I've heard France doesn't require them because they feel they harm the child, it's better that the dude gets butt fucked rather than find out and refuse service to the child.
I imagine US courts feel similarly about it, they just don't announce it as policy. Personally it seems to endanger the child to not have him aware of possible genetic issues, familial heritage, or possible family members.
My ghetto ass dad literally stole me away on a visit to get me tested, because he didn't trust my mom (correct decision). When it came back I was his, he described it as a huge weight off his shoulder and stopped any hesitation he had paying his child support or even being around.
Literally a walking example of how they can benefit the child themselves, and the woman, by removing any possible nagging doubts. Without even getting into the genetic portions.
The only way it can harm is if the mother is lying to begin with.
Pretty much. A lot of states in the US have it where if a child is born in wedlock the kid automatically counts as the child of the husband even if there is direct evidence to the contrary because it "protects the child by keeping families together"
I think you could argue against the Feds requiring a paternity test on privacy or state's rights, maybe some other grounds.
But what it should be anyway is a requirement to get child support.
It's functionally the same thing because if they're married the father can just have the test done, or if he has custody (lol), or if the divorced mother with custody refuses then it's not his.
I like that the best. Mandatory DNA seems to intrusive, but in a child support case it's just evidence to prove you are responsible for a debt. It's like a receipt or a contract. I don't know if that could be made federally either though, isn't child support a state issue?
I don't think the Feds could mandate a DNA test, but I bet they could sue states for denying a father's civil rights / due process by making him pay for a child that's not his. Basically make it so each state has to put it into their laws.
Hell it should be covered under 8th's no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Here's the thing: child support money is taxable income. The government makes money off of it. They will be naturally averse to passing any legislation that actively hampers them, even if doing so should be a fundamental right for men. Especially because it would be legislation that goes against the edicts of feminism, which promotes unrestrained, unilateral female supremacy, fighting against any obligation, expectation or responsibility that might be expected of them.
Asking them to think about the potential consequences of having unprotected sex with dozens of men or asking them to write the actual father's name on the birth certificate is genocide, you see.
DNA tests for support cases are easy enough, at least here in Texas. The problem lies in situations where the guy has been acting in the father capacity for years and only later does it come to light that he’s not the bio dad. Courts will say too bad, it’s more important that the child have a father. That’s how mandatory DNA testing fixes this issue.
If they put a clause in that the father and he alone could waive his right to the test, I think that could sweep away the privacy/right's issue. Or even just "the man being put on the birth certificate" if father was too charged a word, so that way a woman can't just scribble a random guy's name in without proof.
Or, as you say, make it a requirement for any and all government intervention in the family.
Their only argument against it is literally:
Which any grown adult knows is the exact line that someone cheating or lying uses immediately.
I've heard France doesn't require them because they feel they harm the child, it's better that the dude gets butt fucked rather than find out and refuse service to the child.
I imagine US courts feel similarly about it, they just don't announce it as policy. Personally it seems to endanger the child to not have him aware of possible genetic issues, familial heritage, or possible family members.
But hey women need to be protected at all cost.
My ghetto ass dad literally stole me away on a visit to get me tested, because he didn't trust my mom (correct decision). When it came back I was his, he described it as a huge weight off his shoulder and stopped any hesitation he had paying his child support or even being around.
Literally a walking example of how they can benefit the child themselves, and the woman, by removing any possible nagging doubts. Without even getting into the genetic portions.
The only way it can harm is if the mother is lying to begin with.
Not just doesn't require them. France doesn't allow them
Thanks for the correction, man that's even more insane.
their argument is pretty much what you said. It's 'bad' for the child/family so it's better the dude gets fucked
Guess if your french wife gives birth to a baby 2 or 3 shades darker than you or the wife.. you are fucked. Rip.
Pretty much. A lot of states in the US have it where if a child is born in wedlock the kid automatically counts as the child of the husband even if there is direct evidence to the contrary because it "protects the child by keeping families together"
I think you could argue against the Feds requiring a paternity test on privacy or state's rights, maybe some other grounds.
But what it should be anyway is a requirement to get child support.
It's functionally the same thing because if they're married the father can just have the test done, or if he has custody (lol), or if the divorced mother with custody refuses then it's not his.
I like that the best. Mandatory DNA seems to intrusive, but in a child support case it's just evidence to prove you are responsible for a debt. It's like a receipt or a contract. I don't know if that could be made federally either though, isn't child support a state issue?
I don't think the Feds could mandate a DNA test, but I bet they could sue states for denying a father's civil rights / due process by making him pay for a child that's not his. Basically make it so each state has to put it into their laws.
Hell it should be covered under 8th's no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Here's the thing: child support money is taxable income. The government makes money off of it. They will be naturally averse to passing any legislation that actively hampers them, even if doing so should be a fundamental right for men. Especially because it would be legislation that goes against the edicts of feminism, which promotes unrestrained, unilateral female supremacy, fighting against any obligation, expectation or responsibility that might be expected of them.
Asking them to think about the potential consequences of having unprotected sex with dozens of men or asking them to write the actual father's name on the birth certificate is genocide, you see.
DNA tests for support cases are easy enough, at least here in Texas. The problem lies in situations where the guy has been acting in the father capacity for years and only later does it come to light that he’s not the bio dad. Courts will say too bad, it’s more important that the child have a father. That’s how mandatory DNA testing fixes this issue.
If they put a clause in that the father and he alone could waive his right to the test, I think that could sweep away the privacy/right's issue. Or even just "the man being put on the birth certificate" if father was too charged a word, so that way a woman can't just scribble a random guy's name in without proof.
Or, as you say, make it a requirement for any and all government intervention in the family.
Forced medical procedures aren't cool regardless of how you dress it up.