|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the government of the United Kingdom is now set to prevent men from using DNA evidence to prove their innocence. If a woman chooses to declare that you are the father of her child, she will be able to have your paycheck attached to take your income. If you try to prevent her from taking your money, the government will track you down as a "deadbeat dad" and imprison you.
I'm not sure how the article should be construed in such a fashion. As I read it, it seemed to be about making it illegal to steal a person's DNA to be used in paternity suits. It didn't say anything about preventing fathers from using DNA evidence to prove or disprove their paternity. Or am I missing something? I'm just genuinely unclear on this, and would welcome any clarification.
Thanks,
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just genuinely unclear on this, and would welcome any clarification.
You bet, Severin. There have been other articles about this. If I remember correctly, some have been discussed on the MANN board.
A number of women's organizations are seeking to prevent alleged fathers from obtaining DNA from their supposed children without the permission of the mother. If this is done, and it is the intention of the legislation as proposed to do so, a woman will be able to accuse a man of fathering one or more of her children and then prevent him from obtaining DNA from the child to find out if he is in fact the biological father.
Prevention of paternity testing without the mother's permission is a part of the proposed legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should add that, to justify such suppresion of evidence, the above mentioned women's organizations declare that it would hurt children if men were able to find out if they were in fact the biological fathers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
Thanks for the clarification.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification.
My pleasure, Severin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas
I'm with Severin on this one - confused !
The article talks about preventing DNA being stolen for purposes such as proving paternity.
To prevent a man finding out if he has fathered a child is coounter-productive. If he cannot prove that he isn't, then she cannot prove that he is !
In terms of 'stealing' DNA without the donors consent - it is covered by the Common Law charge of Common Assault both in England and Assault in Scotland. The mothers consent would not be required as it is not her DNA that is at issue. Under Scottish Law your next of kin is always your mother - because you always know who your mother is !
Respect
ThunderChild
Die Gedanken sind frei.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he cannot prove that he isn't, then she cannot prove that he is !
She won't have to, especially if the man is married to her. Common law assumes that he is the father. He would have to prove otherwise, and he could be barred by his accuser from obtaining evidence that might exonerate him. That is exactly why the radfems want to bar men from obtaining DNA from the children whom they are accused of fathering.
Under Scottish Law your next of kin is always your mother
Precisely. And it is the next of kin who would decide whether or not a child's DNA could be taken for testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Thunderchild,
If you'd like more info, take a look at this article.
Note: "A Government code of conduct published last year stipulates that for children, the consent of both mother and father should be obtained." Emphasis mine.
The purpose is to prevent a man, who has been accused by a woman of fathering her children, from determining if is indeed the father. Especially in cases of the man and woman being married, the assumption is that the woman is correct when she declares that the man is the father. The burden of proof is on him to show otherwise, and this compelling piece of evidence (DNA) could be denied him by his accuser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I'm about this, I'll remind everyone of the recent German study that showed that more than half of men and women cheat in their relationships, and women may be twice as likely as men (the results fell within probable statistical uncertainty) of frequent cheating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas
Many thanks for the further info - it's a bit clearer now.
The Genetics/Embryology authority is making a rod for it's own back there.
If it requires the consent of both parents to DNA test a child then the mother alone cannot authorise a test - she would need the fathers consent, so how does she prove paternity ? This again leads back to an original point - that if he can't disprove it then she can't prove it, and as you correctly point out the Common Law assumption of fatherhood is only for married couples.
With unmarried couples, for the female to gain financial benefit she has to sue (and hence, prove paternity.) How does she do that without DNA ? All that an alleged father needs to do is produce a male who caims to have slept with the female at the same time and you have created what is called a "reasonable doubt"
Respect
ThunderChild
Die Gedanken sind Frei
Saw something on TV.AM this morning about a woman who sued for paternity and won a huge amount of money for the child. There used to be a ceiling on awards and it would appear that this has been removed (bad news) - the arguement being that the child should be kept to the same standard of living as the father. This does not mean that the mother has to be kept in the same style, does it !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All that an alleged father needs to do is produce a male who caims to have slept with the female at the same time and you have created what is called a "reasonable doubt"
If the man can't produce another male who claims to have slept with the female at the same time, he may be out of luck. The man might not know (and often doesn't know) if the woman has slept with other men during the appropriate time period. If she says he is the father, he will not be able to determine whether or not he is. (This goes beyond just financial matters. A man has a right to know if he is truly the father of a child.) If he isn't privy to her sex life, and she testifies that he is the only man with whom she had sex during the appropriate time period...
the arguement being that the child should be kept to the same standard of living as the father. This does not mean that the mother has to be kept in the same style, does it !
As a matter of fact, it does. I don't have the link, but we've discussed on this board an article that reported on the courts ruling that the non-custodial parent (usually the father) has to support the household in which the child lives. The household includes the custodial parent (usually the mother).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole thing is, if I cannot obtain DNA evidence to prove I am not the father, I have no evidence to bring into court. If I have no evidence, I'm guilty.
There's the other abomination - Male=Guilty until proven innocent.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole thing is, if I cannot obtain DNA evidence to prove I am not the father, I have no evidence to bring into court. If I have no evidence, I'm guilty.
Exactly. The man would be accused of something that could lead to a civil settlement against him and possibly to his imprisonment, and he would be barred by his accuser from obtaining evidence that might exonerate him.
It is insane that such legislation would even be considered. Talk about a fascist matriarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that should read "he could be barred by his accuser from obtaining evidence that might exonerate him."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that many men are choosing to protect themselves by not marrying and by doing what they can to avoid becoming fathers. This legislation would undermine that protection by making it possible, at least in principle, for a woman to get pregnant through artificial insemination and then accuse a man of being the father. Especially if the man was generally known to have had sex with the woman, and hadn't had a vasectomy far enough in the past, he could be judged to be the father with no chance of proving his innocence.
This reminds me of the way that, even though fathers are being systematically eliminated from the family, businesses (that are supported in part through the labor of men) and governments (that are supported in part through taxes paid by men) continue to maintain childcare facilities that increasingly benefit only mothers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This reminds me of the way that, even though fathers are being systematically eliminated from the family, businesses (that are supported in part through the labor of men) and governments (that are supported in part through taxes paid by men) continue to maintain childcare facilities that increasingly benefit only mothers."
This is called Fascism. We can thank Musolini for its innovative pretext.
To paraprhase the immortal words of Princess Leah.
"The tighter [feminists] grip, the more solar systems will slip through their fingers."
It is time we worked soft on the people and hard on the issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 25, @03:01PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
In the U.S. and in other Western countries the primary program for women is: welfare (handouts/child support/social security/childcare etc. etc. etc). The main program for men is: jail.
It has been this way for some time now. But they are getting more aggressive.
The only silver lining is that the system will eventually go backrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a couple years old, and I don't know if it got anywhere, but it relates to the removal of men's basic rights, such as due process.
In the interests of "equality," women would be given "'automatic priority' in jobs where they are 'under-represented'." Nevermind if any given woman's chance of getting a job in the field has been the same as the chance of any equally qualified man and if women are "under-represented" because there are far more women than men who choose to stay at home with their children.
Also note that, with respect to accusations of sexual harassment, "Anna Diamantopoulou, the Greek social affairs commissioner, said that a man accused of such misconduct 'would have to prove that he was not guilty'."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
