Society's Importance of DNA

Society's Importance of DNA

I think that we as a society place WAY too much importance on biology,
on DNA, on who is the biological father and biological mother, as
opposed to who is the "mom" and the "dad". The idea that if you are
not the biological DNA sperm donor or egg donor, that you are not
considered a "real" parent is wrong. At the same time, that merely
being the biological DNA sperm donor or egg donor gives you the
obligation of being a parent is also wrong.

In the case of adoption. While not being the actual biological
parents of the child, a couple takes a child into their custody for
the love and support of that child. A same-sex couple also could
choose to adopt a child. Adoptive parents should not be considered
any less "real parents" than if they conceived the child by their own
egg and sperm. This is especially true if the biological parents were
to suddenly claim custody after several years of the child being
raised by the adoptive parents.

In the case of paternity fraud. A couple raises the child with love
and support and commitment to that child as though it is really their
child. If it turns out later on that one is not the actual biological
parent, it should not make all that love and commitment previously
given to the child any less "real". The late nights changing diapers,
driving the child to soccer practice, the nights of sitting down at
the table and eating dinner as a family. All of that should not
suddenly become any less "real" just because you are not the one that
donated that sperm cell to it.

In the case of Choice for Men. At the same time, merely being the
biological parent of the child, does not obligate you to be a parent
to the child either. If one parent does not want to raise the child,
the other parent can raise the child as a single parent. If neither
parent is both willing and financially capable of raising a child,
then the child can be placed up for adoption. It is definately in the
"best interest of the child" for the child to be adopted into a family
that IS both willing and financially capable of supporting the child.
With the option of adoption, it is specifically NOT the absolute
obligation of the BIOLOGICAL parents to support the child. This
should be just as true for the man as it is true for the woman.

It is not being the DNA sperm donor or egg donor that makes you a
parent or not a parent. It is the love and commitment and support
that you give to the child over a period of time that makes you a
parent. Biology is irrelevent. DNA is irrelevent. The whole issue
of DNA and mandatory DNA testing of parents is invalid. The whole
idea of connecting paternity or maternity to DNA is invalid.

I'm afraid the author of the message below hasn't thought this issue
through.

In the first place, if DNA is not to be the determinant of who is the
child's father (the child's mother is never in doubt), what IS to be the
method of determining who is the "real" father? Suppose there is some
nearby guy who has taken an interest in the child (possibly because the
father does not participate in the child's life). Would it be possible for
the mother to pin fatherhood -- and "child support" -- on that guy? That
would be an excellent way of ensuring that no unrelated man ever took any
interest in a child, since the potential consequences could be financially
disastrous. Is that what we want?

Secondly, the point below about adoption is simply irrelevant. Adoption
occurs when the biological mother and the adoptive parents have agreed that
there should be a transfer of parental rights and responsibilities to the
adoptive parents. The circumstances in which DNA testing is done involve NO
similar agreement. In fact, DNA testing usually occurs when there is a very
sharp disagreement between a man and a woman about the man's obligations to
the woman.

The problem about the present situation in the U.S. is that, for the
most part, DNA testing is used--and has significance--when it is to the
advantage of the mother. (She can, for example, use DNA testing to impose an
18-year "child support" obligation on a man with whom she has had a
one-night stand, despite the fact that she had all the post-conception
reproductive choices, and he had none.) However, in many cases, where DNA
testing would RELIEVE a man of the obligation to pay a woman (e.g. where a
child resulted from an the woman's adulterous relationship), the testing
can't be used to remove the man's obligation to pay huge amounts of money
to the woman.

Anyone who has paid "child support" (as I did for more than 10 years)
knows that this is money that has to be paid to a woman in respect of a
child or children for whom the father has little or no effective role as a
parent. From the father's point of view, it's "feeding hay to a dead
horse," to use Groucho Marx's phrase. Furthermore, as indicated repeatedly
in research (although the reality hasn't yet sunk into the public's
perception), in the great majority of cases divorced fathers did not leave
their families of their own volition -- they were expelled by their former
wives.

So-called "child support" in reality is a payment to women. For the
most part, you can understand the quirks of the CS system best if you see
the purpose of these money flows as being to enlarge the options available
to women. Those options include the ability to establish fatherless
families and make someone else (their ex-husbands) pay for their decision.

The way DNA testing is used at present in the U.S. is part of enlarging
women's options. Women can use it to make men pay. However, it is MUCH
more difficult for men to use it to end their obligation to pay women.
That's not right. DNA testing produces clear results, and the principles
suggested below would muddy the waters still further, to the disadvantage of
men. So the right thing is to make much wider use of DNA testing, and to
make the results equally applicable to both sexes when it comes to flows of
money.

Matt D" wrote in message
om...
Society's Importance of DNA

I think that we as a society place WAY too much importance on biology,
on DNA, on who is the biological father and biological mother, as
opposed to who is the "mom" and the "dad". The idea that if you are
not the biological DNA sperm donor or egg donor, that you are not
considered a "real" parent is wrong. At the same time, that merely
being the biological DNA sperm donor or egg donor gives you the
obligation of being a parent is also wrong.

In the case of adoption. While not being the actual biological
parents of the child, a couple takes a child into their custody for
the love and support of that child. A same-sex couple also could
choose to adopt a child. Adoptive parents should not be considered
any less "real parents" than if they conceived the child by their own
egg and sperm. This is especially true if the biological parents were
to suddenly claim custody after several years of the child being
raised by the adoptive parents.

In the case of paternity fraud. A couple raises the child with love
and support and commitment to that child as though it is really their
child. If it turns out later on that one is not the actual biological
parent, it should not make all that love and commitment previously
given to the child any less "real". The late nights changing diapers,
driving the child to soccer practice, the nights of sitting down at
the table and eating dinner as a family. All of that should not
suddenly become any less "real" just because you are not the one that
donated that sperm cell to it.

In the case of Choice for Men. At the same time, merely being the
biological parent of the child, does not obligate you to be a parent
to the child either. If one parent does not want to raise the child,
the other parent can raise the child as a single parent. If neither
parent is both willing and financially capable of raising a child,
then the child can be placed up for adoption. It is definately in the
"best interest of the child" for the child to be adopted into a family
that IS both willing and financially capable of supporting the child.
With the option of adoption, it is specifically NOT the absolute
obligation of the BIOLOGICAL parents to support the child. This
should be just as true for the man as it is true for the woman.

It is not being the DNA sperm donor or egg donor that makes you a
parent or not a parent. It is the love and commitment and support
that you give to the child over a period of time that makes you a
parent. Biology is irrelevent. DNA is irrelevent. The whole issue
of DNA and mandatory DNA testing of parents is invalid. The whole
idea of connecting paternity or maternity to DNA is invalid.

I'm afraid the author of the message below hasn't thought this issue
through.

In the first place, if DNA is not to be the determinant of who is the
child's father (the child's mother is never in doubt), what IS to be the
method of determining who is the "real" father? Suppose there is some
nearby guy who has taken an interest in the child (possibly because the
father does not participate in the child's life). Would it be possible for
the mother to pin fatherhood -- and "child support" -- on that guy? That
would be an excellent way of ensuring that no unrelated man ever took any
interest in a child, since the potential consequences could be financially
disastrous. Is that what we want?

Secondly, the point below about adoption is simply irrelevant. Adoption
occurs when the biological mother and the adoptive parents have agreed that
there should be a transfer of parental rights and responsibilities to the
adoptive parents. The circumstances in which DNA testing is done involve NO
similar agreement. In fact, DNA testing usually occurs when there is a very
sharp disagreement between a man and a woman about the man's obligations to
the woman.

The problem about the present situation in the U.S. is that, for the
most part, DNA testing is used--and has significance--when it is to the
advantage of the mother. (She can, for example, use DNA testing to impose an
18-year "child support" obligation on a man with whom she has had a
one-night stand, despite the fact that she had all the post-conception
reproductive choices, and he had none.) However, in many cases, where DNA
testing would RELIEVE a man of the obligation to pay a woman (e.g. where a
child resulted from an the woman's adulterous relationship), the testing
can't be used to remove the man's obligation to pay huge amounts of money
to the woman.

Anyone who has paid "child support" (as I did for more than 10 years)
knows that this is money that has to be paid to a woman in respect of a
child or children for whom the father has little or no effective role as a
parent. From the father's point of view, it's "feeding hay to a dead
horse," to use Groucho Marx's phrase. Furthermore, as indicated repeatedly
in research (although the reality hasn't yet sunk into the public's
perception), in the great majority of cases divorced fathers did not leave
their families of their own volition -- they were expelled by their former
wives.

So-called "child support" in reality is a payment to women. For the
most part, you can understand the quirks of the CS system best if you see
the purpose of these money flows as being to enlarge the options available
to women. Those options include the ability to establish fatherless
families and make someone else (their ex-husbands) pay for their decision.

The way DNA testing is used at present in the U.S. is part of enlarging
women's options. Women can use it to make men pay. However, it is MUCH
more difficult for men to use it to end their obligation to pay women.
That's not right. DNA testing produces clear results, and the principles
suggested below would muddy the waters still further, to the disadvantage of
men. So the right thing is to make much wider use of DNA testing, and to
make the results equally applicable to both sexes when it comes to flows of
money.

Matt D" wrote in message
om...
Society's Importance of DNA

I think that we as a society place WAY too much importance on biology,
on DNA, on who is the biological father and biological mother, as
opposed to who is the "mom" and the "dad". The idea that if you are
not the biological DNA sperm donor or egg donor, that you are not
considered a "real" parent is wrong. At the same time, that merely
being the biological DNA sperm donor or egg donor gives you the
obligation of being a parent is also wrong.

In the case of adoption. While not being the actual biological
parents of the child, a couple takes a child into their custody for
the love and support of that child. A same-sex couple also could
choose to adopt a child. Adoptive parents should not be considered
any less "real parents" than if they conceived the child by their own
egg and sperm. This is especially true if the biological parents were
to suddenly claim custody after several years of the child being
raised by the adoptive parents.

In the case of paternity fraud. A couple raises the child with love
and support and commitment to that child as though it is really their
child. If it turns out later on that one is not the actual biological
parent, it should not make all that love and commitment previously
given to the child any less "real". The late nights changing diapers,
driving the child to soccer practice, the nights of sitting down at
the table and eating dinner as a family. All of that should not
suddenly become any less "real" just because you are not the one that
donated that sperm cell to it.

In the case of Choice for Men. At the same time, merely being the
biological parent of the child, does not obligate you to be a parent
to the child either. If one parent does not want to raise the child,
the other parent can raise the child as a single parent. If neither
parent is both willing and financially capable of raising a child,
then the child can be placed up for adoption. It is definately in the
"best interest of the child" for the child to be adopted into a family
that IS both willing and financially capable of supporting the child.
With the option of adoption, it is specifically NOT the absolute
obligation of the BIOLOGICAL parents to support the child. This
should be just as true for the man as it is true for the woman.

It is not being the DNA sperm donor or egg donor that makes you a
parent or not a parent. It is the love and commitment and support
that you give to the child over a period of time that makes you a
parent. Biology is irrelevent. DNA is irrelevent. The whole issue
of DNA and mandatory DNA testing of parents is invalid. The whole
idea of connecting paternity or maternity to DNA is invalid.

I'm afraid the author of the message below hasn't thought this issue
through.

In the first place, if DNA is not to be the determinant of who is the
child's father (the child's mother is never in doubt), what IS to be the
method of determining who is the "real" father? Suppose there is some
nearby guy who has taken an interest in the child (possibly because the
father does not participate in the child's life). Would it be possible for
the mother to pin fatherhood -- and "child support" -- on that guy? That
would be an excellent way of ensuring that no unrelated man ever took any
interest in a child, since the potential consequences could be financially
disastrous. Is that what we want?

Secondly, the point below about adoption is simply irrelevant. Adoption
occurs when the biological mother and the adoptive parents have agreed that
there should be a transfer of parental rights and responsibilities to the
adoptive parents. The circumstances in which DNA testing is done involve NO
similar agreement. In fact, DNA testing usually occurs when there is a very
sharp disagreement between a man and a woman about the man's obligations to
the woman.

The problem about the present situation in the U.S. is that, for the
most part, DNA testing is used--and has significance--when it is to the
advantage of the mother. (She can, for example, use DNA testing to impose an
18-year "child support" obligation on a man with whom she has had a
one-night stand, despite the fact that she had all the post-conception
reproductive choices, and he had none.) However, in many cases, where DNA
testing would RELIEVE a man of the obligation to pay a woman (e.g. where a
child resulted from an the woman's adulterous relationship), the testing
can't be used to remove the man's obligation to pay huge amounts of money
to the woman.

Anyone who has paid "child support" (as I did for more than 10 years)
knows that this is money that has to be paid to a woman in respect of a
child or children for whom the father has little or no effective role as a
parent. From the father's point of view, it's "feeding hay to a dead
horse," to use Groucho Marx's phrase. Furthermore, as indicated repeatedly
in research (although the reality hasn't yet sunk into the public's
perception), in the great majority of cases divorced fathers did not leave
their families of their own volition -- they were expelled by their former
wives.

So-called "child support" in reality is a payment to women. For the
most part, you can understand the quirks of the CS system best if you see
the purpose of these money flows as being to enlarge the options available
to women. Those options include the ability to establish fatherless
families and make someone else (their ex-husbands) pay for their decision.

The way DNA testing is used at present in the U.S. is part of enlarging
women's options. Women can use it to make men pay. However, it is MUCH
more difficult for men to use it to end their obligation to pay women.
That's not right. DNA testing produces clear results, and the principles
suggested below would muddy the waters still further, to the disadvantage of
men. So the right thing is to make much wider use of DNA testing, and to
make the results equally applicable to both sexes when it comes to flows of
money.

Matt D" wrote in message
om...
Society's Importance of DNA

I think that we as a society place WAY too much importance on biology,
on DNA, on who is the biological father and biological mother, as
opposed to who is the "mom" and the "dad". The idea that if you are
not the biological DNA sperm donor or egg donor, that you are not
considered a "real" parent is wrong. At the same time, that merely
being the biological DNA sperm donor or egg donor gives you the
obligation of being a parent is also wrong.

In the case of adoption. While not being the actual biological
parents of the child, a couple takes a child into their custody for
the love and support of that child. A same-sex couple also could
choose to adopt a child. Adoptive parents should not be considered
any less "real parents" than if they conceived the child by their own
egg and sperm. This is especially true if the biological parents were
to suddenly claim custody after several years of the child being
raised by the adoptive parents.

In the case of paternity fraud. A couple raises the child with love
and support and commitment to that child as though it is really their
child. If it turns out later on that one is not the actual biological
parent, it should not make all that love and commitment previously
given to the child any less "real". The late nights changing diapers,
driving the child to soccer practice, the nights of sitting down at
the table and eating dinner as a family. All of that should not
suddenly become any less "real" just because you are not the one that
donated that sperm cell to it.

In the case of Choice for Men. At the same time, merely being the
biological parent of the child, does not obligate you to be a parent
to the child either. If one parent does not want to raise the child,
the other parent can raise the child as a single parent. If neither
parent is both willing and financially capable of raising a child,
then the child can be placed up for adoption. It is definately in the
"best interest of the child" for the child to be adopted into a family
that IS both willing and financially capable of supporting the child.
With the option of adoption, it is specifically NOT the absolute
obligation of the BIOLOGICAL parents to support the child. This
should be just as true for the man as it is true for the woman.

It is not being the DNA sperm donor or egg donor that makes you a
parent or not a parent. It is the love and commitment and support
that you give to the child over a period of time that makes you a
parent. Biology is irrelevent. DNA is irrelevent. The whole issue
of DNA and mandatory DNA testing of parents is invalid. The whole
idea of connecting paternity or maternity to DNA is invalid.