Re: Denise donates the $50K to AIDS fund

Obveeus wrote
Ed Stasiak wrote

a dad would have the option of refusing to see the results of the test
(TaK policy) or passing on the test (OYW policy) and signing the
birth certificate and accepting the kid as his own.

You just chose to give the man an option to decline the DNA test.

This was always an option with the OYW policy (after all, it's up to
the dad to get the test done in the first place) and while the TaK policy
would have tested the kid's DNA regardless of the father's wishes, the
end result would have been the same (thou I suspect that with the TaK
policy, the vast majority of dads would have checked the results even
if they had no suspicions).

If you allow that option, you have created the same situation that exists
now where the man can ask for a DNA test at his option.

Except that now, if the guy is married to the gal (and maybe even if
he's not) and signs the birth certificate, he can _still_ get saddled with
child support even thou the kid isn't his.

Obviously both the OYW and TaK laws would include an automatic
"get out'a jail free" clause in the event the kid isn't his, preventing the
need to go to court over child support that is currently the case.

Either way, the 'optional' part means that the woman will throw a hissy
fit if he suggests that a test might be in order.

With the TaK plan, the woman could throw all the hissy fits she wanted
and it wouldn't matter, as the kid would automatically be tested at birth.

With the OYW plan, a hissy fit will only result if the guy is stupid enough
to tell the mom that he's getting the kid tested.

As far as the kid's "right to privacy", he has none (at least from his
parents) on this issue.

So you admit that testing the child is an issue of the parents 'rights'.

It's a issue for the _guy_ as he has a right to not be defrauded into
supporting a kid that isn't his.

Testing the child against the mother's will would be a violation of her
rights,

The mom has no "right" to defraud the guy.

just as forcing the kid to undergo medical proceedures that the parents
did not want is a violation of their 'rights' according to current laws.

That is an issue.

I thought there must be some kinda medical procedure done to
a baby (like drawing blood) that the parents couldn't legally refuse
and a DNA test could be put in the same category (as it's just
drawing some blood).

But after talking to my friend June again (the mom employed in
the medical industry) she said she couldn't think off hand of any
medical procedure that couldn't be refused (for example,
immunization can be refused on religious grounds).

On the other hand, there are those cases where religious kooks
refuse to let their sick kid be treated with rudimentary medical
procedures and the courts have ruled against them.

So a DNA test could be treated in a similar way; the rights of
the possible dad trump the right of the mom to refuse this minor
medical procedure.

The very same. Thou slavery was already legal all over the world
and women couldn't vote prior to the Revolution anyway.

The only relevant issue is that the laws of the US originally did not
allow women to vote and did allow for slavery.

"cum hoc ergo propter hoc"

Just because Thomas Jefferson was boinking Sally Hemmings
doesn't mean that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist.

Therefore, changing those laws had diminished the 'founding Fathers'
rights since they were not female or of a minority that could be held
into lifelong slavery.

As I said, that the Founders were a product of their time and kept
slaves and wouldn't let women vote, doesn't invalidate the inherent
human rights that we all have regardless of whether the government
respects them or not.

Freeing the slaves and allowing women to vote wasn't diminishing
our rights, it was recognizing a inherent human right that the Founders
(at least most of them) couldn't comprehend at the time.

That the Founders were a product of their time (even thou they were
ahead of their time on many other issues) doesn't somehow invalidate
everything they did.

Now, you see the issue. The Costitution was a product of its time. It
was written when it made sense to pass off the military obligations for
the country to the citizens.

Except that it wasn't a case of "passing off military obligations",
it was recognizing the inherent human right to keep and bear
arms that we've always had.

The 2nd Amendment is a statement of our right, not something
granted to us by the government or allowed to exist at the whim
of the "people".

It doesn't matter if every person on Earth but me voted to ban
every weapon on the planet, I _still_ have the right to keep and
bear arms.

As Charlton Heston said; "From my cold dead hands."

The 'Country' had no standing army or ability to pay for one so the 2nd
ammendment was written to create a situation where the citizens would
be the 'armed forces'.

The U.S. did have a (small) standing army and navy from the start.

If anything, the idea was to make sure that the citizens, RATHER than
the government could bear arms, not written so that the citizen could
have the same arms as the government (as you suggest).

As I suggested was the _probable intent_ of the Founders, thou
as I also pointed out, the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude citizens
from keeping and bearing stuff like intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The violation to the Constitution is the existence of the Army, Navy,
Marines, Coast Guard, Reserves, police, etc... government backed
'armed forces'.

"Provide for the common defense".

Meanwhile, nothing in the Constitution is written to say that the 'right
to
bear arms' was limited to arms that could be hand carried as you suggest.
You are completely 'making up' what the 2nd amendment states in order
to fit your individual purposes.

And I never said the 2nd Amendment said that, in fact what I said was;

"The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention any specific types of weapons,
it simply says "arms" but **my personal opinion** is that the intent of the
Founders was these would be more or less "man portable" weapons
that the average citizen could buy and keep in their own homes."

Are you sure you want to go there? Because if all our laws can
"evolve", those laws could just as easily _devolve_ back to owning
slaves and denying women the right to vote.

Well, duh. That is why the citizens have to keep a vigilant eye on the
government. They have to watch out for an evil government that would
illegally wiretap people in this country and pretend that it was a
'National Security' issue. They have to watch out for a government that
would illegally hand out government contracts to 'insiders'. They have to
watch out for a government that would round up people based upon their
ethnic background and put them into concentration camps.

But the law is SUPPOSED to "evolve"?!

Maybe due to the current conditions, we need to be able to wiretap
whoever, and hand out government contracts to "good 'ol boys" and
round up people into concentration camps, ect.

I'm sure the law will "evolve" back when this all blows over....

It does not follow that, in order to insure those rights, that no laws can
ever change/evolve with changing/evolving technology. DNA technology
now exists and the federal government can decide that states MUST
allow for DNA testing

There's a difference between recognizing logical limits to exercising
our rights and "evolving" laws.

The first allows common sense to prevail, (i.e. yelling "fire" in a movie
theater) the second is wide open to any kinda interpretation, whether
it's the government or the unwashed masses.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Children of whores who dont pay child support
    ... toys and which one is going to get tarred as advocating a government ... policy on wealth distribution and compared that to socialist policies. ... and socialism. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: THE GREAT GOOSE GOOFS AGAIN was Re: What is an "Individual Right"?
    ... There is little doubt that this provision of the Virginia Bill of Rights was concerned exclusively with the distribution of military power and the proper role of the military in a free society. ... The language makes no suggestion of a right to bear arms. ... as Madison said in the Virginia Ratification debates: "What is the meaning of government? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: THE GREAT GOOSE GOOFS AGAIN was Re: What is an "Individual Right"?
    ... "Then there?s the original Virginia Bill of Rights, ... military power and the proper role of the military in a free ... The language makes no suggestion of a right to bear arms. ... "What is the meaning of government? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Poor, poor Bama...
    ... Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles ... Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules ... American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has created 2.1 million jobs ... federal government money and making federal operations more efficient ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Children of whores who dont pay child support
    ... toys and which one is going to get tarred as advocating a government ... policy on wealth distribution and compared that to socialist policies. ... and socialism. ...
    (soc.men)