tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post5465541962876284384..comments2023-12-28T18:17:11.191-05:00Comments on Gruntled Center: Marriage Beats DNAGruntledhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-44948758943430695292009-02-12T09:33:00.000-05:002009-02-12T09:33:00.000-05:00Just goes to show, women get "reproductive rights"...Just goes to show, women get "reproductive rights" while men only get "reproductive responsibility". And whether or not either man is held responsible (regardless of whether or not he is the father) is entirely up to the mother.<BR/><BR/>I think the law of 'presumed paternity' is basically correct: not only was DNA testing impossible a few short years ago, adultery was also <I>illegal</I>.<BR/><BR/>To put parental responsibility on the interloping father is pretty much to assume/provoke a divorce -- as if two wrongs (adultery then divorce) make it right?<BR/><BR/>Interesting questions for interesting times. The question of rape takes us full circle: perhaps the man held responsible for paternity in EVERY case should be entirely the "choice" of the mother.<BR/><BR/>Gender equality is a myth.Martyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14777483678013218629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-35457324685393152512009-02-11T23:17:00.000-05:002009-02-11T23:17:00.000-05:00In the case the law was addressed to, the married ...In the case the law was addressed to, the married couple reconciled. In a follow-up, the legislative hearing, the proponents were reported to have been left without an answer when asked whether this law would give paternal rights to rapists.Gruntledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-25012599910860735432009-02-11T22:20:00.000-05:002009-02-11T22:20:00.000-05:00In the situation which you posited, I agree. The ...In the situation which you posited, I agree. The problem arises more often when the cuckolded husband divorces his wife but the courts insist on applying the old common law presumption, forcing the "marital father" to support the child of the biological father.<BR/><BR/>The common law made sense until 20 or so years ago. But with the advances in DNA testing, the common law presumption can give really unfair results.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the law ought establish a "first dibs" principle. If the marital partners desire to raise the child as a product of the marriage, and both make an affirmative declaration to that effect, they get first dibs.<BR/><BR/>Once the marital father makes that declaration, he is bound, even if the marriage later fails.<BR/><BR/>If, however, the husband divorces the wife (as even Jesus allowed), then the child ought to be the responsibility of the biological father.Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02067844122370343813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-63110926914791890142009-02-11T19:45:00.000-05:002009-02-11T19:45:00.000-05:00It'll never work. You're being entirely to practic...It'll never work. You're being entirely to practical. :-)Michael Krusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07562574596754907146noreply@blogger.com