|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:50 PM January 16th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
My jaw dropped when I read this. I couldn't believe it. This harkens back to the days when blacks had to drink from a different fountain and women weren't allowed to vote. Basically, a woman has the right to lie to a man and thereby misleading his entire life course, whereas a man must simply do what he is told. This is outrageous. You're denying a human being the basic right of the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:36 PM January 16th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, what the fuck's up with that?
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:00 PM January 16th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
>"You're denying a human being the basic right of the TRUTH."
Very true.
However, remember that men are not seen as "human beings", even, often, by other men, as well as MANY women and nearly EVERY feminist.
If you're not Human, then you can't possibly have "human rights", can you?
At least that's the logic of feminists and their wussie-poopie lap-dogs.
Yet another parallel between my people (Amer-Indians) and modern day men as a whole. Indians were (often still aren't) considered human, so it was much easier to violate our basic human rights.
I tell you from the expirience of my ancestors, my emmediate family and my own expirience, what is happening to men, as a whole, is NO DIFFERENT than my people's plight.
Same thing, just a different target.
It's always someone, isn't it...?
The big problem my people have had in demanding our basic human rights is that we have never been particularly organized. But we as men, in general, can and MUST be organized if we are to not only get back the rights we've lost, but to simply hang on to the few rights we have left.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:14 PM January 16th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
So basically, a woman can snag a father by sleeping with a man, and pretending that he is the father of her baby... How do you justify this? HOW? How do you justify lying to a person? How does this benefit anyone? There was no decent argument for it, other than "oh, it's protecting a person's data, and a kid needs a second parent regardless if it's based on a lie".
This is not like abortion; there is no religious tie whatsoever to it. It is merely MORAL, which everyone understands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Graboid on 08:07 PM January 16th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Paternity testing should be established as a routine procedure whenever a baby is born. Why should it not? - I would like to hear the feminazis' answer to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:31 PM January 16th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Since the foreign media is as irresponsible as the American media (they refuse to give the issue coverage)we need to win the war on paternity fraud in the U.S., and inspire other nations to follow our example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 10:54 PM January 16th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't we pack up all men's and father’s groups here in Britain and Europe and Canada and Australia and New Zealand and wait for the USA to get it right and hope our countries will follow suit.
Alternatively, not only can we believe that good ideas and examples can come from anyone, anywhere, in any country in the world but also that in some sense
When one man loses, all men lose.
When one man wins, all men win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:03 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
You're right. Every man around the globe has to do something right now wherever he is. Fight locally, win globally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 12:10 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The funny thing is that they try to justify the proposed law with the Informationelle Selbstbestimmung (informational self-determination) of the child.
The concept of I.S. is really pretty good, for example companies aren't allowed to track your data and sell it as openly as they do in the US here. You have a right to determine what happens with your data.
But now someone is being very creative and tries to justify the ban on DNA-tests with it. Note that the right of both the child and the father to know who's whose offspring seems to be less important, and most importantly, everything suddenly changes if the mother agrees! Where is the I.S. of the child then? Remarkable, really.
I still wonder if a mother can test if her husband is the father of her child without his consent. I think this question has not yet been answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 12:12 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, one more thing: there was a court decision last week that the tests that would violate this proposed law do not count as evidence in court. Therefore, a man has to pay child support even if the test proves the child isn't his!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:25 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Here in the UK recently, I was listening to a radio phone-in on rape. To my disbelief, a male caller (yes male) suggested that ALL men be DNA tested such that any time there was a rape, if any DNA evidence was left behind, a person could be identified for questioning. His rationale was that if you're innocent, you've got nothing to hide.
On the same basis that all men are capable of rape, then all women are capable of being unfaithful and potential paternity fraud.
So, DNA test all kids and parents. After all, if you're a woman with nothing to hide.........
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:10 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
So now men need women's permission to prove that they're not the father of a child. That's not even second-class citizenship for men. That's like men as sperm-and-money machines for women. Just say no to this crap. I'd rather masterbate than reproduce under those conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:29 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
The BBC article is bizarre. It sets up this way:
"In 1998, the Department of Health published guidelines aimed at ensuring UK-based clinics work within a clear ethical framework. However, the code is voluntary and there are growing fears that stronger measures are needed.
In its first major report, the Human Genetics Commission called for a change in the law. Its members want secret DNA testing to be made a criminal offence.
Unofficial estimates suggest that as many as one in 10 paternity tests are carried out on children covertly - that is, without the consent or knowledge of one or more parents and usually the mother."
Ethical framework? Denying men the right to know who their biological children are? Using the law to shield adulturers? Wow! Up is down, green is blue, and 1+1=3. Yes, "patriarchy" has led to a world of bizarre, immoral feminine privilege.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:53 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
What's really evil is that basically this law would allow one group of people the potential to deceive another, whereas the other group is denied the right to fight against deception. How can we live in a world today that does this to a whole group of people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thomas Jefferson on 09:19 PM January 17th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Accoring to one of the articles, "Germany's biggest-selling newspaper, Bild, reported Friday that around 10,000 of the 50,000 paternity tests undertaken each year in Germany show that the man is not the father." Fifty thousand is a hugh sample size. In other words a very good indication of the problem.
Additionally, I saved a copy of a British newspaper survey of 5,000 women. It was titled, "Women are Profuse Liars," and went on to say, "More than 50% of women would not tell their partner "their" baby was not his if she wanted to stay with him." It's not still on the paper's site, so I posted it here. WomenAreProfuseLiars.netfirms.com
Not to get too far off the point, but didn't the gender feminists [female supremacists] show their hypocrisy a few months back. Wasn't it the National Order of Witches [NOW] that was hell bent in favor of DNA testing ALL people in California who were arrested, though not convicted of a crime? The true aim of the proposal had nothing to do with the stated goal of law enforcement. They wanted child support enforncement. When the shoe's on the other foot, privacy rights don't really concern them But, I think we all knew that already.
We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed. -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "Bad news from Germany!