|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He told a Los Angeles court that Mr. Bing was the child's true father after private detectives hired by him found a strand of dental floss in Mr Bing's dustbin, DNA samples of which matched those of Kira.
What's the argument here? The DNA tests were made, and Kirk Kerkorian isn't the father. Open and shut case. If Kerkorian's ex-wife still pushes for him to pay child support, it shows that she's not doing this for Kira's well being, instead for personal gain. Mr. Kerkorian should be commended for having the foresight to perform a DNA test ASAP.
Under the Human Genetics Commission's recommendations, which are expected to be accepted by ministers, a father seeking a paternity test would have to obtain the consent of the mother, or gain a court order.
Gee, isn't that swell. A father seeking a paternity test has two options: get permission from the mother, who is probably uncooperative and out for blood after a messy divorce; or get permission from the court, which has a strong bias against him to begin with.
I'm all for privacy, especially genetic privacy. But if there is even a miniscule hint of doubt as to the identity of the father, a DNA test should be mandatory. Then again, this would benefit men, and we can't have that happen, can we? (insert sarcasm)
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue here was whether Mr. Bing's DNA was taken unlawfully. This is a separate issue from the paternity issue it is related to.
It is a serious issue (separate from paternity establishment) for a private investigator to goe digging around in you rubbish to procure samples of your DNA without your consent.
With regard to paternity, why is Mr. Bing not willing to provide DNA sample voluntarily to settle a possible paternity question IN ANOTHER CASE (w/ Liz Hurley, not w/the former tennis player)? If fathers are claiming they have a right to know if they are the father and demand DNA samples from the child to determine this, then why wouldn't the reverse be true, that fathers must supply DNA samples to the child (through the child's advocate) to determine paternity? The door swings both ways.
In any case, it seems like Mr. Bing has a lot of explaining to do himself if he is involved in TWO cases of paternity identity questions. If he is the father of both children .... well let's just say I wouldn't want to have his financial obligations, nor his reputation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If fathers are claiming they have a right to know if they are the father and demand DNA samples from the child to determine this, then why wouldn't the reverse be true, that fathers must supply DNA samples to the child (through the child's advocate) to determine paternity? The door swings both ways.
This is a valid point. A child has the right to know who his or her father is. However, if women have the "right" to have abortions, then men have the "right" to refuse all rights and responsibilities with respect to their biological offspring, provided they make their decisions within a given amount of time after being informed of their paternity. (If women have 9 months to decide on having an abortion, then men should have 9 months to make their decisions.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If fathers are claiming they have a right to know if they are the father and demand DNA samples from the child to determine this, then why wouldn't the reverse be true, that fathers must supply DNA samples to the child (through the child's advocate) to determine paternity?
This is a good point. At the time of conception only the woman can know if there is a possibility of there being more than one father. This fact places men at an inherit disadvantage unless they have a right to perform a home DNA paternity test.
If the woman discloses at the onset that there is uncertainty, then she would not be naming a possible father but seek a DNA test to determine the actual father. There are legal procedures in place for her to do this.
The difference is that she is seeking a DNA sample from an adult that may become responsible for the child. In that case she should seek permission to obtain the DNA.
By contrast, children do not have the same equal rights as adults. This is a well-accepted fact. In the case of the child, it is a minor who is in the care of an adult or the state. Only the father who appears on a paternity declaration form should have the right to perform a home DNA test on the child without the permission of the mother or state. This is the only way to guarantee an equal right of paternal knowledge on the part of the father.
In the case of the mother, they always have the right to paternal testing if they are uncertain and their rights have never been compromised at any time. Only men can be falsely named in a paternity declaration because of the mother being deceptive. Only a woman can allow another man to mistakenly sign such declarations intentionally or otherwise.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminists' favorite justifications for the atrocities committed by women are claims that the women were pushed to the act by an evil male, or the entire evil patriarchy, or that the women were acting "in the best interests of the child." This article gives an example of the latter excuse. Note the statement, "DNA testing is very simple, but there can be very serious repercussions. It is not only terribly difficult for the child and the mother, but also for other siblings, who suddenly find that all the things that they understood about their family become different." First of all, it's ridiculous for anyone to be concerned with difficulties encountered by the perpetrator of the crime--the mother. In addition, children have the right to know who their fathers are as much as men have the right to know who their children are. Any lawyer has heard the expression "rights in conflict" many times. If DNA information is to be protected by privacy rights, then fathers' rights should trump the privacy rights in the case of testing for paternity. In other words, paternity testing should be exempt from the proposed law that this article discusses.
Take a look at this related article. The piece states that "one in ten British men is unknowingly bringing up someone else’s child." It also states that when the man discussed in the article, who turned out not to be the father, wanted to have DNA tests done, the woman "went mad and turned on the water works. She got upset I doubted her and refused point blank." She refused point blank.
In many jurisdictions, sex offenders must file with the police on publically available registers. Laws have been proposed, and to the best of my knowledge in some cases passed, requiring that sex offenders keep signs in front of their homes stating that they are sex offenders. One of the justifications for this is that they are allegedly more likely to commit sex crimes in the future than those who have never committed a sex crime. Another justification is the claim that they are likely to hurt children. The idea is that the community needs to know about convicted sex offenders in order to protect itself.
If it is true that learning, that the alleged biological father is not the true biological father, is "terribly difficult for the child and the mother, but also for other siblings," then the woman who committed the crime has seriously hurt one or more children in addition to the man. Studies should be conducted to find out if women who have committed adultery are more likely to do so in the future than women who have never committed adultery. If so, laws should require that women who are guilty of paternity fraud should be required to file with the local police on publically available registers. They should be required to keep signs in front of their homes stating that they are guilty of paternity fraud. In addition, a minimum of five years in prison with no chance of parole should be the minimum sentence for the offense. These heinous crimes violate and severely damage the lives of too many children and men each year.
It's time to act in the best interests of the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""DNA testing is very simple, but there can be very serious repercussions. It is not only terribly difficult for the child and the mother, but also for other siblings, who suddenly find that all the things that they understood about their family become different."
I love how they try to distract you from where the real responsibility lies.
Same ol , same ol. Men all the responsibility
Women all the rights. (in this case rights of Knowledge)
But still I am left wondering for them to ban at home DNA testing is there another reason, something more direct to those who are proposing it?
It seems to me that anytime the government wants a unique law, they rally women at the harmful effects it will cause them. Is there something else that is underlying this issue?
It won't be long before all our rights are gone. Women gleefullly have given them away.
To bad they dont realize that they are being manipulated, and before they know these laws will turn on them. And they too, will suffer the consequences because men will not be able to protect them, and their "new" husband "the state" may be more ruthless whole scale than any man ever. Just a thought.
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""DNA testing is very simple, but there can be very serious repercussions. It is not only terribly difficult for the child and the mother, but also for other siblings, who suddenly find that all the things that they understood about their family become different."
I love how they try to distract you from where the real responsibility lies.
It is for the pervasive anti-male prejudice that the nominal father's former understanding, which was that the children he was supporting were his, is irrelevant, and that the only understandings that matter are those of the mother and the children, that I have decided not to have children. I urge men everywhere not to father children until this outrageous ethical imbalance, which only an imbecile could fail to see, is corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I have decided not to have children. I urge men everywhere not to father children until this outrageous ethical imbalance, which only an imbecile could fail to see, is corrected."
It doesnt seem to matter if you have children or not.
I suspect that these laws are being created to keep DNA testing in the hands of the state.
They give us some bullshit that will scare women, (which in its very arguement proves that women should be concerned about this because it happens all to often), into another feminist agenda.
A very irresponsible government and immoral culture we are developing here.
I am more and more being convinced that the policy is to "Divide and Conquer".
So far they have stolen the children away from the father dividing the family unit.
I suspect the next step will be to take away the mother's rights to her children as well.
They have manipulated feminists into erasing our rights one by one. Not just men's but women's aswell, its only a matter of time before they turn on the puppet that put them there.
Feminists are dupes for the state.
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are dupes for the state. \
Actually, you have this backwards Dan. The state is the dupe of the feminist. Take a look around at your government. You will find feminist groups at every level controlling the legislation.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But still I am left wondering for them to ban at home DNA testing is there another reason, something more direct to those who are proposing it?
Yes. It opens up the potential for a father to learn if the hot kid next door was molested by his wife and fathered a child for which he has paternal responsibility. We know that women abuse children at higher rates then men, it follows that they are having children from the kid next door. But I know…. women are a creature of higher moral character…so this cannot be happening. NOT!
Most every man remembers a kid next door that was sleeping with the neighbor’s wife. Where are all those kids now? Home DNA testing will expose this crime. Guilty women in power know this and do not want to be brought to justice. So, they seek to ban home DNA testing.
Women want to literally preserve their long standing right to pick and choose which male will have paternal responsibility. Men are fighting back and that hate this fact.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"....children have the right to know who their fathers are as much as men have the right to know who their children are. "
This was the most important point in your post. It is not just about the parent but about the child's right to know the truth. Paternity testing should not be optional on the part of the parent.
Personally I would institute a DNA testing and documentation policy for both bio-parents so that the privacy issue would be equal between both bio-parents. No more anonymous procreation.
And this issue goes much farther than paternity fraud but into the issue of the rights of the new persons created, who are after all full persons with a full component of rights entirely independent of the persons who co-created him/her. I think we often use the term "child" without the full reconginition of the new person as a separate autonomous citizen with his own rights. Perhaps we should replace the word "child" with "recently created person with rights"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Lorianne. We don't always agree, but I heartily concur with the statements you make here.
It is not just about the parent but about the child's right to know the truth. Paternity testing should not be optional on the part of the parent. Well put.
I think we often use the term "child" without the full reconginition of the new person as a separate autonomous citizen with his own rights. Perhaps we should replace the word "child" with "recently created person with rights". "Recently created person with rights" may be a mouthful, but I share the sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accountability of BOTH parents is whats in the best interest of the child or recently created person with full rights.
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accountability of BOTH parents is whats in the best interest of the child or recently created person with full rights.
In general I agree, but it doesn't make sense, and it's terribly unjust, for one parent to be able to destroy the embryo or fetus, or to dump a child off at a shelter and simply walk away, while the other parent has no corresponding options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abortion is more "unjust" to the child than to the father. It's your men's movement but IMO I don't think agrueing for the right to treat another human being like dung is something to fight for.
Abortion is a net wrong. So is child abandonment or neglect. Why would you argue for the right to mistreat your own offspring just because someone else has that right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you argue for the right to mistreat your own offspring just because someone else has that right?
If the man chooses not to have the child, the woman can raise it on her own or with another partner, provided she has the means. If she doesn't have the means, it's her responsibility to give the child up for adoption. In many states, she can simply leave the child at a fire station or a hospital.
Giving a child up for adoption is neither abuse nor neglect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We disagree. You punish the child for basically being born by denying him his right to his bio-parents meeting their obligations to him.
You also just gave women the unilateral right to dispense with the child without the father's consent, a point some father's rights advocates would no doubt disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making both parents accountable, in all areas, of who is the proper father. I mean the arguement of harming the child by revealing the "truth" , what kind of people are these?
If the father is accountable for the child he has the unalienable right to know.
The mother knows and what if there was a mix up at the hospital?
Wouldn't this contradict what was they needed to know?
More and more women have absolutely no accountability in their lives, we shall she a very immoral and bankrupt culture of women and young girls. All acts of violence will conveinantly be directed to the male.
I think we need a new term of feminism
we can call it AccountaFem, or the Accountable Feminism.
I know, sounds like an oxymoron. But with the comercial commodity of feminism, I'm sure we can sell a few books just by attaching Feminist to it.
I wonder if its time to start using their own tricks against them.
Responsible Fem, MoralFem, Normal Human being Fem,
I will work on this.
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You punish the child for basically being born by denying him his right to his bio-parents meeting their obligations to him.
You also just gave women the unilateral right to dispense with the child without the father's consent, a point some father's rights advocates would no doubt disagree with.
A wild and even wacky misinterpretation of what I wrote, but I don't have time to argue with you about it right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will take a moment to respond to this ridiculous set of declarations (though I will say, for the sake of your mind, I hope you were referring to someone other than me). You say You also just gave women the unilateral right to dispense with the child without the father's consent.
Was that, perhaps, where I wrote, "If the man chooses not to have the child, the woman can raise it on her own or with another partner?" That is hardly giving the woman a unilateral right. Take another look. Do you, just maaaaybe, see the word "if?"
As for your declaration that I punish the child for basically being born by denying him his right to his bio-parents meeting their obligations to him. Once again, giving a child up for adoption is neither abuse nor neglect.
You love to declare that people have said things that they haven't and wouldn't say, and that they believe things that they don't believe.
Perhaps we should deal with Lorianne in her own way. When she say, for instance, "It was warm yesterday," we can declare, "Oh my God! You believe that all men should be imprisoned!" If she asks "where did I make such a statement?" we can respond, "Oh my God! You believe all men should be burned at the stake!"
If you're going to accuse people of saying things and believing things, at least try to be in the same universe as them, Lorianne. You are a true credit to the thought processes of feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomans, it was when you said that woman could give the child up for adoption (without a mention of fathers rights in the adoption process) and when you suggested that women could drop off the baby at a fire station (which implies without the consent of the father) that you seemed to me to be "giving" the women unilateral parental rights.
If you do not believe that you did perhaps you could clarify your position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would be happy to clarify my position. I said, If the man chooses not to have the child, the woman can raise it on her own or with another partner, provided she has the means. If she doesn't have the means, it's her responsibility to give the child up for adoption.
Saying that the woman can give the child up for adoption If the man chooses not to have the child is not giving the woman the unilateral right to dispense with the child without the father's consent. I don't know how I could possibly make that clearer.
As for the statement that In many states, she can simply leave the child at a fire station or a hospital: It is a fact. Colorado is one such state. There are others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne: This was the most important point in your post. It is not just about the parent but about the child's
right to know the truth. Paternity testing should not be optional on the part of the parent
"Parent"? who's the "parent"? That's the question
in issue; your intended testing victim says he
isn't the parent. Your demand is really that any
mother have the right to force any man to submit
his DNA for testing.
Some people are jealous of their DNA. DNA gives
away a great deal of information and will
increasingly be useful for all sorts of mischief.
Your argument "Everyone has the right to know
who their parents are" is just claptrap. A nice
sounding assertion.... kind of like "Everyone has
the right to genetic privacy" or "Everyone should
be free of unwarranted searches and other
intrusions into their private life".
Use of the brain may be require when these
nice sounding assertions collide.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Children are persons with rights. Your rights do not supercede another person's rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps we should replace the word "child" with "recently created person with rights".
NOT! This is a dangerous phrase that is being used by socialist and feminist everywhere to use the state to seize control of children. While children may have some rights they most certainly do not have the same rights as adults. Anbody, claiming to want to do away with the word "child" and replace it with a more politically correct term has an agenda.
Currently, the feminist and socialist agenda is to promote the rights of the children to such a high degree that the rights of all male adults are subordinated. They have been very successful in this agenda over the last 30 years. This is a very dangerous practice that is being used to destroy families and especially men. Only a woman and child are being permitted to remain as an intact family by the feminist using the governments as a front.
This reminds me of WiccidStepmother who was a socialist-feminist posting to this board a couple of month’s back. She was poisoning this board with all type feminist propaganda and lies. She kept insisting that she was in favor of men’s rights while spouting feminist and socialist propaganda. She'd make a few statement she thought would make her sound promale and then make the most radical statements ever. Hope this isn’t a repeat.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Currently, the feminist and socialist agenda is to promote the rights of the children to such a high degree that the rights of all male adults are subordinated."
... "all male adults" ? Don't hyperventilate with that hyperbole. If you create a chid you create obligations for yourself. Your rights are not subordinate, but neither are they superior to the child's. People have a right to know their origins. We now have a scientific way to prove biological ties between people.
Also, would YOU want a government entity to tell YOU that you don't have a right to information about yourself?
"Only a woman and child are being permitted to remain as an intact family by the feminist using the governments as a front."
Pick a lane! Paternity testing is needed to INVOLVE the fother in the chhild life and give him a chance to father his own children. How can he do that if he can't even know for sure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... "all male adults" ? Don't hyperventilate with that hyperbole. If you create a chid you create obligations for yourself. Your rights are not subordinate, but neither are they superior to the child's.
Just as I thought. Gentlemen we have another feminist troll. This feminist believes that children actually have equal rights with the parents. Absurd.
She cannot even argue logically.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um... check our Constitution. I believe I'm not the only "feminist" who believes all persons born in the United States of America are equal citizens under the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um... check our Constitution. I believe I'm not the only "feminist" who believes all persons born in the United States of America are equal citizens under the law.
Oh I like this one. Lorianne actually believes that the "Constitution" grants children the same exact equal rights as parents.
Using the most rudimentary principals of logic and reason I only require one fact to disprove Lorianne's mistaken claim.
Fact: Child to not have the equal right as an adult to vote.
Conclusion, Lorianne is wrong. Children do not have the same exact equal rights as parents. However, it is worth noting that in some instances a childs rights exceed the rights of their fathers. Why? Well because the father is a man and men are to be hated in today’s feminist worldview.
B.T.W. It might interest everybody to know that I have found a court case ruling on a child’s right to DNA testing. It turns out that a child is permitted to obtain, by law, a DNA test to establish paternity at any time. Now if only men could have the same equal right as a child. In fact the child can choose to disown a father that is held responsible for child support and go live with the biological father.
Thus we find that my argument is logically sound. Feminists have in fact elevated the rights and status of children to such a point that the rights of men are subordinate to that of any child. In this way, the human worth of a man is intrinsically devalued and they become disenfranchised as humans worthy of rights.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Children have the same basic rights under the Constitution as any other citizen. Until they reach a certain age, however, it is assumed they have advocates to secure those rights for them. The adovocates are preseumed to be be the parents.
The thing about children is that they do eventually reach the legal status of adults. At that time they have ALL the rights of other citizens, including voting.
Also, your argument doesn't hold water either. Not all adults have the right to vote (those who have committed felonies for example) but they do not forfeit other basic rights of citizens. Also, no one under the age of 35 has the right to run for President, but that doesn't mean those 18-34 year olds have fewer rights in the main than those over 35. A child is born in the USA with the right to vote and to run for president, but those rights are deferred until particlar age thresholds have been met. The deferral has no bearing on his/her other basic rights as equal citizens of the USA.
I think the confusion is using the word "child" in this discussion instead of perhaps "offspring". Regardless of age, everyone born in the USA is a separate citizen with equal rights. Because a persone doesn't have the right to vote (yet) doesn't mean he/she forfeits other rights not contingent on age.
A citizen has the right to know his identity vis a vis his biological parents and have access to government records concerning that identity. That right may be deferred (as is voting) until the child is 18, but the government should not be complicit in keeping this information secret from some citizens, and not from others, which is the case we have now with many adoptions, and now with sperm/egg donation programs.
In the case of the UK and Australia those governments are going a step further and actively being complicit in secrecy and/or deception on the part of one parent, IMO against the rights of both the other parent and the child, both of whom should have access to information about themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, would YOU want a government entity to tell YOU that you don't have a right to information about yourself?
There are rational conditions where a child has no business obtaining DNA information from the parents. Your view is an extreme radical view of the children having superior rights to all DNA information of their parents. NOT!
This has already been tested in court and denied. Children need to respect privacy. That includes not being permitted to obtain the DNA information of their parents without their consent.
A parents DNA is their own private property. Not the property of a chlid. It is only through a socialist, communist, or secular humanist world view that you can claim a child has a right to a parents DNA information.
On the other hand the parents have complete responsibility for the child. That includs the medical care of the child. Not the state. This has been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court and upheld. That means the state does not have ownership of the child. It also means the child does not have the same rights as the parents. Get used to it. It isn't going to change without a major fight, and that is a fight feminist will loose because it has already been lost in the highest court.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are rational conditions where a child has no business obtaining DNA information from the parents. Your view is an extreme radical view of the children having superior rights to all DNA information of their parents. NOT!
Please show where I said children have a right to "all DNA information of their parents"?
This has already been tested in court and denied.
Cite please?
Children need to respect privacy. That includes not being permitted to obtain the DNA information of their parents without their consent.
DNA is one thing but IMO children have a right to know the identity of their bio-parent. However, if fathers are excluded from being identified o the basis of privacy, so should mothers. Then we would have to accept that both parents have the right not to have their identity tied to the child's identity.
A parents DNA is their own private property. Not the property of a chlid.
That may be true. There are many aspects to DNA information. However, IMO a parent does not have a right to hide his identity from his/her child.
It is only through a socialist, communist, or secular humanist world view that you can claim a child has a right to a parents DNA information.
A socialist communist society would be one where parents hide their identity from their offspring and abdicate responsibility for the child's support and upbringing, leaving that job to the state. Therefore, facilitating parental/child identity is important if we DON'T want to go the socialist/communist route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calling something socialist or communist isn't necessarily an argument that it is bad anyway. It's a label. So to me, socialism or communism isn't even relevant to this otherwise interesting discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has already been tested in court and denied.
Cite please?
Why? Are you actually going to change your opinion if I can cite case law? I believe your mind is already made up. So it isn't worth spending the time to cite case law.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calling something socialist or communist isn't necessarily an argument that it is bad anyway. It's a label. So to me, socialism or communism isn't even relevant to this otherwise interesting discussion.
To clarify, when I use the term socialist feminist it means a group of feminist that do not have capitalistic ideals or values. Such groups do not have the same beliefes in private property as a primarily capitalist nation.
As I learn more about feminism, it is clear that the the radical feminist groups are socialists that seek to use the power of the state to seize control of children as property. I believe this is evil and wrong. We already have overwhelming evidence that proves children are damaged when a father is removed from their lives.
An article called "Hegmonic Feminism" by Edward E. Bartlett, Ph.D explains this when he quotes the following:
- "The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women." -- from "The Declaration of Feminism," November 1971
- "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, associate director of the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women
(Emphasis added)
See:Hegmonic Feminism for more details.
This doesn't mean that I believe socialism is always bad. Nevertheless these feminist ideals clearly arise out of socialism and communism. They have already been tried in other countries and they have failed.
By contrast, examples of what I believe are good socialist constructs include a public education system and SS system that is a derivative of socialist practices. I believe quite strongly that these institutions are quite good. However, they are currently plagued by problems arising out of extreme feminist ideals and lies.
So you see, when I use the term socialism, I am referencing a whole collection of values, practices, morals, ideals, and laws. The terms really are more than just a label.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 23, @07:17PM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
You're quite right that the resident feminist
refuses to acknowledge that parents as well as
children have rights.
Keeping one's DNA private from one's children
is made difficult by the fact they already have
half of your DNA. The fact that DNA is naturally
copied and widely shared already will be the fly
in the ointment of attempts to construct some
sort of intellectual property right to one's DNA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... "all male adults" ? Don't hyperventilate with that hyperbole. If you create a chid you create obligations for yourself. Your rights are not subordinate, but neither are they superior to the child's. People have a right to know their origins. We now have a scientific way to prove biological ties between people.
Not subordinate? I don't want to be a father, I'm told to be celibate. Same to you. If you don't want to be a mother, stay celibate yourself.
From here on out, any woman who becomes pregnant will have to bear the child, and then surrender it to the father on demand, and pay support to that father for at least 18 years, and perhaps even then be forced to shoulder the burden for a college education. Of course, visitation and involment in that child's life will be at the sufferance and consent of the primary caregiver, the father.
Don't like that, do ya? That's where men are today.
Also, would YOU want a government entity to tell YOU that you don't have a right to information about yourself?
If I donated sperm to a woman who wanted a child under the auspices of complete anonynymity, damn skippy.
"Only a woman and child are being permitted to remain as an intact family by the feminist using the governments as a front."
Pick a lane! Paternity testing is needed to INVOLVE the fother in the chhild life and give him a chance to father his own children. How can he do that if he can't even know for sure?
What hogwash. It's being used to stick the male with the bill for the woman's dalliances. When you advocate the enfocement of joint custody and visitation with as draconian measures as are used to enforce child support, then those words will carry weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, would YOU want a government entity to tell YOU that you don't have a right to information about yourself?
The government in the U.S. has already ruled that children have a right to some genetic information about themselves. Exceptions are artificial insemination and adoption.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:"I think we often use the term "child" without the full reconginition of the new person as a separate autonomous citizen with his own rights."
I can't figure out in what sense you are using "autonomous" here. Are you calling children self-sufficient? Then we could confidently leave anyone from the ages of 0 to 10 entirely on their own for a weekend because they are, after all, autonomous.
Are you saying that children are capable of making their own decisions? Then sex with a consenting 6-year-old is perfectly fine, because that child is autonomous.
Near as I can tell, when you say a child is autonomous, what you mean is that a child is dependent. When you refer to a child as a "recently created person with rights" you mean that a child's dependence creates an obligation in its parents and entitles it to their support.
If that's what you mean, I'm with you. But your language is pure double-speak. You call dependence autonomy and entitlement a right.
I also understand you to mean that parents don't have the right to deny that responsibility. The child is unconditionally entitled to its parents support.
A right, in the old "inalienable" sense, is something that enables an individual to exercise autonomy and responsibility. Specifically, it is the ability to decide for oneself one's obligation to others in one sphere or another. Rights refute obligations to others. They cannot create them.
A child does not have the right to support from it's parents, it is entitled to it.
Confusing rights with entitlement has brought us plenty of trouble in the last half-century.
Hell, Lorianne! You seem to have a fairly straightforward, honest view on these issues. Why are you resorting to bullshit like calling children "autonomous" to make your points?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By autonomous I mean separate beings, in this case citizens, under the law. Their dependency on adults does not infringe on their rights as citizens. A mentally retarded adult under dependent care for example still retains his/her citizenship rights. In fact, we recongnize the basic rights of all our citizens (though the right to vote is somewhat conditional).
You are right a child is "entitled" to support of its parents. The flip side is the parents are "obligated" to support children they create or otherwise ensure their welfare. Or at least they have been so far in our history, though some groups are trying to change that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 22, @12:16PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think we've met, but my name is Kingsley G.
Morse Jr. and I'm the Reproductive Rights Chairman of
the US National Center for Men.
It has come to my attention that Human Genetics
Commission wants to deter men from testing for
paternity.
Although the proffered justification is to protect the
children, I suspect questionable feminist politics are
at work.
Without DNA testing, sleazy women can lie to children about
who their father is and be rewarded with eighteen or
more years of child support. In the Kerkorian case,
that's worth more than $300,000 a month! Hiding DNA
results would only compound the sleaze, resulting in a bizarre barn-yard animal husbandry experiment that you'd expect to find in a third world banana republic.
Everyone that I've heard from strongly supports DNA
testing, and several US states have already passed
laws that encourage it. See
http://stop.paternityfraud.com
Thanks,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
Protect Voluntary Fatherhood
http://www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I made a number of changes to my post "The Best Interest Of The Child" and sent it to the Human Genetics Commission. Please feel free to modify what I wrote, however you see fit, and to send them an email of your own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genetic testing should be mandatory for every child born with the named father. No confirmation of paternity, no obligation for support. One trip to the well - if it's a mismatch, then it sux to be you.
Not having a father identified on the birth certificate should be a disqualification for welfare benefits - and if a woman is really concerned about "The best interests of the child" then she should surrender the child for adoption.
I'd agree to an exception for rape, provided rape charges were filed at the approximate time of possible conception.
False identification of paternity should be punishable as a felony, with loss of parental rights (On all children), mandatory imprisonment, fines, and triple idemnity restitution. And a wish list of mandatory sterilization, but I'm sure that wouldn't fly. (Hey, people who commit felonies with guns lose their right to keep & bear, eh?)
There is no excuse for anything less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Not having a father identified on the birth >certificate should be a disqualification for >welfare benefits - and if a woman is really >concerned about "The best interests of the >child" then she should surrender the child for >adoption.
My only revision would be changing this to loss of right to later get child support for said child. Wanna raise a kid without a guy? Fine, just don't whine later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These recent articles cover a number of facets of the battle being fought over the vile and destructive practice in which about 10% of mothers legally engage -- paternity fraud -- as well as related subjects.
Salon.com's advice column which states, among other things, that adultery by a woman is one of the "strange and wonderous ways" in which "we come into existence."
A court challenge to the corrupt, viciously oppressive, and thoroughly feminist Child Support and Custody Laws of the State of California.
A court decision that it is already illegal for a man to get DNA samples from a child to see if he is truly the father. The court ruled that, even if the court orders a paternity test, the mother can legally block it.
A German company, Papacheck, that will perform a paternity test for £200.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Errata: The statement it is already illegal for a man to get DNA samples from a child to see if he is truly the father should read, a woman can already legally bar a man from obtaining DNA samples from a child to see if he is truly the father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A similar move is afoot (less advanced) in
Australia. Once again the child's "privacy"
is advanced as the justification, although
this has never been raised before in relation
to any other sort of medical testing a guardian
might wish to have performed.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 22, @07:40PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-23ma y2002-29.htm
Posted: Thu, 23 May 2002 8:49 AEST
Aust woman takes sperm donor case to British High Court
A woman living in Australia and a six-year-old girl in Britain have taken action in the British High Court to force the release of more information about their sperm donor fathers.
Twenty-eight-year-old Joanna Rose and the unidentified child are arguing that knowing more about their biological fathers would help avoid pain and anger in the future
Both want access to non-identifying information about the donors and are calling for a voluntary contact register to be established.
They argue the blocking of details about their fathers is a breach of their human rights.
The lawyer for Ms Rose told the judge her client had sought the information about her father's genetic background, but was blocked by legislation which was introduced well after she was born.
At the same time, the British Government is considering changing laws which would give greater access to their father's details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I predict we'll see much more of this type of litigation in the future with people demanding information about their bio-parents (and not just fathers, remember, we have egg donation too). The protection of anonymous procreation is going to be short lived.
I belive the blocking of details about either or both bio-parents is a breach of the human rights of the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 22, @07:49PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Sending letters to the Commission is OK, but these people have probably made up their minds already. A direct appeal to the public might be more effective.
We can bring up the topic on Internet discussion forums which are read in the UK. Here are some:
http://communities.msn.co.uk/News/general.msnw
http://www.indymedia.org.uk (not always reliable)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=uk.legal&ie=UTF8 &oe=UTF8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 23, @12:19AM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I started a discussion. Click here to see it (free registration required to participate).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am rather surprised that noone has mentioned the major underlying issue behind all this, men are really considered parents.
It seems to me that the issue underlying all this is that men, who are legally called fathers reguardless if this is the case biologically they are still required to support their family.
It seems to me that if anyone is considered a parent and is responsible for the care of that child, either on a daily basis or a finacial one, they have some basic right as parents. While I can understand the invasion of privacy issue that DNA can cause children are not awarded these rights as has been proven and fought out in many court cases (see supreme court cases involving children rights to privacy they ALWAYS side with parents and schools).
It seems to me that the only reason fathers are not being allowed to challenge their possible biological link to a child is that this would question the reason for men to continue the financial support of a child (and child's mother)that is not theirs.
The real reason for not allowing DNA challenges to paternity is that this would allow the finacial support of women to be challenged. something that goes against the basic western idea of masculinity to protect and provide for women and children.
As long as women are allowed to have greater legal and social rights as parents than men have we will continue to lose battles such as these.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a father of three who never had a ny real reason to question the paternity of his children, I would find it difficult to abandon them even if I found that none of them were mine biologically. And if I discovered this was the case even now, it might well lead to divorce. But I still love my kids after having been with them for all thier lives, and so I would continue to be their father in every way possible.
That being said, I find absolutely unacceptable for the law to compel me to pay child support at some court-mandated amount for children that are not mine. Identify the biological father and get the support from him, if you can.
Taking care of your loved ones is the "right" thing to do, but if the children are not yours, you should not be compelled to do so by law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Orwell is looking more and more prescient every day... To paraphrase (Animal Farm), "Both sexes are equal, but one sex is more equal than the other."
Some comments prompted by this fruitful discussion:
... related article ... states that "one in ten British men is unknowingly bringing up someone else’s child." I remember hearing some time ago about a study done in the northeastern U.S. in the 1960s/70s which involved taking DNA samples from parents and children for some purpose entirely unrelated to paternity questions. The researchers unintentionally discovered that something like 20% of the children were not biologically related to their "fathers." The study results were forgotten/suppressed until sometime in the 1990s -- and have never been widely publicized, for reasons I'm sure MANN activists can guess.
...they are having children from the kid next door. Monkeys do it too: among baboons females publicly mate with the dominant males at the center, but carry on private "affairs" with younger males at the troop periphery. Seems to have something to do with ensuring plenty of genetic variety. The question is which are we: human beings or monkeys?
The difference between human beings and animals -- including our closest relative, the chimpanzee -- is consciousness, including consciousness of the consequences of our acts. We can choose to act with that consciousness in mind, or without it; in the first instance we are human, in the second we revert to the condition of animals, who are unable to escape from the round of suffering because they cannot choose to act differently. Feminism is almost entirely about deliberately confusing this issue, claiming women's "rights" to act without responsibility. The irony is that feminism itself is the most compelling evidence for the "bad, old" view of women as inherently irresponsible, thus needing to be cared for, guided and controlled by men for their own good. Myself a child of the famous "60s," former hippie, Haight-Ashburyite, etc., I once entirely believed the whole feminist line, but after several decades of observing its actual results, have been rather disabused of my youthful naivete.
This is a valid point. A child has the right to know who his or her father is. However, if women have the "right" to have abortions, then men have the "right" to refuse all rights and responsibilities with respect to their biological offspring...
All "rights" derive from the fundamental right of self-ownership. If you own yourself, then no one else can take away your life, liberty or property without your consent. On the other hand, if you own yourself, you have the right to waive any of your rights by your own free-will decision. You may choose to die for a cause. You may give away your property. You may choose to waive some of your liberty in any of an infinite number of ways -- e.g. by entering a contract of marriage, which limits your right of free association. You may choose to have sexual relations, which choice -- like all choices -- carries with it the responsibility to answer for the consequences.
The consequences of sex may include producing a new human being, who has the same right of self-ownership as you do. You no more have a "right" to kill that child (at any stage of es development) than that child has a "right" to kill you. The claimed "right" to abortion is the perfect example (among many) of the deliberate confusion of reason promoted by feminism. If feminism truly represents women, then clearly women are not reasoning beings. There can be no such thing as a "right" which violates another's rights.
As they say in the joint, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. If you are not willing to shoulder the responsibility of raising children, then don't do the act which creates them. That's the bottom line. That parents, who have created a child by their own free-will act, are then responsible for that child's life, well-being and rearing, does not mean that they therefore own that child. If they did, that child would never own emself, but would remain the parents' possession throughout es life. That would be chattel slavery. Similarly, if you were to invite an invalid to live with you, promising to care for em until e could again care for emself, you would not therefore own that person.
(While in most cases I am increasingly inclined to agree with Ecclesiastes that there really is "nothing new under the sun," it is true that our era does offer a new option never before seen in regard to sexuality: sterility surgery, freely chosen, can make it possible to engage in sex without the possibility of offspring, thus providing a responsible alternative to celibacy. This does not necessarily mean that unrestrained sexual activity would be a good thing in all respects, but it does remove the possibility of pregnancy as a reason for restraint.)
Abortion is more "unjust" to the child than to the father. It's your men's movement but IMO I don't think agrueing for the right to treat another human being like dung is something to fight for. Abortion is a net wrong. So is child abandonment or neglect. Why would you argue for the right to mistreat your own offspring just because someone else has that right?
Dear Lorianne: Thank you, thank you for a voice of reason from a woman on this subject. The tragedy of the "men's movement" is that (so far, anyway) it seems mostly to want men to be awarded the same "rights" to avoid responsibility that the feminists have so successfully clamored for. To do this is to support feminism's effort to reduce us all to subhumanity, not to counter it. "Men" are not merely women with awkwardly external genitalia; real men are reasoning beings, or at least make an effort in that direction, thus providing women and children an example of the (potential) difference between a human being and a chimpanzee.
Giving a child up for adoption is neither abuse nor neglect. Of course, practically speaking a child may well be better off adopted by loving, responsible parents than staying with the irresponsible woman who birthed em. However, that "a" is less bad than "b" does not mean that "a" is positively good. Creating a child whom one is unprepared to provide for is irresponsible, period. Adoption may be preferable to either abortion or a childhood with a truly unfit mother, but that doesn't make it a desirable ideal. In this context, "abuse" and "neglect" are not irrelevant terms. In addition to all the other suffering to which anyone is subject in this life, an adopted child is also awarded a whole complex of emotional insecurities.
"....children have the right to know who their fathers are as much as men have the right to know who their children are. " It is not just about the parent but about the child's right to know the truth.
In my senior year of high school, as a result of my first sexual encounter, I fathered a child, who was adopted. I speak from experience, and my own sincere regret, regarding these subjects. Decades later, prompted by his mother and my own curiosity and sense of responsibility, I went searching for him, only to learn that he had died at age 15 in a motocycling accident. I also learned a good deal about another modern "movement," for "adoptees' rights." I learned that adopted children have been treated like chattel, abandoned or sold and legally barred from knowing anything about their origins, primarily to spare their mothers' delicate feelings -- i.e. their desire to avoid any responsibility for their actions through exercising their "right to choose" to desert their children. This is cowshit. And fortunately, some progress has been made on this front in the last several decades, as adopted childrens' rights are slowly being recognized.
If you create a chid you create obligations for yourself. Your rights are not subordinate, but neither are they superior to the child's. People have a right to know their origins. Exactly. If you create a child, you have exercised your right to enter a contractual agreement which requires you to protect that child's rights -- to life, liberty and property, including knowledge of es origins. It is not that your right to privacy is "subordinate," it is that you have voluntarily waived it in regard to this issue. If you are not willing to meet that responsibility, don't create the child.
The truth is, bringing another human being into the world is a serious business, entailing many responsibilities, some of which will be with you for the rest of your life. Don't do it lightly.
If I donated sperm to a woman who wanted a child under the auspices of complete anonynymity, damn skippy. Sorry, it doesn't wash. While the right to contract is inviolable, no one has a right to contract to do a thing which is unlawful, or attempts to evade responsibility. "Sperm donation" is a feminist charade; any "man" who takes part is a lapdog, using the feminist smokescreen of "women's rights" to avoid his own adult responsibility. Children deserve to know, and have, the two adult parents who created them.
I mean the arguement of harming the child by revealing the "truth" , what kind of people are these? Feminists, once again using their children as shields for their own childish irresponsibility.
...the state does not have ownership of the child. Well, actually, if the child was produced in a State-licensed marriage, the State does own the child. Which is why the State can take children from their parents for such "crimes" as home-schooling them, refusing inoculations or Ritalin injections, or otherwise failing to conform to the State's view of how children should be reared. Hint: if you marry, don't get a license, do it in a church, or in some way before the Creator of your choice, or Whoever has enough authority in your mind to hold you to your word. You have every right to do so -- but no "right" not to keep your word, even if the State gives you "permission."
Confusing rights with entitlement has brought us plenty of trouble in the last half-century. Excellent point, and well stated. I think that by "autonomous" Lorianne meant that the child is a separate being, equal in rights to es parents, not a subhuman to be treated like chattel. True, this is not exactly what the word actually means. These discussions are fun because they're so lively, but the necessity to respond in haste may lead to unintentionally careless use of terms (as well as misspellings, etc. -- as in a number of the quotes above).
Feminists are dupes for the state. The real tragedy of feminism is that in their short-sighted, childish greed they are destroying the only human institution capable of resisting the State's endless effort to enslave us all. It is cold comfort indeed that they will eventually get just what they deserve. Unfortunately, we will all get it with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The consequences of sex may include producing a new human being, who has the same right of self-ownership as you do. You no more have a "right" to kill that child (at any stage of es development) than that child has a "right" to kill you. The claimed "right" to abortion is the perfect example (among many) of the deliberate confusion of reason promoted by feminism. If feminism truly represents women, then clearly women are not reasoning beings. There can be no such thing as a "right" which violates another's rights."
Very well said. Please note that not all women who are feminists lack the powers of reason you just oulined. Many feminists, some within the US and many more without do not promote such illogic. Unfortunately, many US people, men and women alike, fail to see the black irony in advocating for autonomous human rights while at the same time advocating that one human should have complete dominion over another based on soley chronological age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The researchers unintentionally discovered that something like 20% of the children were not biologically related to their "fathers." The study results were forgotten/suppressed until sometime in the 1990s -- and have never been widely publicized, for reasons I'm sure MANN activists can guess...
Well now more than ever we need that article/study. If you can find it, that would be appreciated greatly. AB2240 (in California)is currently under a vicious attack by the feminist. They do not want actual paternity of children to be discovered. They are using every possible lie and every form of deceit possible to make AB2240 ineffective. This article would be excellent ammunition.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/05/25/10222 43279328.html
Has anyone noted that what these laws do is basically make any child the property of its mother at birth and that fathers must petition the mother for consent to gather DNA samples from their own (presumptive until proven) child?
Yet mothers have the assumed right to gather DNA evidence from the child without consent of the father. And neither article specifically addresses whether women can legally use DNA samples from the father she obtained without consent and from the child with her own consent. Ostensibly it would be illegal of her to use DNA material from the father without his consent under the proposed law, but in practice, this could be easily accomplished.
What this does is give the woman the ability to find out for certain on her own who the father of the child is, and then to withhold that information at her discretion, or to then go get a court order from the father (who she already knows is the bio-father in advance) to give his DNA information to confirm paternity ... OR ..... she can deny him DNA material from the child to either prove or disprove he is the father for whatever motives she might have.
In any case, the way the proposed law is worded it gives women the leverage to control the proceedings. I think if a man can make a case that he has a resonable expectation he is the father, he should be allowed to privately arrange for and fund a DNA test on his own. Obviously if the child is older than say 3, the test should be conducted with the interests of the child taken into account, ie the child should not be emotionally battered or hurt by the test being done. Surely there are many ways to gather samples from a child without emotionally harming him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was rather interesting to watch how I was treated when my daughter was being born last July. Here are some of the observations that I made during that time.
I was encouraged to be involved in every step of the birthing process. [This is a large shift that has occurred in the last two decades from when men were excluded from the birthing process by hospitals.]
After my daughter was born the birth certificate was given to my wife and she was the one who filled it out and filled out who the father was. When I questioned this I was told by the nurse that they know who the mother of the child is (for obvious reasons) but only the mother "knows" who the father is. (I was too shocked at the obvious lack of logic in the statement to argue the point and too happy about my daughter too .) [Please note that a birth certificate is a legal document and the person’s names on it are considered factual until proven otherwise in court.]
The final point of contention I had was when it was time to leave the hospital. For safety reasons when leaving the hospital the nurses have the mother sign a paper to verify they are leaving the hospital and taking their baby. The problem I had here was that I was purposefully not asked. They used the "we know who the mother is" argument again to dismiss me as a parent who could take custody of my child. This is AFTER the legal documentation of my being a parent existed (i.e. birth certificate).
Just a few minor points about how men are treated as parent in the first days of a child's birth.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What this does is give the woman the ability to find out for certain on her own who the father of the child is, and then to withhold that information at her discretion, or to then go get a court order from the father (who she already knows is the bio-father in advance) to give his DNA information to confirm paternity ... OR ..... she can deny him DNA material from the child to either prove or disprove he is the father for whatever motives she might have.
Very good! That is exactly the issue, and that is why men are organizing to fight back.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a limit to what you can do until the baby has been born.
You could get a DNA sample in the womb but, at least for the moment, that would be an unacceptable risk to the child.
The claim that they "know who the mother is" demonstrates where the error is here. As Lorianne has stated there are egg donors also, so if we define parent hood in terms of genetic contribution (by default) the nurses haven't the first idea who the father or mother are.
The child when first born should be sequenced and both the parents, or any protesting parents, should come forward and be sequenced also. (Unless there are legal issues, documented surrogacy etc.)
Like to see y’ get that past the have-womb have-rights lobby.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I foung this information interesting:
http://www.surrogatemothers.com/iss.htm
In the case of artificial insemination of a surrogate or egg donation and implantation in a surrogate it is the father's name only which will go on the original birth certificate. Then the father's spouse who is not biologically related to the child has to officially adopt the child.
The biological mother's identity is sealed and not available to the child even after age 18.
In the AI program, your lawyer goes to court before the child is born and obtains a court order saying that the husband (or single man) is the father of the child, and directing that his name go on the original birth certificate. After the child is born, the surrogate signs consent forms which either terminate her parental rights, leaving the man with sole custody of the child, or which allow the wife of the couple to adopt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found this information interesting:
http://www.surrogatemothers.com/iss.htm
In the case of artificial insemination of a surrogate or egg donation and implantation in a surrogate it is the father's name only which will go on the original birth certificate. Then the father's spouse who is not biologically related to the child has to officially adopt the child.
The biological mother's identity is sealed and not available to the child even after age 18.
"In the AI program, your lawyer goes to court before the child is born and obtains a court order saying that the husband (or single man) is the father of the child, and directing that his name go on the original birth certificate. After the child is born, the surrogate signs consent forms which either terminate her parental rights, leaving the man with sole custody of the child, or which allow the wife of the couple to adopt."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
