DNA tests, an anti-feminist appliance of science

[Anonymous No.2052334]

http://newstaging.spectator.widearea.co.uk/print/the-magazine/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy.thtml

>For the entire course of human history, men have nursed profound, troubling doubts about the fundamental question of whether or not they were fathers to their own children; women, by contrast, usually enjoyed a reasonable level of certainty about the matter.
>Now, a cotton-wool swab with a bit of saliva, plus a small fee, less than £200, can settle the matter. At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers.
>Now I can see that some men might rather welcome an end to the old-fashioned scenario whereby they find themselves held to account for the paternity of children born to girls with whom they just happen to have had sex. The actor Jude Law recently found himself in just this position, and unhesitatingly and ungallantly demanded a DNA test.
>By contrast, the old situation, in which women presented men with a child, and the man either did the decent thing and offered support, or made a run for it, allowed women a certain leeway. The courtesan in Balzac who, on becoming pregnant, unhesitatingly sought, and got, maintenance from two of her men friends, can’t have been the only one. Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them.
>Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations, but at God knows what cost in misery, recrimination and guilt.

Say, /sci/, what is your take on this?

[Anonymous No.2052339]

>implying any of us have sex... let alone concerned with this

[Anonymous No.2052352]

>>2052334
Fuck yes.
Beta as fuck, but I still stand by my alpha bros when I say they shouldn't be guilted or tricked into taking care of children that aren't theirs by women that are just plain cunts.

[Anonymous No.2052373]

>>2052334
cumdumpster here
this is full of shit, it preports that women no longer being able to hold innocent men accountable for someone else's baby is immoral, gives no reasoning for this (not even a religious one) and makes the assertion that the woman somehow knows which ones which any less than the man does (bullshit), furthermore, we do support children, our society is moral enough to help give state support to father or motherless children entirely besides the 'money from the other parent', whos name escapes me. Mothers who are unable to financially support their children are not an issue any more, the only people who sell children these days are for things they don't need, not for bread.

all in all this isn't sci. but its certainly dumb that OP could ignore evidence like that and need our help to identify that this is BS

[Anonymous No.2052376]

>>2052352
i think this person must have found this bullshit so horrible he deluded himself into thinking it said the opposite of what it meant

[Anonymous No.2052381]

>>2052373
Bullshit.
I'm sure you've heard of men being tricked into taking care of fucking children that aren't theirs, but were told it is by a woman that knows it IS in fact not his. He wasn't the first man to have this happen to him. I assure you he won't be the last either.

[Anonymous No.2052384]

>>2052381
nevermind, hes just a retard,. I'll leave him to his mental disease. something that can cause that much derp is probably a brain tumor.

[Anonymous No.2052387]

How can bitches say that it is good to be able to bribe men into paying money when they ought not and that unveiling the truth is vile and sad, all the while retaining a straight face and composed writing, is beyond me.

Pic related, it's the dumb cunt who wrote this.

[Anonymous No.2052388]

>>2052384
wat

[xfag No.2052392]

It doesn't matter what I think about this as a person.

I have never heard of a case where a newborn has not been said to "look like his father".

[Anonymous No.2052402]

On the subject of paying for children, here's the thing: Justice isn't the objective here. The man's welfare literally is not the most important thing in the situation.

The court that decides these things really has only one thing in mind: What's best for the child. So when the court tells you to pay for it, it's not saying "You need to be punished because you are the one who impregnated this woman", it's saying "We don't even give a fuck, the kid needs more money and you seem to be standing close by."

That's the imporant thing. The man and the woman? They don't actually matter, and neither do their actions. All that matters is what's best for the child.

Which is why, coincidentally, even having a DNA test prove you're not the genetic father of the child is sometimes not enough to get you out of paying for it, because the court frankly doesn't give a fuck about that.

You might whine and say that's not fair, and yeah, it's not. But quit being a whiny dick and realize it's not all about you.

[Anonymous No.2052405]

>>2052402
You are not paying your own bills.

[Anonymous No.2052415]

>>2052405
Er...what?

[Anonymous No.2052419]

>>2052402
its not his child, its not his responsability, they can fucking pay for it if they think too fucking bad the kid needs money, fucking aristocracy niggers, if a guy dumps his load in me and doesnt knock me up and i go get knocked up, he shouldnt have to pay, i can already get money from the state, for free. seems less about your bullshit and more about keeping the state from having to pay up

[снайпер No.2052427]

>>2052402
Of course it just so happens that what seems to always be in the child's best interest is to be with their mother, never their father.

And the mother reaps the benefits of child support, with no laws or regulations on what she can spend that money on.

And many women know this, and game the system to intentionally earn themselves extra money via child support.

Men aren't the only ones who can be assholes.

[Anonymous No.2052424]

>>2052373
>that the woman somehow knows which ones which any less than the man does
Probably one of the many they have been fucking?
Have sex with less people -> know paternity of baby

[Anonymous No.2052421]

I think that there should be a paternity test before you can put a guy on the birth certificate. And the guy must be on the birth certificate before he can be compelled to pay child support.

If a man who is not the biological father wants to support a child, that is his prerogative, but he is never to be compelled.

[Anonymous No.2052429]

>>2052415
I assume that anon is either still attending school or going to a university, since such a detached stance seems to be linked to not having to work in order to maintain your lifestyle and choices to me.

It's more of a gut feeling, since my heuristic library relating to men and money knows of no man sucking it up.

[Anonymous No.2052435]

>relieved any number of men of their moral obligations
The moral obligation to raise someone else's child? Christ in hell.

[Anonymous No.2052442]

>>2052429
Oh please. Stop trying to sucker the anon into arguing with emotion instead of his intellect.

[Anonymous No.2052453]

>>2052419
I don't deny that it's not his responsibility, I'm saying that "responsibility" isn't even an issue. You seem to think that having to pay for a child is a punishment for the man, which is of course unjust since he didn't do the "crime".

BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MAN.

>>2052427
You make very good points, and those are all issues that ought to be fixed. There is an undeniable bias in favor of women when it comes to awarding custodianship, but the fact is that going "LOL, DON'T GIVE THE SLUT ANYTHING" just hurts the child.

Instead, there should be more regulation checking HOW the money supposedly to be used for the child's benefit is actually used. I think the best way to set up the system is that the parent supporting the child from afar makes regular deposits onto a special bank account, which can only be accessed via a credit card, which the person raising the child has.

The person raising the child can use the credit card to purchase anything they want - the catch is that all transactions will be recorded, of course, so there exists a documentation of every purchase.

>socialism pedotodd

Captcha, what are you trying to say?

[Anonymous No.2052463]

Situation:

Science develops a method whereby a man can take the ovum from a woman he is sleeping with, and, surreptitiously place the fertilised zygote of his and this woman into the womb of another woman, without her knowledge. So she could, conceivably, give birth to a child that is her partners and his mistresses.

Should we allow elective maternity testing after the birth of the child?

[Anonymous No.2052465]

>>2052429
Regardless of whether or not this is true, does it have any impact on the validity of the argument?

As it happens, I don't currently have a stable job, I make money by giving math and physics instructions to highschool kids. Does that suddenly make something I said more true? Less true?

[Anonymous No.2052471]

>>2052463
Sweet Jesus, this would be the ultimate Fuck You to whores.

[Anonymous No.2052472]

>>2052463
Shit, son. We don't even have a NAME for how fucked up that crime is.

[Anonymous No.2052473]

>>2052465
You could have just said he was employing an ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.2052479]

>>2052453

But the man in question is nothing to this child. He is simply the man who was either; cheated on by the mother, or; who dated the mother after the child was born. It may well hurt the child if he is not forced to pay for it, but it is the mother who is at fault here, the mother who is responsible.

If it's his kid, then he should pay. If it's not his kid, he shouldn't. End of.

[Anonymous No.2052480]

>>2052473
Yes, but would he have understood what I was trying to say? A lot of people seem to think that if you don't explicitly call say "yes but you're a faggot so you're wrong", it's not an ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.2052484]

>>2052472

That is the exact same as a man raising a child that is not his. And yes, I agree, it is unbelievably fucked up.

[Anonymous No.2052486]

[снайпер No.2052485]

>>2052453
I honestly think it is completely disingenuous to be saying that not having child support hurts the child. Sounds more like the typical appeal to emotion to me.

Anyways, there's already a system in place to make sure that if you can't support yourself, the state can do it for you, and the process takes into consideration how many children you have.

It is much simpler than forcing men to pay for childcare. The current system promotes selfish behaviour by women to trick men.

Child support isn't about supporting the child. What this *really* boils down to is greed.

[Anonymous No.2052490]

>>2052479
As I've noted before, responsibility is not what's under question. If the child wasn't a real person, so it was just a question of who the court slaps down like a bitch, you would have a very good point.

But the child is a very real person indeed, a very real and vulnerable one. And the child's interests (to have everything it needs to grow up as a responsible productive adult) outweigh the interests of the man, or the woman.

What I'm trying to tell you is that your reasoning isn't wrong. Your premise is.

[Anonymous No.2052494]

>>2052486

There is no need for vasectomy traps. Just have universal, compulsory paternity testing at birth, with the results freely available to both parents without requiring the notification or consent of the other.

Halt child support to any mothers when the man in question is not the father. Mothers must repay the man in question after the child hits 18.

[Anonymous No.2052499]

>BAAAWWW! can't have the best of both worlds anymore, humping the alphas and having the betas serve my children, BAAAWWW!
women are pathetic

[снайпер No.2052503]

>>2052490
>And the child's interests (to have everything it needs to grow up as a responsible productive adult) outweigh the interests of the man, or the woman.

1. The end result is a net benefit to the woman and the child, but almost never a net benefit to the man.

2. I completely disagree that the child is more important than the two parents. If this is so, then why don't we just stick all children in a creche and have them raised communally by a state supported system that can ensure with no reasonable doubt that each and every child is being raised effectively and properly?

THAT would be best for the children.

[Anonymous No.2052508]

>>2052490

What is to stop, for example, the mother requesting that the neighbours must pay for the raising of the child? Or her sister? Or some guy she's friend with at work?

Responsibility IS an issue here, or else we would do away with specific child support from specific men, and just have a general tax that provides for the child support in every case where it is required. The man is now responsible for raising this child because of his proximity to the birth, nothing more.

Are we arguing about how it is or how it ought to be? I know that men who are not the father are currently required to pay child support, for various reasons. I am saying this is unfair and inappropriate.

[Anonymous No.2052510]

>>2052490
Not that guy, but if such is the urgency for the child to be sustained, then either the sole custode or the state itself should pay. The way it is now they are just hurting a productive member of society to "help" a future member of society, so in the end there is no net benefit.

[Anonymous No.2052512]

>>2052484
No, it's not, because it also involves impregnating a woman against her will, which is frowned upon in a lot of societies.

An equivalent would be if the man simply switched babies at the maternity hospital and gave the woman someone else's baby.

>>2052485
What system are you referring to? Making the child a ward of the state? I think you can agree that almost anything is more in the child's interest than to be sent to a fucking orphanage.

I don't think the problem of the abuse of this system is quite as widespread as you say, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored, I'm just saying that basing you law on the premise of BITCHES AND WHORES isn't a good idea either.

Instead, make the woman PROVE she's spending the money on the kid. If the man is paying her 1000$ a month, he should have the right to receive 1000$ worth of receipts demonstrating how that money was spent.

If it turns out it was spent on cereal, notebooks, junk food and toys, then it's probably being spent on the child. If it was spent on handbags, then...probably not.

[Anonymous No.2052522]

"A 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%), suggesting that the widely quoted and unsubstantiated figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate. However, in situations where disputed parentage was the reason for the paternity testing, there were higher levels; an incidence of 17% to 33% (median of 26.9%). Most at risk were those born to younger parents, to unmarried couples and those of lower socio-economic status, or from certain cultural groups"

[Anonymous No.2052527]

>>2052512

Okay, not exactly, but it's the same style of thing. The woman is not being made pregnant against her will, she is being impregnated by her partner. It is the same as if a man tries to impregnate a woman, only for her to become pregnant by another man. The first man thinks it's going according to plan, but in fact it isn't. This woman is being forced, without her knowledge and, if she had knowledge we can assume, against her will, to provide for a child that is not her own.

In both cases the main issue is that the partner is being willfully deceived into raising another man/womans child.

[Anonymous No.2052550]

>>2052490

your logic indicates that you would be totally understanding if the courts named YOU a universal supporter of babies, whereby you are to pay (in part) for the care of all babies in the country, despite the fact that you bear no relation to them.

Your logic indicates that should this clearly ridiculous sentence be passed upon you, you would say: I'm not going to complain, it's not about me, it's about all those babies who would be better off if I gave them money.

tbh: who gives a flying fuck about babies. I don't care if my support is the difference between the little shit starving to death and living like a millionaire, I don't want it coming out of my paycheck.

[Anonymous No.2052556]

>>2052503
The net benefit to either the man or woman is irrelevant so long as there IS a net benefit to the child.

The problem with becoming a ward of the state is that it produces fucked up individuals because caretakers of the state have a ton of children to look after, and thus can't devote very much time and attention to any one, and thus a lack of interaction with a parental figure combined with having to fight for attention creates truly fucked up people.

>>2052508
In point of fact, if the mother can demonstrate that she had a reasonable expectation that she would be supported by Person X, no matter who Person X is, she CAN sue for child support, regardless of her relationship to Person X.

[Anonymous No.2052570]

>>2052527
Oh, I get it. Woman A wants to become impregnated with the offspring of Woman A and Man B, but in reality she becomes impregnated by the offspring of Man B and Woman C.

>>2052550
Which is why the court doesn't give a flying fuck about what you want.

[Anonymous No.2052576]

>>2052556

I agree that this is how it is, that if the mother decides she wants support from a certain third party, she can try and make a case for it; I'm saying that only the biological father or mother should ever be compelled to support a child.

I know how it is, I'm arguing how it should be. And the rights of a child are not absolute, and the rights of the mother, or primary caregiver, are not tantamount to the rights of the child. The child has a right to be provided for, but this does not outweigh the rights of a stranger not to have to raise it.


Like I say, and I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this;

Compulsory, universal paternity testing at birth, available to both parents upon request.

[Anonymous No.2052580]

>>2052570

It doesn't honestly matter what they want. I would sooner move to Somalia than suffer the injustice of child support.
At least if someone tries to wrong me in Somalia I have a chance of killing him to make the problem disappear, even if I die trying.

[Anonymous No.2052618]

>>2052576
>Compulsory, universal paternity testing at birth, available to both parents upon request.

Sure, provided it was cheap enough. I'm not sure how much legal weight I'd give it, but I don't think you should have the right to CONCEAL the genetic heritage of your child.

I also think that an effort should be made to divorce the concept of "mother" from "primary caretaker", so that the father will stand a better chance of being awarded custody of the child in the event of a dispute.

I also agree that the rights of the child and the rights of the mother are not the same thing. I disagree that the rights of the child aren't absolute, but the rights of the mother also don't mean anything compared to the rights of the child.

Which is why my suggestion is that the mother loses the right to not be financially transparent for as long as she's raising the child with someone else's money. I think she SHOULD be awarded the money if a case exists at all that she expected to be supported, but after that day she can't buy a single goddamn stick of gum without documenting exactly how it was used for the child's benefit and not only her own.

And there should be pretty strict penalties for failing to demonstrate that you used the money you got for child support to support the child.

[Anonymous No.2052627]

>>2052618

Okay then, it seems we just disagree on a few points;

I say that only the biological parents should ever be compelled to support a child (but I do think they should ALWAYS be compelled to support the child).

I say that the rights of the child to be supported are not greater than the rights of a particular stranger to not have to support it (but I do accept that a general tax to provide some child support may be okay).

[Anonymous No.2052632]

>>2052334
This is what happens when society reward failures, they should just abolish alimony altogether so women will have to think before they fuck. If a woman doesn't know who is the father of her baby, society should just label her as a slut. tl:dr you dun goof'd

[Anonymous No.2052651]

>>2052632

Alimony is bullshit. Maybe it made sense at a time when women were not expected to be capable of having careers and husbands at the same time, but nowadays everyone is expected to be able to take care of themselves.

No alimony, divide up the assets based on who brought what into the marriage, the length of the marriage, and who earned what during the marriage, probably in that order of importance. Once the divorce is final, nobody owes anybody anything.

[Anonymous No.2052655]

>>2052627
I honestly don't care WHERE the money comes from. It probably would make more sense to just have everyone in society pitch in a little until there's enough money to raise the child. The whole reason the system is set up as it is now is expediency - the child's need exists now, so money has to be found now, and the quickest way to get it is to just point your judiciary hammer at someone and say YOU THERE, COUGH UP SOME DOUGH. It has all the expected flaws of a system that should have been a temporary solution, but then nobody bothered to make a permanent one.

>>2052632
I am extremely opposed to idiots like this, though. First of all, because I don't approve of slut-shaming, and second of all because it treats children as not real people, but rather human-shaped-but-not-actually-human moralistic punishments for the woman's sin.

[Anonymous No.2052684]

>>2052655
You're like the women in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E007Zu00a-Q&feature=rec-LGOUT-real_rn-1r-10-HM

[Anonymous No.2052699]

>>2052684
Yes, because if you want a honest and accurate portrayal of women or single mothers (or really anyone at all), Fox News should totally be your first stop, right?

NOTE: THE ABOVE IS SARCASM. FOX NEWS IS TERRIBLE. AT EVERYTHING.

[Anonymous No.2052749]

It's only legal with the conscent of the mother in my country. The government is afraid of paying too much welfare if all the sluts among mothers have to take care of themselves.

[Anonymous No.2052755]

>>2052684

>0:48
>Come ooooon!

ALL OF MY RAGE, ALL OF IT

[Anonymous No.2052772]

I think concealing the identity of a child's true father should be a criminal offence with stiff sentences simmilar to those handed out for rape.

The only reason it hasn't been historically is because up till now it's been difficult to prove.

[Anonymous No.2052801]

>I honestly don't care WHERE the money comes from. It probably would make more sense to just have everyone in society pitch in a little until there's enough money to raise the child. The whole reason the system is set up as it is now is expediency - the child's need exists now, so money has to be found now, and the quickest way to get it is to just point your judiciary hammer at someone and say YOU THERE, COUGH UP SOME DOUGH. It has all the expected flaws of a system that should have been a temporary solution, but then nobody bothered to make a permanent one.

In that case the child should be given to an orphanage and put up for adoption, raised by parents who is WILLING and ABLE to support the child.

Or some let the child support be some kind of loan from the unrelated "father" to the "mother", in which she will have to pay back in installments, that way the money won't be used on things unrelated to supporting the child, and the mother will be responsible for her own action (of getting pregnant).

[Diviner's No.2052802]

"When a female can raise a child without the assistance of the father, polygamy will surely evolve"-

This is where society is headed if we don't get our act together. By having state handouts for single mothers we create a situation where we actually encourage single motherhood. "State husbandry" it's starting to be called.
But if we scrap benifits for single mothers how will they survive?

What we need is for all men to have an automatic 50% responsibility to provide for any child that is his (unless relevant adoption papers have been signed). In return he will also get an automatic 50% right of access to the child (this might also make single mothers more hesitant about having children and it would certainly destroy the current trend of women initiating divorce as they have nothing to lose).

I also think with a "no fault" seeration/divorce the parent who is splitting up the family should be judged less favourably (if even only slightly so) in respect to child custody arrangements). Lots of people seem to have a problem with this but to me it only seems fair,

[Anonymous No.2052886]

>>2052802
i completely agree with you.

half my chromosomes? half my child.
none of my chromosomes? get off my doorstep, ho'.

"YOUR BODY"? you consented to the act. accept the consequence.

I also think women should be subject to compulsory hysterectomy after their second elective abortion, the same as men should be subject to compulsory orchiectomy if proven guilty of non-statutory rape in a court of law.
i call it the "you abuse it, you lose it" policy.

[Anonymous No.2052972]

>>2052699
Although I agree with you, watching him shoot down the shallow arguments coming from those women was just lulzy. I think the added sound effects weren't necessary though.

[Anonymous No.2053338]

>>2052802
Well, that would depend on the nature of the divorce. If the person divorced the other person because of wealth or happiness, I think this would be a pretty snazzy idea. If it was because the person who initiated the divorce was beating abused/raped/whatever, then the idea can fall short.

But if these were implied, then I would imagine false accusations of abuse in the relationship while divorce hearings were made going up.