lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Legislation would require DNA test before child support

2007-03-26
By

“There is a presumption in the law of Texas, which is now statutory, that a child born during the marriage is a child of the marriage.”

20 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • mruffolo

    Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal

    http://www.feminist.org/welcome/esbio.html

    National Council of Women’s Organizations in Washington, D.C

    http://www.womensorganizations.org

  • mruffolo

    Democratic Lawmakers to Reintroduce ERA

    Liberal Democrats in the Senate and House plan to resume “the fight for women’s equality” on Tuesday, when they reintroduce the Women’s Equality Amendment.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200703/CUL20070327a.html

  • KRS

    They say that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. I think there is a third certainty: state governments will always protect their own interests first and foremost.

    So although I agree that mandatory DNA testing is a good idea and ought to be done to protect the rights of duped dads, I expect resistance from state governments on it. When a child is born the first thing the state wants to do is make sure that the state doesn’t become financially responsible for the child, i.e. welfare-dependent. The state courts assume (often incorrectly) that the mother of the child will work to contribute her fair share of the child’s support, since the child will almost always live with the mother, regardless of how bad a parent she is.

    But it’s a tougher matter to get a second adult to pay for the child, at least in the eyes of the state. For a variety of reasons, often the father doesn’t live with the mother, and so on. The state is not interested in “real” things like whether the child really is the child of that man, or whether the child develops in a healthy two-parent environment. That is of almost no interest. The state’s interest in the child is purely a monetary one.

    This is why the state does not particularly care if the wrong man is stuck paying for a child he did not father. From the state’s perspective it’s like, oh well, at least SOME father is paying. That’s better than NO father paying, and the state being stuck with part of the bill. The state violates men’s rights intentionally, in my opinion.

  • donnieboy57

    this will never happen. our society simply will not allow women to be humiliated by dna testing as part of any controlled system. now humiliating men (in countless ways) ………thats another story and perfectly acceptable.

  • mruffolo

    Their ought to be a DNA test soon after the birth of a child.

    If a wife is a whore, then why should the husband discover the child is not his during the wife’s divorce from him?

  • amfortas

    MB says:- “From the female point of view, it makes a lot of sense to marry a hard-working guillible chump and then get genes for at least some of your children from another male.”

    There is no discernable ‘female point of view’ here MartianBachelor, nor any sense at all in the infidelity behaviour. It is a supposition made by ‘evolutionary’ academics trying to explain some aspects of behaviour in terms of their own theories.

    One can more adequately explain it by refering to personal decision, especially today with our vastly increased knowledge. One can also refer to respect. One could argue that the very nature of man and woman make it more difficult for men to control their outwardly focused sexual drive, than for women.

    Men and women make their choices to either respect themselves, their own word, their vows, or disrespect their word, themselves, their adulthood, their partner, their social surrounds, the lessons of past generations. I do not know anyone who makes a choice to have sex or not based on future genetic outcome, except in the situation of close relatives.

    Love and lust often compete. In both sexes. There is a drive to experience and I can understand that. I can understand a married man, who has made his vows, fancying any number of other women from a purely sexual perspective. Same for a married woman. But we Vow fidelity to one another in order to deepen and integrate our sexual natures, transform and direct our natural lust for the opposite sex with the one person we love, to better know and understand not only the other person but ourselves a beings. We elevate and focus our love and our word above simple diffusible lust. Sex is the greatest personal development driver imaginable.

    ‘Genes’ and ‘sense’ are oxymoronic together. Genes are an all-too-easily reverted to excuse. There IS NO EXCUSE for a married woman to have a child from another man, keep it secret and sting the husband for support.

    Argue from an evolutionary perspective if you will but don’t then conflate it with ‘sense’. It is nonsense.

  • MartianBachelor

    I thought it was telling how far we have to go that the perception was that cases like this are rare, but the hearings themselves were crammed. I’m sure it’s just a matter of the vast majority of situations such as Wise’s go undetected. Since the technology is relatively inexpensive I don’t see why all three parties shouldn’t be tested. (we wouldn’t want mom to go home from the hospital with the wrong baby…)

    From the female point of view, it makes a lot of sense to marry a hard-working guillible chump and then get genes for at least some of your children from another male. I’d bet some uniform survey of the population would show some 10-15% of the kids result from the mother hedging her genetic bets in this fashio — the more kids in the family the more likely. There’s a lot of research behind this thinking, and cultural practice which goes back centuries that wasn’t based on mere prejudice.
    ________

    David, “These guys know darned well…”: how can mom’s playmate be sure she isn’t telling the truth when she says she’s single/divorced (i.e., unattached)?

    No other society but ours has attempted to regulate sexuality by focusing on the regulation of male behavior, and it hasn’t worked at all so far in the least. Quite the contrary. Regulate females and the males are simultaneously regulated as a result.

  • David R. Usher

    And, if a woman has gotten pregnant outside the marriage, she should be the last person to get custody of children in divorce. This is the ultimate irresponsible act in marriage — far worse than having an affair. We must not reward marital irresonsibility, especially where the ultimate act of marital irresponsibility is committed.

  • David R. Usher

    In this day of rampant illegitimacy, marriage will not mean anything until we start pinning the tail on the gigalos that raid the marriages of others. These guys know darned well they can have all the fun without any of the responsibility. Pin the tail on the right man. And, don’t let that gigalo do anything more than pay support — as a consequence of his actions. Let the husband in the marriage continue to raise the child, if he so wishes.

  • fourthwire

    A lot of heartache…. from finding out the facts????

    Perhaps so….. but even more heartache will be PREVENTED after women learn that there are CONSEQUENCES FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

    Yes, a lot of men are going to be “ticked off”.

    And many, many more men, upon seeing other men “ticked off” are going to question whether America’s women are worth marrying and reproducing with.

    Let DNA testing be done automatically for every birth, instead of simply assuming that the mother of the newborn infant is telling the truth.

  • mirwalk

    This would be very nice, though I see a lot of heartache will be caused by it. Men are going to find out how often women are really cheating on them. A lot of men are going to be ticked off. Though it would be nice for the men to stop the false paternity suits.

  • Virtue

    I have one concern with this idea…..will it be used to create a national DNA registration data base…..If language is added to the legislation which would prevent this from being used as such then, yeah go for it.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise