I wasn’t saying that should be the case.
Paternity Testing Ban Upheld in France
- Thread starter ukxenon
- Start date
I wasn’t saying that should be the case.
Well if we step outside the selfish view of a man being upset at the child not being his by DNA.
Then accept that there is no scenario where no one gets ****** over. A decision has to be made about who exactly the state wants to take the side of.
The child is not responsible for how they turned up. The male partner finding out is likely destructive to the family environment and therefore the childs upbringing.
So the rights of the child are being put ahead of the male partner.
Again remember that someone is forced to lose out when a female has a child with someone other than her partner and you can't punish her without also punishing the child who doesn't deserve any blame.
Wow. That is all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,426
- Location
- ST4
I wonder how long it'll be before this rubbish becomes an EU dictat?
If the mother's happy lying to the "father", I don't know what would make her give up the real father's name.
Go ask the French why they value a family unit to support a child even if it has to be built on a lie.
It's not MY decision, it's my understanding of what kind of logic gets you there.
So not only does the male partner get ****ed over by his wife/gf cheating, he then gets ****ed over by the state taking his money by force... Nice.
It's too much for a lot of French men also, as they routinely break the law to find out the truth.
In the fullness of time, many lies get found out. At that point no one benefits. The "family" gets torn apart, bitterness ensues.
To intentionally and purposely build a family on such a terrible lie is reprehensible to the extreme.
Right, so you're not making a value judgement? Why are you even posting, then?We don't need an exceedingly basic concept explained to us.
I could post the same drivel of the male being hard done by and we can all circle jerk to the same tune.
But that's an exceedingly basic knee jerk reaction.
I should do that to +1 my post count? Why even post
Or I could post reasoning for it happening which has not been posted at all in here... Hmm...
Or you could explain why that's "drivel" in your estimation?
Forcing a man to fork over the vast majority of his income (in many cases), to support a family with a) a cheating wife and b) a child that isn't his...
If you don't think that the man has a genuine reason to feel hard done by in that situation, then I'm not sure how much worse things would have to get for him for you to have any sympathy
I know it's trendy and all these days to be a self-hating man, but modern trendy "progressive" viewpoints are mostly pants-on-head retarded from where I'm sitting. Western civilisation is definitely on the wane.
I know it's convenient to clip a bit of someones post and ignore what it was posted in reply to but it's called context and I'm telling you it was actually relevant.
But here is part of the clipped out of context, context continuation of what you clipped.
In other words it takes zero effort to look at the french system and say it sucks for the guy. Yet Moses was saying he considers reasoning for it too basic to have been mentioned at all. The double standards!
Don't worry it's cool, I see jimmies have been rustled with the lack of conformity in replies.
It sucks for the guy. The French are so dumb for doing it.
Rich abuse indeed on a forum based solidly on talking flippantly over partial information.
I don't care for but I do understand the french reasoning.
You'll have to look back up there and work out where you decided I was trying to argue a side. I reckon it was the bit where you asked a question and I replied.
I don't care for but I do understand the french reasoning.
You'll have to look back up there and work out where you decided I was trying to argue a side. I reckon it was the bit where you asked a question and I replied.
By "state" do you not in fact mean "guy who is being lied to about the kid being his"?
The reasoning which essentially seems to be "let's just trample all over this guy's rights because it's easier than having to track down the real father"
Would it be equally OK for a man to have a child with one woman, defraud another woman into paying most of her money for 18 years and have her fined or jailed by the power of the state if she even questioned even the possibility of that fraud against her?
Or is it only OK when the victim is a man?
If someone says it's OK because it's cheaper for the state and that matters more than people, well, at least that's an honest position and not directly sexist in intent (although of course it is directly sexist in practice).
Or is it only OK when the victim is a man?
If someone says it's OK because it's cheaper for the state and that matters more than people, well, at least that's an honest position and not directly sexist in intent (although of course it is directly sexist in practice).
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,626
Only OK when the victim is the man. We all pretty much can safely assume it.
What a ridiculous thing to say...……
'Selfish'? Really?
It certainly 'matters' the other way around if a man has a casual sexual encounter with a woman (who may have been having many such encounters around the same time) and he's the unfortunate one to have been the donor for the sperm that goes on to fertilise one of the females eggs and the woman then goes on to make a unilateral decision to keep the child (Even if its totally against the wishes of the father).
That woman can then use the state to force the man to hand over money for at least the next 18 years of his life. (Just to be clear I am not arguing against the above)
But a man, who may know that he has been intentionally and maliciously deceived, who is not the biological father to a child being compelled by the state to provide for it for the next 18 years? What rot!
If this situation arises the man should be offered one (and only one) time limited opportunity to relinquish parental rights and responsibility for the child (to prevent it being 'weaponised' going forward... i.e do 'x' or else ill stop paying for the kid)… if the man has been involved in parenting the child to a reasonable degree I believe he should be offered the chance at this point to retain parental rights and responsibilities (even against the mothers wishes) but if he chooses to remain the legal (if not biological) father then he accepts that he must pay his share towards the upkeep of the child.
If we going to start make arguments along what 'best for children' you might find this backfires in some unintentional ways....
For example by this line of thought the state should perhaps compel one parent to be a stay at home parent (and if for biological reasons alone this is more likely to be the woman) as studies have indicated that even older children may benefit from having a parent at home
"Won't someone think of the children!" hasn't exactly been a great arguing point, in of itself, now has it?
The stupid thing is, in the UK at least, a women only needs to name the father and he immediately becomes financially responsible until proven otherwise (DNA test). The rules are so one sided for this stuff it's ridiculous.
It's funny how we talk about basic rights for the mother. But the father's rights are entirely snubbed and the only way to get of out being trapped is to leave the country.
It's funny how we talk about basic rights for the mother. But the father's rights are entirely snubbed and the only way to get of out being trapped is to leave the country.
Last edited: