Tuesday, March 26, 2013

It's for the Chillllldreeeennnnn

"Gee, Jim.  I don't know.  Where have all the good men gone?"

If those samples were found in the post by officials on their way to foreign laboratories, the French men who sent them could theoretically face a year in prison and a 15,000 Euro fine. This year the ban was challenged but the French Government decided to uphold and maintain the anti-paternity testing law.

The reasons for which the Government said the ban should remain were related to the preservation of peace within French families. According to some online articles, Germany, has also banned (or plans to ban) paternity testing for similar reasons. French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology...

The argument against allowing paternity testing in France is directly opposed to the argument for allowing it almost everywhere else. While French Authorities believe that paternity testing can cause friction within families, some fathers find that getting rid of any doubt relating to their relationship with their child can help strengthen the bond they have with them, instead. 

In cases where their paternity has been verified, the child could actually get to know who their 'real' biological father was and many people believe that is important. So, rather than causing disputes, paternity testing in France could actually settle them. Now that the ban has been upheld, French fathers are likely to continue breaking the law in an effort to discover whether children in their care are biologically theirs.


Roy said...

France is a f**king pathetic country. The sad thing is that the rest of Europe and the USA are only 2 steps behind the French in becoming completely testicle-free.

Nikoloz said...

Unbelievable. That's tantamount to an official endorsement of cuckoldry, which is quite possibly the most abhorrent thing a wife can do to her husband.

Shameful said...

So the real queation is when can dna teating be used for paternity. Say 1 million single moms all claimed the prime minister was their baby daddy?

People ask "what man would want to have a child in this environmemt?" And that is the point. Listen to the big gov bureaucrats they wamt less people, well unless its the welfare hoards to secure their vote. But the welfare hoard doesnt care about paternity anyway.

Anonymous said...

No man's name should ever go on a birth certificate without confirmation that he is the father.

I understand that it is at the mothers discretion whether or not a fathers name goes on a BC in Ontario. If she chooses to put a man's name there, there should be proof.

Anonymous said...

Say 1 million single moms all claimed the prime minister was their baby daddy?

In nearly all states in the US, paternity cannot be contested beyond an approximately 30 day window of being named daddy. In California, the courts there have ruled that "didn't receive service, including service to a wrong (or more likely false) address" doesn't extend the window. The obvious takeaway is that the courts are ok with a mother lying about a man's address in order to deny him a defense to a paternity action. Given that, naming somebody like Bill Gates as dad and keeping him out of the loop until the window has passed is almost stupidly easy. I'm surprised it hasn't happened to a wealthy public figure yet.

Anonymous said...

Interesting (at least to me) that in this case having a two person/two sex household is somehow seen as good for the "state"...

Positive Thinker said...

Australia is considering a similar law, only that a DNA test can only be done with the permission of the mother! Punishment will obviously follow if a man does so without permission.

When I contact a local Civil Liberties group about getting them to weigh in (because in my mind it's easier to stop these things BEFORE they get put into law than it is to reverse them) the main guy asked why I cared, since I don't have children.

I replied by stating that every man should have the right to know for sure if a child is his without rocking the boat.

He told me that they weren't going to do anything because the situation I put forward were all purely hypothetical and that they only deal with real issues of real people. He then sent me a link showing stuff they were fighting for: most of it for rights of people in HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS!

I might be concerned about a hypothetical situation, but he's a damn hypocrite!