Study shows 50% of women would lie about the paternity of their child...
Scroll to see replies
DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves…Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them. The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not… Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter…in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
Reproductive rights so as? The only thing I've seen your camp of crazies ever suggest is for the father to completely be able to disown the child and have no financial commitment to it. Those aren't reproductive rights, you've reproduced, that parts done, genius. 
Why is that crazy? If women get pregnant they can choose whether or not they have the child, or failing that they can have it adopted. Men are just expected to go along with whatever she chooses. While obviously men shouldn't be able to force women to have an abortion (or not to) I don't see why they should be obliged to support her decision if they don't agree with it. If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby, good for her but she shouldn't expect the man to fund that decision.
Especially in the case of women lying about or sabotaging birth control. I highly doubt it is as common as the article says, but if a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant then he should have no obligation to her at all. That is just emotional blackmail of the worst kind.
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
Why should support of a child you made be optional for anyone? Who's going to support the child? 
Mandatory paternity tests right after birth? You know the dna stays the same right? And what about a couple who actually trusts each other, why would they need that?
Mandatory paternity tests right after birth? You know the dna stays the same right?
And what about a couple who actually trusts each other, why would they need that?Just because the couple may trust each other doesn't mean father hasn't been deceived.
Original post by lucaf
Why is that crazy?
Why is it crazy that a man can just choose not to support a child he made at his own whim? Erm perhaps because that would cause even more poverty, and neither parent should be allowed to just not support their child, having all the weight of this person they created just fall on one half of the people responsible shoulders. Duh.
This would effect society greatly, causing a need of much more government help and promoting lack of responsibility for men. You can't say men have no reproductive rights, when the only right you want is to act like the born child doesn't even exist for whatever reason you chose, wtf is that? Women don't have that right either, if a man takes care of the baby once born he can ask for financial support too. If women get pregnant they can choose whether or not they have the child,
Not everywhere, but yes here they can choose, but for some it isn't an option because of their beliefs.
or failing that they can have it adopted.
Adoption requires both parents agreement.
Men are just expected to go along with whatever she chooses.
Because of autonomy. Again, DUH.
While obviously men shouldn't be able to force women to have an abortion (or not to) I don't see why they should be obliged to support her decision if they don't agree with it.
They don't have to support it emotionally. But if they make a child you can't understand why either parent should support it financially?
If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby, good for her but she shouldn't expect the man to fund that decision.
Fund that person that was born in to the world and society and they made.
Especially in the case of women lying about or sabotaging birth control.
Those cases are so rare I have no idea what their relevance has. Again:
14% of surveyed young mothers reported undergoing birth control sabotage.[9] A separate study found that 66% of teen mothers on public assistance who had recently experienced intimate partner violence disclosed birth control sabotage by a dating partner. When women did try to negotiate condom use with their abusive partners, 32% said they were verbally threatened, 21% reported physical abuse, and 14% said their partners threatened abandonment.[10]
Gender and sexual power dynamics and coercion associated with sexual power dynamics are both linked to condom nonuse.[11] Studies also link condom nonuse to patriarchal attitudes and intimate partner violence.[12] Even women with high STI knowledge are more likely to use condoms inconsistently than women with low STI knowledge when there is a high level of fear for abuse.[10]
The most common forms of birth control sabotage are when the partner refused to wear a condom and when the partner ejaculated before withdrawal, although it was the agreed-upon contraceptive method.[13]
In Canada, a man was convicted of sexual assault for poking holes in his girlfriend's condoms. She expressed that she did not want to become pregnant, and when she did, he confessed to the birth control sabotage.[14]
I highly doubt it is as common as the article says, but if a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant then he should have no obligation to her at all.
It isn't an obligation to her, you don't think any father should ever have any obligation regardless of the rarity of a woman tricky a man any way though.
(edited 9 years ago)
lol @ Miss Ann Dairy. Great name.
Paternity tests for all, I say.
Paternity tests for all, I say.
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
Reproductive rights so as? The only thing I've seen your camp of crazies ever suggest is for the father to completely be able to disown the child and have no financial commitment to it. Those aren't reproductive rights, you've reproduced, that parts done, genius.
The baby itself? Such as? They are protection against late term abortions.
And you should have any control over another persons body why exactly?
Not to mention abortion isn't an option for every woman and her beliefs.
I was clearly talking about the recourse for a woman in that scenario, at least try to keep up. Where's the recourse for a pro life woman who's partner pierces his own condoms, huh? HUH!? Why are your cries about that?
14% of surveyed young mothers reported undergoing birth control sabotage.[9] A separate study found that 66% of teen mothers on public assistance who had recently experienced intimate partner violence disclosed birth control sabotage by a dating partner. When women did try to negotiate condom use with their abusive partners, 32% said they were verbally threatened, 21% reported physical abuse, and 14% said their partners threatened abandonment.[10]
Gender and sexual power dynamics and coercion associated with sexual power dynamics are both linked to condom nonuse.[11] Studies also link condom nonuse to patriarchal attitudes and intimate partner violence.[12] Even women with high STI knowledge are more likely to use condoms inconsistently than women with low STI knowledge when there is a high level of fear for abuse.[10]
The most common forms of birth control sabotage are when the partner refused to wear a condom and when the partner ejaculated before withdrawal, although it was the agreed-upon contraceptive method.[13]
In Canada, a man was convicted of sexual assault for poking holes in his girlfriend's condoms. She expressed that she did not want to become pregnant, and when she did, he confessed to the birth control sabotage.[14]
You're tired, you're whole men are oppressed feminazi's are coming routine, is beyond boring now. Just take several seats and get a life dude.
The baby itself? Such as? They are protection against late term abortions.
And you should have any control over another persons body why exactly?
Not to mention abortion isn't an option for every woman and her beliefs.
I was clearly talking about the recourse for a woman in that scenario, at least try to keep up. Where's the recourse for a pro life woman who's partner pierces his own condoms, huh? HUH!? Why are your cries about that?
14% of surveyed young mothers reported undergoing birth control sabotage.[9] A separate study found that 66% of teen mothers on public assistance who had recently experienced intimate partner violence disclosed birth control sabotage by a dating partner. When women did try to negotiate condom use with their abusive partners, 32% said they were verbally threatened, 21% reported physical abuse, and 14% said their partners threatened abandonment.[10]
Gender and sexual power dynamics and coercion associated with sexual power dynamics are both linked to condom nonuse.[11] Studies also link condom nonuse to patriarchal attitudes and intimate partner violence.[12] Even women with high STI knowledge are more likely to use condoms inconsistently than women with low STI knowledge when there is a high level of fear for abuse.[10]
The most common forms of birth control sabotage are when the partner refused to wear a condom and when the partner ejaculated before withdrawal, although it was the agreed-upon contraceptive method.[13]
In Canada, a man was convicted of sexual assault for poking holes in his girlfriend's condoms. She expressed that she did not want to become pregnant, and when she did, he confessed to the birth control sabotage.[14]
You're tired, you're whole men are oppressed feminazi's are coming routine, is beyond boring now. Just take several seats and get a life dude.
In this country, we have freedom of religion and beliefs. Therefore it is incorrect to say that a woman is forced to carry a baby to term because of her beliefs, when she is the one that chooses to have those beliefs.
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
Why should support of a child you made be optional for anyone? Who's going to support the child?
Mandatory paternity tests right after birth? You know the dna stays the same right? And what about a couple who actually trusts each other, why would they need that?
Mandatory paternity tests right after birth? You know the dna stays the same right?
And what about a couple who actually trusts each other, why would they need that?Why do they need to put each other's names on the birth certificate? Sometimes the law seeks, rightly or wrongly, to protect people from themselves and not just each other, this wouldn't be a significant extension of that.
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Just because the couple may trust each other doesn't mean father hasn't been deceived.
And that's so common that it requires mandatory testing right after birth?
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
And that's so common that it requires mandatory testing right after birth?
Good question. Perhaps we should test the first 50,000 births and determine how common it is? That will settle it once and for all. I'm sure feminists would be against this because it will reveal a truth they wish to conceal.
Original post by Le Nombre
Why do they need to put each other's names on the birth certificate?
Tell me.
Sometimes the law seeks, rightly or wrongly, to protect people from themselves and not just each other, this wouldn't be a significant extension of that.
How common is it that it would justify mandatory testing to everyone? No, your lunatic paranoia of goldigging, lying feminazi's tricking you for child support don't need to be mandated to every couple, sorry.
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Good question. Perhaps we should test the first 50,000 births and determine how common it is? That will settle it once and for all. I'm sure feminists would be against this because it will reveal a truth they wish to conceal.
Because any woman who lies is automatically an identifying feminist right?
Yeah, there's a grand conspiracy that us feminists don't want men knowing that we're all evil lying cheaters, you sure got us. Damn!
I would be against this because it is accusatory based on nothing. Maybe you provide evidence for it being so common that this action would be deemed remotely helpful.
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
Tell me.
How common is it that it would justify mandatory testing to everyone? No, your lunatic paranoia of goldigging, lying feminazi's tricking you for child support don't need to be mandated to every couple, sorry.
How common is it that it would justify mandatory testing to everyone? No, your lunatic paranoia of goldigging, lying feminazi's tricking you for child support don't need to be mandated to every couple, sorry.
I didn't say it's a good idea, I think ss. 26 and 27 do the job fine when you need a test, but to say that it's a ludicrous extension of state power to protect us from ourselves is untrue given the many ways in which this happens in our lives anyway.
If someone tried to trick me for CSA I'd just sue them for defamation and then for bankruptcy, it's easy to be vindictive when you know how.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
Because any woman who lies is automatically an identifying feminist right?
Yeah, there's a grand conspiracy that us feminists don't want men knowing that we're all evil lying cheaters, you sure got us. Damn!
I would be against this because it is accusatory based on nothing. Maybe you provide evidence for it being so common that this action would be deemed remotely helpful.
Yeah, there's a grand conspiracy that us feminists don't want men knowing that we're all evil lying cheaters, you sure got us. Damn!
I would be against this because it is accusatory based on nothing. Maybe you provide evidence for it being so common that this action would be deemed remotely helpful.
Your first sentence just makes no logical sense. I didn't say or imply that the women who cheated were feminists.
Don't think of the study as accusatory, think of the study as being done to prove that there is a low prevalence of lying women.
The study is to prove those males wrong, not to highlight the number of lying females.
Such a study is important for settling once and for all whether or not false paternity is a real issue. If it isn't a real issue, then men can stop worrying over it. If it is a real issue, then we should introduce mandatory testing.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
The most common forms of birth control sabotage are when the partner refused to wear a condom and when the partner ejaculated before withdrawal, although it was the agreed-upon contraceptive method.
Dat heat of the moment tho
.So what ? She can take the morning after pill, abort it, give it up for adoption... women have infinite choices before and after the guy dispatches his soldiers.
Even if it's a survey of readers of That's Life magazine, that's really shocking. I believe I read it's something like 1 in 25 fathers unknowingly raise another man's child.
For any man that has to pay child support, I think paternity tests ought to be mandatory. If we're going to demand he pay for the consequences of his actions, there's an onus on us to be sure he actually was the person responsible. Though I'm not particularly of the opinion that forcing people to pay child support is a moral policy.
Contraception can and does go wrong, and when it does the man has absolutely no say in the outcome. We can't expect men who do not want children to be celibate, so it seems we are asking people to pay thousands for circumstances which were beyond their control. It seems better to me that a baby ought to be supported by society as a whole, given that we cannot prevent people who cannot afford babies from having them.
It's not a very nice solution but it seems a little fairer to me than the current situation.
For any man that has to pay child support, I think paternity tests ought to be mandatory. If we're going to demand he pay for the consequences of his actions, there's an onus on us to be sure he actually was the person responsible. Though I'm not particularly of the opinion that forcing people to pay child support is a moral policy.
Contraception can and does go wrong, and when it does the man has absolutely no say in the outcome. We can't expect men who do not want children to be celibate, so it seems we are asking people to pay thousands for circumstances which were beyond their control. It seems better to me that a baby ought to be supported by society as a whole, given that we cannot prevent people who cannot afford babies from having them.
It's not a very nice solution but it seems a little fairer to me than the current situation.
Original post by Le Nombre
but to say that it's a ludicrous extension of state power to protect us from ourselves is untrue given the many ways in which this happens in our lives anyway.
In what ways? Should std testing be mandatory then? Is it? NOPE. I said it doesn't need to mandated when neither parent requires it. That is perfectly reasonable short of you being able to proof this is an epidemic.
The government protecting people in some instances doesn't justify anything else by simple extension irrelevant of context.
If someone tried to trick me for CSA I'd just sue them for defamation and then for bankruptcy, it's easy to be vindictive when you know how.
Glad to know you're prepared, for such a looming threat.
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
How common is it that it would justify mandatory testing to everyone?
It's impossible to know, that's why we need the tests
Original post by Miss Ann Dairy
In what ways? Should std testing be mandatory then? Is it? NOPE. I said it doesn't need to mandated when neither parent requires it. That is perfectly reasonable short of you being able to proof this is an epidemic.
The government protecting people in some instances doesn't justify anything else by simple extension irrelevant of context.
Glad to know you're prepared, for such a looming threat.
The government protecting people in some instances doesn't justify anything else by simple extension irrelevant of context.
Glad to know you're prepared, for such a looming threat.
Yes, because everything the government mandatorily innoculates and test for is at epidemic levels. Like I said ss. 26 and 27 are fine and work, but mandatory testing would not be out of sync with current British attitudes towards the role of government.
Yes, my entire career has been predicated around that, I've also been assiduously preparing for the time in the future when I need to conduct an international M&A deal as part of my private life. I'm a lawyer, you learn stuff like that, it's kind of the nature of the job to know the law.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 5 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 10 minutes ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadLast reply 10 minutes ago
Airbus degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 12 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 29 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawTrending
Last reply 16 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 16 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
