Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2949 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/26/2014 6:50:22 PM

No what many of these females are doing and this particular female is doing is using the law to make it right. You are talking about basic principles of right vs wrong. She is pushing a female agenda and taking it to a point of trying to make wrong into right just because it's legal. They have taken advantage of men in the past and wish to justify doing so.

You don't know what you're talking about! Not only has no one here defended fraud and have many, many times made that clear In case you haven't noticed, this thread is about mandated DNA testing. Just because some of us do not feel that the incidence of paternity fraud warrants such a mandate, that doesn't mean we defend it. If you are unable to grasp that, I'm sorry for you but don't step in here as if you know what I, or any other believes, with total disregard or inability to comprehend the discussion.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2948 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/26/2014 6:43:41 PM

I thanked you for admitting that a man can't just ask and get a paternity test.
You said that you didn't think so....... There is no way you could have thought this all along.

I know you are use to spinning but they are your words you don't need to spin your own statements.

Your problem is that you really are just mean, and bitter. It was not at all clear what you are thanking me for. In addition, it is not the norm for a man's request for a paternity test to be denied, although there is "statue of limitations" of sorts. As I've oft stated, I don't think this is fair on its' face but I understand why it is so. You seem unable to admit that it is far more common for a man to refuse a paternity test, & far more often than not a man who disputes paternity is actually the father. If we are to make laws "fair" it would seem, given the facts, that the laws would be slanted against men.

They already do..... In fact the state pays for their attorneys through child support recovery...... Even to the point of extorting money from a man that the state itself had proven that he is not the father.

Who's "spinning" now? Those men are NOT charged with paternity fraud, they are simple held responsible for a child, as are the mothers of those children, and there are many reasons why, although you choose to ignore them. Your incessant "extortion" ramblings are getting old. What you call extortion many would call being held responsible for your own mistakes, neglect, etc.

[quoteAgain spin...... Why didn't you post my whole statement? ...... Oh I known because then you couldn't cast me in a bad light.

What I said in message 2921 is.....

Actually men questioning paternity that turn out to be the father didn't lie...... They could have a very legitimate reason to question it.

However a mother knows if she was having sex with more than one man or not...... So if she was and just names one without testing she is committing paternity fraud...... By the legal definition...... Even if you don't acknowledge it.

So you can spin all you want that is not what I

I didn't need to address your entire statement, as the point is that you acknowledge that men can make mistakes, but you hold women to a higher degree of responsibility. They "could have" is exactly the same as that the mother "could have" reasonably believed that the named father was in fact the father no matter how you spin that. Or perhaps you believe that men are simply really bad judges of character. No matter, if we are to follow the information presented here, the fact that far more men than not are mistaken certainly is not fodder for an argument to mandate paternity testing. Basically, you are saying that men don't trust the women they choose as partners, and you say their distrust is legitimate. Yet they are more often than not mistaken in their mistrust. Not fraud, but certainly not evidence that women are rampant purveyors of fraud, nor that men need be protected by a government mandate from these deceitful women.

The fact is he was NOT THE FATHER! Yet even though he proved he wasn't they still charged him with child support........ He didn't adopt the children so he should have no legal reasons to pay them support.

There are agendas for sure....... Tell me why should any man that has proven he is not a child's father and has not adopted the child be
required to pay support for that child...... Unless he wants to.

That is not the only fact. We have all discussed & many have acknowledged the unfairness of a man having to support children not his own, still there is a basis that is not due to gender. It is certainly material to note whether this man accepted those children for a period of time, whether by mistake, poor judgement or whether he did so & now refuses to do so to get back at the ex. That is not an "agenda" equivalent to that which would purposely leave out facts & seek to assume women to be lying whores to such an extent as to request the government to provide protection of sorts, and that is what is going on here.

See this is why you are not credible in these debates....
We are taking about making the system equal for everyone...... Not asking for any special laws just make the laws not require someone that is not a parent to pay for a child that is not theirs.

That should be common sense.......

You try to pretend you are, but far from it, and you simply can't stand how transparent you are. Those of us here who try to actually be fair can see right through your thin veil. Common sense, if you were really interested in it, would tell you to stay out of the bed of a married woman, a woman who had 3 kids by 3 different fathers, not marry a women who cheated on her ex, etc. Yet you choose to ignore the reality of the circumstances of the vast majority of paternity fraud cases, and instead try to make this about equality. Disreputable persons & those who choose to associate with them aren't equal to responsible citizens. That, my friend, IS common sense.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 160 (view)
Ranty Pants
Posted: 11/25/2014 9:27:03 PM

I realize there are no moderators at this time tickle me pank. I still will not lower myself to insults. If that's you have at it. I really don't see how I blamed you or anyone else here for anything. You just got called out for your true lying and deceiving nature and for the bigot you really are. In other wards you and a few others don't actually buy their own bullsh!t they are selling. I won't respond but you are showing just how abusive you really are. I don't know you and you don't know me. Plus you start off saying you aren't insulting then begin doing exactly that. Just saying.

You long ago lowered yourself, with your broad condemnation, assumptive statements uttered as fact & disrespectful tone. I am hoping that you are drinking & will reread with shame. Just sayin'.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 159 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/25/2014 9:22:21 PM

So what you and the other ladies are really saying is if a woman has an epidural spends a few hours in labor and pops a baby out she stops being a lazy cow that's using me by magic. She also magically owed my support after the relationship. Amazing! It's like magic everyone!

Not one anyone but you is saying. Completely uncalled for, unfair & disregarded the bulk of the post responded to. How conveniently you passed over the part abut how men who stay at home are equal in regards to support, etc. It looks as if you have nothing more in mind than to further your own agenda.

I was about to get you guys to tell me how it would be okmif I sport f*cked you next but decided it would be taking it too far.

......and you're raising a daughter? How sad for her.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 158 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/25/2014 9:10:43 PM
Come on. If you made a million dollars while let's mock say we were together I'm sorry but I wouldn't feel right taking any of it much less half. You know what's right and what's wrong. Your using the law to justify horrible acts the same as some use the bible to justify doing horrible acts.

Come on. You know both genders are equally capable & equally show the capability for committing horrible acts. Humans justify those acts as righting the wrongs done to them. We are, or should be, fully aware that neither you nor I make a million dollars, under marital (and perhaps, common law marriage); WE make the million dollars. Why, then wouldn't we be held responsible for not risking it? Don't lie, don't cheat, and choose with utmost care. Being realistic isn't the same as justifying horrible acts. Quite likely the party taking "your" assets feels very justified in doing so.

Does it matter how long she was there? Really? To not work is a daily choice just like I choose to work daily. I choose to take care of my child myself daily. To allow her to live there despite her choice was my choice. To put all her choices on me because I choose to let her stay despite her choices is a cop out and you know it.

Legally speaking it might, and the onus is on you to know that. Ignorance is costly. When you "allow" someone to share your life to the extent that a marriage is created, the choice is "ours". That is not a cop out, it's reality. You sound as if you want the laws changed to suit you so as to avoid responsibility.

I have a problem with your extreme view of feminism

Might I suggest that you seem to view any statement that does not agree with your view as "extreme feminism"?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2932 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/25/2014 8:51:19 PM

I can tell you none it is not a criminal offense....

But, aren't you the one who posted.....

Paternity fraud occurs when a mother names a man to be the biological father of a child, when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father, or she intentionally does not state the name of the child's biological father on the birth certificate in order to either to begrudge the father, or to claim benefit, (see benefit at end of page). This is called "Paternity Fraud" and is treated as a serious fraudulent criminal offense (particularly in the UK, also in certain states of the US). However, a mother is permitted to not state the name of the biological father if (at the time of signing) she does not in fact know the name of the child's biological father.

to prove me wrong?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2930 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/25/2014 4:29:02 PM

So you have not admitted this all along

I believe that the two lines you quoted from me were from the same paragraph. I have stated all along that I don't feel mandated testing is required, and that I believe that men should and DO have the right to request a paternity test. I posted that I admitted this all along in response to a similar statement by another. Sorry if you misread.

No that is the definition of paternity fraud. You won't accept it but the court's do.

I guess we don't have a problem then, do we? As soon as the courts allow a woman to sue a men for fraudulently misrepresenting himself as sterile, the laws will be equal, right? In truth I think that's preposterous, but given your statement, what is it you continue to argue about?

]Actually men questioning paternity that turn out to be the father didn't lie...

Oh, yes I forgot, only women lie! I guess 70% of men who deny paternity are simply stupid.

And that proves you are wrong!

Your first case actually supports what I said. If they were married paternity wasn't a matter of her assertions, it was a matter of law. I don't think it's a mistake that the children's ages weren't noted, nor how long he acted the father. Then again, one can only assume that for the 2 yrs. after being ordered to pay CS & not doing so, the man requested the test only because of the contempt order. Where was he for those 2 yrs.? Certainly not protecting his own rights. I have said I understand the unfairness of such situations, but I also understand the tenet behind it. The ones who would suffer would be the children. I can imagine what site you got the "facts" from. Hidden agendas aren't very well hidden.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2918 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/24/2014 8:43:22 PM

Tell me why do men have to accept being subjected to extortion to engage in a relationship?

Only those men who are very bad at choosing partners have to be subjected to extortion. As this thread has shown, it is far more likely that women will be subjected to lying men who refuse to acknowledge their own children, yet it is not women who are crying here about unfairness. Tell me why that is?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2917 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/24/2014 8:37:56 PM

Yet in most states that is not what happens in most states his wages will be garnished even though the state has proven him not to be the father.

Sorry, not buying it, don't see it. Show me. Only in those instances where a man has acted as a parent, accepted responsibility & actually supported a child do I see that courts have "forced" him to continue to do so. Not so as to favor a woman, but to not harm a child. Prove me wrong, please.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2916 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/24/2014 8:32:49 PM

why do you consider it punishment for a woman to be truthful about who the father of her children are?

That is unfair; she defined "punishment " as having to be the sole support of child.

I don't doubt that a bit....... However it is still not being honest is it?

Not being honest doesn't equate to legal fraud does it? What is your point, as far as it relates to this topic?

She can go to the correct state agency and they will find him and have the courts order a paternity test.

Yet as I've shown even with a state test proving he is not the father child support recovery will make an innocent man pay for a child that is not his.

A man can refuse a paternity test. Most assuredly he will be forced to acquiesce, but certainly the law works similarly for the genders. The time element is not immaterial, for the women supporting a child alone. Those men who seek to shirk their responsibility are just as deplorable as are the women who intentionally seek to defraud a man, no? As shown by the numbers presented here, the vast majority (70%) of men who deny paternity are proven to be liars. I hardly think matters, legal or otherwise are slanted in favor of females.

With the same rape laws that prosecutes these crimes everyday

In regards to gender equity & simple humanity, how fair would it seem that the victim of rape would have to share custody if a child produced from that rape? Prosecution for rape doesn't exclude a "father" from parental rights.

That would be fine. However naming someone or letting their husband take care of a child that is not sired by them is not keeping quite.... It is by legal definition paternity fraud.

Are you saying it is acceptable for a woman to lie about the paternity of their child? a
And the law should allow them to defraud someone, just so they don't have to tell the truth of their promiscuity?

Not acceptable, understandable, just as many men understand & would rather raise a child not their own than have an unsuitable father do so.

As I stated earlier, this is not a simple issue & not specific to either gender, both are and can be involved in "paternity fraud" of sorts.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2915 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/24/2014 7:31:39 PM

Thank you for admitting this.
As I've said the laws are not equal and that is all I've ever worked for.

I've admitted this all along. For the most part, though, I don't believe that it is so much a matter of law as it is a matter of human behavior, The poster above you is an example of a man who willingly takes responsibility for a child not his own. I know this is not "fair", technically speaking, but it may well be n the best interest of the child. Who is to say that, 10 years from now, he will not become an embittered ex, deny the child, and what then? Do we charge him as an accomplice to fraud?

While I know life is not fair the paternity laws could and should be fair to everyone.

There has been some questions on the definition of paternity fraud.

So your claim that you have to prove intent is wrong. As it should be...... Any woman that has been having sex with more than one man knows that there a possibility any of them could be the father.
So claiming one is the father without testing is legally considered paternity fraud.

But it's not. That is your definition of paternity fraud. Were it true, women would be held to a higher standard than the rest of those accused of fraud. Legal fraud necessitates intent. "Possibility" does not prove intent.
Listen, I hear you, but legally speaking, if a woman states that she hadn't slept with the real father for two weeks or so in the time frame indicated by the birth date, how would one prove her wrong? I'm not saying there aren't women who commit such frauds, only that is difficult to prove.

This is a complicated issue, with no cut and dry answers, for sure. I can't imagine that there could ever be such a thing as paternity laws that are fair to everyone. People lie, people cheat, and for many, the most important part of this equation is the child. I don't think that either gender corners the market on deceitfulness, and that is part of the problem here. As far as I can tell it isn't so difficult for a man to obtain a paternity test via the legal system. I really don't see that the laws are gender biased. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I spent some time researching & I simply don't see it. To be honest, personal experience (not limited to my personal experience) is that a man contests paternity, then refuses the test, which seems predominant in these type of cases. Unfortunate but true. Far more men who deny paternity are proven to be fathers than not; I don't think you can contest that, and it hurts your gender.

This shows without doubt the system is not looking for the truth. They don't care if the women lie they will try to use these laws to extort money from anyone the mother names.

This shows without doubt one instance where the system treated someone unfairly. For every man who was treated unjustly by the system, there is a woman treated unfairly. It proves nothing as far as gender bias. I could show you a thing or two, but there is no point, as the system is not fair, no doubt about it, but it is not fair to anyone, no matter what you say. I've both seen & experienced enough to know that it is so. The system is simply looking for a way for those involved in the system to make money. Why take it out on each other?

When all is said & done, I can not fathom that it is reasonable or fair to subject every newborn to government mandated testing, that's all I'm saying.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 62 (view)
How much do you want to know?
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:24:24 PM

Anyways, is this a gender specific 'thing'? On a scale of 1 to 10 this may not be important but I'm just wondering what women are thinking. How much do do want to actually want to know about a man's past relationships?

I don't think so. As far as I am concerned, what is information today may one day become ammunition.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2901 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:19:38 PM

I have found nearly everyone that says "I certainly don't want to see the government step in." really mean they want the government to support their own agenda and not someone else's agenda.


Some want the rules on how the government steps in to stay the same, some think the rules should evolve as women have become more equal to men and DNA technology is now common.

I don't think this has anything to do with equality between me & women. Men will are not able to get pregnant & women are not able to get a man pregnant.

Personally, I think some of the laws need to evolve. I don't think it's justified to DNA test every newborn. Maybe just require testing when the supposed father requests it. Hospitals / doctors should inform the father when they discover he really isn't the father.

I agree with you on that. Perhaps it is true that a man's request for a paternity test can be denied, but I didn't think so. Certainly, if he is named on the birth certificate, he can take the child to a doctor for testing. If that is not the case in some places, then certainly he should have that right.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 138 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 1:51:06 PM

I suppose it comes down to an even more fundamental question, why is the religions ceremony of marriage a legal contract? I never understood that. It shouldn't have anything to do with the government.

Marriage predates written history. Certainly the power of the church played a role, but I believe it was Mass. (in this country) who first decided that they wanted a hand in marriage. Today, a religious ceremony has nothing at all to do with legal marriage. Marriage is a legally binding contract completely outside of the church. An optional contract, so no need to worry, you don't ever have to marry.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2898 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/23/2014 1:38:45 PM
I can understand why some men feel outraged, sure. The "rabid" contributions to this thread however, have been either aimed at all women, or insults hurled at the participants.

You are quite right about most married persons, both & women who cheat don't tell their spouse. That doesn't make cheating okay, and that is what I believe she has been saying.

I am not "outraged" by the lies & deception of those men with whom I am not involved. I don't expect men who have no involvement with me to take their outrage out on me.

Courts don't make men pay women , they make them CS. I do understand that this isn't fair, and I also understand that behind these decisions is the fact that the 3rd parties involved, the children, should not be penalized. I don't have an easy answer & have never claimed to, but at some point we do bear responsibility for the outcome of our own relationships, and I certainly don't want to see the government step in. Sometimes we are victimized, sometimes foolish, either way I can't see reason to mandate DNA testing.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2895 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:16:45 AM

She wasn't defending cheating, she was defending lying about cheating. I was surprised by that and wanted ask if it's also good if men also lie about cheating?

No she wasn't; she was simply stating that it happens. The sum total of her recent posts was to acknowledge her understanding of why MEN feel so strongly about this issue.

I truly don't mean to single you out, as I acknowledge that you have not been an active participant in the childish arguments. It is simply easier to point out such a short posts as yours as an example of projecting an image of someone that is completely contrary to their consistent statements.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 133 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:12:00 AM

why does marriage by default have to be a 50/50 split? Why not make that part optional? Again, it makes so much more sense to just keep what both of you earn and only share what both of you agree to share.

To an extent it depends upon where you live, but marriage is not simply a "50/50 split". Marital ASSETS are split 50/50. There is a difference, there, a huge difference. Let's remember that this is due to the legal contract that is marriage. Assets acquired during a marriage, just like assets of a business partnership acquired during that partnership, are split evenly.

It would seem to me that if this is the most important consideration, you shouldn't marry. Be careful as well to insure that you don;t provide any "extras" for your offspring ( sports, extracurricular activities, private school, certainly not college!) as you'll find your poor self having to provide them with those things after your breakup.

To be honest, I think this is about selfishness. Certainly there are those who "rip off" their former partners, but the majority seek to be fair, as much as their idea of fair remains after a breakup. If it was "fair" for one partner to stay home & raise children during a relationship, how does it suddenly become unfair? That's not to say that a parent should stay at home full time once the kids go off to school.

Truth is, I am happy to say that I know far more exes who are able to see past "unfairness" and simply do the right thing.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 132 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:59:59 AM

People go wrong because they give insufficient weighting to values and ethics when assessing potential mates.

When you're looking, prioritize similar values and strong ethics over good looks and smooth words. Talk less about random stuff and more about intentions. At the first sign of dishonesty, such as lying to friends or significant debts suddenly appearing when things have gone beyond the acceptable disclosure stage, a loud warning bell should go off in your head and you should start asking the tough questions and be prepared to pull out.

If you have observed someone behave with honesty and integrity over a good length of time, where deeds have been seen to match words, you will gain confidence that it will be a symbiotic rather than parasitic relationship. Not only will it be less likely to lead to a split, but if it does happen you can be sure that both sides contributed equally in blood, sweat and tears, either directly or indirectly via wages.

Thank you!!!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 131 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:54:49 AM

If they have the same experience on the job, work the same hours, ask for raises as persistently as men do, have the same education, etc and etc... then yes, they make exactly the same as any man. Again, there isn't this widespread conspiratorial discrimination going on.

In short, no they don't.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 130 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:51:58 AM

It's not pointless to discuss something if it hones your thoughts further. That's the whole point of a forum, isn't it?

One would think that the point of forum discussion would be to open one's mind, to ponder differences of opinions. I think you might be confusing "honing your thoughts" with donning blinders.

Agreed, for sure it can be enjoyable, entertaining even!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2893 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:47:02 AM

So you are of the mind that you shouldn't cheat, but if you do never tell your spouse about it?

Why would you say that? That only adds fuel to the fire. You took a small portion of her post, the gist of which was to defend the male posters here, and turned it around to accuse her of defending cheaters.

That's the problem here. I am having a hard time believing that so many of you are that incapable of reading or simple logic. You simply want to argue.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2891 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:02:26 AM

Frankly I'm finding ganho's most recent posts to be somewhat incoherent.

Yes, & I keep confusing him with that "casual guy"!; my bad!

As bad as cheating is, I'm sure many women who find themselves pregnant are not interested in adding more waves to the tempest by having a confessional session with the "official" partner, when the odds are just as good that the official partner IS the parent.
But I think that a mans' worries that his child(ren) might not be of his own DNA strikes a fear that we as women just cannot appreciate. I can ALMOST understand some of the more rabid contributions to this thread.

I absolutely agree & concede that I understand how strongly a man might feel. Still, I don't do rabid, and blatant ignorance & childish insults are never attractive.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2890 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:58:34 AM

The issue is about ensuring a woman does not identify the WRONG father for convenience sake.

"For convenience sake" is assumptive, and no test in the world could ascertain that. Interesting how quickly you switch exactly what the issue is. You accuse me of not caring about the children, then say that it has nothing to do with the children?!

You should not insult others when you say "likely". It's not a definitive answer, yet you argue as if it is.

I wasn't aware that "likely" was an insult. Reality based scenarios are not intended to be definitive answers. When it comes to likely defense against the accusation of paternity fraud, however, the statement I made is quite valid.

Under this legislation, wouldn't that have to happen in order to validate paternity?

It wasn't mentioned at all relative to this legislation, until now. It would, and I would not support it.
Just to be clear, though, you are saying that you support mandated submission of DNA by all males, right?

I think you've been on this topic far too long. You're arguing yourself into a corner.

I am not cornered at all. I have never wavered in that I believe this to be a civil/constitutional rights, privacy & personal responsibility issue. A 5 min. reread, allowing for the unintelligible ramblings you have posted, shows that it is you who has felt the need to switch topics & hurl insults & accusations that have nothing at all to do with the topic of discussion.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2887 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/22/2014 1:42:37 PM

If she was sexually active with multiple partners there is no way she can wave her magic wand and pinpoint the exact date the child was conceived. For you to presume she could do that is beyond comprehension

I presumed no such thing. There is no exact science st work calculating gestation. I am merely pointing out what would likely occur in the courtroom. Is that beyond your limited comprehension?

You've proven just the opposite. As a typical feminist attitude, you're ignoring the child's civil and constitutional right..... and your attitude is why many feminist issues are not respected as a "legitimate" fight for equality.

I've done no such thing, this is not a feminist issue & I am not a feminist. Mandated testing of newborns provides no guarantee that a child will get to know who sired them, and none of you here have addressed that issue. You are only worried about the male gender & now you're trying to turn it around to seem as if I don't care about children. I call foul. If you're truly worried about the child's right, then support a mandate to test all MALES, not just children. I would never do so, as I believe that it would violate their rights & discriminate against men. When you think about it, though, it would go further to ensure that children would be able to find out who their real fathers are then would your proposal. It would also help solve not only crimes of rape but many others, as most crimes are committed by males.

Now why don't you prove that it is really the children you are worried about.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2886 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/22/2014 1:31:55 PM the woman who are select sub set of society.....and Ashley Madison a snapshot of who and what are engaged in the actual pursuit of affairs outside the marriage..... Despite the ignorance or refusal to accept effectively any and all can and do engage it the activities you seem to suggest as easily identified. Next you will suggest they have a easily identified H stitched to their shoulder...or is perhaps the issue you were never seen as being the harlot your husband left with...since you wish to get to name calling?

?? Very bad sentences there, practically unintelligible. I'll try to decipher.....
I wasn't aware that this thread was limited to married women (as a matter of fact it's not). ALL most certainly do not engage in the behaviors that lead to unnamed men being the real father so one's children. I never said "easily", but I certainly think that there is a large enough number of those who would be removed from the numbers of men actually unaware. If you;re sleeping with the tow slut or another man's wife you can't exactly feign innocence.

Like the rest of the above, there is not much sense in that last sentence, but my ex husband left with no one, I have never stolen anyone;s husband, slept with a married (or otherwise attached, for that matter) man, nor have I ever cheated on any partner of mine. As far as I know, none of them have strayed either. So, no, I have been seen as, called or thought of as a harlot, a slut a whore or an adulteress. Thank you, though!

so it seems many woman who are 39 with a college degree based on ohwhynot are most likely to be ohwhynot speaks with a position of authority and knowledge so one wonders what she was doing 13yrs ago...or was that what she wishes she had followed through on? Or is the problem she was not able to be the harlot?

I see your reading skills are on par with your writing skills. How on earth do you attribute that to me? You are not only a jerk, you're stupid, ignorant & you lack class.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 115 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/21/2014 6:50:52 PM
Pure 1+1=2 logic indicates that women will have a legal claim to the difference in income if you get married. Most of the time. Sometimes the women earns more, and then the man owns the women (though not for kids).

No one ever said the legal system was logical! That is quite simply NOT how it works.

FYI, it most certainly is not likely that he will be paying alimony, too. These days, if a man is paying alimony it's because the ex wife agreed to accept a reduced CS payment as a substitute, since alimony is taxable income to the recipient & a tax deduction for the payor, while CS is not.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2881 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/21/2014 6:48:24 PM
In my opinion, it's women with your logic who provide ample leverage for DNA testing to be a mandated practice.

I know you're trying to sound somehow profound, but that is a truly meaningless utterance. So, because I believe that the government should not have more involvement in our personal lives, DNA testing should be mandated?!?! And I'm the one with faulty logic?!?!?

You're funny!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2880 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/21/2014 6:38:02 PM
Your logic wreaks havoc.
If a woman is sexually active with 2 or more partners and becomes pregnant during that time, it is impossible for her to know which partner impregnated her. By arbitrarily, and legally, refusing to discover who the father is, for the sake of keeping her life status quo, is actually an intended act of fraud.... she has no intentions of providing facts over fiction

I think you missed the point. Testimony by a woman stating that based on her due date, she thought it impossible that any other man could be the father would be nearly impossible to prove in court. Testimony by the same woman that the man she named as "dad" knew full well he wasn't, but agreed to step in is also difficult to disprove. Testimony by this woman that the other man with whom she slept swore he had had a vasectomy or was sterile. He said she said, nothing more or less. Some of those women would't even be lying; imagine that, men, lying to women!

Very difficult to prove, legally speaking, but a very simple logical explanation why paternity fraud would be nearly impossible to prove.

You argue about government intervention as your crux for objection. Then you argue, senselessly, over the legal definition of fraud. In my opinion, it's women with your logic who provide ample leverage for DNA testing to be a mandated practice.

I argue against mandates because I believe that this is a civil/constitutional rights issue. I'm not arguing over the legal definition of fraud; any 10 yr. old with a computer can Google that.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2879 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/21/2014 6:24:05 PM
I can imagine for some one having it almost a guarantee primary car of one’s children would be seen as added work. As opposed to a lifestyle choice one would choose or one is fighting to have.

A lifestyle choice, a choice that very much includes sacrifice. Certainly a privilege, just the same as it is a privilege to have a partner willing to make the personal sacrifice it entails. You simply can't acknowledge that. There are more & more men who are the stay at home parents, and they know full well what we mean. You are simply too bitter to see reality.

I was a single custodial parent when they were 6 & 10....but I had been taking care of them for over a year as the ex drove to work and stayed there taxing to drive home...but for fun I would go there during the day for sales calls...just for fun. When they were ex suffered through post partum so she never really bonded with them....

I'm sorry for your poor choices, as you should be. Don't take it out on the rest of us.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2878 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/21/2014 6:14:07 PM
We are the ones who bear the responsibility for the fraud that was perpetrated on us....we the victims it was our fault based on what we were wearing or what we did or did not do......we were asking for it...
Now somewhere I am sure that is unacceptable to suggest the victim as being responsible.....LOL....tinted glasses?

Why are you such a jerk? "Victims" was in quotes because you have the capacity to not become one. You bear responsibility for not having prevented it. If you were grounded in reality, you would be able to admit that the majority of men who are "defrauded" chose to sleep with women whom they very well knew were disreputable. Yes, it is also true that the majority of women whose "baby daddy" raan out on them knew or should have known it as well. This is what we who are rooted in reality call personal responsibility.
If you truly believe that the incidence of paternal fraud is sufficiently high to warrant a mandate, but do nothing to protect yourself from same, awaiting the government & public at large to do so & bear the costs, you're an idiot. That's what I'm saying.

I'll try to start in terms simple enough for you to digest: if you are very worried about becoming a victim of paternity fraud, request the test, immediately. You do bear some responsibility for waiting 10 years or more. Its about prevention, in this instance.

Liar...liar pants on fire....I am sure you have ex agreed that I should stay home...even though I earned more money than he you justified yourself and other woman for not working or not working full how can you suggest or state you have always worked...when you whined and bleated about “supposedly” you both agreed you should be the one to stay home?

Again, you're a jerk. You're correct in that my ex-husband & I agreed that I would give up my full time, well paying job to raise our children. I always worked. I worked from home & we ran a successful business for more than 10 years. How convenient that you missed that, huh?
What I "justified" and you are not human enough to admit, is that a parent, any parent who stays home to raise their children forfeits income, future earnings, retirement, even social security. I do not think it fair to refuse to acknowledge this. Very few of such decisions are made by one party alone. The likes of you are not even willing to attribute the cost savings of childcare to that parent.

Owned.... owned, v. tr. To be made a fool of; To make a fool of; To confound or prove wrong; embarrassing she suggests Teal wood did not own her...she owned herself.....she stated it herself.....and believe me I would not want to own a woman who is unable or unwilling to financially be responsible for herself and then whine and complain about what she did not receive what she felt she was entitled to ....

Urban dictionary? That explains a lot. You have proven yourself a jerk. Congrats!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 230 (view)
Has anyone had a good relationship with someone on POF?
Posted: 11/20/2014 4:32:19 PM
A few, yes.

Messages this short may not be posted, though!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 118 (view)
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 11/20/2014 4:24:59 PM
"Do the right thing"
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 103 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:41:55 PM

Not sure what the problem is if that's the case? I fully recognize that there is a wage gap between females and males, but if it's not by discrimination, what is the issue? It's just the choices that men and women typically make that lends itself to this situation.

You could say we as a society should try to encourage women to pursue higher paying jobs. I don't really see anything wrong with that, but it's just not a huge issue. It's personal choices.

You obviously didn't do your research. It is a fact that women make less than men in the same jobs, plain & simple. The gap is closing, but it remains a fact.

I find it curious how if I ever disagree with someone older than me, they always throw down the age and wisdom card. As if age guarantees intelligence. Yeah, you probably do have more experience, but wisdom is being able to process that information and apply it sensibly and, even without experience, you can read and learn from other's experiences to reach the same level.

Age doesn't guarantee intelligence, it guarantees experience. You have wisdom all wrong, honey.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2873 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:36:44 PM

No - I chose to ignore your obtuse wording and yea, you did get owned

I think not, as your retort was completely unrelated and suggested nearly the complete opposite if what you responded to. Then again, I'm starting to believe that you really aren't capable of understanding.

I'm sorry for you. Why don't you have another drink?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2871 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:26:57 PM
I'm not a victim but I do know more than one that has been. Friends mostly but it is a pretty common occurrence.
However many men never know.

That is quite telling. Pretty common in your circle of friends? Not mine......
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2870 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:22:29 PM
As far as legally speaking you are right. Because the laws protect the women from her responsibility on that.

I am right, legally speaking, not because the laws favor women but because of the legal definition of fraud. Why can't you just admit that? How would you prove one's intent? Intent is a requirement that if it were lifted, would extend to so many circumstances that it would create havoc. You continue to push for this to be a gender issue but fraud is not a gender issue.

Of course the mothers would have to be honest about who the father is to get any support this way........ And I know you hate that.

That, sir, is what is childish. If you truly believe that my posts here indicate that I support women who lie to men, you are a complete moron.

I'm not asking for any protection for the men...... Just a legal avenue to not be defrauded by unscrupulous partners.
And honestly we are all responsible for our own protection. However you can't protect yourself from fraud if the laws won't let you.

Supporting a mandate most certainly is doing so, and ignores that we all, men included, have both the ability & the responsibility to protect ourselves from fraud. Legal avenues relative to fraud come after the fact, and we could go on ad nauseum about fraud, but you simply can't get past your own agenda.

You should try not being a victim....... It is actually a very good feeling.

Another immature nonsensical utterance. I have never been, have not played & never will be a victim. Grow up, already!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2869 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:10:58 PM
Actually, no. I tend to agree with Tealwood and mchurch. Seems to me they owned you quite regularly on the other

Actually, it is apparent that your comprehension is lacking. More likely, you are so focused on making a point, not to mention childish comments that you neglected to properly read; no matter. "Owned"? that IS funny, I am my sole "owner", but if that's what you need to make you feel better. I stand by my words.

Please show me where I indicated this was a gender issue.

Your lack of comprehension is showing again. I didn't say you were making it a gender issue.

If more people took an optimistic view of the economy and wanted to work for a living instead of always having a hand out, the whole issue of food stamps and social assistance would not nearly be as big an issue as it is now (and I know Tealwood owned you in another thread on that topic). In any case, I worry more about making money, not paying taxes

Tealwood & I have had disagreements, but he hardly owns me. Perhaps you should go back to the schoolyard. For the record, I have never had a handout, have worked since I was 13, up to 3 jobs at once. You are quite the fool to not worry about your taxes.

Frankly I don't think you have anything of substance to add to this thread. I guess you're bored. Back to the playground with you!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 97 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:09:25 PM
More likely, the idea that men might not want to be ruled and controlled by women anymore scares you

Then, this:

I respectfully disagreed with her, offering logic to counter hers. How is that "poo pooing" her? Whatever that even means.

Followed by:

Age is irrelevant. Logic and facts are all that matter.

Truth is, I find you fairly respectful, or at least mindful enough to appear so. Yet, for one so young your words convey quite an old fashioned display of narrow mindedness & arrogance. Most of us choose to take them much as we accepted that our 13 yr-olds' "knew everything"; don't worry, one day you will realize that you don't, and you will be far better for that. Assumptive statements like your first above are disrespectful in their own way.

With age comes wisdom, borne of experience; never irrelevant.

You are quite incorrect in that a man can not legally screw up a woman's life; of course he can. Clearly, you have no experience with the judicial system.

As for your comment regarding "stay at home" moms, has it ever occurred to you that the decision for one parent to remain at home, to forfeit earnings, to forfeit both future earnings & retirement, is a decision made by TWO people, usually one male & one female. You speak as if it is a decision made in a vacuum, with the resulting "deficit" to fall upon one party alone. Parenting is a very difficult job with very little financial rewards. It would not be incorrect to state that the rewards of same are most often reaped by the child who had a parent available to them. I would venture a guess that were the earnings of those offspring, their "output", attributed to that parenting, you would see things in a very different light.
Never too young to think outside of the box, young man!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2863 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:45:39 PM
There is no doubt that the legal system is set up for attys. to make money.

Of course, "yip yap drivel" comes from only those with whom you don't agree. The likes of us, if you actually pay attention to what you read, in no way support those who would seek to deceive a man.

You're right, nothing has changed. You continue to act is if it is those you disagree with who are making this a gender issue. It;s not, it;s a civil rights, invasion of privacy, personal responsibility issue, and the legal definition of fraud is quite pertinent.

Your 20% is nothing more than blabber, another ridiculous attempt to make it sound as if there are more than 63 million who don't know who their real father is. BS! No one is saying it's right, or that it's not a problem, but you are blowing it way out of proportion, with no basis in fact whatsoever. To what end, I have no idea. Mandated DNA testing isn't about money to those citizens who value their rights.

Since you're so worried about money, why not instead spout equal vehemence for those, men & women alike who do not pay their cs, and take your hard earned dollars via food stamps, medicaid & the like? Are you able to concede that that is a MUCH larger problem, economically at the very least?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 95 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:24:26 PM

A man cannot legally screw up your life. A woman can. Well, to be fair it's more about income (since men typically still earn more by choice). Any man marrying a woman who is poorer than her can be taken to the cleaners. That is the difference that irks me and has me very anxious. But I think it's wonderful if women also want to break out of these established gender roles. Do what you want, but most importantly, think for yourself and figure out who you even are first.

Sorry, but there you are 100% incorrect! The absolute, bottom line truth is that, in a divorce, the one with the most money wins, ALWAYS. You'll never convince me otherwise; I have seen it untold times, I have lived it, I know far too much about it.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 94 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:22:03 PM
[quot]There is none that I have seen. Women who are as skilled, educated and work as long as a man, regardless of the field, will earn the same. The idea that there is this mass discrimination against women is ludicrous, bordering on downright conspiracy.

I never said there was mass discrimination. If you really do want to see, it should take you less than 5 minutes (Google it, and steer clear of the feminist websites, my dear).
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2861 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:15:30 PM

Why not adjust the system where it is harder to commit fraud?

Exactly what part of you is it that can not comprehend the legal definition of fraud?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2860 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:09:32 PM
So you don't consider a man being defrauded by a woman having a child that is not his, but the laws in most states forcing him to pay for a child he had nothing to do with bringing into this world.

Although your sentence makes no sense, I think I can see what you're trying to say. Most states do NOT force a man to pay for a child not his own. You are speaking of those cases where a man takes responsibility for a child for a length of time & only wants out when the relationship ends. Sometimes those cases result in a decision that it is in the best interest of the child to continue benefiting financially. No, I'm not saying this is right, but it is different from what you state as fact. It is not a fact that every woman who has a child by a man other than her partner is defrauding him. It may be true that the majority are, but legally speaking, that would be nearly impossible to prove. Your response was directed at my statement indicating that we all have some responsibility for our choices. If you are sleeping with someone you don't trust, then by all means get a DNA test, not 10 years after the child is born. As I said, it is not the job of the government to protect you from yourself. How you spun that into the nonsensical drivel above is beyond me.

Bull butter as I said in GA where I raised my children it takes DFACS about two months to find and start support deductions.
If the absent parent runs their license are revoked. If that doesn't get the job done they set in jail.

Maybe you should look into why your state is so bad at their jobs.

A bit childish of you to attempt to put down my state, but once again, a poor attempt to veer off topic. A federal mandate would affect all states, and across the US, less than 1/2 received of cp's owed CS received all of the monies due & approx. 1/3 received nothing at all. As a country, I feel pretty safe saying we're not doing such a great job. Perhaps our tax dollars would be better spent on collections ,thus saving in welfare , etc. than in providing free tests for all those "defrauded" men.

However it should be available to any supposed parent.

It is!

Also the ridiculously lopsided laws that force men to pay for children that are not theirs should be abolished.

Although we disagree that there are such laws, I certainly don't believe that any man should be supporting a child not his own, unless he so chooses.

Making a bad choice should not be an excuse for legal extortion.

Of course it shouldn't, and neither should it be an excuse to pass off one's personal responsibility to the general population.

As far as the rape question. Carry a handgun and put a bullet in the POS's head! Problem solved for good.

Another childish retort that completely avoids the question. What you are suggesting is that it makes sense for the government to protect men from being defrauded, but it is up to women to protect themselves? Interesting thought pattern, there. One wonders why it is that you are unable to follow & make a valid comparison.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 414 (view)
If a woman agrees to a FWB relationship ...
Posted: 11/18/2014 6:31:38 PM

Even whynot46 seen you accuse me of things I never said in an attempt to try and make a point...

I would prefer you not involve me, given your history of inability to comprehend. Frankly, I find you to be nasty & somewhat ignorant, hell bent on attempting to further your own agenda, which makes it impossible for you to carry on intelligent conversation.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 76 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/18/2014 6:25:14 PM

More likely, the idea that men might not want to be ruled and controlled by women anymore scares you. I guess I don't blame you, you have a nice status quo going on now.

Feminism isn't a dirty word, it's an irrelevant word since there isn't anything to be a feminist about. You hold all the cards, in every category.

I am not trying to be rude, but I will say that your age is showing. Feminism:"the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."
Nothing more, nothing less. Women most certainly do not "hold the cards". Sure, women earn much more than they used to, but they still don't earn as much as men in the same positions. They still are responsible for more than half of the household chores, more than half the childcare, and more often than not, after having spent the day at a full time job. Still, for many women, they wouldn't want it any other way, no matter how much they complain.
I don't know of many women who want to rule & control a man, except those who are control freaks, and I'd venture a guess (bet money, even) that there are just as man men as women who are so.

You are no different than others, choosing to buy into what is fed to you, rather than simply opening your eyes. Men who feel as you state are likely to "join a movement" , but most men and women alike would simply be happy to find someone of the opposite sex who cares for them, listens to them & values them. I believe it is most likely that the increase in selfishness, lack of community & expectation of immediate gratification prevalent in today's society is what feeds such movements. The genders don't really hate each other, we simply hate having to work, to wait, to put effort into relationships.

Contentment is highly underrated.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2853 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/18/2014 5:00:29 PM
owhynot only suggest that occurs with men...or how was it put...a specific subset of society

Knock it off already! I suggested no such things. You take a few words, completely out of context, to try to paint a picture that was never even taken. As I put it,.. the "subset" was, according to the poster who used the stats, a class of college students. Hardly indicative of the general population, not to mention a completely false allusion. The study he referred to was never published & never even completed. It was/is oft referred to by those with an agenda. Of course, neither the original poster who cited it, nor any other have addressed that fact. Many times throughout this post have I noted my belief that men & women are equally capable of fraud, deceit & generally low moral character. Stop trying to portray it otherwise.

As soon as you are able to present intelligent, logical debate I will have no problem accepting it. btw, opinions are not something which require acceptance.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2851 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/17/2014 4:37:05 PM

Then you missed my point.
The LAWS allow this and women are the only ones that can perpetrate such. However as I pointed out the laws are slowly changing.
The more this is brought to light the more chance to show these lopsided laws for what they are.
All I'm asking for is a law that doesn't allow someone to defraud another.

That's ridiculous! I don't see a lopsided law here at all; there are no laws to protect you from yourself, when it comes to choosing your sexual partner. Are you suggesting that there should be? Both men & women "defraud" each other on a regular basis. It is the defrauded who "allows" it, in this case, by not seeking a paternity test. Prosecution for such types of fraud, against either side, seems nearly impossible. We have beaten this to death, but tell me, how would one go about proving that the other party had intent? Intention is, after all required for fraud to be successfully prosecuted.

Actually this is not accurate. I have seen the system work. For one thing if a absent parent is job hopping the state can and does revoke their drivers license.
Not to mention the fact they issue arrest warrants that are nation wide.
So you may claim the system doesn't work but I've seen it work.
As I said just the other day I saw them find and get support in a mother's hand in two months....... That prior to that he hadn't paid in over a year.
I think that is fairly efficient.
And yes they took extra from him to help catch up the back support.

Actually, it is VERY accurate. That is EXACTLY how it works in NY, for sure. You clearly see through tinted glasses. If the system works so well, why, then are millions & millions of $$ owed to CP's? Certainly the system is far better than it was decades ago, and CS isn't really the topic of conversation here, still.... The parent you portray as an example hadn't seen a penny in more than a year; that's "working"? that's "efficient" ? then I guess my coworker who hasn't seen a total of $1000.00 in 11 years isn't doing so bad, following your logic?

It is most certainly not a fact that states "can & do". Very few are those whose license is suspended due to CS arrears. Why don't you find the stats on this one?

So you are saying this doesn't happen?
Now that is bullish!t.
Even the studies that show the 10% numbers show you to be wrong.
The facts are that no way can you be 100% accurate and find all the cases.

I said no such thing. The studies are unrelated to me at all, but thank you for giving me such power! I simply said that there are no "real" studies, and there aren't. There is propaganda & there are skewed numbers derived from nonvalid subsets which are promoted by those with an agenda, and that's all there are. Of course it happens. Life isn't fair. We make bad choices, horrible mistakes; people lie, people cheat. All of that doesn't warrant a mandate to collect DNA samples from every citizen. That is what I'm saying. Clear enough? I wouldn't promote subjecting all men to DNA sample collection either, even though far more women are raped each year than are men subjected to paternity fraud. Would you?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2849 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/17/2014 3:57:45 PM

Actually, this small issue is becoming a huge issue - nobody should get exemption. Even though I stated we compromise, I do not believe that is the right thing to do.

That you responded to my post completely out of context is further indication that you seek only to further an agenda, rather than actual intelligent debate.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2848 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/17/2014 3:56:00 PM

Your paranoia and/or lack of trust is irrelevant

Actually, it's not. It's quite pertinent to the topic. As, I suppose is the evidence of the male gender's distrust of the opposite sex, hmmmm?

Common-law relationships are consider to tbe the same as matrimonial relationship in terms of responsibility. Sexual relationships that are casual should be held to a certain stanbdard for the sake of a newborn child. Mandatory testing should be mandatory because there is not a commitment to the child and it seems foolish to have the man live in doubt and/or waste time questioning if he is the only sex partner she has - nobody will know that except her. The child has the right to be identified with the proper father - not the "preferred" father

I have never heard that in a common law relationship the man is assumed to be the father. Financial responsibility for a child is not determined by the relationship between the parents, other than that married men are assumed to be the father of a child born during a marriage. Commitment to a child is outside of commitment to a relationship, not only legally speaking, but for the majority. I am wondering whom you think it is that would determine if a relationship is merely "casual sex"; sounds like a "he said, she said" if you ask me.
That a child has the right to know is outside of the issue, as I can not imagine that government mandate would extend to informing a child.

No time restrictions - that's not reasonable to demand a duped father be held more accountable than a misleading mother.

That there are time restrictions is a fact, not a matter of you feeling it unfair. If a father has the right to find out & ails to do so, why wouldn't he bear any responsibility for that?

If paternity is not to be determined immediately at birth then there is no justification for time restrictions - paternity fraud is the result from lying before the child was even born.... how can you restrict one spectrum of time while ignoring the other spectrum in time?

But paternity CAN be determined very shortly after birth. How can you ignore the responsibilities of both parties? Those men who distrust the women with whom they choose to lay, as I distrust the government, have recourse.

Your position on this topic certainly comes off as someone who is against government intervention unless it's for the betterment of women.

I have never mentioned government intervention specific to women at all! You may want my posts to come off that way, but that's on you.

Then change it.... for the kids

You make this statement as if mandated DNA testing will change the legal definition of fraud, but it won't. I rest easy in that my moral code is such that I would never be in such a position, but it is the morality of individual men & women that is required as far as paternity issues go, not mandates by an uninterested government.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2835 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/16/2014 4:00:47 PM

Why don't you all compromise and agree on this:
1. All births that arise from relationships that are not within a matrimonial arrangement must participate in a mandatory DNA test.
2. If, at birth, the husband suspects he is not the father of the child being born, he may request an immediate DNA test.
3. If, after birth, with no given time restriction, a wife was found to commit paternity fraud, a husband can file for reimbursement of child support from the biological father.
4. In the case of paternity fraud, any other child of the marriage can seek compensatory damages from the parent committing paternity fraud.

Well, I might like to, but I do see a few problems.
1). I don't see a reason to single out the unmarried especially in light of the fact that so many are choosing not to marry. It discriminates against unmarried parents & most likely would not be upheld legally. It does nothing to protect the married man whose wife cheats (as so many of you here have pointed out seems to be the most problematic). Most importantly for me is the issue of government intervention. I wouldn't support such a mandate simply because it is a mandate & an intrusion on our privacy & our wallets.
2). I don't have a problem with that. Actually, I believe any man can do that now, with time restrictions. Since a married man is presumed to be the father it is a very small issue for the man to make an appt. with his legal child's pediatrician & obtain a DNA test. He needn't even inform his spouse.
3). I admit I have an issue with the "no time restriction", mostly due to the effect on the child. Truth is, since there is a time restriction, if any male feels strongly in this regard, simply request the test. Seems like a no brainer! In addition, how unfair does that seem to the "real" father, who likely had no idea that a child was even produced? Admittedly, the time factor is a sticky issue. We can't (although I imagine some of you will) ignore the issue of "fraud" in this scenario as well. Who's to say that the man didn't know all along, chose to act as the father, than thought better of it once the relationship ended? Men can be just as evil as women, you know, and the only one who would really suffer would be the child.
4). I think fraud is very difficult to prove in these type of cases, given the legal definition.
Show ALL Forums