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.
If you read through another poster who disagrees with the mandatory testing tried to explain to her how it is wrong to expect men to support children they were deceived into fathering (Braunwyn I think). She would have none of it, she went on and tried to come up with scenarios to show how women can't really know who their child's father is. The other female poster didn't quite buy it.
Yea, that was me. Tho, I have no idea how to contend with the issue. Jail or fine the woman? If she didn't have children, I'd consider it, but of course that's an impossibility because she.. der... has children. It's completely unaccetable and I think ex-fathers should have the option of opting out of child support post divorce. He could also divorce the child. There's no way to deal with the emotional restitution, tho. OTOH, that's a problem across the board spanning many issues. My dad didn't pay child support, for example. My mom just had to deal with it, and it was hard on her and me. They're still friends even. Life isn't always fair.
Since She has already stated that a man should have to pay for a child if he started raising him/her (even though he was deceived into it the courts will not be sympathetic to his plight, he will pay, that how it works today). One could speculate that the reasons why she is so against paternity testing is that the men will have a chance to get off the hook.
I can understand the privacy argument (the strongest argument by far and this is why I would be against it), I can even understand the expense argument (although I think it is the weaker one). But I think what she really wants is for some women to have the ability to choose fathers for their biological children without the men being able to make an informed choice.
If you read through another poster who disagrees with the mandatory testing tried to explain to her how it is wrong to expect men to support children they were deceived into fathering (Braunwyn I think). She would have none of it, she went on and tried to come up with scenarios to show how women can't really know who their child's father is. The other female poster didn't quite buy it.
She doesn't want men to know the truth at birth, because if they do they might get off the hook.
Nope, those men have the chance to get off the hook at birth. They also have the chance to rid themselves of the child's ho of a mother at the same time.
Once you've established yourself as a child's parent, you're in for the duration. I don't care who did what. You owe it to the child you started raising to finish the job.
Men have the right to have paternity tests done. If they choose not to, that's their problem. If they choose to and the mother decides that she doesn't want to stay with a man who doesn't trust her, that's their problem too.
Personally, I don't want mandatory paternity testing because I would want dh to tell me if he did not trust me. I want the option of getting out of the relationship because I don't want to be in a relationship with a man who does not trust me. Why should society be part of that deception? He'd be lying to me if he told me he trusted me.
You're trying to replace one type of deception with another only, I suspect there are way more men who think their wives are lying hos who lack the balls to actually look her in the face and tell her that than there actually are lying hos. So, the deception increases if we have mandatory testing because now men who don't trust their wives can get away with not telling her they don't trust her. Society does the dirty work for them.
Again, I ask, what's in it for society to do this?
Nobody has anything to lose from mandatory testing and the benefits greatly outweigh any potential indignation *some* women may suffer, not to mention the right of a child to know with absolute certainty who his or her parents truly are. Once it's part of the default shtick of having a baby people won't bat an eye at it as that's just the way it goes. Once it becomes the status quo the only people I could foresee still having a problem with it would be the women trying to get one over on their beta providers.
Yea, that was me. Tho, I have no idea how to contend with the issue. Jail or fine the woman? If she didn't have children, I'd consider it, but of course that's an impossibility because she.. der... has children. It's completely unaccetable and I think ex-fathers should have the option of opting out of child support post divorce. He could also divorce the child. There's no way to deal with the emotional restitution, tho. OTOH, that's a problem across the board spanning many issues. My dad didn't pay child support, for example. My mom just had to deal with it, and it was hard on her and me. They're still friends even. Life isn't always fair.
Any restitution or punishment has to wait until the child is raised.
Sadly, one thing these men are forgetting is the child and how the child feels. I get the impression they really don't care.
Nobody has anything to lose from mandatory testing and the benefits greatly outweigh any potential indignation *some* women may suffer, not to mention the right of a child to know with absolute certainty who his or her parents truly are. Once it's part of the default shtick of having a baby people won't bat an eye at it as that's just the way it goes. Once it becomes the status quo the only people I could foresee still having a problem with it would be the women trying to get one over on their beta providers.
Back to reality. It won't become the status quo. Why? That pesky issue of prevalence. Now go cite a blog
Nobody has anything to lose from mandatory testing and the benefits greatly outweigh any potential indignation *some* women may suffer, not to mention the right of a child to know with absolute certainty who his or her parents truly are. Once it's part of the default shtick of having a baby people won't bat an eye at it as that's just the way it goes. Once it becomes the status quo the only people I could foresee still having a problem with it would be the women trying to get one over on their beta providers.
Nothing execept billions of dollars needlessly spent AND society declaring that women are not to be trusted. Do you honestly think subjecting every single woman to the indignation of being assumed a lying ho is nothing? Yeah, nothing is lost.
If you want a paternity test, have the balls to ask for one. Be as honest as you'd like women to be. Just tell me you think I'm a lying ho so we can get on with our, separate, lives. Why do you think society should be part of hiding that my husband thinks so little of me? The current system gives him the ability to have proof while forcing him to come clean about his opoinion of me and my trustworthyness. If he doesn't trust me, he doesn't belong with me regardless of what the DNA test says.
Yea, that was me. Tho, I have no idea how to contend with the issue. Jail or fine the woman? If she didn't have children, I'd consider it, but of course that's an impossibility because she.. der... has children. It's completely unaccetable and I think ex-fathers should have the option of opting out of child support post divorce. He could also divorce the child. There's no way to deal with the emotional restitution, tho. OTOH, that's a problem across the board spanning many issues. My dad didn't pay child support, for example. My mom just had to deal with it, and it was hard on her and me. They're still friends even. Life isn't always fair.
In my opinion, they should not have too. Since these women know that the men will be on the hook for the children, they will lie if it suits them. If it was understood that there will be no automatic child support if DNA tests came back negative, they would think twice about it. If I know I can commit fraud and not suffer any consequences, obviously I am going to take advantage of the situation if it benefits me. And they do just that, I believe most women know who the father of their children is so the whole she doesn't know argument is weak. Aside from the crooked banksters on wall st no one else can commit fraud and benefit from it when found out.
Any restitution or punishment has to wait until the child is raised.
Agreed.
Quote:
Sadly, one thing these men are forgetting is the child and how the child feels. I get the impression they really don't care.
It's mom who didn't care, made the decision, and took choices away from her husband. She's entirely to blame. I'm not saying it wouldn't be callous of a guy to leave the kid he was raising, but she over-shadows him ten-fold and the kid has to pay.
But, while we're mandating, why not mandate who gets to marry? Who gets to have children? Do I get to decide? lol
In my opinion, they should not have too. Since these women know that the men will be on the hook for the children, they will lie if it suits them. If it was understood that there will be no automatic child support if DNA tests came back negative, they would think twice about it. If I know I can commit fraud and not suffer any consequences, obviously I am going to take advantage of the situation if it benefits me. And they do just that, I believe most women know who the father of their children is so the whole she doesn't know argument is weak. Aside from the crooked banksters on wall st no one else can commit fraud and benefit from it when found out.
It's mom who didn't care, made the decision, and took choices away from her husband. She's entirely to blame. I'm not saying it wouldn't be callous of a guy to leave the kid he was raising, but she over-shadows him ten-fold and the kid has to pay.
But, while we're mandating, why not mandate who gets to marry? Who gets to have children? Do I get to decide? lol
I don't disagree but there comes a point that you do what is best for the child. The child doesn't understand why daddy went away and he is now hungry. I think it's cruel for a man to walk out on a child he was raising regardless of DNA. That child didn't do anything and they were happy to support him while momma put out for them.
Seems some want to be fathers when they want mom but absolve themselves of responsibility when they decide to move on to greener pastures. They don't get it both ways.
As to mandating, it'll never happen. What do you do about couples who chose AI or who are swingers and don't want to know (I know such a couple. They do not want it proved the husband is not the father so they do not test)? Do you force them to have testing too? And if you allow them to opt out, we're right back where we are now because mom is going to say, "IF you trusted me, you'd opt out" and he's going to have to either trust her or admit he thinks she's a lying ho and not opt out.
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.
So, the deception increases if we have mandatory testing because now men who don't trust their wives can get away with not telling her they don't trust her. Society does the dirty work for them. 