Misandrists make it illegal to order paternity testing in France.

[LJ_Reloaded]

I see a lot of men moving out of France... and probably also Germany.

http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-france

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. For this reason, the President's wife Carla Bruni describes her father as the man 'from whom she takes her name'. She is friends with her biological dad too but she doesn't refer to him, or think of him as, her father.

In the US, paternity testing kits are sold in pharmacies and they are easily purchased online both there and in the UK. In fact, there are dozens of commercial testing labs out there all offering very competitively priced paternity testing which is virtually 100% accurate (99.99%).

 

[Sean Renaud]

Good job France. I'm actually quite shocked that you aren't siding with the French Government on this one LJ. I would imagine this would fit with your philosophy fairly well.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Good job France. I'm actually quite shocked that you aren't siding with the French Government on this one LJ. I would imagine this would fit with your philosophy fairly well.

You must be kidding, right?

It should be legal for the man to get a paternity test without a court order and if the test shows he's not the father, he can sue for divorce and stop having to pay for raising the kid. France makes that ILLEGAL. Paternity fraud is set to utterly flourish in France.

MRAs have made huge strides in fighting this in the US. They've got their work seriously cut out for them in France.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You must be kidding, right?

It should be legal for the man to get a paternity test without a court order and if the test shows he's not the father, he can sue for divorce and stop having to pay for raising the kid. France makes that ILLEGAL. Paternity fraud is set to utterly flourish in France.

MRAs have made huge strides in fighting this in the US. They've got their work seriously cut out for them in France.

"Any idiot can make a baby, it takes a man to be a father."

I don't buy into your fear that it's about to flourish since you know, people haven't had paternity tests for most of human history, and unless you suspected you wouldn't check in the first place. It's been years since I went to France but unless two blue blonds spit out a mullatto baby I don't see any a lot of people checking anyway.

Like I said, I'm quite shocked. I would think that a man of such strong convictions as yours would understand that who you are isn't some chemical concoction that comes out of your cock. It's the way you lead your life and influence you have on those who look to you for guidance.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

"Any idiot can make a baby, it takes a man to be a father."

I don't buy into your fear that it's about to flourish since you know, people haven't had paternity tests for most of human history, and unless you suspected you wouldn't check in the first place.

It is one of the oldest crimes in the book, women having children by one man and having another unsuspecting male tasked with using his resources to raise said child. It is about dishonesty on her part, and modern technology now affords men the right to catch her in her dishonesty.

It's about a man's right not to be duped. That right is absolute and inviolable. No country can LEGITIMATELY pass a law denying that right.

A man's right not to be duped, and not to be defrauded, trumps anything else. It has absolute primacy.

If he chooses to adopt a child that isn't his, that's a different issue. That's called informed consent. You do realize you're arguing AGAINST the right to informed consent, right?

 

[Sean Renaud]

It is one of the oldest crimes in the book, women having children by one man and having another unsuspecting male tasked with using his resources to raise said child. It is about dishonesty on her part, and modern technology now affords men the right to catch her in her dishonesty.

It's about a man's right not to be duped. That right is absolute and inviolable. No country can LEGITIMATELY pass a law denying that right.

A man's right not to be duped, and not to be defrauded, trumps anything else. It has absolute primacy.

If he chooses to adopt a child that isn't his, that's a different issue. That's called informed consent. You do realize you're arguing AGAINST the right to informed consent, right?

Since when do you care about the Book? Most of it was written by Sheep Herders who were convinced a sky bully would punish them for eternity if they ate shrimp or pork. Somehow you strike me as the kinda guy who enjoys bacon wrapped shrimp though and certainly not the type who thinks his life should be dominated by the ideals of long dead men.

I agree that her dishonesty (assuming it is that) is an issue but at that point your punishing a child for something it had nothing to do with. Of course a country can pass a law preventing that or anything else they deem to be detrimental to their society. I do agree with you that they probably shouldn't but of course they can.

I'm not against informed consent. However we both know that this really isn't about informed consent, it's about guys trying to get out of raising a child. I move that any man who wants out isn't worthy of raising a child in the first place and it really shouldn't matter who's DNA it has because he's unfit from the get go.

Like I said already I'm kinda shocked at you. This sounds more like a Renard Ruse thread than an LJ thread.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Since when do you care about the Book? Most of it was written by Sheep Herders who were convinced a sky bully would punish them for eternity if they ate shrimp or pork. Somehow you strike me as the kinda guy who enjoys bacon wrapped shrimp though and certainly not the type who thinks his life should be dominated by the ideals of long dead men.

I agree that her dishonesty (assuming it is that) is an issue but at that point your punishing a child for something it had nothing to do with. Of course a country can pass a law preventing that or anything else they deem to be detrimental to their society. I do agree with you that they probably shouldn't but of course they can.

I'm not against informed consent. However we both know that this really isn't about informed consent, it's about guys trying to get out of raising a child. I move that any man who wants out isn't worthy of raising a child in the first place and it really shouldn't matter who's DNA it has because he's unfit from the get go.

Like I said already I'm kinda shocked at you. This sounds more like a Renard Ruse thread than an LJ thread.

No, it's about the man not being duped. You shouldn't be surprised - I am always for the rights of the man not being abridged by someone else's deceit or fraud. Always have been.

The man's right not to be duped has absolute primacy. Whether you foolishly think it makes him unworthy of being a father is irrelevant. Duping a man into raising another man's child without his knowledge and consent is the dictionary definition of fraud. Fraud is always wrong, and all cases of fraud should end with the man being allowed to opt out. Because it's fraud.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, it's about the man not being duped. You shouldn't be surprised - I am always for the rights of the man not being abridged by someone else's deceit or fraud. Always have been.

The man's right not to be duped has absolute primacy. Whether you foolishly think it makes him unworthy of being a father is irrelevant. Duping a man into raising another man's child without his knowledge and consent is the dictionary definition of fraud. Fraud is always wrong, and all cases of fraud should end with the man being allowed to opt out. Because it's fraud.

Yeah, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised. Just am, guess I don't learn to quick sometimes.

The problem here is you think a man can raise another man's child. If you're the one who raised them it's your child biology be damned.

Still you raise a halfway worthwhile point about fraud but I'd rather a bunch of men duped into raising children that aren't theirs than a bunch of children growing up without fathers or worse yet in the system. Lesser of two evils. When we live in a perfect world we can opt for perfect solutions, until then lets work with what we have.

 

[bronzeage]

Since when do you care about the Book? Most of it was written by Sheep Herders who were convinced a sky bully would punish them for eternity if they ate shrimp or pork. Somehow you strike me as the kinda guy who enjoys bacon wrapped shrimp though and certainly not the type who thinks his life should be dominated by the ideals of long dead men.

I agree that her dishonesty (assuming it is that) is an issue but at that point your punishing a child for something it had nothing to do with. Of course a country can pass a law preventing that or anything else they deem to be detrimental to their society. I do agree with you that they probably shouldn't but of course they can.

I'm not against informed consent. However we both know that this really isn't about informed consent, it's about guys trying to get out of raising a child. I move that any man who wants out isn't worthy of raising a child in the first place and it really shouldn't matter who's DNA it has because he's unfit from the get go.

Like I said already I'm kinda shocked at you. This sounds more like a Renard Ruse thread than an LJ thread.

It sounds exactly like an Lt/Lj thread. It shows his terror at the thought a woman has some sort of power over a man because she has a vagina. For Lt, children are just another way for a woman to extort money and property from a man.

What Lt wants is to legalize child abandonment and create a class of retro-orphans as a way to punish adulterous women. It's despicable.

If Lt had his way, the number of children who might be legally abandoned would be a very small percentage of the biological children who are abandoned by their fathers, every day.

This is something with which he is very familiar. For some strange reason, the blame fell on his mother, not his father.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Yeah, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised. Just am, guess I don't learn to quick sometimes.

The problem here is you think a man can raise another man's child. If you're the one who raised them it's your child biology be damned.

There is where you are wrong. You are using morality and I am using hard facts. The hard facts is it ain't your kid. If you adopt the child with informed consent then it is your adopted child. Please, stick with facts and not emotional appeal to chivalry - which, mind you, is a concept of ages old dead men.

Still you raise a halfway worthwhile point about fraud but I'd rather a bunch of men duped into raising children that aren't theirs than a bunch of children growing up without fathers or worse yet in the system. Lesser of two evils. When we live in a perfect world we can opt for perfect solutions, until then lets work with what we have.

I consider the father being duped to be the worst of two evils. Worse than that, he might flip out and kill everyone because he is unable to escape and he is stuck with being duped.

Best to let him walk away. And to sue the bitch who duped him, too.

We men can destroy a civilization when we're tired of being screwed over. Consider THAT against other evils...

 

[Sean Renaud]

There is where you are wrong. You are using morality and I am using hard facts. The hard facts is it ain't your kid. If you adopt the child with informed consent then it is your adopted child. Please, stick with facts and not emotional appeal to chivalry - which, mind you, is a concept of ages old dead men.


I consider the father being duped to be the worst of two evils. Worse than that, he might flip out and kill everyone because he is unable to escape and he is stuck with being duped.

Best to let him walk away. And to sue the bitch who duped him, too.

We men can destroy a civilization when we're tired of being screwed over. Consider THAT against other evils...

First there isn't a hard divide between morality and facts since one effects the other on almost every level. I assume you wouldn't make the opposite argument. If a man showed up after 18 years to claim his "son" from the man who raised him I assume you wouldn't side with the sperm donor. This has nothing to do with chilvary either. Just as adoption has nothing to do with chilvalry.

You're of course entitled to your opinion over which of teh two evils is worse. It's true he might flip out and kill everybody I wonder how often that happens.

Yes, we men can destroy a civilization however we aren't being screwed over. We control all the gates and hold all the keys. Of course we can destroy it, nobody could stop us if they tried. Well white men can destroy Western Society when they are tired of being "screwed" over cus it's not like either of us really have a whole lot of the keys when it's said and done.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

First there isn't a hard divide between morality and facts since one effects the other on almost every level.

Sorry dude, but that simply is not true. DNA is DNA regardless of your morality.

I assume you wouldn't make the opposite argument. If a man showed up after 18 years to claim his "son" from the man who raised him I assume you wouldn't side with the sperm donor. This has nothing to do with chilvary either. Just as adoption has nothing to do with chilvalry.

After 18 years? Poor argument. Try 12, the kid is still a contestable issue as opposed to 18. I would side with the sperm donor if he was duped into believing the kid wasn't his. He lost 12 years of time with the child he fathered.

You seem hell bent and damned determined to force men to pay up in a situation where they were clearly defrauded. You can scarcely show where, in the law, fraud is clearly determined and yet the defrauded person is forced to keep paying. The man has an absolute right to free himself from a fraudulent situation.

You're of course entitled to your opinion over which of teh two evils is worse. It's true he might flip out and kill everybody I wonder how often that happens.

It's more common that he refuses to pay and the cops send him to jail, and then the lying bitch of a mother gets no money anyway. Now where is she?

Oh by the way, in places where laws allow the father to get out of paternity fraud, no bad consequences come of it.

Yes, we men can destroy a civilization however we aren't being screwed over. We control all the gates and hold all the keys.

Not true. We don't control all the gates or keys. But, being half of the species, we can go on strike and that alone can bring things to a halt. So can women. Women can go on a sex strike and it's game over, too.

Well white men can destroy Western Society when they are tired of being "screwed" over cus it's not like either of us really have a whole lot of the keys when it's said and done.

White men are having their Western civilization snatched from them by the hordes of scary brown people.

Allowing men to escape or receive financial remedy from paternity fraud does not harm society. It has not harmed society.

 

[Peregrinator]

If nothing else, it's an interesting cultural commentary. The notion that there are so many French women getting knocked up outside their marriages and French men are such violent shitheads that the authorities outlaw the discovery of facts in the case speaks volumes about that place. That's like outlawing forensics for fear of vendettas. Wtf, France?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

If nothing else, it's an interesting cultural commentary. The notion that there are so many French women getting knocked up outside their marriages and French men are such violent shitheads that the authorities outlaw the discovery of facts in the case speaks volumes about that place. That's like outlawing forensics for fear of vendettas. Wtf, France?

You woman hater!!! LOL j/k Seriously, though, France has a problem. A big one.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sorry dude, but that simply is not true. DNA is DNA regardless of your morality.

Again, being a sperm donor doesn't make you a Father. Just a mother fucker.

After 18 years? Poor argument. Try 12, the kid is still a contestable issue as opposed to 18. I would side with the sperm donor if he was duped into believing the kid wasn't his. He lost 12 years of time with the child he fathered.

Okay 12 years. If after twelve years the kid is for the sake of argument a prodigy pulling in a million dollars a year and he dies in a car accident are you going to award the money to Mr. came out of the woodwork? Being consistent is important.

You seem hell bent and damned determined to force men to pay up in a situation where they were clearly defrauded. You can scarcely show where, in the law, fraud is clearly determined and yet the defrauded person is forced to keep paying. The man has an absolute right to free himself from a fraudulent situation.

They were defrauded, and it sucks. Such is life.

It's more common that he refuses to pay and the cops send him to jail, and then the lying bitch of a mother gets no money anyway. Now where is she?

How common even is THAT? That obviuosly being the worst case scenario or one of them anyway.

Oh by the way, in places where laws allow the father to get out of paternity fraud, no bad consequences come of it.

Bullshit. We've both seen the stats on single parent households, poverty and growing up in Foster Care all of which are consequences of the situation you're claiming has no downside. As I say so often with gun control or NSA spying it's okay if you simply don't give a shit because you think the brass ring is worth the price but don't pretend it's not happening.

Not true. We don't control all the gates or keys. But, being half of the species, we can go on strike and that alone can bring things to a halt. So can women. Women can go on a sex strike and it's game over, too.

Of course we do, and let them go on strike. We're bigger and stronger than them. It's not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination but a world wide sex strike by women would simply result in sweeping "Sharia Law" and women finding out real quick what happens when the deadlier gender simply decides that they are going to control the game. Obviously nobody wants to do that (I think, though there are interesting arguments about why women seem to have fantasies about being forced) but regardless this "equality" women are enjoying right now is equal parts technology changing what is needed physically and morality changing what is demanded by society but it's every bit as artificial as money. Take away money and we'll break out the guns and see who ends up with what in the end. (Which you constantly like to remind us all is the supposedly inevitable result of the next few decades.)

White men are having their Western civilization snatched from them by the hordes of scary brown people.

Yeah. . .in fantasy land. Back here in realville however they still control 90% of everything. Sure we have a black president. Shall we count the brown people in all of government? The Brown people who are in the top 1%? I know you know more about Pre-Civil War South than I do, did the percentage of slaves to slave owners have any real effect on who exactly was running things? Even if there were some free niggers running around?

Allowing men to escape or receive financial remedy from paternity fraud does not harm society. It has not harmed society.

Clearly it does harm society and has harmed society. You think Black America has been helped by the epidemic of single mothers? Now obviously this isn't the biggest cause of that, there are lots of reasons why that has happened but nobody debates that there are consequences to this and it HAS harmed society. I'm sure it's no different for poor whites in the South than it is for blacks in the inner city but arguably those consequences (and those similar and related) have done much more harm than any concentrated intent has.

 

[Peregrinator]

You woman hater!!! LOL j/k Seriously, though, France has a problem. A big one.

I'm famous for it. I polled my harem. France has seemed ill to me for a long time, but then again, people have been saying that for a very long time, and it somehow survives.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If nothing else, it's an interesting cultural commentary. The notion that there are so many French women getting knocked up outside their marriages and French men are such violent shitheads that the authorities outlaw the discovery of facts in the case speaks volumes about that place. That's like outlawing forensics for fear of vendettas. Wtf, France?

I seem to remember something about and eye for an eye somewhere.

Though if we look at American abortion law or voting laws or does anybody remember the state that outlawed Sharia Law? My point being that some people trying to pass a law doesn't mean per se that there really is a problem only that someone with sufficient power felt the need to flex it. Maybe for good, maybe not.

 

[warrior queen]

I'm all for mandatory testing, but not for the same reasons as the op.
Firstly, it would eliminate going home with the wrong baby, which seems to happen more often than people realise judging by the number of stories I've seen over the last ten years.
And secondly, asahole dads who won't pay their child support because they suddenly decide the child isn't theirs.
Bring it on, I say!

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Again, being a sperm donor doesn't make you a Father. Just a mother fucker.

That depends on the definition. There is the biological definition and the legal definition. You cannot just handwave the biological definition away. The legal definition changes according to society's morality.

Okay 12 years. If after twelve years the kid is for the sake of argument a prodigy pulling in a million dollars a year and he dies in a car accident are you going to award the money to Mr. came out of the woodwork? Being consistent is important.

May very well need to.

They were defrauded, and it sucks. Such is life.

But you are being inconsistent if you argue that here, unlike in all other cases, fraud should not be punished and the defrauded should not be allowed a remedy and an escape.

How common even is THAT? That obviuosly being the worst case scenario or one of them anyway.

There's a lot of legally-declared deadbeat dads sitting up in jail right now. Some of them over kids that weren't even theirs.

Bullshit. We've both seen the stats on single parent households, poverty and growing up in Foster Care all of which are consequences of the situation you're claiming has no downside. As I say so often with gun control or NSA spying it's okay if you simply don't give a shit because you think the brass ring is worth the price but don't pretend it's not happening.

These are because of biological dads leaving their kids, not duped dads.

In no state where paternity fraud laws absolve the defrauded dad, has it resulted in more kids being abandoned. It probably has, actually, resulted in fewer women duping the men in their lives: a highly desirable outcome.

Of course we do, and let them go on strike. We're bigger and stronger than them.

No you're not, actually.

It's not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination but a world wide sex strike by women would simply result in sweeping "Sharia Law" and women finding out real quick what happens when the deadlier gender simply decides that they are going to control the game.

Uh huh, so then the women all die and who gets laid then?

Obviously nobody wants to do that (I think, though there are interesting arguments about why women seem to have fantasies about being forced) but regardless this "equality" women are enjoying right now is equal parts technology changing what is needed physically and morality changing what is demanded by society but it's every bit as artificial as money. Take away money and we'll break out the guns and see who ends up with what in the end. (Which you constantly like to remind us all is the supposedly inevitable result of the next few decades.)

Holy shit, and people call ME a misogynist?

Please explain where technology has made men and women more equal, rather than culture. Just FYI women used to hunt animals just like men. In fact, in Greece, now and then women used to take up knives and go on a rampage against animals. Look up Maenads. Krav Maga can make a woman a dangerous prey for 99% of men except the hard core MMA types. A 5% increase in a woman's fighting ability can make it prohibitively hard for most criminals to bother with raping her. Oh and Smith and Wesson is with us whether we have modern tech or not.

Yeah, and... Joan of Arc.

Please stop being a misogynist. Men have superior upper body strength but that doesn't a superior-gender-in-wartime make.

Yeah. . .in fantasy land. Back here in realville however they still control 90% of everything. Sure we have a black president. Shall we count the brown people in all of government? The Brown people who are in the top 1%? I know you know more about Pre-Civil War South than I do, did the percentage of slaves to slave owners have any real effect on who exactly was running things? Even if there were some free niggers running around?

For the first time, non-white births outnumber white births. Obama is just the first of a huge wave of brown people taking control of things. White power is diminishing, it is not increasing.

Clearly it does harm society and has harmed society. You think Black America has been helped by the epidemic of single mothers? Now obviously this isn't the biggest cause of that, there are lots of reasons why that has happened but nobody debates that there are consequences to this and it HAS harmed society. I'm sure it's no different for poor whites in the South than it is for blacks in the inner city but arguably those consequences (and those similar and related) have done much more harm than any concentrated intent has.

Please show where defrauded fathers being freed from fraud, has actually resulted in this.

Really, the mother brought this upon herself. You are arguing that she shouldn't have to be punished for fraud. You are trying to argue for legalizing fraud. You are trying to argue for victimizing the man who was defrauded.

I am glad to say that men's rights are defeating paternity fraud in the US and soon you won't even be relevant. Freedom will be achieved and despite your fears... all will be well.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I'm all for mandatory testing, but not for the same reasons as the op.
Firstly, it would eliminate going home with the wrong baby, which seems to happen more often than people realise judging by the number of stories I've seen over the last ten years.
And secondly, asahole dads who won't pay their child support because they suddenly decide the child isn't theirs.
Bring it on, I say!

I'm 100% for every last thing you just wrote. 100,000%, in fact.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I'm famous for it. I polled my harem. France has seemed ill to me for a long time, but then again, people have been saying that for a very long time, and it somehow survives.

Civilization is ill, each place in different ways.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm all for mandatory testing, but not for the same reasons as the op.
Firstly, it would eliminate going home with the wrong baby, which seems to happen more often than people realise judging by the number of stories I've seen over the last ten years.
And secondly, asahole dads who won't pay their child support because they suddenly decide the child isn't theirs.
Bring it on, I say!

I'm curious what percent of babies go home with the wrong parents. I'm sure it happens but what 1% of the time? .1%? (If its either of these numbers by all means do the test, you're already drawing blood from the baby anyway so it's just one more test.) if we're talking .01 or .001 then I need to know how much the test costs.


However WQ both you and LJ are making a damn good case for why women shouldn't have (the only) say in what happens to her body. If I don't have the right to decide I don't want to pay for a child that came about because I fucked you without proper preventative measures (or said measured failed) neither do you. Fair is fair no? Are going to at the very least give the man the right to simply say "yeah it's mine, abort, give it up for adoption, raise it just don't bother me I'll be over here with a coke and a smile?"

 

[MissMaidenMinx]

Here's another scenario to consider.
Man and woman are in a monogamous relationship and aren't ready for children. Woman doesn't like the pill for whatever reason so they use condoms. Condom fails, woman falls pregnant. Man freaks out, assumes woman has cheated, demands paternity test. Paternity test proves it is his. Trust is broken, family unit falls apart, another child is damaged.
It's not about duping men, it's about protecting the family unit.

 

[warrior queen]

I'm curious what percent of babies go home with the wrong parents. I'm sure it happens but what 1% of the time? .1%? (If its either of these numbers by all means do the test, you're already drawing blood from the baby anyway so it's just one more test.) if we're talking .01 or .001 then I need to know how much the test costs.


However WQ both you and LJ are making a damn good case for why women shouldn't have (the only) say in what happens to her body. If I don't have the right to decide I don't want to pay for a child that came about because I fucked you without proper preventative measures (or said measured failed) neither do you. Fair is fair no? Are going to at the very least give the man the right to simply say "yeah it's mine, abort, give it up for adoption, raise it just don't bother me I'll be over here with a coke and a smile?"

With regard to abortion - I am of the opinion that both [potential] parents should have equal say. BUT - if a woman decides to keep a baby, despite the mans wishes, then she should not get child support for that child.
On the other hand, once a man accepts that child he should be made to pay support. Even if he changes his mind later.
ETA - in Australia, acceptance would be the moment the father signs the birth register.

 

[badbabysitter]

This is fucking France.. the country has a state religon remember

I am against mandatory testing, as it is a violation of privacy for the alleged father in question

If he should so wish to have a test nothing should stop him, forcing him is not the answer

Yes, if there is a legal proceeding , then it should be court ordered. But to force someone straight out the gate, well, that's just fucked up.

What I find interesting is that in the US, a father can get a paternity test done without the knowledge or consent of the mother or child.

Consent, yeah, it shouldnt be a matter of consent..it's his call, not mom or the kids

but knowledge? that's highly unethical to say the least