Mandatory paternity testing at birth?

Post Reply New Topic

Nice attempt at evasion. Just as you stated the bridge nor the robot could not be created without individuals. Humans are not like robots. Robots are not conscious, volitional beings. Robots only follow directions; without an individual to give the directions, the robot would be absolutely useless.

[quote]
No one individual creates what is defined as a society. Individuals work together to create what is defined as a society.

A society is not a thing, it is not created.

I've already started a thread on individual rights, which is what our portion of this discussion started out on. I'd be more than happy to continue there.

The Victor example from your other post is a good example of what I am trying to explain. Supposedly, he had little human interaction and was not able to learn language. The Robot would not exist without human creation and a human would not be able to learn language without another human being. The examples are not the same, but they are related.

Creation is a characteristic of individuals, not society. Society = group of individuals. Group of individuals - individuals = group of nothing.
Society - individual = group of nothing. 'Society' is not synonymous with 'human interaction'.

Well, certainly parens patriae is a legitimate state interest. But let's work through the practicalities.

How many children born to married/partnered couples are the genetic offspring of the male partner? The law presently presumes 100%, unless there is evidence to the contrary. So by introducing testing, we are automatically undercutting that presumption.

If, for example, 5% of live births in Kansas are not the offspring of their putative fathers, then what? A negative result on a DNA paternity test does nothing to establish a positive identification of the father, and provides the putative father with absolute grounds for divorce. Are we potentially creating more problems than we solve?

Now maybe it's not 5%. Maybe it's 0.01%--but then the problem is so small that less draconian measures are required. Or maybe it's 15%. But then the problem is so large, that we are creating a vast array of complication to replace the current, managable levels.

I still see this as an excessive intrusion of the compulsive power of the state which is not demonstrably justifiable when considering the state's interest in compliance.

? I have supplied a legitimate interest, gender equality in the matter of genetic assurance.



Of course not, but there is no objection of the legal variety that I have not already argued against. Also preventing crime is something that is largely considered an acceptable interest for the state. Health care is more controversial.



Equality, my argument is based on gender equality not practicality, I don't know how many times I must say this before its get through to you guys. The rights of an individual are not protected by the private sector, so why would this one be?



*shrug* The presumption should be that someone wants their rights, and gender equality is not a right that is required to be claimed to be violated.



The relationship between practicality and justice is not what you make it out to be, just because something is impractical does not mean it isn't justifiable.



They would be able to go to court and have the father declared with no DNA test.



? It is only a requirement to know if you are genetically linked to the child. It is not required to match to list yourself as the father, I suppose if the father didn't match he would need the mothers permission to be listed as a father, and then he should have the same rights as the genetic father. Why would the records need to be kept in either of these scenarios?



The test could be challenged as allowed in the Kansas bill.(and can be challenged using any genetic test the potential father wishes.)



You are mistaking a legal argument for a political argument, I have a strong legal argument, the focus of the law on the child currently does not contradict the existence of parental rights. Also the amount of people with 0 self interest is too rare to hold such a thing as the standard for a good parent, perhaps interest in the child before ones own is acceptable, but even that does not contradict the existence of someones own needs and rights. Nor should it, a health adult capable of protecting a child must have some amount of self interest. And I stated this in my last post a focus on the child's rights is not contradictory to the parents rights, the current focus is not against parents rights. Also since when do parents have to prove their presence would benefit the child?



But that is not saying a parent has not rights, it is saying that the child's safety overrides parental rights.



How so? When a man discovers a child has been kept from him he is entitled to affirm paternity and acquire visitation(and other parental) rights. How can you call this a child's right when the child has no way of claiming it? You may call them obligations but what discernible difference is there between obligations and rights if the first is done willingly with fervor.



Which is why I want genetic assurance confirmed or denied before a male takes on parental responsibilities. Women have genetic assurance as a mother, men should have the same before accepting the role of father.



Not any children they have already established parental responsibilities with.(who would still have two parents legally speaking) The child which is not the genetic offspring of the husband could be rightfully abandoned, but is that not the husbands right? The child's genetic father could likely still be found, what justification is there for forcing the husband to take care of what is ultimately not his responsibility(unless of course he accepts the responsibility regardless of genetic ties). Your assumption of only one supporting parent assumes that the true genetic father cannot be found, and while this could be true in rare cases it does not make the tying of the husband to the child(which is not his) acceptable.



If the mother is not speaking she is not speaking. She has of course violated the interest of the child(and the rights of the genetic father) and her custody of said child could be called into question. Also I'm assuming that by who the husband is you meant who the father is. But even this point does not make it acceptable it saddle someone with new rights and responsibilities that by all logic belong to someone else.

I did a little more research on the proposed law in kansas. It was introduced by a Black Female Democratic Representative in support of her constituents desire to know if they are the father of a child and help when they are named as the father of a child.

A Black Male Democratic Representative, in response to help from his constituents, is proposing a similiar law in Tennessee with the justification of proving paternity for the benefit of the child.

This is the second attempt to introduce the law in Tennessee.

The only real research I could find regarding Paternity tests showing false paternity was one that indicated four percent in a study including the United Kingdom and US. They are suggesting ten percent in Tennessee.

The public response to both laws was overwhelmingly negative, particularly among women. Privacy rights, government control, mistrust of women, broken marriages, tax costs, SCOTUS challenges, and Maury Povich were all mentioned. However, obviously it is a real concern among the constituents of the representatives that are proposing the laws, in the respective states.

I stand corrected in my opinion that the Kansas State law was based on the collection of child support to benefit the taxpayer. It is about giving Fathers the right to genetic assurance of paternity.

Seeing that they are democratic issues in Republican controlled houses, neither law may find its way past committee.

It assumes women are cheating, lying whores. I would have been horribly offended if someone suggested I *had* to get my kids DNA tested by law. I know they're my husband's, he knows they are his.

If there's a question, then the possible father can get a court order.

The government needs to stay the f**k out of it otherwise.

@Tea: No, it only assumes that some women lie. Everyone is tested so that the few men who actually do suspect that they're being taken won't have to actually accuse their spouse/partner of cheating in order to have the test done.

I personally think it's overkill - as I said, genetic testing has tended to benefit women, rather than harming them, and I doubt that the rate of false paternity is that high - but since a cheekswap isn't too invasive, I have no major problem with the idea as long as I don't have to pay for it.

Eh most of us consider most of our elected officials moderates on one side or the other, I don't think thats changed although I do remember the Kansas GOP discussing tossing out what it called obvious democrats or some such nonsense at one point or another. I don't see how this is solely a Democrat issue, explain?

Does not.

I'm not going to get into a 'does too!' 'does not!' argument. List reasons why you think this.

It is commonly understood that a majority ruled house has a better chance of passing laws than the minority party. The law did not have enough support in Tennessee for the first attempt to get the law past committee. This is the first try in Kansas and the public response, for the most part, is negative. I have no idea if more individual republicans or individual democrats support the issue.

My guess would be the majority of women oppose it. All of the cons I considered in my earlier posts were brought up by the public. The issue of state support for children, that I thought might be a majority opinion, was relatively, of little concern, compared to all of the other negative concerns.

The problems driving the passage of these laws are of those falsely accused of paternity, those that want to know if they are the father of a child, and those that want to make sure that the child knows who the father is. It would make it easier for all of these people if the law was passed, but another opinion voiced in the public is let the citizens that are concerned about this provide the paternity test; do not impose it on a majority based on a minority need.

Last edited by aghogday on 04 Mar 2011, 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Right. Make it easier for people to seek out paternity testing. Don't make people that don't want or need it take it because of them.

And yes, mandatory paternity testing DOES assume women cheat and lie. On top of that, it assumes all men care whether they are the biological father or not.

@aghogday
Where are you drawing your public opinion from?

I followed the same level of evidence that you did. Well not really, I offered genetic assurance as a reason for this law, you simply stated that it must be assuming that women are cheating lying whores because it offends you. You offered no evidence to back up your view.



Which would imply that men want the certainty that women have, which would support my statement not yours. Men don't assume their wives are whores cheaters or liars, if they thought that they likely wouldn't involve themselves with said wives.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/feb/1 ... -testing-/

EDIT:


It assumes men want to know, and that is all.

You don't test the paternity of a child unless you don't trust what the woman says. While I admit to being offended, that has little to do with my assessment of the situation.

I agree there are other motives for the law, but that doesn't negate the the fact that women's characters are being questioned.

Personally though, I think society puts too much emphasis on who the biological father is. This has caused children to needlessly be abandoned by the only father figure they've ever known when they find out there's no biological connection.

Now, I get the concerns over child support. However, not ALL children need to be tested to benefit a few. If the paternity of the child comes into question, then get it done. Making it mandatory at birth will only hurt those it didn't intend to target.