Mandatory paternity testing at birth?

Post Reply New Topic

Venture capitalism is labor? How is that half of a cookie?
I said Randroid because it was clear to me you proscribe to her philosophy. That was not an opening to a pro or con discussion about her outdated views. This is off-topic anyways, so I send you a virtual handshake and suggest we leave it because you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.

Last edited by Vigilans on 01 Mar 2011, 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Subsidized by whom?

An answer to no taxes is no government, no schools, no police force, no highways, no defense for the country, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Almost fifty percent of the US Population pays little to no federal income tax, yet they still have the rights to all of these products that are provided by someone else's labor.

Canada taxes more to provide an additional service, that if private, might cost the same tax payers more, since private corporations are profit motivated. I suppose private corporations could provide the infrastructure of our country but, they wouldn't do it for free or on a non-profit basis.

The suggestion that taxation is theft is not based in reality; no one uses every service provided by the government so the reality is we pay for services that others receive and we use services that others pay for. If private corporations provide the services we still pay, and possibly more. Many DOD private contracts are moving back to government employees, because the DOD private contracts have been proven more expensive.

If the government and voters were to decide that we should have universal health care it would be a right, not unlike any other service or institution that we have a right to that is provided by government and paid for by tax payers. It is obvious that there is not enough support for Universal Health Care in the US, so the system is working as it should. There was only enough support for what we did get in the way of Health Care Reform; it didn't please everyone, but there was a clear demand for change, and we have it.

A voter decision would likely be clear on national paternity tests. If it is an identified problem for ten percent of the country, it is not likely that the other ninety percent are going to be overly concerned about it, and want it as part of their lives, particularly given the privacy issues and contingencies that are involved.

O_O apparently my state has introduced such a bill.

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

Maybe I saw this sometime before making this thread.

Incorrect, there are countless other ways for the government to raise revenue: lotteries, bonds, etc. the list goes on. Taxation is theft because it involves the confiscation of value/property by force. Motive for profit is precisely why private companies are cheaper, not the other way around. For example try to find a decent car designed under a collectivist regime; they don't exist. This is because the creative mind is not motivated by force, only by personal gain. Rights cannot be given, taken away, or created; they are inherent in our nature as human beings.

Nonsense, rights are a construct and as such they can be manipulated like any other object. Also take this to a new thread, this argument doesn't belong here and no one has shown interest in taking you up here.

This is why atheism can be a bad thing.

What do you have a bee in your bonnet about now?

What does atheism have to do with this? I believe there is a god, I'm just not too specific about it.

EDIT:

Session of 2011
HOUSE BILL No. 2246
By Representative McCray-Miller
AN ACT concerning children; relating to paternity thereof.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. (a) Every child born in the state of Kansas shall
submit to genetic tests to determine the paternity of such child. Prior to
leaving the hospital, the child, mother and alleged father shall submit to
genetic tests. If the birth does not occur in a hospital, within 10 days of
such child’s birth, the child, mother and alleged father shall submit to
genetic tests. The tests shall be made by experts qualified as genetic
examiners.
(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.
(c) The verified written report of the experts shall be
considered to be stipulated to by all parties unless written notice of intent
to challenge the validity of the report is given to all parties not more than
20 days after receipt of a copy of the report.
(d) If such notice is given, the experts shall be called by the
court as witnesses to testify as to their findings and shall be subject to
cross-examination by the parties. Any party may demand that other
experts, qualified as genetic examiners, perform independent tests under
order of the court, the results of which may be offered in evidence. The
number and qualification of the other experts shall be determined by the
court.
(e) If no challenge to such result is made, the genetic test
results shall be admissible as evidence of paternity in any civil action
without the need for foundation testimony or other proof of authenticity
or accuracy.
(f) As used in this section, “hospital” means the same as in
K.S.A. 65-425, and amendments thereto.
Sec. 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its
publication in the statute book.


Introduced on the 9th of February.

While you may not be atheist this is the potential danger of atheism to freedom.

Our rights come from God, therefore the Government does not have the authority to take our rights away.

I looked again through the thread and couldn't find the point other than here that you are stating that the paternity test is not a mandate. If a paternity test at birth was a mandate, a requirement would be listing a father. Your statement that the ability for the women not to list a father would stay the same, does nullify it as a mandate for a paternity test for all births. Your topic title suggested to me that it was a mandate for all births, not just the ones where a father is named. My confusion there.

Though, even a requirement for named fathers to be tested for paternity with a penalty if the test is not completed would meet the normal parameters of a mandate for that circumstance.

My understanding is that you would require this for married people. It really is not guess work that revealing a woman cheated on her husband is not going to cause real measurable problems in some marriages.

Men often find this out on their own and the result can be domestic violence, divorce, fatherless children, etc. This is a real social problem that would be exacerbated by the government taking action to reveal more of these surprises in marriages. Of course there are no hard statistics on something that hasn't happened, but there is no reason to believe that human nature is suddenly going to change because it is the government that reveals the cheating. I'm not sure that government would want to be part of this.

Men and women make these choices in their marriage and deal with the consequences as they come. If all married men were required to have paternity tests that are listed on birth certificates, that is the overwhelming majority of married men who have children.

The problem of paternity is more evident outside of marriage. I see the issue of requiring a paternity test as more practical outside of marriage. I also see more problems fixed outside of marriage than might be created within a marriage. I don't see it as a practical solution within marriage because more problems might be created than are solved.

As far as a realistic political scenario; with the level of concern over goverment control, spending, the deficit, and taxes, it doesn't seem likely that it could go far on a national level. Might stand a better chance on a state level. I haven't looked at your link yet.

Nonsense. God claims He owns us. We have no rights where God is concerned. God can do anything He likes to us. If He does not like the way we f*ck, he can rain down fire and brimstone, just like Sodom and Gomorra or he can stop the rain and starve us to death. God is a despot, not a recognizer of our rights.

ruveyn

Absolute BS, no God is in charge of my rights

In fact, those who believe in God are more inclined to try and take my rights away

And neither do you. Your rights (and mine) are the outcome of a social interaction. The only place where you can determine your "rights" is on a deserted island where you along dwell. And even there, Nature, has the last word.

ruveyn

Rights cannot come from anything external, otherwise that same external entity can take them away. However, rights cannot be given or taken away, only violated. Rights are inherent in our nature.