Interesting comment against mandatory paternity testing at birth
Lenona
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4472#comments
(You have to scroll up to read the article the commenter is referring
to - which in turn links to another one on a case of paternity fraud:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20091220/COLUMNIST/912201033/2416/NEWS?tc=ar
)
So at 3:55 p.m. yesterday, Pankaj (normally a pretty strong supporter
of men's rights, IIRC) said:
These are the direct consequences of mandatory DNA testing - see if
you like it
1. Cost of independent DNA testing will rise.
2. DNA reports WILL be falsified - either on purpose or due to the
sheer incompetence of the testers - thus eliminating any doubts a man
holds and thus reduce the chance he would actually check for himself.
3. When a father overcomes his false faith in govt issued DNA report,
pays the elevated cost of DNA testing - and finds out that the govt
issued DNA report was wrong- now he still has to go to court and fight
a long drawn out battle over the DNA report. And as you might know -
govt is very willing to accept failure and incompetence on its system.
cough..CSEA.. cough.. TSA.. cough .. CPS..
4. And given that the govt has shown its willingness to use DNA as a
basis for determine obligations of CS (child support)... yeah things
will work perfectly, right?
Delusional.. that is what this idea is. I would say be careful what
you are wishing for - you might get it.
(end)
Lenona.
h
"Lenona" <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52725574-0502-461c...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Who gives a shit. This crap only matters to breeders, NOT TO US!
Lenona
>
> Who gives a shit. This crap only matters to breeders, NOT TO US!
Um, haven't you been following the news in the last 15 years or so?
I take it you haven't heard that
1. When a man IS the unwilling father, even if the mother is willing
to let him go financially, that doesn't mean the state will (depending
on where you live - I first heard of this in 1998).
2. More importantly, when a man is the victim of paternity fraud,
unless he uncovers that fact immediately, he may find it near-
impossible, legally, to keep the thief from getting her hands on his
money. Even then, it's going to be tough - and he may never get the
money back that he'll have to spend on lawyer's fees. This can happen
to ANY man, CF or not - even if the man has never MET the woman in
question.
Don't believe it? See the California case of Tony Pierce, here.
http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/injustice-by-default
Or the even more outrageous New Mexico case of Viola Trevino, her ex-
husband, Steve Barreras, and a baby that never existed - but that he
was forced to pay $20,000 to support before the courts decided to
force Trevino to produce the child!
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S190773.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah7kP9xH3TA&feature=related
(part one of two - each newsclip is only 3 minutes long)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt3HehlqHHg&feature=related
(followup in 2007 regarding the false DNA test and the lawsuit
against Mobile Blood Services - according to Wikipedia, Mr. Barreras
won)
Trevino is due to be released from prison in 2012, according to
Wikipedia.
So all in all, I'd say the issue of paternity testing at birth - state-
enforced or not - is quite relevant to men in this group and to the
women who care about them.
Lenona.
h
http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/injustice-by-default
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S190773.shtml
Umm, NO ONE who is childfree hasn't been fixed, so "paternity" testing is
irrelevant for us. If you haven't been fixed you aren't CF. PLONK!
Frank Apple
> Umm, NO ONE who is childfree hasn't been fixed, so "paternity" testing is
> irrelevant for us. If you haven't been fixed you aren't CF. PLONK!
What? My SO, with whom I have a monogamous relationship, is -
while not CF, having involuntarily sprogged back before abortion
was legal - fixed. why should I go to the trouble and expense
of obtaining a vasectomy?
Plonk right back atcha.
--
Frank Apple
========================================================================
"Life's too short to be caught up in misery." -Pirate Queen
Pete
"h" <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
> Umm, NO ONE who is childfree hasn't been fixed, so "paternity" testing is
> irrelevant for us. If you haven't been fixed you aren't CF. PLONK!
Thank you for beating me to the punch. There is no such thing as an
"unwilling" father. If any person, male or female, doesn't want to be a
parent, it's incumbent on that person to take whatever measures
necessary to ensure fertilization does not occur. That includes NOT
FUCKING...Pete
Pete
Frank Apple <yeah...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> What? My SO, with whom I have a monogamous relationship, is -
> while not CF, having involuntarily sprogged back before abortion
> was legal - fixed.
Your SO did NOT involuntarily sprog. Prevention of conception by any
means necessary is the responsibility of any person seeking to be
childfree.
If your SO became pregnant, she was willing. Even in the day prior to
legalized abortion, the method of fertilization was well known and she
indulged herself.
Sorry, she should have gotten her tubes tied or refrained from
fucking...Pete
Frank Apple
> In article <hhou6a$93e$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Frank Apple <yeah...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > What? My SO, with whom I have a monogamous relationship, is -
> > while not CF, having involuntarily sprogged back before abortion
> > was legal - fixed.
> Your SO did NOT involuntarily sprog.
And plonk to you, too.
SkyEyes
> "Lenona" <lenona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c39ecbf-0901-4f86...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 2, 6:12 pm, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who gives a shit. This crap only matters to breeders, NOT TO US!
>
> Um, haven't you been following the news in the last 15 years or so?
>
> I take it you haven't heard that
>
> 1. When a man IS the unwilling father, even if the mother is willing
> to let him go financially, that doesn't mean the state will (depending
> on where you live - I first heard of this in 1998).
>
> 2. More importantly, when a man is the victim of paternity fraud,
> unless he uncovers that fact immediately, he may find it near-
> impossible, legally, to keep the thief from getting her hands on his
> money. Even then, it's going to be tough - and he may never get the
> money back that he'll have to spend on lawyer's fees. This can happen
> to ANY man, CF or not - even if the man has never MET the woman in
> question.
>
> Don't believe it? See the California case of Tony Pierce, here.
>
> http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/injustice-by-default
>
> Or the even more outrageous New Mexico case of Viola Trevino, her ex-
> husband, Steve Barreras, and a baby that never existed - but that he
> was forced to pay $20,000 to support before the courts decided to
> force Trevino to produce the child!
>
>
> http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S190773.shtml
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah7kP9xH3TA&feature=related
> (part one of two - each newsclip is only 3 minutes long)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt3HehlqHHg&feature=related
> (followup in 2007 regarding the false DNA test and the lawsuit
> against Mobile Blood Services - according to Wikipedia, Mr. Barreras
> won)
>
> http://shellybarreras.com/
>
> Trevino is due to be released from prison in 2012, according to
> Wikipedia.
>
> Umm, NO ONE who is childfree hasn't been fixed, so "paternity" testing is
> irrelevant for us. If you haven't been fixed you aren't CF. PLONK!
Hold it right there, young 'un. During my fertile years, I begged and
pleaded with the medical profession to get a tubal, and nobody would
do it. (They *all* thought, because I am a woman, I'd "change my
mind.") So your assertion is false on its face.
All I can say at this point is: thank christ for menopause.
There are a lot of reasons why a CF person might not be "fixed," so
don't go making snap judgements about everyone else's circumstances.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
h
"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a8e9eb4f-5122-4c18...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
"Young 'un"? Excuse me? I'm a 53 year old female who had NO PROBLEM getting
a tubal at age 24 from the first doctor I called. Perhaps you didn't present
a convincing front when you visited "all" the doctors and none of them
thought you were serious. I call bullshit. You simply didn't have the
correct answers to their questions and they could tell. I stand by my
original assertion - you're not CF if you're not sterile/fixed.
tmclone
> In article <hhou6a$93...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > What? My SO, with whom I have a monogamous relationship, is -
> > while not CF, having involuntarily sprogged back before abortion
> > was legal - fixed.
>
> Your SO did NOT involuntarily sprog. Prevention of conception by any
> means necessary is the responsibility of any person seeking to be
> childfree.
>
> If your SO became pregnant, she was willing. Even in the day prior to
> legalized abortion, the method of fertilization was well known and she
> indulged herself.
>
> Sorry, she should have gotten her tubes tied or refrained from
> fucking...Pete
Wow, Frank is stll here? Who knew?
Terry Lomax
> Umm, NO ONE who is childfree hasn't been fixed, so "paternity" testing is
> irrelevant for us. If you haven't been fixed you aren't CF. PLONK!
Geez, I thought my standards for whether someone is CF or not were
nearly the highest, and even I don't have the requirement of "you must
be fixed" (though I suspect any female who hasn't been fixed might
"change her mind"). Most childfree men have not been fixed.
Vasectomies don't protect against STDs.
Being fixed isn't the best/only solution to avoiding pregnancy. When
the man goes in before the surgery, doesn't the clinic take sperm
samples? Someone at the clinic might use the sperm samples to
impregnate. Sometimes the surgery isn't a success. Snip surgery can
be reversed. Many pregnancies occur when a partner lies and claims
they're sterile.
In addition to falsification, DNA can be forged. Israel already has
the technology to fabricate DNA.
A solution to the paternity scandals: any man who could possibly be
the father should have the right to FORCE the mother to get an
abortion. Of course the "pro-chice" idiots are opposed to such an
idea because "pro-choice" means the woman should be allowed to choose
to have the kid. "Pro-choice" = pro-pregnancy.
[Google Groups stinks! My login expired in between replying to the
post and sending.]
Frank Apple
> A solution to the paternity scandals: any man who could possibly be
> the father should have the right to FORCE the mother to get an
> abortion. Of course the "pro-chice" idiots are opposed to such an
> idea because "pro-choice" means the woman should be allowed to choose
> to have the kid. "Pro-choice" = pro-pregnancy.
I seem to recall reading of a movement with that goal, some years
ago. It was called CFM (Choice For Men). I wonder what ever happened
to them.
> [Google Groups stinks! My login expired in between replying to the
> post and sending.]
So don't post via Google Groups.
Steve Daniels
compelled Pete <fuck...@fuck.bush.com>, to say:
> Sorry, she should have gotten her tubes tied or refrained from
> fucking...Pete
I imagine refraining from fucking Pete isn't all that difficult.
elizabeth
> On Jan 2, 6:12 pm, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who gives a shit. This crap only matters to breeders, NOT TO US!
>
> Um, haven't you been following the news in the last 15 years or so?
>
> I take it you haven't heard that
>
> 1. When a man IS the unwilling father, even if the mother is willing
> to let him go financially, that doesn't mean the state will (depending
> on where you live - I first heard of this in 1998).
>
> 2. More importantly, when a man is the victim of paternity fraud,
> unless he uncovers that fact immediately, he may find it near-
> impossible, legally, to keep the thief from getting her hands on his
> money. Even then, it's going to be tough - and he may never get the
> money back that he'll have to spend on lawyer's fees. This can happen
> to ANY man, CF or not - even if the man has never MET the woman in
> question.
>
> Don't believe it? See the California case of Tony Pierce, here.
>
> http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/injustice-by-default
>
> Or the even more outrageous New Mexico case of Viola Trevino, her ex-
> husband, Steve Barreras, and a baby that never existed - but that he
> was forced to pay $20,000 to support before the courts decided to
> force Trevino to produce the child!
>
>
> http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S190773.shtml
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah7kP9xH3TA&feature=related
> (part one of two - each newsclip is only 3 minutes long)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt3HehlqHHg&feature=related
> (followup in 2007 regarding the false DNA test and the lawsuit
> against Mobile Blood Services - according to Wikipedia, Mr. Barreras
> won)
>
> http://shellybarreras.com/
>
> Trevino is due to be released from prison in 2012, according to
> Wikipedia.
>
> So all in all, I'd say the issue of paternity testing at birth - state-
> enforced or not - is quite relevant to men in this group and to the
> women who care about them.
>
> Lenona.
That's why real CF men are snipped. I still have a hard time
believing that some women can be so evil as to oops a man, using
children as weapons . .. but I guess it shows women and men are
equally vile! Some of us do manage to rise above, though, and make
sure we will never breed.
elizabeth
OK, so she can mess around and not worry, but if you do get an
oopsing, it's on you. But it would seem no woman is hard up enough to
want to do it, so you're probably safe.
elizabeth
> In article <hhou6a$93...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
> > What? My SO, with whom I have a monogamous relationship, is -
> > while not CF, having involuntarily sprogged back before abortion
> > was legal - fixed.
>
> Your SO did NOT involuntarily sprog. Prevention of conception by any
> means necessary is the responsibility of any person seeking to be
> childfree.
>
> If your SO became pregnant, she was willing. Even in the day prior to
> legalized abortion, the method of fertilization was well known and she
> indulged herself.
>
> Sorry, she should have gotten her tubes tied or refrained from
> fucking...Pete
Yes, he's married to a cow. And is defensive about it . .. and
abortion was available before it was legalized. She chose to breed.
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because most women, almost all men, and almost all medical
professionals see women as ambulatory uteruses, and men as people.
That's why you and I didn't get tubalized when we wanted to, and note,
neither one of us, decades later, have children. Guess I knew my own
mind better than that asshole doctor back in the late 1970s!
elizabeth
> "SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dearie, it was all but impossible to get a tubal ligation unless you
were lucky enough to have a doctor who wasn't as malignantly
pronatalist as they were trained. Even now, most folks feel that
women all want to breed. That's a big part of why this ng exists.
elizabeth
Hey, why not just beat the shit out of the woman you just fucked to
make sure? Force her to abort? How about we force you to get a field
vasectomy with my bayonet?
Terry Lomax
> That's why real CF men are snipped.
Most real CF men are NOT snipped. Real men abstain or wear condoms.
Men know we'll always be childfree, so we don't have to protect
ourselves from a mind-changing future self (unlike women who hit the
"biological clock" and "change their mind"). Condoms are necessary to
protect against STDs because a high percentage of women have STDs.
The majority of women cheat, and even if they didn't, they might brush
against a needle with AIDS or some other form of non-sexual
transmission. Vasectomies encourage unprotected sex, though there's
nothing wrong about getting a vasectomy AND wearing a condom.
If the man in a relationship gets snipped and the woman doesn't, it's
likely because she's planning on leaving him and having babies with
some other man.
> I still have a hard time
> believing that some women can be so evil as to oops a man, using
> children as weapons . .. but I guess it shows women and men are
Yes, both genders are full of scumbags, but women are more likely to
1) want to breed, and 2) to exploit the pregnancy for money via "child
support", forced marriage, false "rape" charges, and various other
schemes. If men were the ones choosing whether a baby is aborted,
there would be a lot fewer births. Many of us wouldn't be here, as
many of our fathers didn't want to be parents.
> equally vile! Some of us do manage to rise above, though, and make
> sure we will never breed.
Not you. You're not childfree. You got yourself pregnant.
Childlessness and childfreedom end at conception. In another post on
this thread, you show you're opposed to women being forced to abort,
proof you favor women choosing to breed. In addition, you have a
history of making posts in support of cops. That's a sign of low
intelligence, blind faith in government, and an enabler of breeders,
as cops exist to serve women and give them whatever they want (such as
false "wifebeating" charges). Cops are eunuchs who seek to protect
women and children from imaginary attackers. Your pro-police
attitudes make you a clone of Geoff Miller on those issues.
Frank Apple
> Yes, he's married to a cow. And is defensive about it . .. and
> abortion was available before it was legalized. She chose to breed.
*sigh*
Fine, plonk to you too, My Dear.
Funny thing: I purge my killfiles every 1 January, and yesterday
and today I've added three idiots to it. All of those were from
this newsgroup. But the most annoying twit here - Bobchai - remains
out of it so far.
Y'all must be SO proud of yourselves.
Pete
Frank Apple <yeah...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> elizabeth <efra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, he's married to a cow. And is defensive about it . .. and
> > abortion was available before it was legalized. She chose to breed.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Fine, plonk to you too, My Dear.
>
> Funny thing: I purge my killfiles every 1 January, and yesterday
> and today I've added three idiots to it. All of those were from
> this newsgroup. But the most annoying twit here - Bobchai - remains
> out of it so far.
>
> Y'all must be SO proud of yourselves.
Ya know, public plonking went out with Windows ME, OS9 and dial-up
modems. Nobody cares if calling your breeder wife a breeder makes you
mad, she's a breeder and she didn't have to be.
Involuntary sprogging - no one held a gun to her head. Breeder - and by
plonking the CF you identify as a breeder-pleaser...enjoy...Pete
Coffee's For Closers
f37c85...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, efra...@hotmail.com
says...
> On Jan 2, 9:29=A0pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Hold it right there, young 'un. =A0During my fertile years, I begged and
> > pleaded with the medical profession to get a tubal, and nobody would
> > do it. =A0(They *all* thought, because I am a woman, I'd "change my
> > mind.") =A0So your assertion is false on its face.
> >
> > All I can say at this point is: =A0thank christ for menopause.
> >
> > There are a lot of reasons why a CF person might not be "fixed," so
> > don't go making snap judgements about everyone else's circumstances.
> Because most women, almost all men, and almost all medical
> professionals see women as ambulatory uteruses, and men as people.
> That's why you and I didn't get tubalized when we wanted to, and note,
> neither one of us, decades later, have children. Guess I knew my own
> mind better than that asshole doctor back in the late 1970s!
Yes, there is often the attitude that, you "will" change your
mind, and live your life the same way they live theirs (e.g. get
married and have kids.) Many people really believe that, deep
down, everyone thinks, feels, wants, values exactly the same as
them. This covers many areas of life.
OTOH, a doctor may have another angle: liability. S/he may be
concerned about doing a sterilisation, and then the patient
changes his/her mind later, and files a lawsuit. Because there
really are people who will sue on the basis of, "You should have
refused my request, and protected me from my mistake."
And, generally, the doctor may feel they will bear some
responsibility (even just moral) if the sterilisation turns out
to be a bad idea. While denying the procedure means that s/he
simply stays out of the situation, and doesn't bear any
responsibility for anything afterwards. You aren't likely to sue
the refusing doctor over a subsequent unwanted pregnancy, or
for the hassle of avoiding one, or for the misery of unwanted
children.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
elizabeth
But you're not any sort of a man.
elizabeth
elizabeth
> In article <hhruie$jv...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Frank Apple <yeahri...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, he's married to a cow. And is defensive about it . .. and
> > > abortion was available before it was legalized. She chose to breed.
>
> > *sigh*
>
> > Fine, plonk to you too, My Dear.
>
> > Funny thing: I purge my killfiles every 1 January, and yesterday
> > and today I've added three idiots to it. All of those were from
> > this newsgroup. But the most annoying twit here - Bobchai - remains
> > out of it so far.
>
> > Y'all must be SO proud of yourselves.
>
> Ya know, public plonking went out with Windows ME, OS9 and dial-up
> modems. Nobody cares if calling your breeder wife a breeder makes you
> mad, she's a breeder and she didn't have to be.
>
> Involuntary sprogging - no one held a gun to her head. Breeder - and by
> plonking the CF you identify as a breeder-pleaser...enjoy...Pete
I've had this same addy for how many years? Since Google set up ng?
Sounds like he's got a lot of trouble with his killfile . .. and
that's the least of his problems.
elizabeth
IN.SIG> wrote:
> In article <84ae2546-861a-4ba4-a497-
> f37c85a16...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, efran...@hotmail.com
> Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
But what happens if a woman regrets having a child?
There would be an interesting lawsuit . .. if the doc more or less
bullied her into breeding.
IN the case of Yates, the doctor should be sued for malpractice, he
should have turned in Rusty for spousal abuse and tubalized her.
Frank Apple
> OTOH, a doctor may have another angle: liability. S/he may be
> concerned about doing a sterilisation, and then the patient
> changes his/her mind later, and files a lawsuit. Because there
> really are people who will sue on the basis of, "You should have
> refused my request, and protected me from my mistake."
.. and win, in the US.
Lenona
Video interview on the subject:
http://www.dadsdivorce.com/blog/dadsdivorce-live-robert-franklin-on-paternity-fraud.html
Lenona.
Frank Apple
> > Fine, plonk to you too, My Dear.
> PLONKING? Who the hell still plonks? I'll bet you're posting from a
> webtv setup
Heh. Can't read headers, huh?
> and you're too old to spawn even if you wanted to.
Pretty much, although breeders older than me have certainly done
it. Not a concern, though.