious question here Tom...I mean do you really want me to go into detail about this, or is your three letter reply just a brush off?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Tom's question is a good one, actually. Sperm doesn't make you a father. Taking care of a kid, educating him, loving him does. I think you set too much store in DNA and not enough in, well, life as we live it.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like you to go into detail explaining why a child born into your family and care, who just happens to contain another man's genetic material, should be more his concern than yours.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it needs to be a mandatory test because men are afraid of pregnant women???
And what, exactly, is wrong with a 60 day window? Would you rather make it 90 days? 2 years? 10 years? There will always be people who find out "the truth" right after the time table is up. I suspect the 60 days is there to keep the courts from being bombarded with DNA tests every time a couple splits up.
Also, the child really MUST be considered. Once a father has parented, the kid has a right to expect him to continue to parent. Also, what about kids who were conceived with donor sperm? At the moment there are lots of people who use donor sperm (or eggs) and not every clinic follows the same practices. What happens if a couple who had IVF gets divorced and Dad claims it's not his based on DNA. The records that could be introduced into court are often different, so it would be hard to know if it were tampered with. Heck, what if it was just a lab mix up??
Personally, I think there is SOME merit in requiring a DNA test for all non-married parents. However, DNA tests aren't free, and it still costs several hundred dollars to do one. Who is going to pay?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I would like you to go into detail explaining why a child born into your family and care, who just happens to contain another man's genetic material, should be more his concern than yours.
Well, there's more to it than just an accident of genetic material. There's the problem of the mother being deeply untrustworthy on at least two issues-fidelity (sometimes, depending on timing) and, well, not lying with the implicit understanding, "This is your biological child."
I don't think there's anything wrong with a man being repelled to the point of leaving if, right at the start of starting a family, a couple of cornerstones are...shaky. Is it the ideal moral response? Well, no. But to raise a bastard that is attempted to be passed as yours, and to find out that it's *not* yours on one's own, not talking about an unprompted admission...well, I don't think many people are in a position to judge on so few details about the situation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be clear, I am speaking of a new baby. If I found out my kinds weren't mine, I would still fight for custody.
So, you find out your new baby is not yours and your wife is sleeping around...I say that your ability to trust and love your wife is severely compromised, and even if you were to try and stay with her, (I have no idea why you would want to) that your hurt and anger would only eat away at the relationship and cause problems down the road.
As to the child, they would be embodiment of your wife's infidelity, and no matter what good intentions you might have, I suspect that would manifest in one way or another.
Part of a marriage contract, and it is a contract, is fidelity, and once that is breached, all other clauses are also null and void.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this argument has left two questions unasked that points to whether this is women-fearing argument or not.
1) What are the numbers we are looking at. Do you imagine that 10% are defrauding their husbands in regards to their children? Is it 50%? Is it 1%? Is it far far less than 1%.
I think answers to that question will make this a very interesting conversation.
2) Why is it that Stone and others blame the wife for the problem. Why don't they blame the cheating man for the fraud?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Part of a marriage contract, and it is a contract, is fidelity, and once that is breached, all other clauses are also null and void.
Nah. While it's true that a marriage contract includes an expectation of fidelity -- or at least honesty -- I don't see the abrogation of a single clause of the contract as something that necessitates the cancellation of the whole.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rather a personal opinion there, isn't it Tom? And pretty strange considering many go into the arrangement with the expectation that a breach of that 'clause' *does* necessitate ditching the whole thing.
Those people who do-who go into a relationship with the understanding that infidelity is just cause to leave-and then do so if it happens aren't selfish bastards. Not by any usual understanding of those words anyway. You really have to stretch and bring your own meaning there.
Likewise, for *some* people, cheating nullifies everything else. It's not a given, though-it varies from couple to couple. One individual is hardly ever in a position to determine whether another individual has self respect, only if they deserve the respect of themselves, the ones looking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those people who do-who go into a relationship with the understanding that infidelity is just cause to leave-and then do so if it happens aren't selfish bastards.
But like I said, that's a different issue. Dealing with your wife's infidelity is actually a completely separate problem from "Oh, this child I believed was the product of my genetic material actually isn't. I wonder if that means his sperm donor should care more about him than I do?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Tom on this one. Leaving your wife because she cheated is one thing, deciding the kids you raised and loved for X years suddenly mean nothing to you is quite another.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure you are on Tom's side Anna. I don't think anyone here has said that they would leave their kids that they have raised and loved any significant amount of time. Several people have suggested that they (myself included) would fight for custody even though the children were not biologically theirs.
What got the ball rolling was Tom saying that if the hospital knew (at birth) that a child wasn't his, he wouldn't want to know, and anyone who did want to know and would not treat that brand new baby (who was not theirs) like his own child was a selfish bastard.
And here is why people care more for their own children Tom: 1) Nature...it is just a part of nature to want your genes to thrive. Bottlenose dolphins will kill the offspring of rivals to get the female dolphins to become available to have their own offspring. Genes are a large part of who and what we are, and wanting your children to have a piece of you, to be a part of you is not selfish or stupid, it is a major part of why people have children.
2) There are (according to this source) about two billion children in the world, and all are deserving of love, protection, caring and affection. How do you pick which ones to give your love to? Can't make it around to all 2,000,000,000.
3) Parental rights...that guy your wife cheated on you with has some.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Nah. While it's true that a marriage contract includes an expectation of fidelity -- or at least honesty -- I don't see the abrogation of a single clause of the contract as something that necessitates the cancellation of the whole.
I wonder if your (future?) wife would agree with you.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not treat anyone who wants to know, at birth, if a baby carries their DNA as selfish bastards, but I certainly don't think telling the truth is always a good solution in the case the hospital knows, but nobody asked. The thing is, our children are our children because we decide so, not because they carry our DNA. See adoption. See egg and sperm donors. We are more than what nature makes us; links between man and wife, parent and child, are mostly build by society. Besides, if "the guy your wife cheated with" cared about his parental rights, he'd do something about it. If he doesn't, chances are he doesn't care a damn about the kids, whether they are carrying his DNA or not. Also, asking for a DNA test at birth is breaching the trust spouses should have one for another, and I think it is a much a part of a healthy marriage than fidelity often is.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) Nature...it is just a part of nature to want your genes to thrive. Bottlenose dolphins will kill the offspring of rivals to get the female dolphins to become available to have their own offspring. Genes are a large part of who and what we are, and wanting your children to have a piece of you, to be a part of you is not selfish or stupid...
No, it is selfish and stupid. It is also common. As you point out, there are a lot of children out there in the world. There are in fact a lot of people in the world. And the ones we generally include in our MonkeySphere are the ones who've been proximate to us for a while.
quote:3) Parental rights...that guy your wife cheated on you with has some.
No, not really. You'll want to Google the "presumption of paternity," perhaps. As long as you and your wife are married, the sperm donor doesn't have a leg to stand on.
quote:I wonder if your (future?) wife would agree with you.
We've had this conversation, and she does. Throwing away your marriage because your wife had an affair is relatively shortsighted. Letting a marriage go when one party is completely uninterested in it -- or actively hostile to it -- is another question altogether (of which sexual or emotional infidelity can occasionally be a symptom), but I think a fundamental truth that's being missed here is that infidelity can occur even when the marriage is strong and worth preserving in all other ways.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wanting your children to have their mother's smile and their father's eyes, and their grandmother's chin is...selfish and stupid in your book. Wanting to pass down a piece of yourself into future generations is stupid and selfish? I highly doubt you will get a lot of support for that idea here.
Those people who choose to adopt are doing a Good Thing™, and very much help by taking unwanted or orphaned children and giving them a family and love.
But that doesn't mean that it should an expectation that all do that, and if you want your genes passed on you are selfish and stupid.
I'm rather offended.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
