I think I was close to taking another thread off topic so I’m creating a new one here. The question is:

Why does paternity matter?

I know tha Conservatives are using paternity to weaponize the abortion issue.



...as if rapists have a right to have a say regarding the upbringing of their demon spawn.

Paternity matters so the father can be sued for child support.

Rick: how can paternity weaponize the abortion issue?

Greger: is it fair to say paternity is primarily a financial issue?

Great questions, Mellow.

If the mother is made to go full term, she shouldn't be the only one with the option to raise it or give it up for adoption. The father should take responsibility for the pregnancy and the baby's care.

This was alluded to on the other thread: If the father doesn’t want responsibility for the pregnancy or the baby, can he - should he - be pushed into active fatherhood? From the point of view of the welfare of the baby, wouldn’t it be just as good if such a “father” just disappeared?

Paternity is more than just a financial issue. It's a responsibility issue.

When you fire your weapon you are responsible for the damage it does.

The woman puts her life on the line to bear a child, It's okay if the father disappears as long as his paycheck is suitably garnished. If the father wants to take responsibility in other areas that's cool too.

That in my mind brings us back around to...shouldn't the involved people be the only ones to make their own decisions?
This troubles me about this whole part of the conversation....if that happens, shouldn't this happen? God, I just don't feel qualified. Neither should the government. I can envision all kinds of scenerios, some of which I know real cases about.

Full disclosure, I was Mom to my husband's blood child, our younger daughter, from the time she was 3 months old. We were glad when her other mom (they weren't married thank god) dropped out all the way for the most part (short version). Gary would have never turned his back on her. Me either.

Once the government has determined that it can force a woman to bear a child she does not want to bear, then yes...paternity becomes a huge deal because baby daddy has to assume the same responsibility for the child that the government has forced onto the woman.

Otherwise, government needs to assume paternity since it was responsible for the birth.

Okay, I want to back up a step or three. We’ve all referred to proven paternity as (more or less) an instrument of (legal) force, to be used on unwilling fathers to force support, mainly financial. Melanie adds social support. But the original question was more broad: Why does paternity matter?

In the other thread, someone referred to a social need to keep sex within the marital, oh, let’s call it an agreement.

My response was that sexual restriction began a very long time ago to ensure paternity, for the purpose of wealth and inheritance, and I think modern paternity tests are part of that long line. (What was Arthur’s retrieval of the sword from the stone, if not a paternity test?)

So I’m still trying to figure out: other than inheritance and legally enforced support of a child - what reason is there to care about paternity at all?

Sorry I think I pulled this off a little bit.

Hmmm. In terms of what Julia? I guess I assumed it was in a case where someone is forced to carry the child full term. I guess if she wants to give it up for adoption, the paternity doesn't matter.

And then there's the scenerio where she is actually able to abort it and gets 'caught' and is punished. That very much does mean paternity matters if you can locate.

Melanie, you know I get stuck on ideas and have trouble dropping them, and I think I’m doing that here.

When I said (more or less) “Is it fair to say paternity is primarily financial,” I wasn’t asking if the concept was fair but rather whether I was understanding what Greger had said.

I wasn’t really thinking in terms of abortion.I was thinking of paternity, itself. Why is it important? Is there any reason whatsoever to need proof of paternity, other than financial?

I can see, maybe, that if a man is proven not to be the father, that might be some legal help in keeping him at a distance if he’s abusive.

Why does society care who a child’s biological father is, except for money.?

I really do think I’ve gone around in circles on this far too much I’m not even sure anymore what I was getting out never mind

By giving the Y-donor equal say in the matter - even before the fetus becomes new-born, because he contributed to the cellular division.

In Texas, the woman no longer has a say in the matter...she has to give birth.

In other states, why should the rapist Y-donor even have a say in the matter? Courts are trying to be PC and in fairness giving the rapist say as well. For example, if the victim doesn't want the result of her trauma, why should the rapist get to put his two-cents in and say, yes, the result should be fully realized in terms of being born?

...but what if he's a rapist and now in prison. That 0.50/hr prison pay doesn't go far.

In many court decisions, the "father" is "pushed" into fatherhood financially - especially when there a relationship break-up.

Now...when a man is harmed and forced into paternity...

Rick, what on earth does that link point to??

Either you’re joking, or you need to Google “lifetime of sperm.”

Rick, you can’t be “pushed” into fatherhood 7nless you’re proven to be the cause of the pregnancy.”

And if you’re in prison making fifty cents an hour, a judge may do something with any existing assets, but I don’t think s/he would bother with paperwork to garnish your wages.

A website called Rollingout. com

Mebbe, you might prefer CBS.com. The above link discusses events after the 2005 CBS link as the case went to Appeals. The original above link discusses the Appeal ruling in 2014.

This case begun in 2002.

That's not at all true. There are many documented cases in which a married woman had a child, later they divorced, and her ex-husband used a paternity test to show that he was not the bio-dad. Courts say: "TS, buddy. We assume every child born to a married woman is her husband's kid, no matter what a paternity test shows."

Pondering, I had no idea. Oddly, that’s one of the scenarios I sketched out in a post I think I deleted, and one of the original questions I intended for this thread. It looks to me as though the court used a sort of “common-law” fatherhood idea.

Frankly, my own personal reaction is, what kind of arsehole would attempt to abandon a child in his family simply due to genetics. Leave the wife, maybe, but divorce the child??

Rick - the story you bring to light astonishes me, and to a large extent sickens me. There is some twisted stuff going on here. I’m surprised it ever got to court the first place.

Okay, Rick, it took a while but I thinkI know what my reaction to this case is - bearing in mind that two short articles clearly can’t involve the facts. This is purely personal, no basis other than that.

She had the right to use the sperm as she wanted to/did, creepy as it was. He clearly was…um…finished with it. However, as she went to extremes to create the pregnancy on her own, without consent, he should not be held to any financial or other responsibilities.

Both parents should pay very high fees as court costs into a trust fund for lifetime therapy costs for the child.

As I said, I have to believe there is more to the story, and I know I don’t want to know what it is,

Yeah...no kidding! By now the kid should be 19 years old and has Googled itself.

Pondering is right...there are many cases like this. The Court's rational is that the kid grew-up believing the guy is the dad - even the dad thought he was the dad and to change course now would be like pulling the rug from under the kid...and too bad - the kid's well-being is more important here.


This is why there are now law firms specializing in Divorce for Men Only.

Rick, are you saying it should be okay to leave your kid if you find out s/he is not yours genetically, and that divorce lawyers for men might level the divorce-court playing field?

Trying to make sure I understand what you’re saying.

Yes, in theory, you should be able to leave the kid.

Is it a good idea from a moral, emotionally healthy perspective? Everyone is different and every situation is different, and folks should be able to make that decision for themselves, and not have court force a decision onto them.

I don’t think I can go there. Walk away from your kid, maybe, but not from the responsibility for the child’s welfare, not legally..

For me, the financial responsibility if it turned out I was not the father would hinge on me and the kid's relationship: Good, I'll stay. Bad, I'll absolutely walk-away

Now we’ve circled back to the beginning of this thread: what is paternity? Is it a financial or social relationship to a child? Is it a genetic relationship?

Is it a legal definition, as a name on a birth certificate, guardianship, adoption certificate, or genetic test?

Once paternity is acknowledged, should a father be able to abandon their responsibility simply by walking away, making no arrangements for the child’s welfare (as the mother would have to do for a child, or be subject to prosecution?

I have to go look something up so I’ll post this before I lose it. As if there was any doubt, I’ll be back.

A couple of things I found at https://www.findlaw.com/family/paternity/legal-significance-of-paternity.html

I was wrong about birth certificates, which I should have known if I was thinking. My apologies for that.


On the other hand, I was right about something else:

There are also paternal rights as well as responsibilities and I believe they’re included in the article.

Thanks for doing that research, Julia. From that same link...



My husband was listed as the father on our daughter's birthday certificate. In fact, she had a hyphenated last name. He was later advised by an attorney to go through the process of legitimating her though (adopt) for all the reasons listed above. He did.
He was already supporting her but he wanted to secure her future.

Every now and then a guy takes a kid under his wing and becomes the Dad for no apparent reason. Just because some stray kid needs help.

I'd take on another one if I could.

Gregor, fortunately you are one of the good ones. And paternity by the good ones is a Good Thing. Also a major factor in my opinion of you.

In the case of my (Possibly)real daughter, I might not have done my best. Her mother and I spoke the night she was born, I offered to marry her, she passed. We lost touch for 18 years. My name is on the birth certificate.

That kid believed I was her dad. Since she was able to read she knew her dad's name but not where he was. At 18 her mom told her. So it was a really big deal for her to find her "real dad". I never asked for any test, I took responsibility for what my dick did 18 years ago. Even if it might been somebody else's dick...

Some men do some men don't. Top of my head I'd guess that it's a 70/30 split. Lotta men have raised a lot of other men's kids as if they were their own, and a lotta men have owned up to their mistakes.

It doesn't raise my estimation of men in the slightest. That 30% contains some real assh*les.

Assholes in the 30%? Yes.
Raise my estimation of men in general? Nope.
Raise my estimation of parents in particular who are trying to do what’s best for their kid? Yes.

I do not believe that being a parent equates to being a hero. But a good effort has value.

The law in the US has a strong bias toward paternity, even if it does not fit the facts. One area I would like to see fixed is opt-out for paternity when both bio-parents agree in writing. I'm thinking of cases where two women in a marriage want to have a child, and there is a convenient sperm donor like one of their brothers. The only way you can donate sperm now with no legal strings attached is through a sperm bank. Seems silly to make those women go through that and pay all that money, when all they need is a turkey baster. Or some more natural thing shaped sort of like a turkey baster.

I think a lot of men would volunteer to help make their niece or nephew, if it could be done safely.

I know you didn’t intend it that way PIA, but there’s something a little creepy about men being eager to impregnate their sisters, no matter the technique or the kindness of heart!

There is a way to terminate parental rights but I’m not sure that it can be done before birth.

Q: How does a sperm bank differ from a regular bank?

A: With a sperm bank, after you make your deposit you lose interest.

Jumped right to incest, did you? The idea is that a man could impregnate his sister's partner, yielding a child highly related to both women. His sister would be the child's bio-aunt. Impregnating your own sister is not a good idea biologically, much less in our social and legal setting. I'm a big fan of genetic diversity. I go to great lengths so my AKC dog does not impregnate his sisters.

I did too, Pondering. Icky brother's sperm?

Now that you have adjusted the suggestion, not as creepy but still creepy.

Your wife has your brother's sperm child?

I know we got a little off subject here but still that needed acknowledged/or something.

At any rate to your point, I agree it would be nice if you could find a "volunteer" among your friends. Several celebrities have done that. Melissa Etheridge and David Crosby come to mind.
I don't know anything about the procedure though. A doctor would still be needed I would think.
Now I'm being silly. A turkey baster type thing?

PIA, you’re right, I did assume you were talking about brothers and sisters. Never even thought about a brother and his gay sister’s wife.

I am so un-woke.