# Hey hauss, suck it up, chickenshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 14, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802 "2004-12-14T16:35:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/441 "2004-12-16T17:12:29Z")
> [@treis](#): > > cricetus- > > Yes and she has to face the consequences of her choices. Birth a child by a man tell him hes a father. Lie about an investigation go to jail. i thought you were going to release them if you couldn’t “break” em? Who raises the child? or do we create a mommy prison where the children are rasied in captivity? So are we creating new institutions to house the children, who’s paying for that? How long does the mother stay in Jail? Do we adopt her children out, while she’s inside? If she talks and the father is contacted and beats her and the kid, does she get to sue the state; who FORCED her to talk? You’ve been told this several times and I’ll try too. We have real world events which contradicts the scenarios you’re scripting your “law”, to address. We KNOW that very few women choose to have children alone. We KNOW that very few women willingly go across country and hide the birth of children from the fathers. Does it happen, sure? But extremely rare cases is a poor excuse to create a new class of criminality. One that will increase the burden on an already overburdened system. DtC was correct, lo those many pages ago; the over-whelming majority of fathers can have access to their children if they want to…what you don’t seem to want to recognize is that the majority of these deadbeats…don’t. They know exactly where their children are and don’t care. You seem hellbend however to punish the one person that does. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/442 "2004-12-16T17:22:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > So lets see- make men live up to their responsibility=good. Make women live up to their responsibility=EVIL EVIL GAHHH SICK FUCK The thing is, you don’t even realize that no one in this thread is advocating or condoning irresponsible female behavior. We’re just not willing to use your highly unlikely hypothetical female behavior as justification to absolve men of fairly reasonable paternal responsibilities, based on the fact that we live in the real world and not **treis** Cuckoo Land. You might see this if you weren’t blinded by the thought that a hypothetical woman could be allowed to have a slight advantage a man doesn’t have, as long as she’s evil and stupid and willing to go through childbirth so she can have the pleasure of hiding the child from the father in order to give it away and deny him the paternity that has been his lifelong dream even though he somehow didn’t know she was pregnant. If large numbers of women were having babies and then hiding their births from the large numbers of fathers who, despite not being in contact with the mother enough to know she was pregnant, desperately wanted to raise these children by themselves, I would agree that this is an injustice worth re-examining the current laws for. But _it doesn’t actually happen_ you moron, so it doesn’t really justify the very real costs and damages your stupid idea would entail. Keep pretending that we’re all fighting so that women can do whatever they want while men are oppressed if you want, but it makes you look like a dumbshit. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/443 "2004-12-16T17:23:32Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > i thought you were going to release them if you couldn’t “break” em? Excuse me. Lie about an investigation get caught, tried and convicted go to jail. > [@holmes](#): > > Who raises the child? or do we create a mommy prison where the children arerasied in captivity? So are we creating new institutions to house the children, who’s paying for that? How long does the mother stay in Jail? Do we adopt her children out, while she’s inside? Same thing that happens when new mommy’s currently go to jail. We don’t allow mothers to get away with crimes just becuase she is a mother. > [@holmes](#): > > If she talks and the father is contacted and beats her and the kid, does she get to sue the state; who FORCED her to talk? If there is reasonable suspicion that he would come back and beat her and the kid then she can go to court and prove it. > [@holmes](#): > > You’ve been told this several times and I’ll try too. We have real world events which contradicts the scenarios you’re scripting your “law”, to address. We KNOW that very few women choose to have children alone. We KNOW that very few women willingly go across country and hide the birth of children from the fathers. Does it happen, sure? But extremely rare cases is a poor excuse to create a new class of criminality. One that will increase the burden on an already overburdened system. Unless you can pony up statistics showing all of this we don’t know. If when we study the consequences of this law indepth and it turns out it will cause more harm than good then we don’t pass it. Its the same with every other law that we pass we don’t just scrap it when someone comes and objects. We study and see if that objection is valid and if it is we scrap the law. > [@holmes](#): > > DtC was correct, lo those many pages ago; the over-whelming majority of fathers can have access to their children if they want to…what you don’t seem to want to recognize is that the majority of these deadbeats…don’t. > > They know exactly where their children are and don’t care. You seem hellbend however to punish the one person that does. We should be tracking down these dead beats anyway to get them to pay child support. All this law does is to ensure the attempt to track down the father is at birth instead of 13 years later. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/444 "2004-12-16T17:28:39Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > The thing is, you don’t even realize that no one in this thread is advocating or condoning irresponsible female behavior. We are condoning this irresponsible female behavior by not forcing her to make the responsible choice. > [@Giraffe](#): > > We’re just not willing to use your highly unlikely hypothetical female behavior as justification to absolve men of fairly reasonable paternal responsibilities, based on the fact that we live in the real world and not **treis** Cuckoo Land. Absolve men of their parental responsibilities? I want to track them down so that they can take responsibility. If they don’t want to then we make them. We do the same thing now except we do it when the mother claims child support instead of at birth. > [@Giraffe](#): > > You might see this if you weren’t blinded by the thought that a hypothetical woman could be allowed to have a slight advantage a man doesn’t have, as long as she’s evil and stupid and willing to go through childbirth so she can have the pleasure of hiding the child from the father in order to give it away and deny him the paternity that has been his lifelong dream even though he somehow didn’t know she was pregnant. I don’t think depriving a father of seeing his child is a ‘slight’ anything. > [@Giraffe](#): > > If large numbers of women were having babies and then hiding their births from the large numbers of fathers who, despite not being in contact with the mother enough to know she was pregnant, desperately wanted to raise these children by themselves, I would agree that this is an injustice worth re-examining the current laws for. But _it doesn’t actually happen_ you moron, so it doesn’t really justify the very real costs and damages your stupid idea would entail. Then say ‘this law is unnecessary’ don’t say ‘you are an evil bastard treis’. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/445 "2004-12-16T17:30:53Z")
I didn’t say you are an evil bastard. I said you are a dumbshit moron with a stupid idea. Frankly, I don’t think you’re smart enough to be evil. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/446 "2004-12-16T17:40:53Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Then say ‘this law is unnecessary’ don’t say ‘you are an evil bastard treis’. Oh, that’s just Dio. He’s been know to use a bit of hyperbole occasionally. You’ll get used to it. ---
**Author:** ![ShadiRoxan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@ShadiRoxan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadiRoxan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/447 "2004-12-16T17:44:09Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Why do you all think I am evil? Becuase I want to force a women to live up to her responsibility? I don’t want a good cop/bad cop routine going while she is in labor. After birth but before she leaves the hospital we send in someone that asks her a few questions. If this person thinks she is lying she lays out the consequences for the mothers actions. I don’t want to attach electrodes to her nipples and electroshock it out of her. I don’t want a 350 pound cop in there yelling at her. Just a few questions that she has a responsibility to answer. Right now I’m pregnant. Granted I’m married and it is to the father of my child. That isn’t always the case though. There are many women who are pregnant and not married. There are many who are pregnant, but not by their husband. There are many that are pregnant, but have a current boyfriend who isn’t the father. Who are you proposing we question? Just the women that are alone? Those who aren’t married? Everyone? If it’s everyone, I can assure you that you’re going to be faced with one pissed off post partum woman right here. As to bringing charges against a woman if you think she’s lying… That goes against being innocent until proven guilty. And if you can prove that she’s guilty, then you more than likely have the information that you wanted in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/448 "2004-12-16T17:47:45Z")
> [@stretch](#): > > We do allow her to go to a judge and get a no-contact order, for her safety. Usually if a woman knows who the father is but doesn’t want him to know about the kid because he’s violent, she will actually admit the father’s name but request that he not be contacted. If she can convince support enforcement that there is a danger, they will sometimes not establish a support obligation to protect the mother and child. These things are determined on a case-by-case basis. > > It doesn’t matter if it is exceedingly obvious if a woman is lying–you cannot force someone to tell you something they don’t want to. Here’s sort of how it works in Washington (this is not a completely true story; it’s a combination things I’ve heard over the last nine years). Let’s say mom wants to receive welfare (in WA it’s called TANF formerly AFDC). In order to request aid, she is required by law to open a child support case with Division of Child Support (DCS). She tells DCS she doesn’t know who the dad is and continues to tell them this. DCS refers her to the county prosecuting attorney ¶ for non-compliance. The PA attempts to get information to establish paternity and the woman says “I don’t remember, I was drunk, we were in the back of a car.” The PA says “Can you describe him? Was he short, tall, etc?” She replies, “I don’t remember, I was drunk, I think his name was Joe and he had blonde hair.” The PA asks, “What kind of car was it? What color?” She says she doesn’t remember, the PA keeps asking for more details, and so on. Eventually, you have to give up in the face of “I don’t remember, I think his name was Joe, the car had a black interior, I never saw him again.” Even if it is \*exceedingly \* obvious she is lying. You simply cannot compel people to tell the truth if they don’t want to. It’s generally a waste of time and resources, though they do try. Really, are you gonna through the mom in jail for not ponying up dad’s name, leaving the kid with no parent? Are you goin to fine her? What are you going to do that’s going to force her to tell you his name? > > Also, women will lie to protect their men. Maybe they are scamming welfare or something. He says he’s going to take care of them, so she goes on welfare, says she doesn’t remember the guy, and they get money. Three years later, he dumps her. Suddenly, she remembers who the dad was–“I saw him again in a bar the other day and it all came back to me.” > > **Treis** , I know you are trying to protect the few guys out there who just don’t find out they are dads because the woman was a scum. It happens and it sucks. But it is the exception, not the rule, and in this case we can’t manage for the exception. If we already do this why don’t we just do it when the child is born? I doubt many single mothers aren’t going to either a) file for welfare b) file for child support payments or c) put the child up for adoption. In each of these cases we require information about the father so why not do it at birth. If we do it at birth we stop option d) which is support the child on my own and not tell the father becuase I think he is a jackass/he cheated on me/whatever. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/449 "2004-12-16T17:50:28Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Same thing that happens when new mommy’s currently go to jail. We don’t allow mothers to get away with crimes just becuase she is a mother. Right, but your law is created SPECIFICALLY to arrest mothers. You understand the difference between arresting a woman who happens to be a mother and arresting a woman FOR BEING A MOTHER? Her crime? She walked into a hospital alone and wrote “unknown” in the father porton of her admittance form. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/450 "2004-12-16T18:00:04Z")
> [@ShadiRoxan](#): > > Right now I’m pregnant. Granted I’m married and it is to the father of my child. That isn’t always the case though. There are many women who are pregnant and not married. There are many who are pregnant, but not by their husband. There are many that are pregnant, but have a current boyfriend who isn’t the father. In your case I am assuming at some point the father will be at the hospital. We either have the couple fill out a form, have someone go ask them or something along those lines. Quick and easy done in 5 minutes. You already do that when filling out a birth certificate correct? > [@ShadiRoxan](#): > > Who are you proposing we question? Just the women that are alone? Those who aren’t married? Everyone? Well I think we ‘question’ everyone. In practicality just single women would have someone question them. If the father is there that would probably just entail filling out a form or something similiar. > [@ShadiRoxan](#): > > If it’s everyone, I can assure you that you’re going to be faced with one pissed off post partum woman right here. I doubt it. We already ask who the father is when filling out the birth certificate without the mothers going into a rage. > [@ShadiRoxan](#): > > As to bringing charges against a woman if you think she’s lying… That goes against being innocent until proven guilty. Well no you are still innocent even though your are charged. > [@ShadiRoxan](#): > > And if you can prove that she’s guilty, then you more than likely have the information that you wanted in the first place. I know. In practicality punishment for breaking this law would be a bluff. We might get the occasional case where the father hears it through the grapevine that he might be the father. If he comes back and DNA tests match him up as the father and it can be shown that the mother should reasonably known he might be the father then the mother would be found guilty. > [@holmes](#): > > Right, but your law is created SPECIFICALLY to arrest mothers. You understand the difference between arresting a woman who happens to be a mother and arresting a woman FOR BEING A MOTHER? Well if a father gave birth I would support forcing him to tell the mother. Right, but your law is created SPECIFICALLY to arrest mothers. You understand the difference between arresting a woman who happens to be a mother and arresting a woman FOR BEING A MOTHER? > [@holmes](#): > > Her crime? She walked into a hospital alone and wrote “unknown” in the father porton of her admittance form. No her crime would be writing unknown if she should did know or had a reasonable guess who the father was. If she truely doesn’t know who the father is then she doesn’t get charged. ---
**Author:** ![stretch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@stretch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stretch)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/451 "2004-12-16T18:02:38Z")
I know I’m invisible here, but, **treis** , how are you going to prove the mom is lying? Really, some women don’t know who the dad is. They might make some guesses and, boy, can that screw some guy over. Simplified for brevity: In Washington, if someone names you the dad and you don’t show for your paternity test–for purposes of child support–you’re the dad. How’s that grab you, **treis**? Is this closer to what you want–women telling us who the dad is (maybe she’s lying, maybe she’s just listing all the guys she remembers sleeping with that week) and because poor hapless guy doesn’t remember sleeping with the chick (he was drunk), he doesn’t show for the paternity test. Now he’s dad and they open a child support case. Don’t you think it’s better for the guy if some women doesn’t pull his name out of her ass just to avoid going to jail for a while? If your concern is really the safe haven laws, you are missing the point of those laws. If your concern is that women are deliberately getting pregnant and then running away just so they can be single moms and then collect child support _x_ years later, well, the instances of that happening are very small. In addition, back support isn’t automatically granted retroactively to the birth of a child. The mother would probably have to prove she tried to notify the father that he was a father and that she couldn’t find him, etc. Try running real-world scenarios instead of the outlandish hypotheticals you keep coming up with. As it is, what you propose is not fair or just for a number of reasons already outlined. on preview: > [@treis](#): > > If we already do this why don’t we just do it when the child is born? I doubt many single mothers aren’t going to either a) file for welfare b) file for child support payments or c) put the child up for adoption. In each of these cases we require information about the father so why not do it at birth. If we do it at birth we stop option d) which is support the child on my own and not tell the father becuase I think he is a jackass/he cheated on me/whatever. Did you miss where I said this is done in the hospital, this whole trying to establish paternity thing? It’s the easiest time. If they are unsuccessful at the hospital, then we have to wait until the mom wants to get child support to get the state involved. If she doesn’t want child support, and she doesn’t want the dad around, well, then those guys are screwed, but as we’ve stated, those are exceptions not the rule–those women are assholes and are doing something that most of us consider morally wrong, we just don’t see a way for legislation that would not unfairly punish more mothers than benefit fathers. Oh my, that was an ugly sentence, but fuck it–submitting anyway. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/452 "2004-12-16T18:23:41Z")
> [@stretch](#): > > Simplified for brevity: In Washington, if someone names you the dad and you don’t show for your paternity test–for purposes of child support–you’re the dad. How’s that grab you, **treis**? Is this closer to what you want–women telling us who the dad is (maybe she’s lying, maybe she’s just listing all the guys she remembers sleeping with that week) and because poor hapless guy doesn’t remember sleeping with the chick (he was drunk), he doesn’t show for the paternity test. Now he’s dad and they open a child support case. I’d say as long as the father is informed that he has to show up for the test and barring a damn good reason then that is fine with me. With the addition that if at anytime the DNA test takes place and he is not the father then he is off the hook so to speak. If the father is tracked down 10 years after the fact then have him start paying child support and give him access to his kid. > [@stretch](#): > > Don’t you think it’s better for the guy if some women doesn’t pull his name out of her ass just to avoid going to jail for a while? If she says the father is Random dude A we track down random dude A and give him a DNA test. It will show he is not the father and then we move on. > [@stretch](#): > > If your concern is really the safe haven laws, you are missing the point of those laws. If your concern is that women are deliberately getting pregnant and then running away just so they can be single moms and then collect child support _x_ years later, well, the instances of that happening are very small. In addition, back support isn’t automatically granted retroactively to the birth of a child. The mother would probably have to prove she tried to notify the father that he was a father and that she couldn’t find him, etc. I am more concerned with the father missing out of the first x years of his childs life. > [@stretch](#): > > Did you miss where I said this is done in the hospital, this whole trying to establish paternity thing? It’s the easiest time. If they are unsuccessful at the hospital, then we have to wait until the mom wants to get child support to get the state involved. Yes I did miss that. > [@stretch](#): > > If she doesn’t want child support, and she doesn’t want the dad around, well, then those guys are screwed, Exactly I want to prevent the father from getting (HA!) screwed. > [@stretch](#): > > but as we’ve stated, those are exceptions not the rule–those women are assholes and are doing something that most of us consider morally wrong, we just don’t see a way for legislation that would not unfairly punish more mothers than benefit fathers. I don’t think telling the father that he has a child is punishing the mother. Is it really too much to ask of the mother to say ‘I am not sure who it is it could be X, Y, and Z here is the information I have on them’? ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/453 "2004-12-16T18:35:22Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No her crime would be writing unknown if she should did know or had a reasonable guess who the father was. If she truely doesn’t know who the father is then she doesn’t get charged. Right…but you’ve already said that you were bluffing. That unless you somehow manage to find the truth, or she sticks to her story; you would release her. The ONLY way you can arrest her, is if you prove she’s lying. The only way you can do that, is if you already know who the father is. Why not just use your magic and contact the father? Why bother with whole thing, which on the face will yield little results? If you have the means to find out the truth, then why bother questioning every single mother in the United States? Make not mistake we’re talking millions of single women having babies, all with different reasons for not exposing who the father is. lesbians, illegal aliens, unknown artifical insemination, rape, incest…the list goes on. This isn’t as simple as some chick skipping town. Nevermind the Constitutional issues…unless you’re willing to amend the Constitution. Give it up. ---
**Author:** ![stretch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@stretch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stretch)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/454 "2004-12-16T19:02:16Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Make not mistake we’re talking millions of single women having babies, all with different reasons for not exposing who the father is. lesbians, illegal aliens, unknown artifical insemination, rape, incest…the list goes on. This isn’t as simple as some chick skipping town. See, **treis** , this is what we’re talking about. Women have lots of reasons for not divulging the name of the father. In the grand scheme of things, it is protective of the majority of the individuals involved (mothers, fathers, and children) for the mother not the be compelled to revealed the name of the father if she feels she has reason not to. You can ask the mom who the dad is, but she doesn’t have to tell you (the state) unless you (the state) have a compelling reason for her to, such as when she applies for welfare. And she doesn’t have to tell you (the generic you or you specifically) because it’s none of your business who the father of the baby is unless you are somehow related. And then it is your business (to some arguable extent) but you can’t stop people from being assholes. She doesn’t have to tell you that you are going to be a parent, grandparent, uncle, cousin, or anything. Most people would agree that the moral thing to do would be to let other people know their relationship to the child and then mutually determine the level of involvement of those people. However, some people are assholes. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/455 "2004-12-16T20:06:51Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Right…but you’ve already said that you were bluffing. That unless you somehow manage to find the truth, or she sticks to her story; you would release her. The ONLY way you can arrest her, is if you prove she’s lying. The only way you can do that, is if you already know who the father is. If she says ‘No I am not telling’ we can arrest her. If the father shows up 3 years later and it can be shown the mother lied then we arrest her. > [@holmes](#): > > Make not mistake we’re talking millions of single women having babies, all with different reasons for not exposing who the father is. I don’t think she should get to decide whether or not her child gets to know its father. I don’t think she should get to decide that a father should not see his child. > [@holmes](#): > > lesbians, ? > [@holmes](#): > > illegal aliens If the father is here illegally and mother are here illegally then deport them. If that is wrong or unjust change the immigration laws to make them legal. > [@holmes](#): > > unknown artifical insemination, Certainly the parties have figured out parental rights before undergoing an expensive medical proceedure. If the father gets none bring in a piece of paper saying so. > [@holmes](#): > > rape If the mother was raped then say so. > [@holmes](#): > > incest If it was consenual why shouldn’t the father know? If its not then see above > [@holmes](#): > > the list goes on. This isn’t as simple as some chick skipping town. I haven’t seen a situation that doesn’t have a work around. > [@holmes](#): > > Nevermind the Constitutional issues…unless you’re willing to amend the Constitution. What constitutional issues? > [@stretch](#): > > See, treis, this is what we’re talking about. Women have lots of reasons for not divulging the name of the father. In the grand scheme of things, it is protective of the majority of the individuals involved (mothers, fathers, and children) for the mother not the be compelled to revealed the name of the father if she feels she has reason not to. If she has a legitimate reason then let her go to court and prove it. We don’t allow fathers to hide a child from its mother. > [@stretch](#): > > You can ask the mom who the dad is, but she doesn’t have to tell you (the state) unless you (the state) have a compelling reason for her to, such as when she applies for welfare. And she doesn’t have to tell you (the generic you or you specifically) because it’s none of your business who the father of the baby is unless you are somehow related. And then it is your business (to some arguable extent) but you can’t stop people from being assholes. She doesn’t have to tell you that you are going to be a parent, grandparent, uncle, cousin, or anything. Most people would agree that the moral thing to do would be to let other people know their relationship to the child and then mutually determine the level of involvement of those people. However, some people are assholes. The state has a compelling interest in the protecting the rights of the child. The child has a right to know who his father is and the father has an equal right to that of the mother in rasing that child. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/456 "2004-12-16T20:08:29Z")
Would a national DNA registry _help_ solve the problem? To be used in instances of: 1. If baby is dropped off at a hospital, police, fire station. Then automatically take a DNA sample (swab) and file the DNA on the database to be accessible only to the court system. An unknowing father/mother can submit (to opt-in) there own DNA to see if they match anyone in the system and then have can reinstate parental rights subject to court review. This covers the “numerous” instances of babies dropped off by mothers who don’t want to let the father know even though father might have “some interest” in the kid. Otherwise, foster care and adoption will take place in some time frame (debatable). 2. When applying for child support or welfare, current parental custodian and qualifying child(ren) must submit to DNA sampling in order to receive support from the state or the non-custodial parent. Again, subject to court review. This will help to establish who pays for what, AND (as a bonus) weeds out welfare double-dipping in some instances (people claiming the same kids as their own and then loaned out to other people to establish their own claims - I think the savings here would fund the whole program and then some). Child support claims should only be retroactive to the last 12 months from the claim date, and the “deadbeat” parent has visitation rights subject to court review. 3. Hi Opal; is there anything that can be added? I’m sure there’s something else. I think this addresses a few concerns raised here in this murky muck of a thread, it help solves some of the concerns and “Opting In” is not Big Brotherish compared to a full blown DNA registry. It ain’t perfect, but it’s better to have a lawn with a few weeds instead a whole lawn of crabgrass. ---
**Author:** ![35340](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/8baadc/32.png) [@35340](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/35340)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/457 "2004-12-16T20:11:27Z")
> [@Yeticus Rex](#): > > Would a national DNA registry _help_ solve the problem? You can have my DNA data when you scrape it from under my cold, dead nails. Unless I can prevent it. ---
**Author:** ![ShadiRoxan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@ShadiRoxan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadiRoxan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/458 "2004-12-16T20:35:22Z")
**treis** , you would be wrong to assume that my husband will be here for the birth of our child. He’s actually scheduled for deployment four days before my due date. There is a good chance he won’t be here. So do I have to take a copy of my marriage certificate in to the hospital to prove I’m married? Even then, how does that prove he’s the father? If he wasn’t, what right does the government have to come in and expose my possible infidelity? I might not take offense with some one asking me for the father to sign the birth certificate, but I sure as hell will be pissed off at some one forcing me to name a name or threatening me with jail time. Especially on a day that’s as special as my son coming into the world. The last thing I want is some sort of morality police there to put a damper on my day. Your argument is too flawed and weak against reality. I’d suggest that if you want to protect a man from paying back child support on a child that he wasn’t immeadiately informed of, then form a law against awarding back child support to women who put no effort until years after the fact in informing the father. It would be more practical and less violating. Oh, and the constitutional issue is the implied right to privacy. It might not be an officially written out amendment, but you reap the benefits of it daily. Don’t start trying to infringe upon it just to protect .0001% of the population. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/459 "2004-12-16T20:47:50Z")
> [@ShadiRoxan](#): > > **treis** , you would be wrong to assume that my husband will be here for the birth of our child. He’s actually scheduled for deployment four days before my due date. There is a good chance he won’t be here. > > So do I have to take a copy of my marriage certificate in to the hospital to prove I’m married? Even then, how does that prove he’s the father? Yeah I’ll take a marriage certificate. It certainly doesn’t prove he is the father but DNA testing everyone is too expensive. > [@ShadiRoxan](#): > > If he wasn’t, what right does the government have to come in and expose my possible infidelity? Expose it to whom? Its completely anonymous no information about the mother is given to the father. If the father and mother want to work out an agreement to keep it secret I have no problem with that. I just want the father to know. > [@ShadiRoxan](#): > > Your argument is too flawed and weak against reality. I’d suggest that if you want to protect a man from paying back child support on a child that he wasn’t immeadiately informed of, then form a law against awarding back child support to women who put no effort until years after the fact in informing the father. It would be more practical and less violating. I don’t want to just protect a man against back child support. I want to protect him from losing out on raising his child. I want to protect the child from losing out on being raised by its father. > [@ShadiRoxan](#): > > Oh, and the constitutional issue is the implied right to privacy. It might not be an officially written out amendment, but you reap the benefits of it daily. Don’t start trying to infringe upon it just to protect .0001% of the population. No private information is made public. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/460 "2004-12-16T20:49:20Z")
> [@Mynn](#): > > You can have my DNA data when you scrape it from under my cold, dead nails. Unless I can prevent it. I don’t want your DNA, what the hell would I want with it? 😉 > [@Yeticus Rex](#): > > I think this addresses a few concerns raised here in this murky muck of a thread, it help solves some of the concerns and **“Opting In” is not Big Brotherish compared to a full blown DNA registry.** If you seek assistance from the state or the other party, then assist the courts by providing legitimacy to your claim. Is that really an issue to you, or should the court just believe what you say? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802.md?page=24)