Replies

With all due respect, the situation where someone has acted as a father to a child for a significant amount of time >are< the main reason why we don't want DNA tests to be the alpha and omega of paternity determinations.

Protecting both parents, and children, with regard to long-standing established family relationships is a very important value. Should women be able to steal away a man's children, denying him not only custody, but visitation or any involvement, because SHE cheated on him years back? Should a man, in a fit of pique because his wife was untrue years back, be entitled to abandon his children and put the cost of their support on the state? Should grandparents be subject to the indignity of blood tests and allow total strangers with a closer biological tie to take away their grandchildren when the mother and apparent father are killed in a car accident?

When there is no family relationship and the only grounds on which paternity can be asserted are biological, then, in that case, of course, DNA is determative.

LOL

Sounds like a bunch of rationalizing for the WOMAN lying.

Basically it comes down to one party. If a man raises a child as his own, knowingly, then that's another matter when it comes to child support. But the idea that it's going to be abused by men willing to dump their children on the state--well, who's abusing the system now? The men in these relationships aren't at fault, and DNA is the easiest way to establish blood ties.

All that mess about the grandparents, well it would be obvious that biology alone does not determine custody rights. But in terms of CHILD SUPPORT, I don't see why it should matter that some people may be hurt or inconvenienced. The truth is more important here.

Unless you want to be found guilty of knocking up some woman you never even slept with, and forced to pay for her bastard.

1percent: >>With all due respect, the situation where someone has acted as a father to a child for a significant amount of time >are< the main reason why we don't want DNA tests to be the alpha and omega of paternity determinations. <<

So you are suggesting that beacuse soemone was trusting and has been being duped for years then they ought to continue to be held responsible? For being made a sucker of?

1percent:>> Should women be able to steal away a man's children, denying him not only custody, but visitation or any involvement, because SHE cheated on him years back? <<

Well, does she expect him to foot the bills? If she expects child support she better expect that he gets visitation (provided he wants it.) On the other hand if he wants to continue to have parental rights such as custody/visitation he ought to expect to be held financially liable as well. In other words neither party should get to have their cake and eat it to. If he wants to cut all ties, custodial and financial he ought to have the right- it wasn't his kid, it wasn't his lie, it wasn't his fault. Had he been given all the information up front then he wouldn't be in this predicament now- but he wasn't so he ought not be made to pay for it. Nor should she be allowed to benefit from her sins against this man.

1percent:>> Should a man, in a fit of pique because his wife was untrue years back, be entitled to abandon his children and put the cost of their support on the state? <<

Yes ihe should be entitled to abandon them if those children are not his.He should not be forced to continue paying for a child that isnt his. If they are his children than yes he ought to be made to pay support and he ought to get custody and visitation rights as well.

Now as far as support being put on the state I also say no. I don' think women ought to be rewarded for spreading their legs to whomever comes along and then expecting Daddy Government to foot the bills when playing comes with a cost. When she gets herself knocked up by some random Joe she ought to catch his name. If she later needs the states help in getting this guy to pay up for the life he helped create then she would then have it to give. If it is her way to not bother with names then she ought to expect to be footing the bills alone, and maybe next time she'll more carefully think her birth control methods. Governemnt chooses this role because Marx laid it for them how doing such a thing would turn the heat up a little higher for us frogs on our downhill slide to socialism- and we, well enough of us anyways, blindly let them do it because it is "for the children."

Women (and I am one before someone goes and accuses me of being some chauvinist pig) ought to remember that in the end it is them who end up pregnant. We can scream all day and night about how unfair it is to have all the burden for birth control placed upon us but if we don't want to end up pregnant then it really is our responsibility to not end up that way. It's easy enough, avoiding pregnancy isn't rocket science. We are stupid if we trust other people to be watching out for us in that way. It is the very least a woman can do for herself because she is the only one who will definatley pay the cost in one way or the other, others MIGHT but she WILL- there is no way of avoiding that simple fact.

1percent:>> Should grandparents be subject to the indignity of blood tests and allow total strangers with a closer biological tie to take away their grandchildren when the mother and apparent father are killed in a car accident?<<

It certainly would be a Made-for-TV type-movie situation but yes. I'm not sure I see this happening though- I mean the real bio dad would have to know these children exist and are his and if that were the case then certainly a case for his neglect and abandonment (of the child/ren) could be made. I would certainly feel sorry for grandparents put in this situation but this is the "abortion in case of rape" situation- laws shouldn't be made on the slim chance this would happen. I guess what I am saying is that I don't see some guy opening a paper and seeing the headline "Couple Dies in Fiery Crash Leaving Two Children" is going to say "Hey I slept with that women x years ago. And wow that child of x-9months sure looks a lot like me." Could it happen- sure , is it likely- not really, and as a result grandparents ties are not likely to be in danger in the situation you pointed out. However, should a dad come to light somehow, then thems the brakes and heartbreaking as it may be- yea the grandparents are SOL.

You mentioned protecting children but then failed to ask any questions about how such a situation would efffect them. I guess I could say "whew- don't have to answer the hard questions" because certainly to crush a childs world like this would be horrible. But this is just another thing mom should have thought of before she sold "dad" her pack of lies. Responsible parents think in terms of "what would this do to my child if such a thing happened?" So she should have thought what would happen to this child if "dad" were to all of a sudden find out he wasn't and left. That child would be impacted financially- and that is mom's fault. The child wuld be impacted emotionally- and that is mom's fault. If she had done the responsible thing and had children by her husband (oh my gosh what a concept) she wouldn't be in this mess, she wouldn't be putting her children through this. Do I feel sorry for the child- absolutely- this one is going to need lots therapy. Am I willing to pay for that therapy- no, for the same reason I don't think the "dad" ought to pay- not my lie, not my fault.

Maybe instead of rewarding people when they do horrible things like have someones baby while they are married to someone else we ought to shame them. Maybe then these things wouldn't happen quite so much- or at least if they did the people doing them would know not to expect any rewards for doing them.