This is a ruling that has less to do with justice and more to do with ensuring the states interest. It’s in the interest of the state to not have to take responsibility for a child, assigning the husband as responsible is the easy way to remove the burden from the state.
How is shit like this ok in the age of DNA testing? You can find out for sure before the baby is even born ffs. There’s no reason to fuck over lives like this.
Because enslaving men to steal their productive output is as old as…well…enslaving women for theirs, I guess. But the point is, humanity is perfectly comfortable with forced servitude in favour of whoever interests are most valued and in this case, it most certainly isn’t those men.
So the logical conclusion is that people just don’t get married anymore.
Me first
Now that we have DNA analysis, I’ve thought children’s parents should be identified at birth using DNA. As women, we have always known if we’ve gone through pregnancy and given birth so it ususally isn’t a question although there have been hospital mix-ups and stolen babies. Fathers have always had to take the risk about whether or not they were genetic contributors. Before DNA it was easiest to just assign it to the husbands as default so that children had benefactors. The child is innocent of its conception so they shouldn’t suffer lack of a parent especially when fathers used to be the main financial support.
Twice.
Maury got a lot less interesting.
I thought this is how it’s always worked everywhere in the US.
This is the Indian Supreme Court, and actually no, it doesn’t work that way in the US. There’s a sickening amount of cases where rapists use the child of their initial rape to retraumatize (and in some cases, rape again) the victim through custody fights, supervised visitation, etc.
Forced to Carry: The Reality of Rape-Related Pregnancies in a Post-Roe World
It’s pretty bleak.
Horrible issue, thanks for that link.
it doesn’t work that way in the US.
That’s exactly the way it works in the US states of Georgia and South Carolina. There are probably other states too, but I know for sure those two at least.
Wife cheats, gets pregnant, baby is born, husband files for divorce, but still has to pay child support until that kid is 18 despite a negative DNA test on the basis that the husband “assumed the fatherly role” by remaining on the child’s birth certificate.
I mean, signing a birth certificate if there are questions is a pretty stupid thing to do…
