Bill: Mandatory Paternity Tests Before Birth Certificates Issued

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK I admit I have no read every single word of this thread but I get the idea of where its going.

So lets list the cons of this bill:
1. Civil rights discrimination by assuming that all women are liars and whores.
2. Does not take into consideration of certain scenarios - the man gets her pregnant and runs off - as in the case of rape often. Now how do you prove who the father is? You cant get a SS card without a birth certificate, you cant get the child enrolled into public schools until he/she has a SS card. So basically you cant do anything with this kid until the father is found - which in some cases can take years, which delays the whole process AND causes delays in obtaining medical care in some cases as hospitals require a SSN for patient identification, not to mention the many many headaches.
3. Its a violation of the federal HIPAA act of 1996.
4. The government shouldnt be getting involved in people's personal lives.

Pros:
1. If the father is listed then the child can better determine their medical history and what they are prone to having. Often in clinics they ask about the medical history of the parents if possible. The more you know the better they can treat you.
2. Deadbeat dads are easier to catch. (Not all are obviously but sadly there are many)
3. Women who are whores and dont know the father for 3 of their kids will be forced to own up to the fact that they like to sleep with the whole county.
4. And youre' right we are one step closer to having a national database this could be a good thing for tracking abnormalities and the possibility of linking diseases to their currently unknown causes.

There it is, thats how I break it down.

I personally though as a woman and a mother find it insulting and invasive into my private life. Its none of the doctors buisness about what Ive done Saturday night.

However if there is a database rapists would be more likely to get caught especially if a rape kit was done and the sperm saved to confirm paternity should the victim come up pregnant. Match the DNA evidence against that already in the bank and within 2-3 weeks you should have a result - though not 100% accurate, other things would have to take place to determine if in fact that particular guy did it especially if he was masked.
 
sequoias said:
I think they can give that guy a warrant to get dna testing for paternity to prove that he's the actual father of the kid and be held responsible. I'm not sure. They can even warrant people to take off shirt to check for scars from fighting, stab wounds, any other evidence.
Click to expand...

Yep that another way of putting it I agree iwth that.
 
Cheri said:
white lies is not the same as lying about something so huge, especially when it comes to children or important things. I would never lie to my own children, if you think lying to your own daughter makes it okay with you, then that's you. :ugh3:
Click to expand...

White lie or a little lie still means same thing is lying. ,, put it this way I may be off the point here,, Let say you had a friend visiting you,, and you not in the mood for company.. you say " sorry I am busy and no time to chat?" when u really not busy just to be alone. It may sound like excuse but it still "lying" so I am sure you have your share of "lying".
 
Cheri said:
It takes two people to created a child, it takes two to raise a child. The father is responsible for his half, as the mother is responsible for her half. That's the way it should be done. :)
Click to expand...

It may take two people to create a child, that true. But not always becasue what if the woman was raped? it that fair to her? did you know lot of times women who got raped by an friend, ex boyfriend or a stranger had to raise a child alone? So the woman got a right to protect her child away from the natural father for the rape he did to her. So, I would not called it created unless he forced her to have sex.
 
I respect your wishes Dixie, and you're made some good points too. ;)
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
OK I admit I have no read every single word of this thread but I get the idea of where its going.

So lets list the cons of this bill:
1. Civil rights discrimination by assuming that all women are liars and whores.
2. Does not take into consideration of certain scenarios - the man gets her pregnant and runs off - as in the case of rape often. Now how do you prove who the father is? You cant get a SS card without a birth certificate, you cant get the child enrolled into public schools until he/she has a SS card. So basically you cant do anything with this kid until the father is found - which in some cases can take years, which delays the whole process AND causes delays in obtaining medical care in some cases as hospitals require a SSN for patient identification, not to mention the many many headaches.
3. Its a violation of the federal HIPAA act of 1996.
4. The government shouldnt be getting involved in people's personal lives.

Pros:
1. If the father is listed then the child can better determine their medical history and what they are prone to having. Often in clinics they ask about the medical history of the parents if possible. The more you know the better they can treat you.
2. Deadbeat dads are easier to catch. (Not all are obviously but sadly there are many)
3. Women who are whores and dont know the father for 3 of their kids will be forced to own up to the fact that they like to sleep with the whole county.
4. And youre' right we are one step closer to having a national database this could be a good thing for tracking abnormalities and the possibility of linking diseases to their currently unknown causes.

There it is, thats how I break it down.

I personally though as a woman and a mother find it insulting and invasive into my private life. Its none of the doctors buisness about what Ive done Saturday night.

However if there is a database rapists would be more likely to get caught especially if a rape kit was done and the sperm saved to confirm paternity should the victim come up pregnant. Match the DNA evidence against that already in the bank and within 2-3 weeks you should have a result - though not 100% accurate, other things would have to take place to determine if in fact that particular guy did it especially if he was masked.
Click to expand...

Excellent points for both sides, Dixie!
 
The unfortunate thing is that people who are responsible have to take the blame for the actions of irresponsible people.
 
Byrdie714 said:
The unfortunate thing is that people who are responsible have to take the blame for the actions of irresponsible people.
Click to expand...

Only if you endorse bills such as this one that make it so.
 
Good pro-con list, Dixie. I'm thinking this bill will most likely fail at this time, for the negatives mentioned here, if nothing else.

But I think we'll see similar measures again, mainly because of the positive reasons.

For one thing, fingerprints as an identification system is horribly flawed. Just one text describing the abuses, failures, and myth-like hype of the system is Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification, by Simon Cole (Harvard University Press). We're long past needing a better system.

I'm not a phlebotomist, but I'm sure that profession can come up with a way to but three drops of blood or saliva -- child, mother, and father -- on a card similar to ones with baby footprints. Maybe sealed in plastic or amber like dinosaur DNA.

That way, when needed (by mutual agreement of the individual or by court order; who knows?) it will be available.

At any rate, the bill needs to be better drafted for better reasons and with better safeguards.
 
Byrdie714 said:
I do support it. :)
Click to expand...

That's obvious, Byrdie, and simply one more of the contradictions in your posts. It is odd indeed that you request equal rights for gays, lesbians, and the deaf, yet want to take away the civil rights of others that are already in place. That's a bit hypocritical of someone, especially one who claims to be an attorney well versed in civil rights law.
 
Chase said:
Good pro-con list, Dixie. I'm thinking this bill will most likely fail at this time, for the negatives mentioned here, if nothing else.

But I think we'll see similar measures again, mainly because of the positive reasons.

For one thing, fingerprints as an identification system is horribly flawed. Just one text describing the abuses, failures, and myth-like hype of the system is Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification, by Simon Cole (Harvard University Press). We're long past needing a better system.

I'm not a phlebotomist, but I'm sure that profession can come up with a way to but three drops of blood or saliva -- child, mother, and father -- on a card similar to ones with baby footprints. Maybe sealed in plastic or amber like dinosaur DNA.

That way, when needed (by mutual agreement of the individual or by court order; who knows?) it will be available.

At any rate, the bill needs to be better drafted for better reasons and with better safeguards.
Click to expand...


Absolutely safeguards need to be in palce with such a bill.
 
Reba said:
There's a movement in that direction.

Some states want to refuse welfare payments to mothers who refuse to identify the birth fathers of their children. The states want to force the fathers to pay support so that the mom and children won't need welfare money.

GOV: MOMS MUST ID DADS OR LOSE WELFARE

Reforming welfare reform: Clinton signed the bill; now
Click to expand...
I know a guy who is paying child support to his ex-wife for his kids. However, his ex-wife is also getting extra money in welfare (SSI) because she has kids and is not married. The social security administration don't know that she's already getting child support money from the ex-husband and the child support department doesn't know that the ex-wife is getting extra money from SSI.
 
VamPyroX said:
I know a guy who is paying child support to his ex-wife for his kids. However, his ex-wife is also getting extra money in welfare (SSI) because she has kids and is not married. The social security administration don't know that she's already getting child support money from the ex-husband and the child support department doesn't know that the ex-wife is getting extra money from SSI.
Click to expand...

Vampy, maybe this is allowed, legally? I don't know.....just asking....
 
Tousi said:
Vampy, maybe this is allowed, legally? I don't know.....just asking....
Click to expand...

I believe it is legal however it has to be noted. I am not exactly sure how it works but if you like, You can read this link -- Child Support Payments and the SSI Program

The guideline was revised in 2004, That's as much as the recent information I could find. If anyone else has a near recent information about this, It'd be great to see it as well.
 
"Well, at some point society has to weigh the rights of the parents against the rights of the child," he said. "And I think this is one of the basic inherent rights that should go with the child."
Click to expand...

Obviosuly one supports the rights of the children whereas another individual doesn't care about the rights of children.

That's obvious, Byrdie, and simply one more of the contradictions in your posts. It is odd indeed that you request equal rights for gays, lesbians, and the deaf, yet want to take away the civil rights of others that are already in place. That's a bit hypocritical of someone, especially one who claims to be an attorney well versed in civil rights law.
Click to expand...

And its obvious this individual doesn't support the rights of children to know who their birth father is. That is contradicting.

It's hypocritical that one wants best for children and yet deny their right to know who their real father is.
 
Tousi said:
Vampy, maybe this is allowed, legally? I don't know.....just asking....
Click to expand...
It's not really legal. However, the child support department and social security department don't work together. Since the social security income thing is for the ex-wife, they are not allowed to tell him if she's getting more money. Even if he told them that he was already paying more for child support, they simply tell him that he has to contact the child support department. Yet, when he talks to the child support department... they tell him that he needs evidence and talk with the social security administration. So, he's stuck in between.

He could go further by contacting a lawyer or something, but he's already got his own problems that he's afraid to get involved with this new problem. :roll:
 
Byrdie714 said:
Obviosuly one supports the rights of the children whereas another individual doesn't care about the rights of children.



And its obvious this individual doesn't support the rights of children to know who their birth father is. That is contradicting.

It's hypocritical that one wants best for children and yet deny their right to know who their real father is.
Click to expand...

And that is where you are confused, Byrdie. No one is saying that a child does not have the right to know who their father is, and there are already procedures in place to ensure that is remedied. What I am saying is, no one has the right to assume a mother is lying automatically about who the father of her child is. And no one has yet to answer the questions I have asked regarding circumstances such as sperm donation. There are simply far too many holes int he bill as written.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top