What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo

Status
Not open for further replies.
LynahFan said:
Keep digging.

I’m hoping for an explanation of how the birthing process established paternity before there was DNA testing. And I’ll be extra entertained if you can tap dance enough do it without saying that they wanted to see if that white woman had a black baby.
Click to expand...

Ok, at the risk of getting piled on by the scientists around here, this is my understanding.

The DNA testing for paternity purposes has really only been around, and commonly used, for about 30 years. My guess is most of these laws were put in place long before that.

Before DNA testing, again as I understand it, the only type of paternity testing used for many years was blood tests. But the blood tests didn't establish paternity, they just excluded a person.

So that created an issue as to who has the burden of proof in establishing paternity over a child. I think that most legislatures passed laws that said that children born during the course of a marriage were presumed to be the child of the husband in that marriage. In other words, he was stuck unless he could prove otherwise if he didn't think the child was his.

However, in a non-marriage situation, I think the burden was then on the mother to establish paternity.

Hence, some states (apparently) decided that in order to fit within those laws, they would not finalize a divorce until the child was born, basically establishing paternity with the husband. There may even be a reason tied to application of that presumption if the husband were to move to another state, for instance (say a state where the presumption is paternity if the child is born during wedlock, but no presumption if born outside of wedlock).

I have no real idea as to the legislative history of the statutes in question, but I am pretty confident that they really don't have anything to do with trying to hold up a divorce, but more to do with establishing support obligations.

And, as others have said, my posts are not intended to endorse these laws, no matter how old. It seems to me that with DNA testing that we have now, many of those old laws are probably outdated.
 
Last edited:
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
187 republicans voted against the access to contraception bill.

lol
Click to expand...

Are they using Rubio's ridiculous logic of "I don't care, so I say no"?

I love that Rubio gave Democrats that sound byte. "Republicans don't care about you, so much so that they won't let you get married." I'm not convinced it will help, but...
 
Swansong said:
Are they using Rubio's ridiculous logic of "I don't care, so I say no"?

I love that Rubio gave Democrats that sound byte. "Republicans don't care about you, so much so that they won't let you get married." I'm not convinced it will help, but...
Click to expand...

That's not just Rubio's logic. That's Republican logic. On nearly every issue.
 
Because it's "not something that needs to be law, it's settled." Until they create the law against it.
 
The Sicatoka said:
It's SOP in ND elections.
If you get an initiated measure on the ballot make sure the wording is such that what you really want comes if "No" takes the day.
Click to expand...

OR too. We had 40 ballot measures one year. People get tired of it and just vote No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top