Since men have been victimized for paternity fraud for years now, and feminists don't seem able to speak out against paternity fraud, I guess my only choice as a man would be to vote for this legislation.

Too bad. So sad.

Cheerio!

It took me way too long to realize that this screwed-up not-real attitude of male fetus ownership forms the crux of anti-abortionism. Pre-fathers are stripped by abortion of the paternalistic notion of a woman "giving him a child." History is over-run with this Woman As Brood Mare crap; primogeniture; you haven't had a child till you've had a boy; on and on.

More, Roe versus Wade legally establishes the bald truth that not only is the fetus not his, nor is not a child, which it only becomes once viable: It is in fact the mother. The fetus is part and parcel of the mother, as an organ is part and parcel of the mother.

I don't think we've yet doped out the accurate role of paternity.

This is, I believe, the largest part of the vitriol against abortion, the legalization of which overturns the most ancient of male preogatives and is an especial insult to what comes out of a man's dick.

Best,

(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")

No, a man has no right to choose to force a woman to go through pregnancy she does not desire.

The fetus is not a person. Potential is not the same as actuality.

A man's link to a non-person, or the potential for eventual person-hood, does not transfer him rights over the woman's body in the meanwhile.

Therefore, the debate is entirely between the man and the woman, about the woman's immediate body and health, in which she without question has absolute say.

A woman would hopefully take his opinion into consideration, heavily into consideration, but ultimately it is her choice.

...

Having said that, on another related issue, it's a reasonable argument that men should have say in whether they choose to be parents in an era of available contraception and morning after pills.

Allowing the father to bring suit to force a women to abort a fetus he doesn't want. Fair's fair, right? If a woman needs approval of the father to have an abortion, she should also need his approval to carry it to term.

Yeah, THAT will go over well...

...is based on having the right to control your own body. A father doesn't have a right to control another person's body, thus he doesn't have a right to either veto an abortion or demand that one be carried out. It's not his body.

To give a father such rights would violate equality of rights; women would be subject to men, because men would be able to violate their autonomy. It would be giving men extra rights over women.

When a baby is born, it is no longer part of anyone's body and thus there is no question that it's an individual being with rights. Neither the mother nor the father have a right to end its life.

The fact that a father will be held fianacially responsible to take care of the baby has no relevance here. Both the mother and the father will be held equally liable.

in your estrogen poisoned mind it is perfectly OK for the woman to control the MAN'S body, in the form of coopting his labor against his will on behalf of the child he never wanted.

A father doesn't have a right to control another person's body

Don't get too comfy ladies, this men-as-slaves-to-women thing is about to end.

It seems like every other white person under 30 in NY and San Fran and LA and Seattle and every other coastal US city is from Ohio.

Know why?

Because of stupid stunts like this.

This kind of disgusting behavior is why your cities are dying, your tax base is shriveling, and your reputation is in the gutter, Ohio.

Let's talk brain drain, Ohio. You set up task forces to study why your youngsters aren't sticking around. Well, we're ashamed. We're disgusted. And we're taking our earning power, our futures, and our sanity as far away from you as possible.

Have fun growing old alone.

PS: Mom & Dad, we'll send you money to visit us on the coasts.

27% of child support claims in Tennessee are for children not of the court-designated father....

Our bodies, ourselves! Men Unite!

PATERNITY FRAUD HIGHER THAN THOUGHT

Sunday, 22 July 2007

DNA tests expose courts' inconsistency on paternity

By MELVIN CLAXTON and SHEILA BURKE | July 22, 2007

Daily News Journal - Gannett Tennessee

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first in a three-part series about how DNA testing is changing the landscape of custody and child support.

Five years ago, James Ridley was running scared, facing possible jail time after falling seriously behind on his child-support payments.

Ridley, left blind in one eye and permanently brain damaged after a brutal carjacking in 1995, owed $11,635 in support. The Nashville native said the court's solution, garnishing $104 from his weekly wages, left him nearly broke.

"There were many times I was taking home $38 a week after they took out the child-support payments," recalls 36-year-old Ridley, who worked as a kitchen helper and dishwasher in a local restaurant. "I couldn't live on that, but I kept working because the judge said if I didn't make the payment I would go to jail. I didn't want to go to jail."

But there was something Ridley didn't know: The 9-year-old boy and 4-year-old girl he struggled to support were not his biological children. That bombshell would remain a secret until 2006, when DNA tests recommended by his lawyer revealed Ridley hadn't fathered either child by his former girlfriend.

Ridley's case — which ended in a judge terminating his support payments and parental rights — is far from unique. It offers insights into how DNA technology, best known for its use in criminal investigations, is reshaping child-support and custody cases across Tennessee. Thanks to DNA, which has replaced the inexact paternity blood tests used previously, courts can now determine with near irrefutable surety who is and who is not a child's biological father.

A far-reaching impact

On a personal level, DNA testing has dragged old infidelities and betrayals to the forefront, tearing apart families and forever altering the lives of children. On a larger scale, this technology — which is increasingly affordable and accessible — has highlighted the failure of state law to provide clear guidelines on the rights of the men who were misled into believing they were biological fathers.

It has been messy and salacious.

Men, armed with concrete evidence of a girlfriend's or spouse's infidelity, have gone to court to stop child-support payments. Many have voluntarily given up all contact with the children they once raised and cared for as their own flesh and blood....

"They have no voice at all," said Nashville family court judge Carol Soloman. "The children have to suffer because of a parent's (read mother's - my edit) wrongdoing."

The fallout from the use of DNA demonstrates the need for updating paternity laws, experts say.

"I think there is a genuine mess because of the conflict between technological advances and the lag in the law," said family law expert Joanna Grossman, professor of law at Hofstra University School of Law in New York....

27% of claims disproved

There is no way to tell how many wrongly named fathers are paying child support in Middle Tennessee or across the state. But where statistics are available, they give pause.

Last year, the Tennessee Department of Human Services tested more than 7,000 men who had been named as fathers by women seeking child-support or government assistance. Approximately 2,000 of the men — roughly 27 percent — were not the biological father, DHS records show.

The percent is roughly the same in the Davidson County Juvenile Court, which sometimes orders its own DNA testing. In addition, researchers estimate that in the general population about one in 10 Tennessee men named as biological fathers in specific cases are not.

That number, experts say, is true nationally.

"That is a commonly accepted number and sometimes thought to be higher," said Ellen Clayton, professor of pediatrics and professor of law at Vanderbilt University. "It suggests that the lack of fidelity is higher than what people expected."

Judges are on the spot

The ability of DNA to eliminate as well as confirm men as biological fathers with unprecedented certainty has put increased pressure on judges in paternity cases. They must walk a tightrope, pitting the interests of the aggrieved men against the well-being of the children who depend on them for financial and emotional support.

This legal tug-of-war has led to conflicting court opinions, with some men allowed to end support payments while others are forced to maintain them for years.

These decisions have led to hard feelings and harder words.

When James Ridley, armed with DNA results, thought the judge was moving too slowly to end his support payments, he become vocal in the courtroom and landed in big trouble.

The judge held him in contempt of court and sent him to the very place he had desperately tried to avoid for years — a cell.

"It was horrible," said Ridley, who spent 42 minutes in a juvenile court holding cell. "I just wanted to explain to the judge that I wasn't the father, and that I just didn't have time to keep coming back again and again to court."

To avoid unnecessary angst, some judges are looking to the state legislature for guidance.

Bill did not pass

"While the court is always sympathetic towards men who find themselves in this situation, judges must also take into consideration what is in the best interest of the child," said Juvenile Court Referee Scott Rosenberg, who has presided over paternity and support cases in Nashville for nine years. "I think it is important for the state legislature to step in and clarify the issues of law and lay out a clear public policy on paternity matters."

.....

"I think it's an injustice to make someone pay for a child that isn't theirs," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville. He said he introduced the bill after hearing from a constituent who was stuck paying child support even though he was proven not to be the biological father....