Mandatory paternity testing at birth?

Post Reply New Topic

Then you contradict yourself. You specifically stated that the founding fathers "are the ones who actually came up with the rights." I fear that you are failing to recognize the difference between "right" and "privilege". Also, you seem to be unclear about the difference between "invention" and "discovery".

Rights only have meaningful existance to the extent that a system of laws is prepared to recognize them. In a society with no system of law, there is no sanction that results from killing another, and no compulsion to prevent a person from so doing.

Systems of law are entirely artificial, and the willingness of those systems of law to give effect of a right to life are only as durable as the statutes or jurisprudence that creates them. You may believe in a natural source of rights that predates legal recognition--but that natural source is in no position to give effect to them, so the issue is moot.

Regardless of who or what you consider to be your creator, your mother and father were integral to the process and every ancestor millions of years before that. If it were not for social constructs and cooperation between humans you would not be here. So society is integral to your existence, your mother and father, an accommodating environment, the existence of the Universe, and whatever other forces are at play that we can not measure.. All these things are integral to the reality of your existence and creation. Take away any of these elements and you wouldn't exist.

All of the rights you have including the right to live are dependent on the behavior of others. No ones rights are guaranteed. Laws and cooperation make your chances for survival better.

Rights are justification for action. If I were in a country that does not recognize my right to life, such as Libya, I still have the right to act to act in defense of my life; regardless of Gaddafi's recognition of that right. If I were stripped of my rights simply by leaving a geographic area that recognizes them, I would have not right to defend my self and would be morally bound to passively sit by and allow myself to be murdered. There is no morality without rights. Morality is not whatever the government says it is. While many countries do not recognize all of a man's rights, the existence of those rights outside of gov't decree is necessary in order to judge the difference between moral and immoral actions. If the gov't determined rights, then the founding fathers would have had no right to rebel against England. But they did and the act of rebellion was a moral action in spite of England's denial of that right.

[quote]
Regardless of who or what you consider to be your creator, your mother and father were integral to the process and every ancestor millions of years before that. If it were not for social constructs and cooperation between humans you would not be here. So society is integral to your existence, your mother and father, an accommodating environment, the existence of the Universe, and whatever other forces are at play that we can not measure.. All these things are integral to the reality of your existence and creation. Take away any of these elements and you wouldn't exist.

All of the rights you have including the right to live are dependent on the behavior of others. No ones rights are guaranteed. Laws and cooperation make your chances for survival better.

Society is only a concept, it doesn't exist in reality. It is only a term to describe a group of individuals. Reproduction is not a 'societal construct' it is a biological necessity.
Society doesn't reproduce, individuals reproduce.

There is no doubt that humans are social animals. We are social animals, not herd animals or hive animals.

ruveyn

Yes, humans are animals that engage in social behavior. Society is not an absolute necessity for existence. Society may aid the life of some individuals, it may hamper the life of others. It is not a primary.

Actions and consequences. That's what life is. In your example, if you decide to be morally bound to passively sit by and allow yourself to be murdered, passively sitting by is the action and getting murdered is the consequence, regardless of what motivates you to do this.

Some of the people that drank the Kool Aid in Jonestown also considered that to be a moral act. Some of them believed they were doing the "right thing"; it was their moral decision, although they would have been shot if they made another decision. Morality can be a much scarier thing than rights protected by laws in a rational country.

It most certainly is a necessity. Try building a house all by yourself, or surviving without the product of other people's labor. In fact without other people you would not even have a language. Mankind cannot survive atomically. We must live, survive and even flourish in some kind of a social matrix.

ruveyn

The claim that man needs society to survive, is the equivalent of saying that one cannot maintain one's existence in the absence of others. I can feed myself, I can create my own shelter (even though it might not be glamorous). My life is not dependent on others, it is merely made easier by them. We'll have to continue this tomorrow.

One the planet Earth there are not even ten thousand genuine hermits. It is impossible to even learn how to think without input from others. Besides a human infant cannot survive without a care giver. The smallest unit of society is the natural family consisting of children and caregivers. In the entire history of the human race, isolated people if they survived at all barely survived and certainly did not flourish.

All of the great ideas and inventions could not have come about without some kind of social system.

ruveyn

Society is a word that describes cooperation among humans for survival. The cooperation does exist and is required for a social animal to survive. Our society has become very complex, but the key similiarity between our society and primitive societies is the social cooperation required for survival. Human cooperation is very real and was required for all of your ancestors to have the opportunity to reproduce. Without the social constructs of society your ancestors would have never survived as defenseless infants.

True. It means the same thing.


Can you really? Or do you just go grocery shopping alone and cook alone? That's not the same thing. The absolute absence of others means living as an actual hermit without recourse even to the tools that others have created.



Can you do it without using the tools (such as saw and hammer and ax) that others have created? If you can't, you need other people- to provide you with those tools, if nothing else.




Oh but I bet it is, in ways you would only really appreciate if those others were suddenly gone (a popular theme in science fiction). You are probably taking for granted things that others have created and not counting them as part of your dependency. But try going out into the woods all by yourself with no tools of any sort (those were all created by others) and see how long you last. A couple months, at best. Even hermits depend on tools made by others to ensure their survival alone.

I think I'm agreeing with you here. By subjective I mean no objective evidence. I suppose if a mans wife is secluded without a way to travel or visit he can be pretty sure the child is his, but without an actual genetic test it is only subjective assurance. The public would consider what ever factors were important to them: potential social problems, genetic assurance, privacy, child support, less responsibility for the state to provide aid, etc., to make a decision if they vote on the new law.

Since when does the public consider such things?

You consider it to be of no practical concern. That is fine. It is just a reality that I am considering and one some others might consider in voting on the issue. The problem of a man's genetic assurance and infidelity are factors that can incite marital problems, which can include domestic violence. Neither of these two personal issues are of direct concern to the state. The state will never have control over who sleeps with who. It becomes a problem for the state when no one is held responsible for child support and the state must provide aid.

It isn't attempting to assert control over such things. My argument isn't centered around what women might have done. And you do have a point if the state did pass such a thing it would likely have something to do with child support. But this once again isn't about infidelity, its about the equal genetic assurance for men and women.


I can understand your view that it should be a requirement. The proposed Kansas State Law makes it close to a requirement, but also allows people to refuse the genetic test. The genetic assurance of who the father is can also be important to the mother to get child support; so the child will have genetic assurance for both personal and medical reasons; and so the state will be able to enforce child support and reduce the need to provide aid.

? There is no discernible difference between what I am proposing and what the Kansas legislative has introduced. If they refuse a court must settle it.(This would include being able to order a genetic test if the judge deems it necessary.) It can be important to the state, the mother, and the child, but once again my arguments are not based around such things.

See
(b) If any party refuses to submit to the tests, a court may
resolve the question of paternity against any party or enforce an order if
the rights of others and the interests of justice so require.

It is not the states responsibility to provide genetic assurance to any individual. Middle Eastern countries try do this, based on the laws they impose on women. In our country civilians are free to participate in infidelity without criminal penalties. Currently if a father wants genetic assurance he can pay for the tests to get the proof he wants. If he disputes paternity he can do the same. I understand that it is not a fool proof system for genetic assurance but at least there is this option in every state.

And? My argument is based on genetic assurance as a right, meaning its the states duty to uphold this right. Seeking out these tests risks insulting the woman and losing your children.(who are presumably yours)

It is though, the states responsibility to enforce child support and aid women who do not receive support through tax payer money. If the state did not have these responsibilities, I find it hard to believe they would use tax payer money to provide a service soley for a fathers genetic assurance.

Why do they have these responsibilities? The general welfare? Don't men fall under that umbrella? Also this point isn't really an argument, what the state might do(and why) is irrelevant to what the state should do(and why), which is the core of this discussion.

My understanding of the proposed Kansas State Law is that the State is going to pay for the genetic tests. While it doesn't explicitly state that the State wants to use this law to enforce child support, the paternity issue among many tax payers that vote is one of ensuring the genetic father is held responsible to pay for child support; not the tax payer.

It also has clear benefit for women to hold the genetic father responsible for child support; and for the child to know who their father is and possible access to knowledge of genetic diseases the father has that may eventually impact the child. The genetic assurance for a father is also a clear benefit.

I think the two major ideologies will be yes let's hold genetic fathers responsible for child support and no I don't want a state requirement to submit to a paternity test. It seems reasonable to me that among those that actually vote, the first ideology may win out.[/quote]

Yes but the distinction is really moot which now that I think about it may be your point. But this would imply(this being that the only concern is what man to hold responsible) a limit within marriage being possible(married men being the presumptive fathers), my reasons do not allow this.

All good points. Society has allowed us to become less robust as humans through the evolutionary process. Many people survive to reproductive age that would have never had the opportunity without the benefits of modern society. At some point we were robust enough as a species to live in the wild with very limited tools, but not as individuals, groups that cooperated. Those days have long passed.

@JWC, ever been through a disaster here in the US and been even partially without the infrastructure normally provided by society? In my area we were hit by a Hurricane that stopped all electricity for weeks, water for many people, destroyed bridges to go from one town to the next, no grocery stores, and no supplies for three days. A state of chaos occurs among people that are involved in these events; and it is becomes evident how fragile our complex society is. People carried guns to get gasoline when it became available.

Society can give us the illusion that we are superior to animals as an individual human. We definitely have the power because of society, but without society we are not much more of a force in the animal kingdom than an ant without its colony.

The state does not serve itself it serves the people, at least here in America, I'm going to argue based on some asinine principle that the state is obliged to act solely on its own interest. Unless your claiming what is the benefit to the state in a way that would include what would the benefit be to the people, in which case I would say, look at the conversation between me and aghogday. He has listed several arguments for either definition you use, although he has outlined several potential problems which are (mostly conjecture and)irrelevant to the discussion.



Can be determined but this would prevent it almost completely. Also whether or not a crime is committed is not dependent on whether the victim has noticed or taken issue.



Women know there child is theirs, and they know this absolutely, men should have as close to the same thing as possible.



Whether or not such a thing will be passed is not actually part of my argument, whether or not such a law is justified is. This is not a discussion on practicalities although you and aghogday seem to be trying to divert it into such.



If the man wants to named the father but does not want the test, that is what the court is for. A mother can have a court order a genetic test to prove paternity, why can't the court order such a thing in the interest of the state/father instead of the mother?



There is no reason the records would be kept. Your argument is irrelevant. Paternity checked, father recorded, DNA record destroyed.



Completely ass backwards. A child may be argued to have the right to know its parents but this does not take away or eliminate the rights of the parents to know their child. It may be the preferred focus of the courts at the moment, but the declared rights of a child to contact and residence do not implicitly eliminate the rights parents have had in the past.



It could be also stated that the parent has a right to support his/her child. What requires one to eliminate the other?



Yes it does, if the courts start receiving an influx of paternity suits which involve cuckoldry then there would be way too many children without one legally defined supporter. It also makes the matter of paternity and thus the matter of child support completely firm.(Meaning if a father is named we know he owes support and the courts can immediately proceed to declaring the amount owed, and enforcing the order) The only times the state would be required to supply aid would be when a parent has died, or has been imprisoned.