Soon illegal to perform private paternity tests in Germany?

[Oexmelin]

Not when it concerns birth certificates, it seems.

A kid is not a piece of property.

[Drakken]

Well, this standard of altruistic paternity isn't the standard of everyone, nor in the animal species, not even in the human species within our social mores.

It has been the standard of most human societies for thousands of years and DNA testing has only been available just now. So I would argue we are «socially wired» to preserve a social standard of paternity.

But DNA testing changes everything, and it should modify the standard of paternity. Unless, of course, cuckolds have no right to justice because it has been always so.

[Drakken]

Not when it concerns birth certificates, it seems.

A kid is not a piece of property.

It is a means to money and property. That is why child alimonies are not paid to the child, but to the skank without any responsability oversight.

[Oexmelin]

But DNA testing changes everything

Why ? Genetic material, which meant nothing to us until now, is suddenly supposed to mean *everything* ?

[Drakken]

But DNA testing changes everything

Why ? Genetic material, which meant nothing to us until now, is suddenly supposed to mean *everything* ?

Absolutely. Fathers have reproduction rights as well, and we *have* access to the information now, it is within our reach, and we didn't hundreds of years ago.

[Oexmelin]

It is a means to money and property. That is why child alimonies are not paid to the child, but to the skank without any responsability oversight.

Who cares ? If I love the kid (for I am not in love with my DNA but with a human being), I won't mind paying and I will argue for custody. You would rather have the child pay to have the immense privilege of saying your gf was unfaithful ? You would cut your bonds with your daughter because she didn't happen to have the right genes ?

The consequences are that social bonds mean nothing in the face of genetics, and should mean nothing. A development I will always try to fight.

[Oexmelin]

Absolutely. Fathers have reproduction rights as well, and we *have* access to the information now, it is within our reach, and we didn't hundreds of years ago.

Suddenly your obsession with being ethnically Swede makes much more sense.

[Drakken]

It is a means to money and property. That is why child alimonies are not paid to the child, but to the skank without any responsability oversight.

Who cares ? If I love the kid (for I am not in love with my DNA but with a human being), I won't mind paying and I will argue for custody. You would rather have the child pay to have the immense privilege of saying your gf was unfaithful ? You would cut your bonds with your daughter because she didn't happen to have the right genes ?

The consequences are that social bonds mean nothing in the face of genetics, and should mean nothing. A development I will always try to fight.

Good, fight for the right to be a willing cuckold, then. But don't impose it on all fathers.

I am in favour of the exact opposite: the opt-out clause. If I am not biologically his or her father, well it is MY choice whether or not I don't want to do anything with him or her, not a choice imposed on me (and my wallet) by a lying bitch or by society as a whole.

Families are contracts as much as social bonds, and as such victims of reproductive scams should have legal recourses against fraudulent acts.

[Drakken]

Absolutely. Fathers have reproduction rights as well, and we *have* access to the information now, it is within our reach, and we didn't hundreds of years ago.

Suddenly your obsession with being ethnically Swede makes much more sense.

I thought you were way over logical fallacies, my friend. Guess I was wrong.

Cute strawman, though. It's a three-in-one: strawman, non sequitur AND ad hominem.

[PDH]

I am ethnically that one group that is kinda cool, but didn't do too much bad in the past, and maybe has some with darker skin in it too, so that's ok.

[Oexmelin]

Absolutely. Fathers have reproduction rights as well, and we *have* access to the information now, it is within our reach, and we didn't hundreds of years ago.

Suddenly your obsession with being ethnically Swede makes much more sense.

I thought you were way over logical fallacies, my friend. Guess I was wrong.

Cute strawman, though.

I don't find it that way off - in both cases, it is ascribing to genetic material a superior quality («nature») that would trump «nurture».

In any case, what else is there to say ? We hold diametrically different opinions. There are no wrong or right answers, only answers that pertain to what «being a father » is about. You want to ground this in a supposed animal nature ; I want to see the triumph of a social and sentimental conception of paternity. There are no possible common ground other than that which we already have.

[alfred russel]

I don't know the Quebec laws involved, but it doesn't strike me as outrageous that a man who treated a child for five years as her father should be held to be, for all intents and purposes, her father.

Think of it this way: I would find it quite outrageous should the bio-dad, years later, drop in and demand a father's rights - should non-bio dad really want to stay dad. He didn't raise her. He had nothing to do with her. Whatever the biological link, he's not acted in the role of dad. Between the two of them, non-bio dad has the rights (and responsibilities). 

Whatever mom's guilt in the matter, it is not the kid's fault, she is her own person. What kind of a man could raise a child to age 5 and then reject her totally because of something her mom did? If I found out Carl wasn't biologically "mine" I'd be right pissed at my wife but I certainly would not suddenly decide I didn't love him any more.

On the one hand, I agree with you to the extent that if I found out my daughter was not biologically mine, it certainly wouldn't change my relationship with her, including my willingness to provide financial support. I think most of the people who don't feel the same way don't have children.

But I disagree that it is best to maintain laws that in such a situation the law should go after the non-biological parent for child support first. Keeping in mind that if no father was around the court would stick the biological parent with the child support payments, why should the biological parent get stuck with a legal obligation just because he has provided love and support to the child? What would seem more reasonable is to first go after the biological father, and in the case of either nonpayment or incomplete payment to collect the remainder from the non-biological father.

That should mean the biological father should get some paternity rights, and I know splitting the kid's time among three parents may not be in the child's interest, but if courts have some latitude to adjust both the rights and the payments then they should be able to work out a somewhat equitable arrangement.

[alfred russel]

I don't find it that way off - in both cases, it is ascribing to genetic material a superior quality («nature») that would trump «nurture».

In any case, what else is there to say ? We hold diametrically different opinions. There are no wrong or right answers, only answers that pertain to what «being a father » is about. You want to ground this in a supposed animal nature ; I want to see the triumph of a social and sentimental conception of paternity. There are no possible common ground other than that which we already have.

The institutions of child support are really monuments to the abdication of both the animal and sentimental conceptions of paternity.

[Drakken]

In any case, what else is there to say ? We hold diametrically different opinions. There are no wrong or right answers, only answers that pertain to what «being a father » is about. You want to ground this in a supposed animal nature ; I want to see the triumph of a social and sentimental conception of paternity. There are no possible common ground other than that which we already have.

You mean a "supposed" social and sentimental conception of paternity. Just like mine: supposed.

Sure, everyone can be one's "father". Hell even the whole community can be a father to a child if we believe Plato. But biologically there is only one is: the one with the DNA and the XY to back it up. We cannot simply put this fact aside: Biology counts. We are overevolved primates, and our instincts back our behaviors. We just don't act like chimpanzees: we don't exterminate children which aren't ours.

There is nothing social, sentimental or romantic when the wife cheats on a man, gives birth to the child, and asks him to pay her for it: What she wants is to maintain access to your resources for her own benefit, not your fatherly love.

[Oexmelin]

The institutions of child support are really monuments to the abdication of both the animal and sentimental conceptions of paternity.

In a way you are right. If we were animals as per Drakken's invocation, guys would only be content in knowing that their genetic offspring were «out there». Yet Drakken wants to have (or at least I presume so) an emotional connection with his kid - he only wants it to be dependant upon the presence of his DNA in the little one's cell. Which is, to me, the worst of both world.

As for people leaving their child, it has existed for long years (along with child support). But we have laws against lots of things we deem immoral, despite the fact that immoral things have existed for thousands of years...