Yes absolutely. I don't know how much this costs but if it is fairly inexpensive then I am for it being mandatory. Who could possibly be against this? The only place I think it might not be applicable would be if the child was conceived outside the womb or was done by a doctor (without the hokie pokie going on). In that case paternity wouldn't matter. There are so many reasons for this.
One would be of course to lay aside any doubts the guy has (or the chick for that matter). I mean if you hit up your wife for the test and someone else has been plowin her garden then shes gonna go postal up in there as a defense. Whats worse? If no other Friendly Henry has been warmin up her bed then she is REALLY going to go postal! So make it mandatory and that way everyone knows for sure.
The second reason is to GET BACK SOME OF MY DAMN MONEY! Think of it. Lets say a woman goes in there all bred up. She has no clue who her baby daddy is. Well since it is mandatory that the kid be paternity tested then we have on file the test and we check that against all known profiles! Well if this mother received heath care from the state (pre Obama and Socialism where the whole damn country goes bust for the unions and net loss voters) then we match the baby daddy, ding ding ding! He owes us. Then since the mother is raising the child alone well Big Daddy can bust out a monthly check to help with that, further distancing the state (me, the taxpayer and Net Gain person) from the child and its many expenses!
I might even have another effect of making doods be a lil more cautious where they plant their seed too! I mean if you knew there was a far greater chance that you were going to actually have to pay for the child then maybe you'd be a tad more careful. I havent a clue how much condoms cost but its cheaper than 18 years worth of monthly checks. Also it would help some percentage of single moms who chose to breed dead beats.
Also it could save some poor fellow from making the worst mistake of his life. If he thinks its his, or "loves" the chick so he just has blind faith. Or that even though he was boot camp for 3 months the middle of which was exactly 9 months ago and it is a miraculous conception he can keep from marrying up the low down two timing dirty lil dog. He should be man enough to ask if it is in question but some folks have "love" and just can't see the forest for the trees. I see it as net gain all the way around!
That is my take. What could possibly be the downside?
Go see what Hotdads has going on!
<----Today is HNT day here, it is vanilla today and fully clothed and safe for work, not only that but I think it is a must see. Hit that after you comment here.
125 comments:
No way could I ever agree with making paternity testing mandatory.
Not sure why, just yet, but I have all day . . .
Yea Tysdaddy come back and tell us why because I'm with Sage on this!
Why shouldn't the guys HAVE to be tested...I mean the woman there is NO doubt it is hers...why do the men get let off the hook?
Plus the medical benefits of knowing your biological parents history is always a good thing...especially if you have a rare blood type or disease...or something like that.
And like Sage said...I think a few mor men would be more cautious who the choose to "forget" to protect with if they were legally held responsible for any child they helped in producing!
Paternity testing is undoubtedly in the best interests of the partner of the mother. However, everyone else is potentially a loser.
If a couple is in a committed relationship and that woman has a baby, and that man chooses to raise that baby (either because it's the right thing to do, because they're married, or whatever), then how is jeopardizing that a good thing? Now you have a man who knows he's been cheated on, a woman who may be facing life as a single mother, and a child with no father in the home.
I'm not advocating that deception is the best case scenario; far from it. However, to say that there are no downsides is short sighted.
Good point SciFi Dad, but...
The woman made the wrong choice in the beginning...they giy has the right to know it's not his...the child has a Father, biological father and potentially an adoptive Father. If the guy is going to do the right thing he'll do it regardless of the news,but he deserves to know. If he doesn't know and finds out later??? That's even worse!
Forgive the errors...*the guy
I'm on my phone.
Here's the deal: I can be for testing. Sage gave some good reasons, and they are valid.
But to make it mandatory?
I would consider that a violation of my rights, and I imagine my wife would feel the same. We are in a committed relationship. We don't sleep around. So to be forced to pay for a test would be wrong.
But I've never been a single mom looking for support. And I've never been father to a child I wasn't sure was mine. Or a father to a child I knew wasn't mine and wanting to know who the real dad was so he could (be forced to) lend a hand.
Perhaps I am so far removed from that world that my contributions here won't mean much . . .
Okay if we still had to pay for them and it wasn't covered by insurance and all of that and I was in a committed relationship having no doubt the baby was HIS then sure...mandatory seems silly.
But... If we didn't have to pay or the mandatory fee was minimal...why not? It's not going to hurt right? Your committed...no doubt...why would it matter if you HAD to have the test?
Again the woman's test is her ever changing and expanding body...was her rights violated? :)
I'm just discussing...I'm far from that world also...
I as a wife of a committed relationship wouldn't mind if it was mandatory for my guy to get a paternity test since there wouldn't be a concern.
Ty: come on back and tell us.
Shelle: I am with you I am 100% for accountability. People shouldn't be able to get out of their responsibilities.
No way could I go for that. I would agree that making paternity testing mandatory would be a violation of rights, particularly privacy. In addition, in order to make it work the way that Sage outlines, there would have to be "profiles" on file to match it up to. That opens up a whole other can of worms in terms of what could potentially be done with those "profiles", particularly with the current and future capabilities of human genome testing.
How would it be administered? Who would control the samples? Sage outlined a lot of ideas that are great in principle, but I think in practice, that there could be a lot of implications that no one is thinking about.
Not that I have ever been in the situation, or expect to be, but it isn't like women can't request paternity tests to be done in order to get child support. And it isn't like men can't request paternity tests in order to validate paying it.
Yes, men and women should be more cautious in terms of conceiving children that they either don't want or can't afford to pay for. I do think that the welfare system needs an overhaul, but I don't agree that this is the way to go about it. It seems to Draconian to me. It seems to take us that much further away from the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I have to hand it to you though, you sure have a way of stirring things up.
No way could I go for that. I would agree that making paternity testing mandatory would be a violation of rights, particularly privacy. In addition, in order to make it work the way that Sage outlines, there would have to be "profiles" on file to match it up to. That opens up a whole other can of worms in terms of what could potentially be done with those "profiles", particularly with the current and future capabilities of human genome testing.
How would it be administered? Who would control the samples? Sage outlined a lot of ideas that are great in principle, but I think in practice, that there could be a lot of implications that no one is thinking about.
Not that I have ever been in the situation, or expect to be, but it isn't like women can't request paternity tests to be done in order to get child support. And it isn't like men can't request paternity tests in order to validate paying it.
Yes, men and women should be more cautious in terms of conceiving children that they either don't want or can't afford to pay for. I do think that the welfare system needs an overhaul, but I don't agree that this is the way to go about it. It seems to Draconian to me. It seems to take us that much further away from the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I have to hand it to you though, you sure have a way of stirring things up.
Sci-fi- Ok I will submit that the guy who knows he was cheated on might be the one instance that it might be harmful. I would think that instance would be minuscule in comparison to the guys who DIDN'T know. Are you advocating a guy raising a kid that s not his without his knowledge? Is that even remotely ok? Thats the oddest thing I have ever heard anyone say. But I will submit the first point.
I can see where a guy might not want to know because that would hurt the relationship with that child.
Of course if I thought she had cheated I'd force paternity testing.
People MUST be responsible for their actions, people I deal with anyway.
Tys I'm in the same boat as you. Well I guess I might have fathered a kid out there somewhere but none to my knowledge. I don't only want to force personal responsibility on others I put that on myself also.
I did say if it was inexpensive. $50.00 or so was my thoughts there.
I think I would save money if everyone had to do it though. I wonder how many kids grow up impoverished because they have a dad who either doesn't know the kid is theirs or is a dead beat. And I wonder how much medical knowledge the child might be able to benefit from if he knew the medical history of his sperm donor. As well as the kids who are state funded because their mother is without means to support. We could maybe get some of that.
Anon:
The matching would be a tough thing and is absolutely a theory. With the Socialists now in power doing everything they can to take all the medical rights you have away this wouldn't even register as a drop in the bucket. There are profiles on file of many people right now. Often for reasons that are negative, prisons etc. Why not have bloodwork on file?
I realize that you at this time couldn't put it in a super computer and i 30 seconds have a match but if that was possible think of how many kids would be better off!
If you can't stand up for the kids and stand against low rent assed dads who suck, there is very very very little you could possibly stand for.
Okay. Rights. Sure. A violation? Privacy? Again...sure- bvut the test is DNA people!
A cotton swab, some hair...
If you have no worries that the child is yours then waht's the HARM? You aren't getting pricked and prodded or giving birth to the child in question!
Privacy for what? To find out the mother was cheating? To find out the child IS the fathers and he has to take responsibility for it?
I'm not buying the rights argument really, unless I needed to justify my wrong doing.
Just thinking out loud.
Great comments! :)
Shelle,
But in my case, where I KNOW I am the child's father? What's the point?!
And to tell me I HAVE to do it? Again, why?
Now Sage brings up a good point: What about the medical history of the birth father? I would want to know if he had some disease that would be detrimental to the child. But aren't there already tests that show what the embryo has on board medically? Or would at least show the potential for such ailments? And aren't most mom's required to have those tests administered prenatally? It's been a while, so I'm not sure what is required today.
And in the above case, what if the mom herself isn't sure who the father is? Does she provide a list of potential candidates and have the authorities track them down so they can donate their DNA? How would this possible be enforced . . .
And all this assumes that I understand what a paternity test even is. I am assuming we are talking about a test in which the father, or possible father, donates something to be tested.
If this is the case, then I reiterate: How, and who, would drag that man in? And he surely wouldn't be forced to pay for a test he didn't request. In this litigious society, someone would cry foul . . .
Tysdaddy-FTR (pat myself on the back) I brought up the medical history benefits-Sage then extended the thought...just sayin :P
And you say WHY...I say WHY not? You already know it's yours so no harm no foul... Except of course the cost...but all I was saying was that if cost wasn't the issue then why would it matter if the test was mandatory?
And who knows HOW they would implement it...but my argument is it can't be a bad thing if they could.
It would HELP more than HARM.
Tys/SBT: Now not at all meaning to question your brides fidelity, but don't you think that EVERYONE thinks that, or nearly everyone? For the record I believe beyond any doubt I also have nothing to worry about, but I can't KNOW because I leave home to go to work, so the opportunity is there. I know 3 people that didn't find out their daddy wasn't their sperm donor until after they were grown. And all 3 were people whose parents were married.
Actually I suspect it happens way way way more than one would think. Again not questioning your situation any.
The medical I was actually referring to is genetic. Say EVERYONE in the dads family has died of a heart attack before their 40th birthday. Thats some shit folks need to know. What if diabetes ran thick in the dads family, or any other ailment that makes the brood more susceptible to it.
What if you found out today that everyone in your brides family had diabetes, so you consult your Dr and the doc says Ty (I am assuming that is your childs name) can have a way better shot of not getting it if his diet is this that or the other. Isn't that something you and Ty would want to know?
I can't agree that can help more than it can harm. Today, if the mother knows who the father is (or at least has an idea), it isn't like she can't have court ordered paternity tests to get someone on the hook for child support. (I had some coworker friends that went through this scenario after an office romance went south....and his wages are now being garnished to pay for said child).
And frankly, with the way the child support system works so well today, that would need some serious overhaul to make it work.
This has nothing to do with not standing up for kids. Once you start passing these kinds of mandatory laws, it sets a precedent. Where do you draw the line between free choice/consequence and government control and mandates?
What about mandatory sterilization for repeat offenders (i.e. those already on welfare that continue to have children with no supporting fathers)? Would people go for that? I just don't see that it is as simple or rosy as you are painting it.
As to the boot camp scenario....most adults are aware of how this works people. If that person chooses to act on blind faith, that is their choice.
Testing for medical disclosure? I'm down with that. In our case, we didn't need a test as I know diabetes runs in my family. LONG history there. So we had children fully aware of that. And some of the tests are able to find other things that might have been hidden or have yet to surface.
But is a paternity test the same sort of thing? Does a typical paternity test search for things like undisclosed medical conditions? If not, then it's up the the dad to disclose the info, and that it totally at his discretion. Again, I'm assuming here, and admitting that I know nothing about paternity tests, how they are administered, and the full range of what they reveal.
And, Sage, I agree that shit happens. People cheat and the other party never finds out. But in that case, who should be the one to request a test? And maybe here is where a mandatory test would alleviate that.
But, Shelle, in my case? The harm comes in making me submit to a test, regardless of cost or procedure, that neither my wife or I desire to have. Perhaps no physical harm, but the fact that I am being told to do something that I or my wife do not want done violates my rights.
[thumps chest]
Great discussion, folks . . .
...and in terms of genetic testing for disease, it isn't like parents can't choose to have the child's DNA/genome tested to isolate known disease if that is their choice.
Doing some digging around on the net, I found this.
Interesting information that may lend to the discussion. It seems that there are certain medical-history-revealing elements to a paternity test. And yet, aren't these same results available without having to check for paternity by using other tests?
I'll concede this: If a woman is about to have a baby, and she is concerned about the ramifications of not knowing for sure who the father is, then a test should be required. It just makes good sense on so many levels. Likewise, if a man is concerned and wants to either be affirmed or discounted as the father, then he should have one done. But this of course means that the mother should also have to give consent as well. It's a two-way street, in this case, for it is the mother's body and she will have to live with the potential physical side effects of such a test. If she's unwilling to consent while the child in in utero, then definitely afterwards, and again under the care of a physician.
I guess it comes down to choice. And making it mandatory takes choice out of the equation . . .
@tysdaddy - AMEN
Anon: I'd LOVE it if you would sign your name initials or anything or a made up name besides anon!
I have yet to have anyone say why it would be a negative? Whats the negative?
True it probably isnt capable at this time to help with child support.
The facts are poverty drives nearly every negative in this country. Drug abuse, teen preg., a chain of poverty, crime, etc etc Why not make it so that people might have a shot not to be poor if they could get payments from their bio dad?
I will readily agree that most mandatory laws you start down a slippery slope and that is the ONE negative. Who would have thought 3 years ago we would be where we are now with a run away government run by and supported by the dullest minds ever in the hstory of this country. A government that caters to the same net loss voters I am trying to make pay for their decisions here. Anytime you take a net loss voter and make them responsible you have really done a benefit to the country, if you can keep that person from voting you will have done a far greater good to the country because without them we would never be were we are now politically.
So the mandatory I do do get, that is the one negative I have read today.
I have no problem with the sterilization, or mandatory adoption.
I know 3 people who were born to mothers that were married at the time by fathers other than who the woman was married to, thats who I KNOW.
Tys:
Bingo bingo bingo!!!!!!!!
you made my point!!!! tytyty
"Testing for medical disclosure? I'm down with that. In our case, we didn't need a test as I know diabetes runs in my family. LONG history there. So we had children fully aware of that. "
amen amen. You know why you are prepared?????????
Because you KNOW who the parents are.
Sage Bows.
ty
ty very much!
Tys: Saying "if the woman is concerned" is like saying if the criminal thinks he might get caught he could just confess.
Come on now. The thing is that the MAN might have no reason to wonder, like you and I and so it hurts nothing to have the test done.
If one man is saved from marrying a chick he believes with all his heart and soul has been true to him from this test it is a gain.
Um, no.
That's just insulting.
Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
Sage,
Are you saying that if a man wants a paternity test done, for whatever reason, then the woman should be forced to have the test administered?
I know you are writing from the Mars perspective, but I want to be clear as to what you're saying . . .
No. And I'm also not saying this test must be pre-birth. It could be after. It would take a simple mouth swab or hair.
If the male there wasn't the sperm donor unbeknown to them then everyopne (except the low down dirty two timing stinkin dog of a mom) from the test.
The kid would if a known match were made, financially as well as having the opportunity to know his medical history and maybe his ancestral history. No down side.
Would it hurt you to have been mouth swabbed and T to be mouth swabbed to guarantee paternity?
I took this to write but this surely isn't an issue to me, I mean I am not organizing marches.
Sage: "Afraid" and "insulted" are not the same thing.
If I was forced to do a strip search every time I left a store, I would not be "afraid" of the results. But I would most certainly be insulted by the implication that I might steal something.
I did just a bit of research into what the Acknowledgment of Paternity (AOP) is that is mentioned in the link I provided above.
For the record: I would NOT sign such a form if I had ANY doubts as to whether or not I was the biodad of the child. In such a case, I would request a paternity test. Also, the form is for the protection of the mother, one who is unwed at the time of birth and who hasn't been married in the past 300 days. That is a legally-binding document, folks . . .
If you knew you would be strip searched you would go there though right?
If you knew your kid was going to be swabbed for paternity you might just come clean ahead of time.
Win win, except for the two timer.
No, I wouldn't go to a store where the default policy is "We expect people to be thieves" if I had any other choice in the matter.
And I would be highly offended if someone suggested to me that there was any remotely reasonable cause for me to have the paternity of my children "proven" to anyone.
Whether or not a couple or individual CHOOSE to have a test done is up to them.
Or if a court of law feels compelled to have such a test done for evidentiary purposes, fine.
But to mandate that such an invasion of privacy should be mandatory in every case?
Ridiculous. I would oppose it any such blanket-policy on principal.
WOW
What principle would that be?
It would insult you?
Ok so outside of ZM having her wittle feelings hurt, what else is the down side?
Feelings aside please.
I have asked this 3 different times and NOT one person has told me how it would be bad, again outside of hurt feelings.
Which to be honest I do wake up in the night in a cold sweat worried about how everyone feels because that is a good way to form opinions, so I count that way up there on the list of things that are relative.
Enough already, my caffeine level is down and I am tiring of this....
It is simple. If you didn't f*ck around you have nothing to worry about as the mother.
Forget everything else. If you are nervous about the test - I can already tell you why.....
Male or female....somebody is doing something wrong or they suspect something wrong is going down.
end of story
JJ
yup thats my thinking too, you must have thick skin.
No downside (outside of hurt feelings)
I do agree that knowing there is going to be a test would make both parties more careful.
Of course it would.
JJ. I agree with you, but both parties should be more careful as it is. Don't mess around unless you are ready and able to take the consequences.
If my spouse asked to have a paternity test done on our children, it may imply some lack of trust. However, I wouldn't have a big issue with it because there is no question what the result would be.
The costs listed on the website are between $400-$2000. In the scenario where the individuals are looking for some government support, they probably don't have the $$ to pay for that test. Are you saying that the rest of the taxpayers who are not fathering/having children on the government's money would need to pay for this mandatory testing in that event, or where would the money come from? (Maybe the proceeds from the forced adoptions?)
Just wondering. I get what you are saying. I just think that this creates more of the government waste and it may be for little return. What if the father does not contribute to society in a financial way? The cost of the test would basically have no financial payback to the regular taxpayer. Just sayin.
J.Taylor
Fine, you want to set aside feelings. Let's do it.
Who would "mandate" this test? The government? If not, how would you enforce it?
Who would pay for it? The same government that mandates it? Or should taxpayers have to pay for the test whether they want to or not? Should it be covered under health insurance - which means, btw, that you and I are still paying for it.
What would the penalty be for non-compliance? Jail? A Fine? A guy who holds you down and takes your bodily fluids by force?
Who, exactly would be subject to this mandatory testing? Only men the woman claims is the father? And if he turns out not to be the father, then do we test the next guy she thinks might be "the one"? And the next? And the next?
Should any man who is fingered as a possible "baby-daddy" be required to submit to what is essentially a search-and-seizure procedure with no other probable cause under the law? Not a big fan of the 4th Amendment, huh?
Or should we just require every man on the planet to provide a preemptive sample so that we can create a daddy-database? And, again, at what expense to taxpayers? And at what expense to personal privacy and legal protection from government invasion of that privacy?
And I thought you claimed to be a political and fiscal conservative, Sage?
It's stupid and illogical and unnecessary to MANDATE a paternity test for EVERY SINGLE BIRTH on the planet when there are only a small percentage of births wherein there is any reasonable cause to question paternity.
If there is a probable cause for a paternity test, fine, then there are legal ways to obtain one.
To mandate it for every birth is like swatting at flies with a bazooka.
Just so we're clear. Mom screws around, gets knocked up, decides to have the baby, gets tested and is busted. Or Mom decides to abort the child, no test, no marital strife.
I see an increase in the abortion rate there.
Also, this only punishes the cheating woman....cheating dads have nothing to fear.
Finally, genetic testing is expensive. The staff, equipment and reagents to perform these tests are expensive. Who is going to pay for all this?
-anon#2
JJ love love love love that profile pic.
JT thanks for making a name, I don't know just "anon" makes me see cross ways.
The website went to a private entity. They have to make a profit for their share holders, unlike the government, as we now know being 12.5 trillion in debt because the net loss people voted.
2 things on that, if you farm that out to private places then their would be bidding and huge volume and the price would crash drastically. The government would foul it up for sure like they have the schools and everything else they run, that isn't even up for debate, but managed properly by the govt. it would be about 1/2 that. That would be added in to the cost of the birthing.
If the taxpayer had to pay it then the debt would eventually fall back on the parents. They would be billed for it, it could be taken from their welfare checks or whatever. If the father is a welfare recipient then that amount would go to the child (or their caretaker) we pay either way anyway.
We do agree that anything the government does is a goat roping that is why it is so important we get those who screw it up the worst out of office in 2010!! Trade in the Dems!! Take away the votes of the net loss voters!
I never want more government for sure.
One thing I am positive about is this!!!!
Everyone who is hitting me up and talking about cost, if you voted for Barrico Bam Bam or any Democrat congressman then you are absolutely making the most hypocritical argument I have ever heard in my entire life!!!
Y'all should take that on the road cause you have a future in comedy!
I feel certain that isn't the case because it couldn't be done with intellectual honesty. You would have to have marched in a TEA party parade to take that stance.
And all of y'all emailing me join the fray!!!!!! I don't need the back patting!
Sheeesh
y'all are wearin me out!
See I think you guys might be missing the point.
The whole question was, do you think paternity testing should be mandatory.
He gave his perspective and I agreed with him. He doesn't have to lay out a plan on he his going to make it work.
Throw out cost people throw it out... Let's not try to solve HOW it's going to happen
Just ask yourself how it would be WRONG?
Of course if cost was in the equation then it wouldn't be practical to Make everyone do the test and it is the very reason why they probably don't.
BUT...
My thing is if cost wasn't a part of it all because again we aren't asking Sage to be the government then what is so wrong with taking the test? Who does it harm?
Guys would only have to take it once.
So if it could be done I say HECK Yea make it mandatory!
Attacking your opponent is the sign of a weak argument in a debate, Sage.
Red Herrings aside, please explain to me what overriding need there is to mandate this procedure for all births?
My opinion is that if you are going to create additional bureaucracy and public expense, there should be one helluva an overriding benefit to society. And I just don't see that here with your bulldozer-to-find-a-china-cup approach.
ZM: I think I got most of this with the last comment before yours came in.
I'll try to catch what I can see that I didn't hit.
I only used to be a cons. I decide to switch to Dem because I want others to make my decisions and pay for my stuff cause I might not be smart enough to do so.
They aren't going to have a data base, except everyone that has is already there. All criminals and military (i think) are already there. It wouldn't be fail safe but when a new dad was tasted yes he would be there, and then of course the kid would be there. So no it wouldn't be a door to door thing.
They can already hold you down and get your DNA, court ordered.
I can't answer them fast enough they are coming in while I am answering. So if I double up tat is why.
The only people it would test would be the "dad" standing there when lil boy blue came thru the tunnel of love.
You misread somewhere. No1 is advocating what you think they are.
heres how it goes down.
You ZM go in the hosp all swole up. you huff and puff and spit out spud. The dad on the birth certificate, per YOU, is tested along with the kid.
Thats it.
there ya go.
Who gets hurt???? Nobody if you didn't bump uglies with someone else 9 months ago.
The rest was the possible GOOD that could come of it.
All that you are saying I'm not advocating. Just the two supposed birth parents and the kid, well not the mom cause we are pretty sure its hers.
It would also be a double fail safe for the wrong or switched baby at the hosp.
I think ZenMom knocked it out of the park with her last comment, I agree with her 100%.
Anon2 Well the question was should paternity testing at birth be mandatory?
Nothing about dad cheating is in there.
It isn't about abortion either, but if abortion makes less people on the government teat then I'm for it. So that is an added benefit.
We aren't testing every man and child, just the dad and the child. The insurance company, the parents etc.
Shelle it does nobody harm, it is a 100% positive. I also realize that the comments have little or nothing to do with the quesions but with my ever growing fan club cheering me on how can I let this home run go?
It is obvious that no hard is done and only good because we have not seen ONE comment (feelings aside) that was harmful to any man or child.
Please please tell me where I attacked you.
Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee tell me. Cut and paste.
Hubman if you can find in your "home run" where I attacked anyone personally then please cut and paste. I never personally attack because my argument is always above that.
My comment has nothing to do with feelings and 100% to do with facts. In this case, you are being grossly ignorant and naive.
My wife is writing the rebuttal tomorrow and she's asked me to contribute. You'll get my full, rational, logical, factual response then.
Shelle:
MY question is WHY? WHY is it necessary to take such a broad-stroke approach as to mandate it for EVERY birth?
The arguments that have been made about the "win-win" benefits are not arguments that can be applied to EVERY birth. So why mandate it for EVERY birth?
I don't disagree that there are specific situations when paternity tests are necessary. I just think it's illogical to take such a one-size-fits-all approach. Especially when there is a cost to the public to factor in. You can't just "throw out" the costs and logistics and pretend that such mandates could be made in a vacuum.
Cost and logistics ARE a factor. But, even if they weren't, you still haven't addressed the 4th amendment issues I brought up.
And Sage, this touches on your last argument as well:
So, fine. You test the "daddy" standing there. And it comes back NEGATIVE.
Setting aside the fact that you've just created a very ugly situation inside a hospital room ... THEN WHAT?
The Mom comes back a week later and says, "Oh, hey THIS ONE is the Daddy."
Doesn't THAT Daddy have the same right to have the claim tested that the first "daddy" did? Just because he wasn't in the room the first time, he doesn't have the same rights?
What if that "dad" wants the test, too.
Or, what if he DOESN'T want to submit to the test?
Under what circumstances, specifically, should he be required to submit his DNA? Any time any woman claims that he is the father? Solely based on her word, he should be subjected to such an invasion of his privacy?
There are reasons we have laws on the books in this country preventing the Government from invading it's citizen's privacy without a COMPELLING REASON.
To require people to submit to a DNA test of any sort *without any legal process* is a slippery slope to other Very Bad Ideas.
As I said, you cannot make laws in a vacuum. You have to consider their larger impact.
Okie dokie!! I hope. It will need to show how it harms someone. that is it.
If it does that then I will gladly applaud the point, as I have throughout this thread today. And as I always do.
Sage: I didn't say you attacked ME.
But this ...
"Everyone who is hitting me up and talking about cost, if you voted for Barrico Bam Bam or any Democrat congressman then you are absolutely making the most hypocritical argument I have ever heard in my entire life!!!"
... is a Red Herring if I ever saw one. And, yes, it's an attack of the debater rather than the debate.
ZM So, fine. You test the "daddy" standing there. And it comes back NEGATIVE.
Then the one tht is on the way to getting suckered is off the hook
ZM Setting aside the fact that you've just created a very ugly situation inside a hospital room ... THEN WHAT?
The ugly scene was when the mom decided to lay down with more than one man unprotected.
ZM: I have no clue how you voted. I do know how Hubman voted because he told me publicly, but he wasn't in the fray at the time.
So no I did not attack you.
Unless I had an out of body experience and was standing there in the voting booth that I do not recall.
Matter of fact the ONLY person here that has told me if the voted for Bam Bam is Hubman and he wasn't there, so no I didn't attack anyone.
What I did say was that anyone that voted for him and is now arguing cost is making a hypocritical argument, and that they had to be just laughing about it if they were intellectually honest.
I stand by that, that is true.
I already said that you did not attack ME.
But, if you want to get into THIS argument, I'm happy to oblige:
It is a factual fallacy to say: Voting for a Democrat = Not Fiscally Conservative.
In understand that it is your *opinion*. But that does not make it a fact.
My point, though, was that you were not addressing the topic of the debate, but rather, setting up a Red Herring argument that drew attention from the weakness of your actual argument.
Umm, no Sage, I didn't vote for Obama, I don't know where you got that idea. I didn't vote for anyone in 2008, I had to travel for work on short notice and did not have the opportunity to cast an absentee ballot.
While I was traveling on that trip I meet Southern Vixen for the first time. Ask her, she and I were in a strip club in Atlanta on election day 2008 :-)
Re the DNA database:
Military personnel submit a blood sample that is stored for future genetic testing if necessary. They are not automatically tested as that would be an enormous waste of resources.
Genetic testing is not a simple procedure. It can not be done by a monkey in a lab.
To say that this isn't about abortion or who will pay or cheating is disingenuous. The concept of Performing Genetic tests on every child, mother, and father can not exist in a vacuum. There are far reaching ramifications to these decisions.
Your whole argument boils down to the fact that husbands are afraid to accuse their wives of cheating. So the government should mandate expensive, invasive, resource heavy tests because men don't have the balls to confront their wives and live with the consequences.
Actually you said:
ZenMom said...
Attacking your opponent is the sign of a weak argument in a debate, Sage.
I was debating you. How else could that be taken?
Just the facts.
here is what I said:
Everyone who is hitting me up and talking about cost, if you voted for Barrico Bam Bam or any Democrat congressman then you are absolutely making the most hypocritical argument I have ever heard in my entire life!!!
Y'all should take that on the road cause you have a future in comedy!
I feel certain that isn't the case because it couldn't be done with intellectual honesty. You would have to have marched in a TEA party parade to take that stance.
Both of those are copy and pasted
now you have said:
It is a factual fallacy to say: Voting for a Democrat = Not Fiscally Conservative.
In understand that it is your *opinion*. But that does not make it a fact.
I can't find anywhere in my comments that said that? Anywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And actually I put that in a completely different comment so as to not offend anyone in particular.
Seems when its copied and pasted the red herring is ummmmm not mine.
Back to the topic at hand, though ...
What is your response, Sage, to the logical progression from "testing the guy in the delivery room" mandate to the fact that thereby create the mandate to test every man that any woman claims to be the father?
Should every newborn child now have the burden of proof placed upon them to legally and scientifically "prove" paternity before they are entitled to the legal protections of such?
Should every MAN now be required to legally and scientifically prove that he is the biological father of a child before he is granted the legal rights and responsibilities of that role?
Follow it through logically: Creating an uncessary blanket mandate for ALL births would have repercussions very much beyond testing the "sucker" in the room.
Hmmmmm
Ok then, my bad. More to my point! I don't know how ANYONE here voted!
Whew, off the hook 100% on the red herring thing!
Krista you are late to the game.
My whole thing is that the dad should be tested at birth to see if he is the father.
Thats it.
What negative repercussions? All we were talking about initially were the mother father and child in the room.
Zen, now I am no policeman or lawyer or anything else, but if say you were single and you had a kid, and the dad was in BFE and you wanted child support to raise your child, how do you think they get that to pay?
I see. I thought you were debating several people at that point, actually.
So, if you were debating ME, was this ...
"Everyone who is hitting me up and talking about cost, if you voted for Barrico Bam Bam or any Democrat congressman then you are absolutely making the most hypocritical argument I have ever heard in my entire life!!!"
... directed to ME?
It would appear to me that your argument in the above statement is that if one voted for a Democrat, one would be "hypocritical" to argue for fiscal conservatism.
How am I misinterpreting your meaning?
I'm not seeing where I said "fiscal conservative" anywhere.
I was not debating ANYONE on that point. this point
"Everyone who is hitting me up and talking about cost, if you voted for Barrico Bam Bam or any Democrat congressman then you are absolutely making the most hypocritical argument I have ever heard in my entire life!!!"
was just a statement. Just something that is factual.
If someone who supports or voted for Bam Bam is in this argument and agin it because it isn't fiscally responsible then that is hypocritical.
I can't see anywhere that is incorrect.
SAGEL: "say you were single and you had a kid, and the dad was in BFE and you wanted child support to raise your child, how do you think they get that to pay?"
A woman in that situation could do so through legal channels that already exist.
In THAT case, there would be a legal process by which to investigate whether or not there was a compelling reason to require the alleged father to submit his DNA for testing.
Those cases of DISPUTED paternity - and ONLY those cases - are the times when the government should step in to help settle the dispute.
If there is NO involved party disputing parentage, then the government should keep its big fat nose the hell out of things.
At least, that is THIS fiscal conservative's not-so-humble opinion on the subject.
okay....what if I said that everyone who tried to drive a car should be tested to see if they have been drinking.
Seems like a good idea, far fewer drunk driving accidents. But it's impractical and a waste of time and resources.
Paternity testing for every child, their mother and father is a waste unless there is a question of paternity. If there is a question, a paternity test, but not in every case.
Zen Mom:
Right. it would have to be a law to get it done. For sure. So then they would swab the "maybe dad" in the hospital while he is standing there and the baby. It comes back and isn't his.
He leaves.
Then the mom has some splainin to do. If she sas its someone elses then (just like they do it now) they test him.
Thats all I was advocating. I did say if the DNA could be matched to bio dad then he could be made to pay.
that was it.
So again.
How is that bad?
Krista: How does the dad know there is a question?
How is he sure that momma wasn't heels up in a chevy one night when he was out of town?
"If someone who supports or voted for Bam Bam is in this argument and agin it because it isn't fiscally responsible then that is hypocritical."
I voted for Barack Obama. I am, in general, an advocate of small government and an opponent of wasteful spending.
I am arguing against your Mandatory Paternity Testing Law because it would be fiscally and conservatively irresponsible and because it would be an unnecesary violation of personal privacy rights.
Apparently, I am a hypocrite or possibly just a figment of your imagination.
Sage,
How do i know you aren't driving drunk?? We take chances in life. That's just the way it is.
SAGE: "How is he sure that momma wasn't heels up in a chevy one night when he was out of town?"
Why the hell is that MY PROBLEM?
ZM: No you are real, not a figment of my imagination.
(I think)
Well then I hate I called you out.
Krista
I would be fine with a device on my car that wouldn't let me drive drunk.
You would be against that?
Zen: why would that be your problem? I don't now. How does it hurt you? How does it affect you any at all?
Krista: Well then why dont we turn out the jails???
I mean if we are up for taking chances???
You MAKE it my problem when you make it a mandatory LAW that *I* have to pay for as a taxpayer!
If Mr. Cuckhold is worried about his child's paternity, then Mr. Cuckhold can grow a set and go through the legal channels to challenge it.
If he's not concerned enough to do that, then *I* sure as hell am not going to do it FOR him.
You would be fine with a device that won't let you start your car if you have been drinking? When are you drunk? 0.1 BAL?? 0.05?? Who decides? Will you pay to have this device installed, calibrated, serviced and updated? Will you subsidize the costs for those who can not afford such a device? How will you deal with false positives? What if you are late to work and the device malfunctions?
Yes, of course a device that keeps anyone who is drunk from driving seems great, but it's not practical!! We take CALCULATED risks in life. We don't stop driving, but we wear our seatbelts. We don't lock ourselves in our homes, but we carry mace at night....you get the idea.
Life is about taking risks, if you aren't willing to take the risks you can't play the game.
Holy shit! I lay down for a soul-refreshing nap, and wake up to 80+ comments!
Sage, you seem to be saying that if anyone would refuse a paternity test, then they must be guilty of something.
I say, I would refuse to take the test, standing shoulder to shoulder with my wife (who may or may not have commented whilst I was napping - she was considering it) *because* neither of us have anything to hide. Our names are on the form and we stand by our signatures. NO test, administered peacefully or by compulsion, will reveal to us anything we don't already know.
All this stems from the fact that we are in a committed relationship and trust each other. NO government I live under will ever be able to legislate that sort of trust . . .
My refusal (OUR refusal) may not point to a downside, but neither is it emotional.
What a great discussion this has been! I'm off to do some stuff for a couple hours and will swing back by to read all the latest . . .
TysDaddy: I want to give you AND your wife a great big *HUG* for that comment. :)
ZM why is it a problem? YOU don't have to do anything. You have to pay as someone who has insurance. Or you have to pay (like I did) out of pocket when the bride had the kids.
We aren't discussing the worried ones, the people I know weren't worried, but the state damn sure made them pay child support, which by law and in court tey can't get back. Is that fair to them?
We never were and haven't yet discussed someone who was concerned. We are discussing the people who are not concerned.
Krista? the same people who decide what the limit is anyway?!?! Where I live we don't have to but I know many states each vehicle has to go through inspection every year anyway, so yes they would not get their sticker until the stuff worked, just like they don't if their blinkers don't work.
You will deal with false positives the same exact way you deal with flat tires or dead batteries.
I didn't say it was practical, I said I would be for it if it was available.
We do take calculated risks in life, that is true and we pass laws to put those calculations more in our favor. True true.
Thank you for making my points.
Hehe we have been having some damn good fun since you laid down I reckon!!!
That isn't what I said. I am very diect, you would know f that is what I said.
What I will be willing to submit is that is someone isn't hiding something then they have nothing to fear from it.
That would be fine, will you stand side by side and not renew your drivers license *because* you haven't been in wrecks or had tickets? Will you stand side by side and not pay your taxes *because* you don't believe the new bridge they built with the tax increase won't help you?
That is how silly that argument sounds.
Ty I don't know where you live, ut the government already legislates relationships if you are American, are you now packing, or was that statement just for funsies? Or does you statement only pertain to you and your wife?
You are correct though not 1 person has pointed out where anyone would be harmed. All these comments and nothing at all.....
all fluff....
all hat and no cows...
come on back Ty I'll be playing all night!! Tomorrow too!
Well as it stands now folks there are 87 comments, the bulk of them 5-6 people.
Not 1. Not even one shows where anyone would be hurt.
But I showed where someone might be helped and the possibility of many people being helped.....
I never hit one all the way over the lights and out of the stadium before.
Here's one example of people being hurt by mandatory paternity testing.
99.99% accuracy
that's 1 mistake out of every 10,000 tests
4.2 million births per year in the US
or 420 couples who are told the dad, who really is the dad, is not the dad.
Have a seat Sage, yours was nothing but a warning track shot.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!
Thats awesome I as betting the false positive were around 2%!!!
Awesome right there. Perfect, I wish I had known that it would have made my argument all the more strong.
Damn I had no idea it would be that accurate. In that case we retest.
Nobody hurt.
Thanks! Awesome. That one hasn't even landed yet.
So you're okay with it, you consider it harmless, if several hundreds of couples every year are told the dad is not the dad, because hey, the re-test fixed the mistake, days or weeks later?
I suspected that you were heartless before. Now I know you are...
Sage wrote: "That would be fine, will you stand side by side and not renew your drivers license *because* you haven't been in wrecks or had tickets? Will you stand side by side and not pay your taxes *because* you don't believe the new bridge they built with the tax increase won't help you?"
At present, the federal and state governments require me to pay taxes, so I will do so regardless of my record or the potential benefits received. They do NOT, at present, require me to prove my paternity beyond my willingly-offered signature. That is as it should be.
Sage wrote: "Ty I don't know where you live, ut the government already legislates relationships if you are American, are you now packing, or was that statement just for funsies?"
As I wrote in the comment you are referencing, "NO government I live under will ever be able to legislate that sort of trust." TRUST is the key term here. My wife and I trust each other, and no one can force us to do so. Trust must be earned.
Sage wrote: "Not 1. Not even one shows where anyone would be hurt."
I see mandatory paternity testing as a violation of the rights of my wife and I. Can't that be considered harmful? Sure, not in a physical way, but being forced to take the test against our will would certainly be harmful in a broader sense of the word, for if we are denied our rights, then not only are we harmed but so is our nation's understanding of freedom and liberty. We are forced to do plenty of stuff as it is, but most all of that leads to a better society at the end of the day, whether we agree with those laws or not.
Sage wrote: "But I showed where someone might be helped and the possibility of many people being helped."
This is certainly true. But let's get back to the very first few lines of your post, where you state: "Should paternity be checked at birth. Yes absolutely. I don't know how much this costs but if it is fairly inexpensive then I am for it being mandatory."
Despite all the places in the ongoing debate where you've given solid reasons for why paternity testing would be a helpful thing, you have not once (and please correct me if I'm wrong) shown that MANDATORY testing, forced upon every party involved in every birth that occurs, would be likewise helpful. Or even necessary.
As I see it, for something to be mandatory, there must be corresponding warrants that support why such a measure would be beneficial for everyone, in every situation.
You are indeed hitting it over the fence, but this is your ballpark . . .
Again, great discussion.
I made no claims otherwise.
I can't live on emotions, I have to take calculated risks everyday.
I didn't know the stats but I figured anything under 4% would be good.
It would be like any test and they would be told the % of inaccuracy before hand and folks with any sense would be ok with being told that they needed to retest for accuracy, or that they didn't get a good swab or whatever. Also the initial swab could be done so that there was enough for a re-test before informing of the result. So if a negative came back they could retest. Then it would be nearly impossible to get the wrong result in the end.
That would be how I would suggest solving that problem.
But yes "most cold hearted mofo that ever lived" is actually how have been described on numerous occasions. I can afford to make decisions based on anything except the numbers and facts based on my life experience.
So yes you are correct there. and I'm ok with it.
And for the record, because I probably never made this clear before, my name is Brian. Every time I see Ty, I think of my son and get all sorts of confused . . .
;-)
TY!!!!!!!!!!!
We are talking about should they make it mandatory!!! Like make a law requiring it! THAT IS THE WHOLE QUESTION!
TY i have absolutely no clue what you could possibly be talking about. My take is should it be law. I said yes.
So all of that you are talking about id inaccurate.
TY the entire discussion from the very start, the actual question is should it be made a law.
????????
?????????????????
???????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????
Not to be mean but evidently I am surely not in the same park as you because you aren't in line with the TITLE OF THE WHOLE POST!
Sorry for yelling. Dood no wonder you ain't gettin it.
I was only saying that it would be good if it was a law or made mandatory that nobody would be worse off because of it.
Thats all I ever was saying.
I guess I should or Shelle when she sent the questions should have been more clear as to the question.
It couldn't be mandatory if it wasn't law, or maybe I misinterpreted it somehow.
Sage,
You wrote: :"TY i have absolutely no clue what you could possibly be talking about. My take is should it be law. I said yes."
You've posted three comments since I posted my last one, and you've still not addressed this statement: "Despite all the places in the ongoing debate where you've given solid reasons for why paternity testing would be a helpful thing, you have not once (and please correct me if I'm wrong) shown that MANDATORY testing, forced upon every party involved in every birth that occurs, would be likewise helpful. Or even necessary."
Your position is clear. It should be mandatory. I'm not concerned with how such a law making it so would be implemented. I'm not concerned with the accuracy of the testing. I just want to know why you believe forcing this on everyone would be beneficial. Present us with some propositions that would be applicable and beneficial to EVERY couple who has a child, and we can go from there . . .
Sage, to piggyback on Tysdaddy's question, how would this law that you support be an improvement over the current system? If paternity is in question, there are ways, when necessary, to determine paternity.
To ensure paternity. Thats pretty much it. I know 3 people who were born to parents where the dad wasnt the dad and the one who thought he was the dad didn't know. These people are my age and didn't find out until they were grown.
I know 2 people who have been married and divorced, they stood shoulder to shoulder with their would be wives in trust because they didn't need a test. One of them is my cousin.
They would have all benefited greatly and the child would feel less like a bastard.
Actually my cousin was two of the people, his dad didn't know cuz wasn't his and cuz married the girl he had been living with for a couple of years because she was bred, and the kid isn't his, the kid was 15 when cuz found out.
Thats why.
If I didn't answer it with the reply to him let me know, I was writing that evidently when your reply came in.
I am not advocating doing it. The question is hypothetical. I am not organzing a march on DC over it. All I was saying is it would do good and I couldn't see ANY harm to anyone.
that was all.
Sage,
You wrote: "I am not advocating doing it."
What?! Here we are, at over 100 comments, and now you backpedal!?
;-)
You should have put a bit more thought into your opening lines, my friend.
The situations you mentioned. Bad deals all around. A bit more detail would be helpful, though. What brought about the revelations? Were there questions raised late in their lives that led to the tests? Were these "bastards" raised in homes where they were mistreated or abused by men they thought, dads who themselves thought, were their real dads? In each case, if the mom had known who the real daddy was, would that have changed their lives dramatically? It's all hindsight now, but I'm just curious. Give details as you feel led, but I think they would be telling.
And, to reiterate something that I might have mentioned only vaguely before, these situations like the ones you mention are, dare I say, not the norm. I have no statistics to back up such a claim, so perhaps I'm just being hopeful.
On a side note, when you do find something to march for, let me know. If it's something we agree on, then I'll be there, glad you have my back . . .
Several people have pointed out several ways people would be harmed by such a law. But if you insist on being deliberately, obtuse, I'll be happy to sum up for you, again:
1) People like Brian and his wife would be harmed.
Under your law, the government would force them to participate in a medical procedure that they do not want or need. That is an invasion of their privacy by their government. It has long been the legal precedent of this country that the government should never violate the privacy rights of it's citizens without a compelling reason to to do. You have not presented a reason that any court would consider compelling (based on legal precedent) for inflicting this harm on it's citizens. We are harmed when our right to choose and our right to privacy are violated. And that's what this law would do: It would take away your right to choose and your right to keep the government out of your sex life.
2) Taxpayers are harmed.
Mandating paternity tests would create an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers. As has been pointed out numerous times today, OPTIONAL paternity tests are already available. If the parties involved want a test, they can have one. If they don't, then one is not necessary and would therefore be a waste of my tax dollars.
I feel sorry for the people who are involved in cases of false or mistaken paternity.
But, the cold, hard truth of the matter is that THEIR choices and decisions are not MY problem. And they are not the problem of the government, either. They are PERSONAL problems.
Just because THEY have personal problems does not mean that EVERYONE should a) have their privacy invaded and b) have their pocketbooks raided to pay for unnecessary medical tests.
Basically, what you are advocating is analogous to this logic ...
*
Some people are overweight. Being overweight is unhealthy. So, we are going to make a law that everyone must particpate in a government-mandated diet and exercise program.
Well, hey, that sounds like good logic, right? SOME people ARE unhealthily overweight. So SOME people will benefit from this! Therefore, EVERYONE should be forced to do it!
And if you already eat a healthy diet, well, then it's no big deal right? And if you don't want to eat the government meals, well, you must be one of those unhealthy, overweight people and so the government needs to "fix" your personal life for you.
And, hey this is IMPORTANT! People's lives are at risk here!
So, while we are at it, let's also ban tobacco and alcohol and extra-marital sex and caffeine and sugar and make some laws about how much sleep you should get and how much time you should spend on the internet and how your should spend your money and how your should parent.
Because SOME people just don't make good decisions. Ergo: The government should make those decisions for ALL of us.
*
Yes. I am exaggerating to make a point.
But, cheeseits, how can anyone who claims to prefer "small government" possibly think that a law like this could ever be a good idea?
Wow there are a ton of comments on here, I think the most yet! I totally disagree that paternity testing should be mandatory. I would feel so betrayed if someone told me that I HAD to have a paternity test. I think it's a complete violation of trust there.
Sage, I'm not going to weigh in on if I think paternity testing should be mandatory or not, but your thinking on this subject seems to go against everything you write on your blog.
You wrote, "See the federal government is supposed to be small. Very small. Almost running only the military."
I suppose you could by the "liberal way" somehow fix this to the military because hey, some of this bastard children might grow up and join the military. We would need to know where to send the flag if something happened in combat, right? I mean, you wouldn't want to send the flag to the WRONG parents, would you?
Lol. I followed from your other blog and you have made my day. Are you just better at arguing or are you that much smarter than everyone else? It seems in this post and in political posts you leave gaps and openings in your arguments to trap the people when they disagree. I do not know why they can't see this, they fall into the trap everytime and leave there looking foolish. I think you do it for fun or to keep proving you are smarter than they are. You have changed many of my political views and caused me to think about issues before I react. I do not agree with you here because of cost(is that not a Sage like position?) but in theory it would be a huge plus. You are the most ebtertaining writer on the interwebs.
Laughing in class ( and typing on my phone forgive errors)
Student
Anon student.... Entertaining? Yes. Willing to play devil's advocate? Check. Intelligent? Yes. Smarter than EVERYONE else? Ummm, no.
I don't really understand Sage. He says that everyone should be 100% for personal responsibility. Isn't it the man's responsibility not to impregnate anyone whom he feels has the risk of forcing him to pay for 18 years for a child that may not be his? It seems like all Sage is doing is insuring men against this risk, (ie, shifting the risk from the individual man to society at large) forcing society to pay for that insurance.
I think that Sage's belief's are badly misguided. I have read his posts in the past, and this post is consistent with his emotionally-charged writings. I appreciate the well-reasoned and logical posts from ASM, Hubman, Shelle, etc, but not these hysterical posts.
I have never met a man who was concerned that he was paying child support for a child that wasn't his. I wonder how wide-spread this problem is. I think it has a lot to do with the type of men that I interact with, and their understanding of personal responsibility where their bodily fluids are concerned(which is different than Sage's).
Brian,
That is correct I am not advocating doing it. I said it would hard nobody (people wittle feelings aside).
I never backpedal unless proved wrong which surly has not happened here. No harm comes to anyone, which of course means only upside, therefor I have been correct from the jump.
No need to put more thought into it, even with, by your assessment evidently, a poorly thought post I still have NOT 1, feelings aside for the weak, harmful reason not to do it.
I didn't put the last nail in with post because it would have stifled debate, but yes I have the ace. I always have the ace.
I don't march either, the only thing I have found march worthy in my lifetime is military support and the TEA party marches. I will gather but I refuse to march.
Zen: I am glad you have been able to sidestep my obtuseness and hurdle my well feigned naivete. And I appreciate you playing along, I do.
Wh would Brian be harmed? Would he die? Could he be crippled for life? Could he left without food or shelter? Could he be held back? Tell me what harm could come to him. Brian is certainly smart enough not to harmed by hurt feelings, correct?
Why would the taxpayers be harmed? I don't understand?! Did the taxpayers pay for you to ave kids? They didn't pay for mine?? Could they have? Did I miss out?
Who's choices are you talking about? The Dad, who is the crux of this whole debate, only chose to love and trust a woman. His choice was bad? We could be at agreement there, so please let me know.
Nope the person who is overweight chose that path, the dad didn't choose for his wife, who he would surely stand shoulder to shoulder with in love and trust, to be on her all fous in an ally yelling give it to big daddy with a bouncer from club X. So no he didn't choose.
People choose all the the things you fallaciously choose to compare.
The kids stand above the size of the government. If it is best for the kids then I can back it. How can y'all hate the little children so?
Pretty good points actually but you haven't addressed the issues and you haven't shown hard to anyone, outside of wittle feelings.
Ad I'm fat and I by god might march against the diet ban thing, you with me Brian?
TBET: but if it was law would it harm someone, again outside of someones wittle feelings?
Could it be a positive?
Could it be a net gain?
April: yeah anything figured in liberal speak could be anyway they want it!! But you can't use liberal/dem and the military holding hands. That would fly in the face of each.
student:
any way I can make your day is a good thing. You show traits of being intelligent, you give points when they are well made and can still disagree, outside of financial.
You can always find that people are of a simple mind when in a complex situation like this they can never find any good in the debate. every debater knows this.
Now listen to your teacher and be sure not to be educated outside of your intelligence, that is rampant today.
Anon #47
please sign your anons for me like "Student" did. That way we can keep your thoughts in line.
I do not think I am smarter than everyone, hell i am less educated than everyone here I suppose.
Anon#68
is anyone seeing a theme here? The anon with a well thought, even though they didn't agree with me, post followed instructions. The others didn't. Hmmmmmmm
But here we go.
Yes @ 100% PR
Sugar tit, had you been following the thread and were equipped with reading skills of an elementary schooler, we are talking about the supposed dad not some guy spreading his seminal fluids. How could the man possibly know? and how could the kid who might have some right to know who his sperm donor is or is not.
I suspect you do since evidently you haven't read the post, or at least didn't comprehend the simple language I intentionally used so it would be universally understood by anyone with basic grasp on the English language.
Sweet lips if my post is so hysterical how is it then possible for you nor anyone else be able to show real damages?
Why?
Hmmm seems the hysterics are coming from elsewhere.
What is my understand of where my bodily fluids are?
Since you are evidently a mind reader please let me know.
I will wait for your well reasoned, non hysterical response.
Folks I'll be here till y'all come up with real damages and harm to anyone involved. No need for lengthy explainations you can start with :
I will be hurt
She will be hurt
The newborn will be hurt
Then we can go from there.
;-)
So the obvious Constitutional issues that have been raised here and on Veronica's post today are of no concern to you? Frankly, considering all of your political writings, that surprises me the most.
Answer this question- what is wrong with the current system? If there is any doubt as to the paternity of the child, either on the "dad's" part or the mothers, it can be determined, no law required.
So again, WHY pass a law that raises obvious Constitutional issues?
I guess I should have written the question better at the top or something. This has gotten so twisted from where I started.
My response in the initial post was to my interpretation to the question. That being " If paternity testing were mandatory would that be good or bad"
I went on the assumption that is was law. That was where I was coming from. It was already law, would it be a net gain or a net loss.
Maybe thats why it seems so elementary and obvious to me and not so to others.
Here via Hubman's blog. I'm sorry if I'm repeating something that's already been said.
I have questions:
If the government can make THIS test mandatory, regardless of the desires of the parties involved, will this then create the opportunity for the government to make additional medical tests and procedures mandatory?
And if it does, where is the limit and who gets to decide that limit?
MR: I'd surely be agin it myself. But if it was a law I don't see the downside to THIS PARTICULAR test. Upside only, outside of cost incurred.
Potential damages. My husband and I have a baby. We have a paternity test and the test shows that he is not the father.
He flies into a rage and kills me over this.
Now the mom is dead, the dad is in jail and the innocent baby is where....
Sage,
Your second-to-last comment cleared up a bunch of confusion, and I'm wondering why you didn't just say all that way back in the beginning. Perhaps you did mention the fact that you were arguing a hypothetical and I just missed it. If that's the case, then my apologies.
If tomorrow, the federal government - following a lengthy period of debate in which the reasons for making paternity testing mandatory were spelled out and found acceptable - decided to take such a course of action, then I imagine people would fall into line or pay the consequences, as we do under any current legislation.
Would harm be done?
As ASM has said, there are certainly instances where such a system and the potential for errors could lead to very serious harm. However,those cases would probably be relatively few in number, and there are already laws in the books that can be used to prosecute those who perform such monstrous acts. People do stupid shit, people get hurt, and with diligence on the part of the authorities, someone will pay.
If such a situation were law, then all this arguing about whether it should exist or not would be moot. Of course we could still argue, as new administrations have been elected and laws have been overturned before, but in the case of this particular discussion, it would be with the benefit of hindsight.
Hindsight we thankfully don't have at present.
It also would have been convenient if you had said, again from the beginning, that you don't advocate mandatory paternity testing. But that wouldn't have led to all this . . .
I tip my hat to you sir. You know how to stir the pot. Had you shared with us the original question from the beginning, as you did in the comment I referenced above ("If paternity testing were mandatory would that be good or bad?"), then much confusion could have been avoided. Also avoided would have been probably 100 or so comments and all the hits the site got as a result. And numbers rock, no?
This was much fun . . .
Well it took 121 comments but wee FINALLY have a winner!!!!!! The only downside I could figure out without a solution would be the false negative and enraged husband. So ASM gets the cookie.
It was pulling teeth to get here but it was worth it. I knew in the bottom of the hole where my heart should be someone eventually would look at the situation with some common sense and see thee was one bad result.
Whewwwwwwwwwwwwww
whewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
The fix to this is fairly easy but I didn't see when I wrote the post a month ago.
The fix is to take enough saliva for 2-3-4-5 tests when you take it initially, the odds of a false negative that many times would be equal to the chances that ASM will play in NFL or that I would be a cheerleader in a skirt for the team she played for.
I had no idea it would be misread. I will be way more clear next time.
Every question is hypothetical. I took the question as meaning if it were mandatory would it be a net gain or a net loss.
Sage,
You . . . in a skirt. Thanks for that mental image that I'll never be able to erase!
;-)
Post a Comment