Up to one in TEN Britons 'don't know who their real father is' - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
#15010239
Ter wrote:I believe the husbands have a right to know if the children they are supposed to be the biological fathers of are indeed theirs.


Do you have a rational support for this belief?

The children also have a right to know so it is not only about the husbands.


Yes, the children do have rights, and if they wish to take a DNA test to learn more about themselves, they can. I do not think that children in Canada can force their father to take a DNA test.

But since we are discussing parental responsibilities, the rights of the child are not the topic.

By the way the children need to know for medical reasons as well. There are a number of congenital afflictions that can be present as a trait.
For instance haemoglobin E disease. It results in a slight anaemia but if doctors try to remedy the anaemia with iron supplements it would destroy the spleen. So better to know, right? This is just one example.


Sure, the doctors should know. But this does not mean the dad gets to force the issue.

:lol: not on "others", just on their "children".
If the mother didn't cheat, there would be no reason to refuse the test, right?


Yes, the children are other people. They are not objects or mere extensions of the father, so when you say he wants to force medical tests on his children, you are saying he wants to force medical tests on other people.

Very astutely put. Husbands would prefer to pass on their own genetic material, no ?


Yes, and most of us do, and we do not need the state to force others into it.

I don't care about the court.
If a man finds out that his wife cheated on him and made him raise bastards resulting from her cheating, the man has the right to know and to leave if he so wishes.


Dude can leave whenever he wants. No fault divorce is a thing. And if he already distrusts his wife, then he should. The paternity test is unnecessary.

It is an injustice because the unknowing cheated husband will sacrifice his time and energy to raise the offspring of another man therefore losing the opportunity to leave his DNA in the next generation.

In Western society, women cannot be controlled. They work outside the house, go wherever they like to go. This might or might not result in sex outside of the marriage. That makes it even more logical for a husband to check the paternity of the children.


So it is only an injustice if you have some sort of weird pride in spreading your seed.

You make me repeat myself. Almost every woman could cheat on their husbands if they want to. In case the cheating results in pregnancies, the husband who is supposed to help take care of those children emotionally, financially, energetically, and so on, has, in my opinion, the absolute right to check the paternity of said children and draw his own conclusions.
That's all there is to it.


Why would a guy want to know that? What advantage does he gain?
#15010247
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would a guy want to know that? What advantage does he gain?

To start with, he could leave the slutty wife and devote his time, money and affection to someone who is faithful and who will give him children that came to be with his genetic patrimonium.

All your other remarks and questions come to the same thing : you just cannot or do not want to see the importance of passing on your genes to the next generation. And of course your feminism plays up. The cheating wife should be protected from discovery.
#15010311
Ter, you aren't making any sense.

You claimed in the UK a man cannot force a random child to take a DNA test to prove parenthood, but a man is able to do that in the USA.

I haven't seen you provide any proof of that.

You're now changing the argument to include men that have parental responsibility for a child, but I have shown proof that you are totally wrong. As usual.

There is nothing stopping the husband of the slutty wife getting his children tested to prove ( or not) he's the father.

That's up to him. I know a man who did just that thing and his son will no longer talk to him.
#15010322
@Ter I would point out to you that you are the product of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of cuckcoldings. If all those women in your lineages hadn't chosen to cuckold you would not have been incarnated. Similarly you like me and every other human being on the planet are the product of hundreds of thousands if not millions of rapes.

This is why describing rape or cuckolding as absolutely morally wrong is wicked. Because they are saying I don't deserve to exist. I celebrate and commend all the women in my biological lineages that cuckolded to conceive my ancestors as I celebrate and commend all the men in my biological lineages that raped to conceive my ancestors. I don't believe my mother cuckolded to conceive me, and I don't believe that either my father or another man raped my mother in order to conceive me, but if they did I would commend and celebrate their acts.

just a note on the maths, lets just take the Old Stone Age, lets say conservatively that you only had on average 10,000 direct ancestors alive at the same time throughout the old stone age. Lets say 200,000 years. thats

generations = 200,000 / 30 = 6666
conceptions = 6666 * 10,000 / 2 = 33.33 million.

So my figures look plausible .
Last edited by Rich on 06 Jun 2019 09:51, edited 2 times in total.
#15010323
snapdragon wrote:You claimed in the UK a man cannot force a random child to take a DNA test to prove parenthood, but a man is able to do that in the USA.

I never said "a random child", you are doing that to obfuscate the diabolical laws that would legally prevent a husband to check if the children in his household are biologically his.

snapdragon wrote:There is nothing stopping the husband of the slutty wife getting his children tested to prove ( or not) he's the father.

You are wilfully wrong once again.
Of course the law in many countries will try to stop a husband from finding out if his children are his or not. In France he could go to jail for a year and get a 15,000 Euro fine. In Canada all parties have to agree, even a court cannot order it according to your fellow feminist PoD. In America, there are no impediments. In the UK it is about to become unlawful (I thought that was already the case)
Please read the texts and references I provided earlier on these subjects.

snapdragon wrote:That's up to him. I know a man who did just that thing and his son will no longer talk to him.

This man should have discussed this with his son before doing the test. If I were in any doubt, I would not hesitate to do the paternity test. I am aware that testing paternity is quite insulting to the mother of the child but these things do not come out of the blue. If she lies, if she cannot explain certain absences, if she gets phone calls which she receives in another room, and so on, and so on.
Even the ABO blood grouping, which is quite openly known, can exclude paternity in some cases. It would take too long to explain that here.
TL;DR Trust but verify.

Edited: @Rich
Nice post :)
our ancestors did not, since the Stone Age, cuckold incessantly because the term is reserved for extra-marital affairs and I doubt that our heavy eye-browed forefathers married each other. I do not even want to talk about rape although it must have happened a lot during the old and middle ages. Occupying armies and all that.
Nevertheless I appreciate your contribution to this debate.
8)
#15010330
Ter wrote:I never said "a random child", you are doing that to obfuscate the diabolical laws that would legally prevent a husband to check if the children in his household are biologically his.


You certainly implied it.

You're saying any man should be able to test any child to prove whether he's the father, but that the law in Britain prevents that.


You are wilfully wrong once again.
Of course the law in many countries will try to stop a husband from finding out if his children are his or not. In France he could go to jail for a year and get a 15,000 Euro fine. In Canada all parties have to agree, even a court cannot order it according to your fellow feminist PoD. In America, there are no impediments. In the UK it is about to become unlawful (I thought that was already the case)
Please read the texts and references I provided earlier on these subjects.



Those references are worthless. Please provide a reliable source - and stop talking about other countries. You are talking about British fathers and their children.


This man should have discussed this with his son before doing the test. If I were in any doubt, I would not hesitate to do the paternity test. I am aware that testing paternity is quite insulting to the mother of the child but these things do not come out of the blue. If she lies, if she cannot explain certain absences, if she gets phone calls which she receives in another room, and so on, and so on.


It was insulting to his son as well as his mother.

The bottom line is, he didn't love the boy enough.

If the test turned out differently, he would have disowned him.

That's a dreadful thing to do the child you've brought up as your own.
#15010336
As a male, I find it amazing that husbands could be so naive about the paternity of their children.

If you cannot tell whether or not the physical features bear a combined resemblance to either the father or mother, there are other give-aways.
If the mother is the one that registered the birth, do either of the first name(s) sound like a surname?

If so, there is a good chance that the child bears the fathers surname, which is obviously at variance to the parent 'father's' surname, unless of course,the mother has used a sibling of the husbnad, in which to conceive?

Another cue is, the name as a whole, is it 'triple-barrelled', which is where the example of a given name, sounding like a surname comes into play.

If any of the factors mentioned apply,without being judgemental, a paternity test could be used without taking DNA samples directly from a child.

One should never make an accusation if the test reveals that 'misgivings' are real, until the test is confirmed & even then a long period of reflection to consider whether the revelations make any real difference to your relationship as it is.

When someone marries a woman with children by previous relationships,if multiple children are involved, the chances are, there could also be multiple father's involved, but, when you marry such a person, you ought to accept them by adopting them as a first preference(consider the serious implications of doing so),or research the possibility of 'fostering' them, if that is possible?
#15010341
Ter wrote:
Nice post :)
our ancestors did not, since the Stone Age, cuckold incessantly because the term is reserved for extra-marital affairs and I doubt that our heavy eye-browed forefathers married each other. I do not even want to talk about rape although it must have happened a lot during the old and middle ages. Occupying armies and all that.
Nevertheless I appreciate your contribution to this debate.
8)

Thanks for your kind words. On Stone-age marriage, good point. Things were certainly very different before Agrarian Patriarchal culture, and this is a fascinating area of archaeological /anthropological study, however I strongly suspect that cuckolding was still a significant phenomena. By cuckolding, I mean a man being deceived by a woman into overestimating the probability of paternity and investing resources into the child on the basis of false belief.

On the question of rape. Rape is not a black and white thing. The boundary between rape and consensual sex is not clear at all. People like to pretend so for legal and ideological reasons, but there is a huge spectrum from a guy jumping out of the bushes, violently subduing the women and forcing himself upon her to perhaps forgetting to mention to girl that you've already got a girl friend. In neither case is the woman giving informed consent. While the former may not have been that common, I'm sure that what might be called semi rape was endemic, and that many women got married after these semi rapes took place. In fact I would guess that the large majority of women in post horticultural, pre modern times lost their virginity to what modern Swedish law would categorise as rape.

Women are biologically conditioned to become attached to men, they have sex with. If you want to have a "relationship" with a woman, then the surest way is to have sex with her. You see this over and over again, women getting involved in relationships, who they were not really into before they had sex and were not looking to have sex with. This is actually quite relevant to cuckolding, because anti feminists, often talk about cuckolding as if it was pure female agency. I suspect the majority of time it is not. Some women are very good at manipulating men, but also some men are very good at manipulating women.
#15010351
On stone age marriage it doesn't do to transfer too much ideological baggage on our esteemed earliest ancestors. We don't really know very much about their typical social practices because it was so long ago. We can fairly assume some things about them based on how those remaining hunter gatherers alive today carry on as well as somewhat less safely by looking at other primates. If we are going to make assumptions then we should probably admit that they probably typically went in for exclusive pairings with a dash of polygamy as the default. It was from this that the practice of marriage evolved.
#15010359
Ter wrote:To start with, he could leave the slutty wife and devote his time, money and affection to someone who is faithful and who will give him children that came to be with his genetic patrimonium.


As I already mentioned, no fault divorce already exists, and the man can already leave the woman whenever he wants.

He does not need this test in order to do so, so the test gives him no advantage in this case.

And since this is the only benefit you came up with, it seems there would be no benefits to your proposed policy.

I would like everyone to note that Ter’s proposal confers no benefits in the child, which should be the point of any policy about kids.

—————————

SolarCross wrote:@Pants-of-dog
Do you think a husband has a right to a paternity test in the event of a divorce and the wife is claiming payments for child care from him?


No, not in Canada. I already pointed out the legal situation here.

What benefit would there be to allow the father to do this?
#15010364
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, not in Canada. I already pointed out the legal situation here.

What benefit would there be to allow the father to do this?

I didn't ask you about the laws in Canada. I asked if you thought a man has a right to get a paternity test in return for liability to pay for child care. If they are not genetically his kids why should he pay?
#15010366
Pants-of-dog wrote:As I already mentioned, no fault divorce already exists, and the man can already leave the woman whenever he wants.

He does not need this test in order to do so, so the test gives him no advantage in this case.


Of course the test gives an advantage, namely to know if the child is his.
I understand that you don't care if you are the biological father or the cuckolded husband but most men would care.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I would like everyone to note that Ter’s proposal confers no benefits in the child, which should be the point of any policy about kids.


To start with, the fathers also have rights (I know this is difficult for you to consider but indulge me this one time)
As for the children, the benefit would be that in most cases the father will stay in the family and look after his children. That is better than a one parent family or a reconstituted family.

So I would like everyone to note that PoD's feministic views benefit only the adulteress women.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, not in Canada. I already pointed out the legal situation here.

What benefit would there be to allow the father to do this?


So in Canada a divorced father is required to pay for the children even if the children are not his. (He can do a home test to know for sure and screw the law that this is not allowed).
This is scandalous. This kind of injustice leads to family dramas as we regularly read in the news.
Now we now : Canada sucks for men.
#15010368
SolarCross wrote:I didn't ask you about the laws in Canada. I asked if you thought a man has a right to get a paternity test in return for liability to pay for child care. If they are not genetically his kids why should he pay?


You asked if a man has the right to do this. I then pointed out that the laws as they currently stand do not give him the right.

If you wanted to know if a man should have that right, you should have asked that.

So, is the point to get out of child support payments?

———————————-

Ter wrote:Of course the test gives an advantage, namely to know if the child is his.
I understand that you don't care if you are the biological father or the cuckolded husband but most men would care.


If the only advantage is knowledge, then it is meager advantage. Also, the guy could just ask and then he would have that knowledge without requiring the state to force people to undergo medical testing.

To start with, the fathers also have rights (I know this is difficult for you to consider but indulge me this one time)
As for the children, the benefit would be that in most cases the father will stay in the family and look after his children. That is better than a one parent family or a reconstituted family.


If the father is the type to abandon the wife and kids because of this, I doubt the family is better off with him.

And what right of the father are you referring to?

So I would like everyone to note that PoD's feministic views benefit only the adulteress women.


How so? How does it not benefit others?

So in Canada a divorced father is required to pay for the children even if the children are not his. (He can do a home test to know for sure and screw the law that this is not allowed).
This is scandalous. This kind of injustice leads to family dramas as we regularly read in the news.
Now we now : Canada sucks for men.


No one is inviting you to come live here.

Why should the biological paternity matter in terms of child support? Should the father be able to get out of paying child support if the test determines a lack of biological relation?
#15010372
Pants-of-dog wrote:You asked if a man has the right to do this. I then pointed out that the laws as they currently stand do not give him the right.

If you wanted to know if a man should have that right, you should have asked that.

So, is the point to get out of child support payments?

You don't need a lawyer to be right about something. If they were not his kids why should he pay? It should be whoever cucked him that pays.
#15010376
SolarCross wrote:Do you agree he shouldn't have to pay if they are not his kids?


Tell me, how does a man’s relationship with a child get affected by a woman’s sex life?

Should the relationship between the man and the child change as information about the mom’s sex life becomes clear?
Trump and Russiagate

At the expense of how many other jobs? You're igno[…]

What seems to have escaped you is that the Presid[…]

The dependence of the world economy on energy reco[…]