Effect of Feminism 145. . In France any paternity testing without a court order is banned due to the official desire to "preserve the peace" within French famil
x
Click to expand

Effect of Feminism 145

In France any paternity testing without
a court order is banned due to the
official desire to "preserve the peace"
within French families, with the French
government citing psychologists who
state that
fatherhood is determined by society
rather than biology.
If a French man orders a paternity test
via internet or by telephone, not only
the shipment may be confiscated by the
customs but he risks a year in prison
and a fine of ( Euro,
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+799
Views: 39159
Favorited: 32
Submitted: 08/25/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to teranin Subscribe to the-jelly-school submit to reddit

Comments(155):

[ 155 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#12 - esawekfc (08/25/2014) [-]
I'm french and i can confirm this, people usually go to belgium if they want to get a test like this made
User avatar #47 to #12 - trollchildxy (08/26/2014) [-]
Baguette hohoho I am french!
#99 to #47 - John Cena (08/26/2014) [-]
burger et frites hahaha je suis américain!
User avatar #75 to #12 - jordanish (08/26/2014) [-]
I am Belgium and I confirm this. Swelling with Waffles and Trappist Beer
User avatar #25 to #12 - moistnuggests (08/25/2014) [-]
Just out of curiosity under what conditions are court ordered tests given? Also if you get the test done in another country are there consequences?

User avatar #49 to #25 - esawekfc (08/26/2014) [-]
I don't know, both are pretty vague but i think there's consequences if they find out you've made a test in another country, the same as doing it illegaly in france i suppose.
#15 to #12 - anonibusii (08/25/2014) [-]
Swell with beer, chocolate and fries
#48 to #15 - spinaltap (08/26/2014) [-]
and paternity tests, apparently   
gif unrelated
and paternity tests, apparently
gif unrelated
User avatar #87 to #15 - trollinggenius (08/26/2014) [-]
Waffles and TinTin
User avatar #53 to #15 - boomerpyro ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
do you use dill on your fries?
User avatar #139 to #53 - anonibusii (08/26/2014) [-]
The **** is dill?
User avatar #151 to #139 - boomerpyro ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
a spice, if you guys haven't heard of dill then i pity you
User avatar #18 to #15 - lawlight (08/25/2014) [-]
what about the waffles ?
User avatar #19 to #18 - anonibusii (08/25/2014) [-]
I knew I forgot something...
User avatar #20 to #19 - lawlight (08/25/2014) [-]
yeah... and there were the mussels too, but we don't talk about the mussels, i guess ?
User avatar #21 to #20 - anonibusii (08/25/2014) [-]
We don't talk about those, no.
User avatar #22 to #21 - lawlight (08/25/2014) [-]
that's the spirit
#5 - grantyboy (08/25/2014) [-]
Ah but is motherhood societal - is there true equality? Can't the father just get another woman to babysit and then argue that they have assumed motherhood? Somehow I get the feeling this wont work. A man who has been cornered into fatherhood won't make a great parent: he will be apathetic, withdrawn or even contemptuous of the child. I'd just slap it in public until it was taken by the state.

Conclusion: if this law is true it is not about the children, its about giving women power over men who may never have even spoken to them and forcing them to pay and care for a child. If they could not find a reliable male and yet still did not abort the baby then it is their responsibility. If there was true equality then responsibility for a child would also be at the fathers discretion. If he does not want it but the woman does, she has to care and pay for it.

inb4 HE should have worn a condom.
>implying you only need a male to make a baby
>implying they are 100% effective
>implying she didn't stick a needle through it or come off the pill

Maybe that's a bit right wing but at the very least you must be the biological father to be responsible.

You should not blame the victim, but that does not mean you should create another one to suffice.
#28 to #5 - flemsdfer (08/25/2014) [-]
disregarding everything else, why would coming off the pill affect a condom in any way whatsoever?
#61 to #28 - John Cena (08/26/2014) [-]
"I'm on the pill so you don't need a condom." They then proceed to make babies and it turns out she wasn't using birth control. Oops.
User avatar #62 to #61 - flemsdfer (08/26/2014) [-]
"I'm on the pill so you don't need a condom."


"I'll wear it anyways. I'm a responsible adult and I protect myself when ******* a woman I don't know well enough to trust them with a decision like that"
#113 to #62 - shadowgandalf (08/26/2014) [-]
Are you retarded?
Regardless of what happens after they shack, if she lied about being on the pill, then any pregnacies are 100% her fault and responsibility.
#114 to #113 - flemsdfer (08/26/2014) [-]
I won't be able to make you understand why you're wrong, so all I'll say is enjoy paying child support.
I won't be able to make you understand why you're wrong, so all I'll say is enjoy paying child support.
#138 to #114 - teranin ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
So, if two parties come to the table to engage in a consensual act, one party lies about their part in the act prior to consent, and a financial burden is placed on both parties.  Are you suggesting this is not the fault of the party who lied prior to said act, and that the honest party is in some way responsible for things that were done deceitfully to them?   
   
Or are you simply saying that men should always wear condoms that they bring and provide for themselves at all times and never trust anyone, but if they DO trust and are betrayed they must then be financially enslaved for at least 18 years?   
   
I mean, I'm with you on the "trust nobody" aspect since, y'know, this. www.wnd.com/2006/02/34861/   
   
But I don't see how you can even make an argument that the lie done by a woman in this case isn't her fault?  Women are humans, they have agency, they are not the infants feminism would have you treat them as.
So, if two parties come to the table to engage in a consensual act, one party lies about their part in the act prior to consent, and a financial burden is placed on both parties. Are you suggesting this is not the fault of the party who lied prior to said act, and that the honest party is in some way responsible for things that were done deceitfully to them?

Or are you simply saying that men should always wear condoms that they bring and provide for themselves at all times and never trust anyone, but if they DO trust and are betrayed they must then be financially enslaved for at least 18 years?

I mean, I'm with you on the "trust nobody" aspect since, y'know, this. www.wnd.com/2006/02/34861/

But I don't see how you can even make an argument that the lie done by a woman in this case isn't her fault? Women are humans, they have agency, they are not the infants feminism would have you treat them as.
User avatar #140 to #138 - flemsdfer (08/26/2014) [-]
I say trust nobody when it comes to casual sex and that everyone should always protect themselves.

BUT

His whole "if she lies the pregnancy is 100% her fault" makes it seem like his dick isn't even there in the equation. Lying is bad, but someone had to choose to **** her, so you can't just say "None of this is my fault"
That is why I found it incredibly stupid.
User avatar #141 to #140 - teranin ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
True it's more like 90% her fault and 10% his. She was the one who did something malicious, but he also shouldn't have been dumb enough to let that happen.
User avatar #143 to #141 - flemsdfer (08/26/2014) [-]
I recommend to everyone who has a problem with this to donate to vasalgel.

Completely funded off of donations because there's no money in the product so medical corporations want nothing to do with it. It's two shots that will render any man completely 100% sterile for ten years, but at any time an additional two shots completely reverses it, and the compound of the gel is so simple the syringe that holds it costs more. With it, any guy could be in full control of whether he has kids or not.
User avatar #144 to #143 - teranin ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
I know about Vasalgel. Did you know about the male birth control pill that increased libido produced 30 years ago that was stopped by feminists? Dr Coutinho, the feminists and the male contraceptive pill

A loss of absolute reproductive power for women is unacceptable to feminists.
User avatar #145 to #144 - flemsdfer (08/26/2014) [-]
Didn't know about that, but I've always been weary of pills since they all come with side effects of some kind.
User avatar #146 to #145 - teranin ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
This is true, and is true for female birth control pills as well. Were feminists concerned with equality, they would have pushed for male pills to share responsibility and risk of side effects, instead of their current strategy of taking all pill risk in exchange for all power and ability to entrap for 18 years any man foolish enough to be tricked. (Not saying that is a problem totally endemic or anything, I'm saying they fought to keep the ability to do it, not that they do it en masse)
#116 to #114 - shadowgandalf (08/26/2014) [-]
Actually it's more like "I think my morale is infallible, atleast on this subject"
Well guess again. Morale is subjective, and definatly not infallible.
You'd have to go with local law regarding scamming and falsification of information. Which happens to be highly illegal here in EU, and other democracy based countries.
#115 to #114 - shadowgandalf (08/26/2014) [-]
"I don't understand my argument enough to convey it to others, who don't already think the same"

- What you said in that comment.
#117 to #115 - flemsdfer (08/26/2014) [-]
No, I'm just a firm believer in "You can't fix stupid"

You will believe what you will believe what you will believe, and that's final. It's a waste of my time.
#120 to #117 - shadowgandalf (08/26/2014) [-]
So... You base your knowleadge on belief?
Gee, i wonder why you have that position.
User avatar #121 to #120 - flemsdfer (08/26/2014) [-]
"He said belief! That sounds religious and I can easily slam that!"

This is why I refuse to argue with you over this. You'll try to take any little thing and run with it as your main point because you're grasping at straws.
#147 to #121 - shadowgandalf (08/26/2014) [-]
I said that, because you dumbed down my standpoint to a belief.

And as to your point about picking small things from an argument, thats exactly what you are doing now, except you are not grasping at straws(bbecause you have already condemned this debate to begin with).

#123 to #121 - John Cena (08/26/2014) [-]
he got offline after this
#148 to #123 - shadowgandalf (08/26/2014) [-]
I think flem can read for himself.
User avatar #43 to #5 - citruslord ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
They work to remove all responsibility and consequence from women.
#51 to #5 - incest (08/26/2014) [-]
I don't know, I'm kind of torn on the whole "If I woman wants to carry the baby to term but the father doesn't want it, he shouldn't be held responsible for it."   
   
I mean, it's not like an abortion is completely painless. Not to mention there's a whole religious aspect of it being right or wrong. Coupled in with the fact that if a woman were to get an abortion, she's have to live the rest of her life knowing she killed her  potential son/daughter while in the womb. That's a pretty heavy burden that the would be father doesn't have to think about.   
   
   
Trying to say what I think about the subject while on the fence is a little hard to do because it comes across one sided, but it's truly not meant that way.
I don't know, I'm kind of torn on the whole "If I woman wants to carry the baby to term but the father doesn't want it, he shouldn't be held responsible for it."

I mean, it's not like an abortion is completely painless. Not to mention there's a whole religious aspect of it being right or wrong. Coupled in with the fact that if a woman were to get an abortion, she's have to live the rest of her life knowing she killed her potential son/daughter while in the womb. That's a pretty heavy burden that the would be father doesn't have to think about.


Trying to say what I think about the subject while on the fence is a little hard to do because it comes across one sided, but it's truly not meant that way.
#112 to #51 - shadowgandalf (08/26/2014) [-]
"I mean, it's not like an abortion is completely painless."
Nothing is completely painless.
"Not to mention there's a whole religious aspect of it being right or wrong."

Thats her problem. Religion is personal, and should NOT hold ANY power over anyone else. Otherwise killing in the name of Allah should be permitted.

"Coupled in with the fact that if a woman were to get an abortion, she's have to live the rest of her life knowing she killed her potential son/daughter while in the womb."

**You mean, like every single time men masturbate?
All your points are mute...
**
User avatar #81 to #5 - robertolee ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
"I'd just slap it in public until it was taken by the state" haha ******* brilliant.
User avatar #13 to #5 - Maroon (08/25/2014) [-]
The point isn't even that he wasn't responsible enough to prevent pregnancy, the point is that she could just as easily cheat on him and say it's his and there's nothing he could do about it.
#24 to #13 - grantyboy (08/25/2014) [-]
Yeah I may have gotten carried away there with the hypotheticals. Either way this law is ridiculous and ultimately gives women free reign to lie around and settle with the richest man, regardless of who the biological father is.
Yeah I may have gotten carried away there with the hypotheticals. Either way this law is ridiculous and ultimately gives women free reign to lie around and settle with the richest man, regardless of who the biological father is.
#122 to #24 - John Cena (08/26/2014) [-]
you're a dumbass dude
#54 - gammajk (08/26/2014) [-]
Tell me, frenchmen, is this the future you fought for? Is this better than the Nazis?
#104 to #54 - John Cena (08/26/2014) [-]
The french didn't for this this or the nazis. There's also this thing called that lets people do stuff without going too far, it's called 'being moderate.'
User avatar #109 to #104 - trollzoll (08/26/2014) [-]
There is also a thing called spelling properly.
#90 to #54 - melwach (08/26/2014) [-]
Don't be sad, France. We'll take you back.
#97 - thepastamaypwnyou (08/26/2014) [-]
Basically they split up the kid and father, if the father orders a paternity test. So they can keep the peace in a family?
#83 - John Cena (08/26/2014) [-]
err.. I think this is the example of some edgy kid really trying to get his woman-hating point accross.

In most of the Europe paternity testing is done primary by courts. I believe there a lot of personal reasons why and also there are few legal reasons why.
First of all people who do tests will want some legal outcome at the end, unless they simply want to spend their money. So usually paternity testing happens during an ongoing court case (usually determining parent's rights / divorce). A test done outside a court case should be legalised or even simpler - national law provides / court rules that only court issued order for the testing will eventually make the test result usable in a case.
So firstly, there are bareley any reasons to conduct such a test to begin with.
Also France has pretty standard family courts and they won't avoid the testing where it is normally done in the rest of EU and further.
#86 to #83 - John Cena (08/26/2014) [-]
Also the courts order is needed, since the testing, usually the DNA testing, is done by collecting subjects data and there are only very specific situations where an unwilling subject would be ordered by court. Also in out-of-court cases an unwilling subject could not be tested.
As for the fines provided in the text above, I bet there is something more than just ordering a test. France would violate several criminal law conventions if they imprisoned people for doing these tests or ordering them. OP has especially avoided explanation, just to fuel his anti-women hatred.

TL;DR- paternity tests outside court bear no legal weight and thus are pointless to begin with. The fine stated is not explained and now appears in sharp contrast to other penalties and fines in general French law.
P.s. on a side note France is one of the most secular and atheist countries. It is interesting that they have put this "social family" concept forward. There's no biblical version of the "family".
#73 - dronenortle (08/26/2014) [-]
Feminist are sexist.
They don't want equality.
I once punched an asian in the throat.
I hope he solving my inequalities.
User avatar #77 to #73 - jayfizzle (08/26/2014) [-]
these are so stupid theyre funny lmao
User avatar #6 - falbwuh (08/25/2014) [-]
I'm inclined to believe this is complete ******** , but don't care enough to look it up.
User avatar #8 to #7 - falbwuh (08/25/2014) [-]
well then
User avatar #118 - privatepumpanickel (08/26/2014) [-]
the amount of guy friends I have who are not allowed to see their children because "it's the mother's right" really saddens me. I have a child, and i'm happy to see my ex (the father) cuddle her and show her as much love as he can and can see her whenever he wants, unless there is an obvious legit obstacle like a doctor's appointment. I'm sick of these women tearing my friend's rights to be a father away.
User avatar #130 to #118 - voxseppo ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
I bet the women are more than happy to take their money to raise the kid though. Amirite?
User avatar #131 to #130 - privatepumpanickel (08/26/2014) [-]
Oh of course. Come payday and it's "can't hang out today, *anonymous bitch mother-to-kid* has finally invited me over to see my son/daughter!"
>on pay day
User avatar #132 to #131 - voxseppo ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
This is why we can't have nice things. Bitches like that. =/
#69 - fecal (08/26/2014) [-]
bit of a biased conclusion actually. This goes both ways as it will also block women from proving someone ís the father in many cases.
User avatar #66 - solarisofcelestia ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
Wouldn't that work the other way around as well? A woman cannot claim any man to be the father of her child unless a test can prove it so.
User avatar #68 to #66 - flemmi (08/26/2014) [-]
politics and feminist don't think (that far). To shift the bourdon of proov back to the positive statement is neccesery.

i.e. "he is the father" is a positive statement.
" I am not the father" is a negative one.

the positive one needs to proov itself
User avatar #58 - itumblr (08/26/2014) [-]
Fatherhood is determined by society, not biology. Just because you came in her does not mean you are the father. The real man (& father) is the one who steps up to the plate and takes care of the child.
User avatar #60 to #58 - mrnpc (08/26/2014) [-]
assuming anyone wants to.
#64 - levvy (08/26/2014) [-]
Keep your filth in your ****** EU,

I want to keep my morals and freedom!
#57 - drakes (08/26/2014) [-]
"Rihanna?" Drake asks. He stabs at the potato he is cutting. "No, I'm afraid I don't know anyone by that name."
User avatar #16 - riggyrigs (08/25/2014) [-]
except court will often agree to this kind of test and grant to anyone who ask it, in order for the man to claim the right to see his children. Check your source before ******** that BS.
User avatar #17 to #16 - teranin ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
It says, specifically, in the content, that it can be done with a court order. The issue is preventing it from being done without a court order, it allows the state more control in parenting and more rights to children than fathers, minimizing their contribution to moneyslaves to be determined willy-nilly by circumstance and allegation.
#76 - pachecodos (08/26/2014) [-]
I have no ******* idea of how the law actually works, so whatever, what i'm gonna descrive doesn't have to be what happens in France.

If a woman has a child and wants a guy she says is the father to pay for it that should be a court case and a paternity test should be issued. But I see this law as trying to control paternity tests. Like, I ****** this girl who had a child and now I want to be the father so I come and say, hey! I'm the father and had made a paternity test.
Or a couple divorce and they start a ********* about who the real father is.

I see this law making sense when the father HAS BECOME the father. Like a lot of years had gone by and someone has taken the place of fatherhood.

It makes no sense in a newborn, when there's NO FATHER (if we think about fatherhood beeing something social, of course there's a father).
User avatar #72 - languagexplain ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
I doubt this legislation has anything much to do with pressure from feminist groups.
#9 - biebergotswag (08/25/2014) [-]
but to be fair, if a man, or a woman (given the ability of having In vitro fertilisation in the current age) that asks for a paternity test at a wimp without any reasonable proof is just asking for trouble, because this act will quickly erode the trust within the family, and cause great harm to the child in question.

also it is said that it is banned only "without a court order", and if there a enough proof of adultery, such a order can be aquired by taking the issue to the courts.

i don't honestly see a problem with this law.
and yes politicians will say anything to get more attention, even if it have nothing to do with the law in question.
#96 to #9 - paraplegicdinosaur ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
Don't thumb him down, you faggots.   
   
That's what he wants.
Don't thumb him down, you faggots.

That's what he wants.
User avatar #110 to #96 - trollzoll (08/26/2014) [-]
But he is in positive thumb levels now.
User avatar #14 to #9 - Maroon (08/25/2014) [-]
What's better? A man gets suspicious because his child doesn't look like him and get's a paternity test in secret, finds out it's his but doesn't look like him and everyone goes about their business or makes a big deal about it in court and then find out it's his.

Or on the other hand, it actually isn't his and the wife knows this so she just prevents him from getting approval from the court and he's stuck providing for a slut and someone else's child.
#10 to #9 - grantyboy (08/25/2014) [-]
What's everyone got to be afraid of the truth for? You should be completely free to perform a paternity test if you wish. Are you also of the mind we should ban medical examinations on the grounds that, until symptoms appear, you are not getting sick?
User avatar #11 to #10 - biebergotswag (08/25/2014) [-]
but the problem is that by doing such a test, one is expressing the belief that that the partner has been unfaithful and untrustworthy. it is pretty much the same of accusing a person of lying and cheating without the proof to back it up. and if the accusation comes up to be false, it will tear up the family.
also, by doing these tests, one is also sending the a message to the child in question, denying the relationship with the child. it will cause irreversible damages.
the danger of paternity tests, does not lie in the possible if the claim comes up possible, (ie there is no blood relations between parent and the child). but when the claim comes up negative. which will tear up a otherwise whole family.

in other words, this is not like a general medical examination, but more similar to a deep brain autopsy, which could do massive damage if used wrongly. while, it could uncover the truth in some cases, the risk is not worth the reward.
#26 to #11 - grantyboy (08/25/2014) [-]
I dont think people would perform a paternity test unless there was evidence (suspicion, sudden frigidity or children with genetically improbable phenotypes). I dont imagine them just performing them for the lulz.

In these circumstances there is already tension and distrust. The accused would be eager to clear their name if they are innocent and prove themselves if they still believed in the relationship. Anyone who resits just stinks of guilty conscience. Otherwise I dont think years of argument and and tension are going to be any good for the child just so they can get a golden 'I'm from an intact family' badge.
#27 to #26 - grantyboy (08/25/2014) [-]
Also the paternity test could be done without the knowledge of the whole family, even of the child if they are young enough.
User avatar #85 - emptysuperman ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
This is a good thing. Does FJ think different?
User avatar #88 to #85 - noisia (08/26/2014) [-]
Explain your reasoning, please. I'm interested in your take on this.
User avatar #89 to #88 - emptysuperman ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
I would like to hear yours after as well. Because the way I read it, it seems like it's mostly good for men's rights. So I'm thinking I don't understand it. But here's how I understood it:

Example 1:
>I knock some girl up
>I don't want to be a father
>"Get a DNA test!"
>I don't want to be a father, even if I was the biological father, I don't want to be one
>Ain't **** anyone can do about you not wanting to be a dad
This seems good to me.

Example 2:
>You've been married to a woman for 7 years
>She has a 10 year old daughter that's not biologically yours
>Been raising her like a daughter
>You get divorced
>You: "I don't want to raise that little **** anymore"
>"Fine, then pay child support"
>You: "She ain't mine!"
>"Too bad. You raised her for years as if she was, you can't just decide to back out now."
This is also good.

As a man in the US, you are basically forced to raise a kid if you knock a girl up and she decides to keep it. I think that's ******** , it gives men no choice. However, if you choose to enter that commitment to a child, you don't really have the right to just walk away, regardless of gender or whether or not the kid is biologically yours.

If I'm wrong, please explain to me how it really works.
User avatar #100 to #89 - noisia (08/26/2014) [-]
I didn't consider it like that. Upon re-reading the above, it seems that it's quite ambiguous what they mean when they say that fatherhood is determined by society.

I didn't read it as a "If I don't want to be a dad, I won't be a dad" I read it as "You will be a dad whether you're the biological parent or not."

I saw it more as:

>Have girlfriend/wife
>She cheats and gets pregnant
>I find out and break up/divorce with her
>Law insists I pay for child support for a child that is not mine

Or

>Woman gets knocked up by some stranger on a one night stand
>She cannot afford to raise child by herself
>Meets me, we have sex
>Tells me that I've knocked her up and I have to pay child support
>Law does not allow me to do DNA test to prove otherwise and forces me to pay for 18 years.
User avatar #91 to #85 - feelythefeel (08/26/2014) [-]
>be me
>French
>crazy bitch gets pregnant
>starts telling people I'm the father
>never even touched her
>illegal to prove it unless I get a court order
>courts are feminist
And that's how a life can be ruined forever.
User avatar #98 to #91 - emptysuperman ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
Oh, that's how it works? That's ******* stupid.
User avatar #29 - demandsgayversion (08/25/2014) [-]
Why is this a bad thing?
User avatar #30 to #29 - teranin ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
Imagine you're a man. Imagine you marry a girl when she says she is pregnant with your child. Imagine she lied, and you are on the hook for all of your money, she admitted she lied in private but in court, asserted you are the father and must pay.

Then imagine your right to bring evidence to protect yourself isn't a right, but rather something that can only be offered by a biased legal system, and the country you live in has made it ILLEGAL to attempt to discover the truth on your own or acquire that evidence without said biased courts taking sympathy on you/you getting incredibly lucky with judge.

See the issue?
User avatar #32 to #30 - demandsgayversion (08/25/2014) [-]
I imagine in that situation, they would easily grant a court order.

And it says any paternity testing, not just the man ordering the tests. I assert another situation:

You sexed a lady and she got pregnant and you offered to pay for an abortion or something and she said she wanted to raise it alone. And then for whatever reason, she sues you for not being a dad and orders the test.
User avatar #33 to #32 - teranin ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
Court Orders can only be approved by judges, judges in family courts are universally, dramatically biased against men. Such court orders are far from a matter of course, and regardless it gives the state the power to determine who is and is not the father of a child, not the father, and since they are biased towards mothers they will speak platitudes about "best interest" while using this to wrong men.

Welcome to feminism. It is expressed as misandry.
User avatar #35 to #33 - demandsgayversion (08/25/2014) [-]
So your argument is "all judges are biased"?


isn't that a little biased?
User avatar #37 to #35 - teranin ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
No, there is an institutional bias against men. My argument is that such a thing, preventing men from getting paternity tests, should not be a power the state possesses as it puts the state in more control of children than the children's own fathers and works as a tool for shackling men to obligation acquired through deceit by others.
User avatar #38 to #37 - demandsgayversion (08/25/2014) [-]
This has the power to go both ways, it's not a one way bash against men like you seem to think it is. A woman can't order an unsanctioned paternity test, either. It preserves the privacy of people who lent their child to adoption, the privacy of fathers who don't want to, or shouldn't be in, the child's life.

You're just looking at one possible application of this law that would hurt men and using it to bash misandry - which isn't feminism. Just because a Nazi calls himself a doctor, doesn't mean all doctors hate Jews.
#40 to #38 - John Cena (08/25/2014) [-]
Ok, let's have this conversation go a different way. Why shouldn't you be able to order a paternity test?
User avatar #41 to #40 - demandsgayversion (08/25/2014) [-]
Because the parents of an adopted child don't want to be contacted about it ever, because a woman might claim false child support payments, because an unloving parent take the child away from a more loving family based on being biologically linked. Just look at all the **** that happens on Maury.
User avatar #44 to #41 - teranin ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
you realize the best defense against a false child support claim is a paternity test, right?
User avatar #45 to #44 - demandsgayversion (08/26/2014) [-]
Not if it's the father
User avatar #46 to #45 - teranin ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
>father
>receiving child support

Exceedingly rare with current custody bias, and deadbeat women are rarely punished with debtors prison like men are (even though there are a far higher percentage of deadbeat moms than deadbeat dads out of the populations of those genders that are paying child support). Also, it should still be the father's right to take that paternity test, because a man has a right to know their children even if they were squirreled away or birthed/adopted without their knowledge. It is not a mother's right to prevent that unilaterally.
User avatar #50 to #46 - imoriginalposter (08/26/2014) [-]
You seem to be a bit blinded by your rage there m8. In any court case where fatherhood is an issue a paternity test WILL be administered, thats not even a question.Their system prevents spitefull claims of parenthood, and as a person who was walked out on by both parents but who then came back years later to claim custody I think this law makes perfect sense.
User avatar #59 to #50 - mrpkmon ONLINE (08/26/2014) [-]
Well one i feel that they would still love the kid regardless but feel betrayed by the mother for multiple reasons such as her being unfaithful. I don't understand how both your parents walking out on you then coming back has anything to do with this law.
User avatar #93 to #59 - imoriginalposter (08/26/2014) [-]
It's the princape behind walkout parents coming back in after the hard work is done with a paternity test trying to claim a child like a parsel.
User avatar #154 to #93 - mrpkmon ONLINE (08/27/2014) [-]
Yea that sounds awful but the main problem here is that the father has no right to know if it's his child or not, not about biological parents trying to take the kid away from the adoptive parents.
#108 to #41 - ciacheczko (08/26/2014) [-]
What the actual 			****		?   
   
Paternity test just checks if this particular baby belongs to this particular father - I am pretty certain that a father of an adopted child already knows it isn't his. What this test doesn't do is show the real parents from a nonexistent database of people who abandonded/have away their children.   
   
"because a woman might claim false child support payments" Jesus christ, and what do you think these tests are for?! So she might not. If the test proves it's not your child, you won't pay a dime. If it proves it's yours - then it's your child, so the claim CAN'T be false    
   
Being a biological parent has nothing to do with being able to take the kid - if you abandon your rights, it's not your child anymore. And you can't take it back once you gave it away. Period. So as long as the kid wasn't stolen from you, you have got nothing to say - and if it was kidnapped, you might want to have the test possible to take your own child back, wouldn't you?   
   
The test is particualrly for men becuase guess what? When you are a mother and you push the kid out of your vagina, you have the certainty it's yours. Men don't have that certainity. They just have to believe that it was their sperm that entered that vagina at that time. So yeah, I think,  as a woman, mind you  that men have their damndest right to be able to run these tests whenever they want to. Marriage and family is an investition. If the child isn't yours, you are investing your time, money, and feelings into a lying bitch who gave birth to someone else's brat. You are literally funding someone else's genes to spread.   
   
And wasn't the entire point of life on earth and evolution to spread your genes over others and gain biological dominance? Doesn't every single species we know strive to achieve that? By strictly biological point of view, raising someone else's kid is pretty much failing at life.   
   
Gosh, you are so 			*******		 uneducated.
What the actual **** ?

Paternity test just checks if this particular baby belongs to this particular father - I am pretty certain that a father of an adopted child already knows it isn't his. What this test doesn't do is show the real parents from a nonexistent database of people who abandonded/have away their children.

"because a woman might claim false child support payments" Jesus christ, and what do you think these tests are for?! So she might not. If the test proves it's not your child, you won't pay a dime. If it proves it's yours - then it's your child, so the claim CAN'T be false

Being a biological parent has nothing to do with being able to take the kid - if you abandon your rights, it's not your child anymore. And you can't take it back once you gave it away. Period. So as long as the kid wasn't stolen from you, you have got nothing to say - and if it was kidnapped, you might want to have the test possible to take your own child back, wouldn't you?

The test is particualrly for men becuase guess what? When you are a mother and you push the kid out of your vagina, you have the certainty it's yours. Men don't have that certainity. They just have to believe that it was their sperm that entered that vagina at that time. So yeah, I think, as a woman, mind you that men have their damndest right to be able to run these tests whenever they want to. Marriage and family is an investition. If the child isn't yours, you are investing your time, money, and feelings into a lying bitch who gave birth to someone else's brat. You are literally funding someone else's genes to spread.

And wasn't the entire point of life on earth and evolution to spread your genes over others and gain biological dominance? Doesn't every single species we know strive to achieve that? By strictly biological point of view, raising someone else's kid is pretty much failing at life.

Gosh, you are so ******* uneducated.
#129 to #108 - truemecid (08/26/2014) [-]
I can see that this system can have both bad and good traits. Also I am not sure the law works exactly as you stated about the "abandoning your child and forfeit every claim to them" in every country.

I know of some pretty outlandish claims from my country and neighbouring countries were biological parents have tried to reclaim their children, which they gave away or were forced to give away to adoption, and a long a painful court session was instigated.

Their claim is mainly due to them being the biological parents and they wish to have their children back. Which is possible if the court deems the adopted parents unsuited and the biological parents more suited.
The child however is left with a gnawing confusion and a lot of questions. Like "Why did their parents leave them?" and "Was it because they were a bad child?" etc..
It also probably has to choose between those they thought were their parens (perhaps they didn't know they were adopted) or their biological parents at some point in their life. This situation is not optimal and in many cases the child has more to lose than gain.

Also as I have understood, the court is far from as biased as people would have you believe in this thread. Of course there a unfortunate examples. There always is. But the parternity test is supposedly very common if there are any disputes that might not be resolved in the long run. It is not like the court just goes " **** you, you're the dad! Even though you have never met/barely touched the lady."

It highly depends on the situation at hand and the added power given to the authorities allows at times for better solutions to resolve these issues before they might even start (i.e. they may not make a paternity test, so they can start their claim) or end in bad blood.

It might not be perfect, but neither is the other system that freely allows parternity tests. In the end the OP presents a very one sided view of the law. So child down before you call some stupid.
User avatar #149 to #129 - ciacheczko (08/26/2014) [-]
Maan, it's simple. You have actual rights to your child as long as it's a child. It's pretty common, I believe. Kids may not own/purchase/sell any big properties, can't make big decisions (like gettin married) up to certain age. Who is responsible for them at that time? Parents. And it's not just a theory, that they do so because they are the parents - it's stated by the law. Law given tot hem because they are parents, of course.

When the child reaches maturity, he becomes his own person - at least when seen by law - and answers for himself, whether it comes to property, a change of marital status or commiting crime. But every parent has the right to abandon their rights to the child before that age. And then they really have no rights regarding that child. It's just like any other stranger kid to them. By law.

I cannot tell for sure, since I'm not a law expert, but in all modern countries by that i mean countries where you can't trade your daughter for a goat it pretty much all works the same way. If you sign the papers that you don't want that particular kid of yours as yours, it's no longer yours. You then can give it to adoption, where another people will gain these rights. That is the deal with adoption. The kid becomes yours by law. And then it doesn't matter who gave birth to it.

I'd be honestly worried if I lived in a country that doesn't operate that way, since that would mean that any selfish excuse of a parent who needs money or someone to look after them when they'll get old, would try to take away the child, one they never cared about enough to take care of it after it was born, from people who orignally adopted it, loved and cared for it.

FYI it happens. People who abandoned their children but didn't abandon the rights, actually sue their adult children foraliments. They get paid by children they didn't raise, didn't even bothered child's entire life.
#152 to #149 - truemecid (08/26/2014) [-]
I can understand your point, but as I stated the law is not like that in all modern countries. The law is very varied from country to country. Of course there are some baseline that is roughly the same.
Though the one about forfeiting your rights when you put your child up for adoption is not one of them. It is possible in some scenarios for the biological parents to regain their custody of a child given up for adoption (in my country until the age of 12 or 15 I believe). It is however very, very rare.

Also in countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, some asian countries (China especially) etc.. Country were healthcare is strongly tied to the family and work. As you said yourself, it is possible for parents to sue their children and force them to pay for their old folks homes. Even if they were bad parents.

So ultimately the point is: The law does not function exactly as you say. The law varies from country to country and there will be good and bad things about them. Regardless up parternity test is free or you have to get a court order. Both system can be abused either in the man's or woman's favor.
#31 to #30 - getxnekkid (08/25/2014) [-]
Imagine if you actually raised that kid and had a shred of ******* dignity you would treat that kid with love and compassion and it shouldn't matter if he came from your ball sack or not. Imagine you actually cared for your kid when he was growing up and didn't need an excuse to throw him away and have nothing to do with him.
User avatar #36 to #31 - teranin ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
Also, imagine you believed something for like 10 years, were reassured of it by someone you trusted, then that person broke off their relationship with you, and you found out they were lying the whole time about that thing which will cost you obscene amounts of money for years that will go into their pockets but you are not allowed to prove they did it.
User avatar #34 to #31 - teranin ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
It has nothing to do with the child, it has to do with the lying mother. Why the **** would you blame a child for that **** ?
User avatar #155 to #34 - mrpkmon ONLINE (08/27/2014) [-]
I just wanted to say i love how logically you discussed this.
#126 to #30 - fourtitwo (08/26/2014) [-]
Mate, that's not quite how it would go in Europe.
The woman is pregnant. She want financial support, and claims you are the father. She receives financial support to raise her child from the government, and you don't have to pay.

Also, if fatherhood is determined by society, that does not make you the father on her word alone. The father would be the person who raised the child. That would only be you, no matter what she said, if you were the father in function.
User avatar #1 - dabronydude (08/25/2014) [-]
this can be both good and bad, sort of a half and half deal,
on one side the real dad has few rights to his kid if his whore ex wife says the kid belongs
to another guy but on the other side bitches can not force men that did not want a child to
pay or look after the thing.
User avatar #2 to #1 - teranin ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
Yes, they can. By simply stating he is the father. He cannot use evidence to protect himself from such an accusation.
User avatar #3 to #2 - dabronydude (08/25/2014) [-]
oh.
**** .
User avatar #4 to #3 - teranin ONLINE (08/25/2014) [-]
yeah.
User avatar #102 to #2 - volcanicdiarrhea (08/26/2014) [-]
I feel like the court would order a test if either party disputes who the father is.
[ 155 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)