My response to the closed thread that is now about parental rights...

[Kalbear]

Keeping your sex life secret is a lesser right compared to a child's right to know and, if they desire, have a relationship with their biological parents. The right to privacy about your sex life ends a bit when said sex life produces offspring.

[Taenqyrhae]

Keeping your sex life secret is a lesser right compared to a child's right to know and, if they desire, have a relationship with their biological parents. The right to privacy about your sex life ends a bit when said sex life produces offspring.

So you agree then that a child should have the right to demand that his father prove paternity, and if he is not the father demand that the mother provide information about who she slept with?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

The old thread was closed, probably because it is getting so big and off topic, but I had written a lengthy response during the time it was closed, and felt those who asked me for my explanation deserve it.

Does the man have this right if the woman denies that he could be the father of the child? If so, there is no way this could ever be enforced against a woman's will. If not, it would be a violation of the woman's privacy that would be considered unconstitutional. That's how Roe vs. Wade was decided - the law stated that a woman could only get an abortion if she was raped. The woman claimed she was raped, and was denied the abortion by the courts because she did not file charges against the rapist. The Supreme Court decided it was a violation of a woman's right to privacy because it allowed the courts to demand a woman disclose intensely personal information. I believe it would be a similar invasion of privacy for a court to demand a woman prove who she had sex with when she is not making any claims to the parentage of a child. Those kinds of actions should only be allowed when there is evidence to support the claims, and the father cannot have access to the evidence against his claim by biology.

If a woman knows a man is not the father of a child she had and makes that claim, she should not be forced to prove that negative. Only she knows if she was fertile at the time they had sex, only she knows if she had a diaphragm in or if she knew she was already pregnant from a previous sexual encounter. "I'm sure she's lying" is not grounds to force a woman or her child to undergo testing.

I don't understand your argument. A paternity test for a child does not involve taking DNA from the mother. The only DNA you need is from the putative father and the child. So I'm not sure how taking a child's DNA is a violation of the mother's "right to privacy."

Also, you don't understand either the holding of, or the rationale for, Roe v. Wade.

[Taenqyrhae]

I don't understand your argument. A paternity test for a child does not involve taking DNA from the mother. The only DNA you need is from the putative father and the child. So I'm not sure how taking a child's DNA is a violation of the mother's "right to privacy."

Also, you don't understand either the holding of, or the rationale for, Roe v. Wade.

It's a violation of the mother's right to privacy because it demands that she discuss details of her sex life under oath and can penalizes her if she is wrong.

I just noticed I had something reversed in that quoted post, I'm fixing it (I think my intent was clear from the phrasing, I just reversed a few words).

[Bryanfury]

It's a violation of the mother's right to privacy because it demands that she discuss details of her sex life under oath and can penalizes her if she is wrong.

Funny then how this invasion of privacy is an issue if it's a woman where the womans rights trump the childs, but when it's invading the privacy of a man suddenly the mans rights are second to the childs. Thats sexist, and wrong.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

It's a violation of the mother's right to privacy because it demands that she discuss details of her sex life under oath and can penalizes her if she is wrong.

To be clear, the so-called "right to privacy" is not an absolute right. If you doubt that, you should read Roe v. Wade again. It's a right that must be constantly weighed against other compelling interests - both from private parties, and from the government. And then you should read "Troxel v. Granville" which is a more recent United States Supreme Court case that clearly establishes "the fundamental right of parents to rear their children." The law is clear that BOTH parents have fundamental rights to rear their children.

Not only that, but there are long-established legal principles establishing a right to question people about their sex lives in certain contexts. For example, virtually every State still has a "for cause" cause of action for divorce based upon adultery. If your spouse gets injured an you allege loss of consortium, you may have to testify about your (lack of) sex life to prove your claim. If you are charged with some sexual crime, and you choose to take the stand, you are definitely getting asked about your sex life.

The law on paternity is long established. There's no right to privacy in this specific incident, and if you were to allege it to prevent a paternity test that was otherwise warranted, you would lose. Simple as that.

[Taenqyrhae]

Funny then how this invasion of privacy is an issue if it's a woman where the womans rights trump the childs, but when it's invading the privacy of a man suddenly the mans rights are second to the childs. Thats sexist, and wrong.

There is no demand that a man discuss the details of his sex life under oath when the courts establish his paternity. He doesn't have to say anything, just provide DNA. His right to privacy in this case is lesser than the child's right to parental support.

If a child challenges his official paternity, this DOES require that the woman discuss details of her sex life, because how else will they know who to take DNA from?

[Taenqyrhae]

Oh, no actually I did read it wrong. I thought it was the biological fathers being expected to pay child support when they had no expectation of doing so. Which seemed ridiculous to me, thankfully that's because it's not the case. :dunce:

Actually, there have been court cases where sperm donors were forced to pay child support. I think it's a bad decision, but it happens. There have also been cases where rapists have been given visitation rights against the rape victim's will, again, the courts will always do terrible things within the letter of the law occasionally.

[Bryanfury]

There is no demand that a man discuss the details of his sex life under oath when the courts establish his paternity. He doesn't have to say anything, just provide DNA. His right to privacy in this case is lesser than the child's right to parental support.

If a child challenges his official paternity, this DOES require that the woman discuss details of her sex life, because how else will they know who to take DNA from?

Tough shit. The childs right to parentage trumps the womans want to lie about parentage.

[aceluby]

There is no demand that a man discuss the details of his sex life under oath when the courts establish his paternity. He doesn't have to say anything, just provide DNA. His right to privacy in this case is lesser than the child's right to parental support.

If a child challenges his official paternity, this DOES require that the woman discuss details of her sex life, because how else will they know who to take DNA from?

What is this scenario where a child forces their parents to court to challenge the 'official paternity'? How does that even happen?

[sperry]

Yes, a lot of what is happening here is that Social Justice Warrior is declaring their misunderstanding of the law to be a fact.

The father DOES have the right to demand a paternity test.

[aceluby]

Which is why it should not be required. One should not be prosecuted for keeping their sex lives secret.

I'm sure Bill Clinton would agree with you.

[Taenqyrhae]

Maybe I should make it more clear.

I think the courts should be allowed to require a woman to provide proof of a positive claim of paternity. I do not think the courts should be allowed to require a woman to provide proof of a negative claim of paternity.

Example 1 - "John Doe is the father of my child"

Courts - "You must prove this with DNA" - GOOD

Example 2 - "I have no reason to believe John Doe is the father of my child"

Courts - "You must prove this with DNA" - NOT GOOD - it is too easily abused and creates an inherently unfair situation for the mother.

[Kalbear]

So you agree then that a child should have the right to demand that his father prove paternity, and if he is not the father demand that the mother provide information about who she slept with?

No, I don't agree, and you're taking this slippery slope fallacy to a really weird ass place.

If there existed a situation where there was some doubt that the currently acting father was not the biological father - which is totally not at all the situation that you've been describing, but that's pretty well par for the course with your goalpost moving - then the child would have some legal recourse to try and figure out who their father is. They are not forced to compel the mother to testify, however, under any law that I'm aware of. Hopefully the mother would not be that much of a jerk about it, but I suppose they might be. In which case at that point the child has a right to try and compel that information, and that would be settled in court - whether the mother's right to privacy compares to other compelling interests. And in that situation there might be good reasons not to reveal - things like rape cases, or abuse, or what have you.

But the central right is fairly solid - a child does have a right to establish paternity. A man does have a right to establish paternity. A woman has a right to establish paternity. All of these things are actually laws right now. What you're suggesting is changing the law so that these rights are completely removed, and replaced with only the woman making any decisions about the raising of her child.

Which is frankly sexist bullshit, and hugely against feminist doctrines.

[Crom Dubh]

Maybe I should make it more clear.

I think the courts should be allowed to require a woman to provide proof of a positive claim of paternity. I do not think the courts should be allowed to require a woman to provide proof of a negative claim of paternity.

Example 1 - "John Doe is the father of my child"

Courts - "You must prove this with DNA" - GOOD

Example 2 - "I have no reason to believe John Doe is the father of my child"

Courts - "You must prove this with DNA" - NOT GOOD - it is too easily abused and creates an inherently unfair situation for the mother.

Except there would be reason to believe someone is the father: they had unprotected (or hell, even protected) sex with the mother roughly 10-9 months before the birth of a child. Which if true, might be reason to think that the child was fathered by that man. Your arguments literally hinge on "it would be inconvenient for the mother to tell their child something." Which is a ridiculous argument, for all the reasons everyone has stated in response to every post you've made.

[Bryanfury]

In example 2 the woman isnt the one having their DNA tested. She still has no right to just arbitrarily declare a man not to be the father and thus prevent a DNA test being undertaken. Quite frankly it doesn't matter what she believes. If he man, the child, and the court want a DNA test to prove paternity why on earth would the woman ever be allowed to prevent it by saying "I don't believe he is the father"? That makes no sense

[Taenqyrhae]

What is this scenario where a child forces their parents to court to challenge the 'official paternity'? How does that even happen?

A child does not believe that his father is really his father, and does not want him to have parental rights ("You're not the boss of me, you're probably not even my real Dad."). Mom and Dad say to stop being silly, Dad is Dad. If the child has the right to have the courts force testing and sworn testimony to determine who his father is, then the child should have the legal right to petition the court to force his mother to disprove that she had an affair. Let's say that the mother was raped around that time and considered the possibility that the rapist might be the father, but the parents decided to treat the child as that of the husband.

We have a situation where a woman is forced to disclose that they were raped to people she wanted to keep that secret from.

[Kalbear]

Example 2 - "I have no reason to believe John Doe is the father of my child"

Courts - "You must prove this with DNA" - NOT GOOD - it is too easily abused and creates an inherently unfair situation for the mother.

How is it abused? Again, this is the current situation right now. Can you please provide an example of this being abused?

Also, how does it cause an unfair situation for the mother? She can literally not be involved in it at all. Paternity testing requires only the child and the father; it doesn't require the mother for one instant. It is as simple as plucking a hair from a kid, putting it into a small bottle and sending it in the mail. That's the onus on the mother, at best.

[Crom Dubh]

A child does not believe that his father is really his father, and does not want him to have parental rights ("You're not the boss of me, you're probably not even my real Dad."). Mom and Dad say to stop being silly, Dad is Dad. If the child has the right to have the courts force testing and sworn testimony to determine who his father is, then the child should have the legal right to petition the court to force his mother to disprove that she had an affair. Let's say that the mother was raped around that time and considered the possibility that the rapist might be the father, but the parents decided to treat the child as that of the husband.

We have a situation where a woman is forced to disclose that they were raped to people she wanted to keep that secret from.

So this went from "women do not have to disclose their sex lives because reasons" to "well now you're asking rape victims to talk about their rape. What, do you hate rape victims or something? You're all gross."

So yeah, I'm with Kalbear on the goalpost moving. A for effort, F- for effect.

[Taenqyrhae]

Except there would be reason to believe someone is the father: they had unprotected (or hell, even protected) sex with the mother roughly 10-9 months before the birth of a child. Which if true, might be reason to think that the child was fathered by that man. Your arguments literally hinge on "it would be inconvenient for the mother to tell their child something." Which is a ridiculous argument, for all the reasons everyone has stated in response to every post you've made.

What if the woman knows that the pregnancy in question was aborted and she got pregnant again by someone else immediately after? She would be forced to divulge that she had an abortion just because someone with bad information suspected that they MIGHT be the father of her child.

What if the woman knows that the pregnancy in question was not caused by the plaintiff, but she has personal reasons for keeping the actual biological father secret? She would be forced to divulge information that could harm her existing familial relationships.

Let's say that I am a vindictive asshole with a grudge against an ex-girlfriend. She's happily married now, and I want to screw that up, so I go to the courts and lie that I had an affair with her and that I might be the father of her child. This will force her and her child into the court system, and create a lot of tension between her and her husband. Even when the test comes back negative, it's caused a lot of negative consequences for her and none for me, and how can she prove that I perjured myself? She only proved that I didn't get her pregnant, not that we never had sex all those years ago.