₦airaland Forum

QuinQ:
You've just shown me a flaw in how I put my words together. I thought by "amimals" people will understand I include humans.
Here's what I meant to write below. I'd respond to rest of your post later.

Nature gave WE animals an extremely strong instinct to have OUR genes survive and most of our actions are dictated by that instinct. But as humans with brains why must we be exactly like lower animals?? We ought USE OUR BRAINS to see that survival of our particular genes benefits us NOTHING! What is important is that we live a fulfilled, satisfying life that includes as much of life as possible, including fatherhood!

What is important is that we live a fulfilled, satisfying life that includes as much of life as possible, including fatherhood!

Truly, the quoted is important but do you believe any man today with the awareness of what's what with most women would truly live a fulfilled and satisfying life if there's that doubt within his heart?

And come on. Lions don't do that from pure bestial instinct. There are many cases where the lion welcomes his estranged lioness with another lion's cub.

It's just man thinking himself too wise to always use their own human matric to judge everything. All species develop in different ways, because the human way is different from others does not mean they're entirely hopeless in their way of existence. I prefer to just call it "different" and not advanced or civilized. Who's to say we're not seen as total hateful barbarians by other animals? Lols

correctguy101:
Truly, the quoted is important but do you believe any man today with the awareness of what's what with most women would truly live a fulfilled and satisfying life if there's that doubt within his heart?

And come on. Lions don't do that from pure bestial instinct. There are many cases where the lion welcomes his estranged lioness with another lion's cub.

It's just man thinking himself too wise to always use their own human matric to judge everything. All species develop in different ways, because the human way is different from others does not mean they're entirely hopeless in their way of existence. I prefer to just call it "different" and not advanced or civilized. Who's to say we're not seen as total hateful barbarians by other animals? Lols

You live a fulfilled, satisfying life to the extent you can. The important thing is, try not to be ruled by instincts like lower animals. Use your God-given brain.

Man is not thinking himself wise. He is indeed too wise compared to lower animals. Animals don't even know they are naked. Nor can they think conceptually. They follow instinct not thought. We shouldn't also be like that as humans!

Did you bother to acknowledge the deceit on the man over the years to believe all he was doing was for his blood. Do you bother to acknowledge the pain and loss the man wil feel after knowing he has been living in a fool's paradise. If there was nothing wrong or crime in it, why not come out clean from the onset. Let the man know and decide himself to take care of the child and not to be deceived and used by another for selfish and manipulative reason

QuinQQ:
Well, sorry to disappoint you. I'm a full blooded heterosexual man.
But like I told the other guy, never mind me, can you tell us how it benefits the man or the child, or society when a man accepts a child, bonds with the child, then years later start screaming DNA?

TrainPark:
I thought it is "infidelity, adultery, sex, and such" in your so-called "settled families" that lead to the need for DNA?
Why should a government force a man to accept a child that does not belong to him?

You are only pretending not to understand.
The govt is not forcing anybody to accept anything. The govt is simply saying: "If you've accepted and raised a child from infancy, you can't suddenly years later start screaming DNA"

DMCA:
Goodluck higher being

Same to you.
I do my best to use my God-given brain, instead of being ruled by instincts like a lower animal

IamAsiri:
So, that means you approve of people stealing children and going ahead to take of them as their own while the parents look on helplessly even if they suspect a child is theirs.
DNA is not only to establish paternity fraud. It can be used to resolve other cases such as stolen babies, swapped babies etc.

LordReed:
Thank you for this. QuinQQ can't see the forest for the tree.

That's not what we're discussing here.
What we are discussing is unwarranted DNA fishing expeditions.
Remember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expedition" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!

QuinQ:
You keep conflating things. We're NOT talking of anybody hiding anything. We simply know is that a family is together, bonded, raising their kids for years. All of a sudden you want "to confirm", you want "certainty", you want "truth". Why don't you ask for certainty as to whether I exist or entirely in your head or whether you are dreaming all these? Why is it only in something that can massively upend a developing child's world that you want certainty? What do you have certainty about in this world? Is everything not approximate?

You were asked to say the benefits and you really didn't say anything. Have all these people who don't know their biological fathers died?How will DNA identify the biological father without having his DNA? If the test turns out negative all you have done is upend a functioning family unit - because you want "certainty". Will you take over the care of the child? The state's business is to make it very difficult for families to suddenly start DNA fishing expeditions on a whim.

Birth DNA testing is good if you can afford it and think you need it, otherwise look at your child. If she looks like you, take her home. If she looks Chinese, reject her! Don't wait 13 years then start screaming DNA. You can do it when she turns 18!

You are still avoiding the central issue. You say nobody is hiding anything, but that is exactly what the DNA test is meant to establish. If nobody is hiding anything, the test will confirm paternity and the family continues normally. You cannot assume there is no deception and then use that assumption as the reason why nobody should be allowed to verify it.

Even the state does not simply accept your word when identity, money, citizenship, employment or legal responsibility is involved. It asks for passports, birth certificates, bank statements, biometric checks and other evidence. That is not because everyone is automatically considered dishonest. It is because important claims require proof.And what claim is more important than being told that a child is yours and that you must carry the emotional, financial and legal responsibility for that child for life?

Your comparison with asking whether you exist or whether I am dreaming is just a distraction. Paternity is not a philosophical question. It is a specific biological fact that can be tested accurately and has direct emotional, medical, legal and financial consequences.

You also asked why a man should seek certainty about something that could disrupt a child’s life. The answer is simple. The test does not create the problem. The conduct that produced the false paternity created the problem. You keep blaming the discovery instead of the deception.

That is like saying a woman should never check her husband’s phone because discovering his affairs could destroy the marriage. By that logic, the cheating is not the problem. The discovery is.

You also keep claiming that no benefits were given, even after they were clearly explained. Confirmed paternity gives the child an accurate family and medical history. It gives the man certainty before committing decades of emotional and financial responsibility. It protects an innocent mother from years of suspicion. It can also reveal that the presumed father is not the biological father, allowing the truth to be investigated.

Of course a basic paternity test does not magically identify the biological father if his DNA is unavailable. Nobody claimed it would. It establishes whether the tested man is the biological father. That information alone is important. Once non paternity is established, a maternity test can be considered and if positive, the mother would be in the best position to explain who else could be responsible.

You ask whether people who do not know their biological fathers have all died. That is another weak argument. People have survived without knowing their medical history, without education and without modern medicine. Survival does not mean the missing information has no value.

And nobody is saying a man should suddenly wake up after thirteen years and casually destroy his family for entertainment. My position is the opposite. DNA testing should be compulsory at birth precisely so that this issue is settled before years of bonding, sacrifice and emotional attachment.

You oppose testing at birth, then complain that testing after thirteen years could destabilise the child. That contradiction is exactly why routine testing at birth makes sense.

Your suggestion that a man should simply look at the child is also ridiculous. Children do not always resemble their fathers. Some look more like their mothers, grandparents or other relatives. A child can look like a man and still not be biologically his. Physical appearance is not a scientific paternity test.

Telling a man to wait until the child turns eighteen is even worse. You want him to spend eighteen years providing emotionally, financially and legally before he is allowed to know whether the basic information used to place him in that role was true.

Why eighteen? Does the truth suddenly become harmless on the child’s eighteenth birthday? Would discovering the deception after eighteen years not be even more devastating for the father and child?

The state should protect children, but protecting children does not require protecting deception or forcing adults to live in ignorance. The better solution is early testing, counselling, responsible handling of results and legal protection for the child.

Like I have always maintained, a man may still choose to raise a child who is not biologically his. That can be a powerful expression of love. But the decision must belong to him.

You cannot secretly remove the choice, call the resulting ignorance a happy family and then blame the truth when the lie is finally exposed.

equityjake:
If any pregnant woman from nowhere comes out and claims you impregnated her, you automatically becomes the father once the child is born right ?? It’s sad that we have so many people that reasons this way in government. You are so selfish that you so much want to take away the ability of a man to make choices for himself. Why should anyone be forced to raise a child he didn’t father I want a logical and clear explanation.

Why can't folks simply read what is actually written instead of what's in their heads?!

This is about SETTLED families! we don't even know wether there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expedition" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!
That's what the govt concern is - Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions that are actually of no benefit to the family or society!

Odianose13:
You need mental reassessment.

You too. But never mind all that, state your refutal of the thesis point by point

QuinQ:
Funny guy, see below. A guy that donates sperm three times a week how many children does he have out there that he knows nothing of.
Besides, remember that we don't know that there had been infidelity. The state's concern is to discourage a settled family suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature). Note that Davido DNA is still not settled because woman was alleging they manipulated the test. You avoid all that and simply and happily raise a child that only knows you as farher!

Notice how I never said anything negative about adoption? That is because in the case of adoption or where a sperm donor is used, the parents KNOW and CONSENT to what is going on. In case of paternal fraud, they can be LED ASTRAY based on familial medical history because they have FALSELY ASSUMED that the child is related to the father.

Do you understand now?

QuinQQ:
That's not what we're discussing here.
What we are discussing is unwarranted DNA fishing expeditions.
Remember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expedition" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!

You want the state to block ALL DNA Testing of minors. That remains a shortsighted proposition and we are trying to get you to see that but your myopic view is drilled down to this one thing that no matter how many people tell you it is a terrible idea, you refuse to come to your senses.

QuinQ:
That's the point - we don't know the baby is not his. But once he accepts the child and they’re bonded, state's concern is to discourage the settled family suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature). Note that Davido DNA is still not settled because woman was alleging they manipulated the test. You avoid all that and simply and happily raise a child that only knows you as farher! Can you please say how DNA testing at that point benefits the family or siciety?

DNA testing exposes fraud.
DNA testing makes mothers accountable.

Accepting a baby is by choice not deception!

If a man must father a child no matter the age,it must be by his own volition not through compulsion or guilt tripping!

99thEnemy:
So, are you saying the man has no right to know if he is the biological father of the child he is raising?

Are you saying a man should spend years investing emotionally and financially in a child, but he should not have the right to know the truth?

If a DNA test reveals a problem, did the DNA test create the problem, or was the problem already there before the test?

Why should the solution be to ban the tool that exposes the truth instead of addressing the deception that caused the problem?

Are you now saying ignorance is better than truth because the truth may be painful?

What about the child's right to know his or her biological identity, ancestry, and medical history?

If someone commits paternity fraud and a DNA test exposes it, do we ban DNA tests or do we address the fraud?

QuinQQ, the problem with this argument is that it tries to force a particular social outcome instead of addressing the root problem.

Because some people may make decisions others disagree with after learning the truth, you are arguing that they should be prevented from knowing the truth in the first place.

A man who discovers he is not the biological father and still chooses to raise the child should be respected. But that decision should come from his own choice, not from being kept in ignorance.

You cannot force genuine love, commitment, or responsibility by removing someone's ability to make an informed decision about something this important.

Why not let the man know the truth and allow him to decide what kind of father he wants to be?

Thanks for your erudite input without insults.
Remember we've not had DNA all through history and we've somehow managed to survive.
Also remember your ancestors might not be your boological ancestors. What difference has that made??

The issue here is uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions. Remember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!

QuinQQ:
I'm a man my friend and if you calm down a bit you'd see the wisdom In what I'm saying. This is not about parternity fraud. This is about a settled family happily going along then all of a sudden embarking on a DNA fishing expedition of their children (because it is human nature). Govt ought do something to dissuade them from doing that because it doesn't do them or society any good!

Maybe you aught not make a harlot into a house wife? Some women love it big and can't get enough even if it's from the enemy of her husband as long as she cums. Any man willing to accept one bastard an unfaithful woman shall bring may wake up and find all his children are his enemies. And then there's the thing of inheritance both spiritual gifts and physical assets passed down father to his son isn't shared by the bastard. A stupid man who accepts a harlot wife and her bastard children risks his estate passed on to his enemies.

CzarChris:
I Before you got up to type that nonsense up there, did you stop to imagine the psychological damage to the man? The betrayal? The heartbreak? That your write up there is nothing short of the highest level of demonic witchcraft. Do you know how many men, that kind of betrayal led to suicide? You denied a man the dignity of passing on his legacy and you call that what? How do you even sleep at night with this kind of mentality?

Passing on what legacy? Here's what I wrote earlier:

Nature gave WE animals an extremely strong instinct to have OUR genes survive and most of our actions are dictated by that instinct. But as humans with brains why must we be exactly like lower animals?? We ought USE OUR BRAINS to see that survival of our particular genes benefits us NOTHING! What is important is that we live a fulfilled, satisfying life that includes as much of life as possible, including fatherhood!

As for the rest, that's outside our discussion. What we are discussing here is uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions. This is about settled families! We don't even know wether there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expedition" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!
That's what the govt concern is - Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions that are actually of no benefit to that family or society!

QuinQ:
Quite interesting post. The whole point of the ban is to NOT go fishing for bastards where none exists! Throughout human history there were no DNA tests and we somehow managed to survive.
Also, there is no such thing as bastard. The act of copulation that results in a child makes a woman your wife while the act lasted. So bastard is impossible

English is weaker than French but a bastard is still a bastard.


Historically, a child born to parents who were not married to each other—including children born from an adulterous relationship—was legally and socially referred to as a bastard.While this word was once a technical legal term, it is now considered an offensive slur and is no longer used in modern legal or social settings.Historical Legal DifferencesHistorically, old English common law drew a sharp distinction between different types of non-marital births:Bastard / Illegitimate Child: A general term for any child born outside of a lawful marriage.Adulterine Bastard: A specific historical legal term for a child born to a married woman, but fathered by a man other than her husband.Under ancient laws, these children were considered filius nullius (the child of no one). They had no legal right to inherit property, bear their father's name, or receive financial support.

tundebasic:
Show the DNA result that all the children birthed by your parents aren't theirs. Till that time. You are just playing around. Who gets glory for a child who was forced on them? Not everybody can be that low. That is even if the man is alive when the kid becomes something. Children that women would lie about being the man's seed and then the man would take care of the children till he dies, then the woman will continue reaping rewards from the children (the children would keep taking care of her).

If government must permit paternity fraud, then you are saying they should also permit swapping babies.

This is neither about paternity fraud nor about adultery. This is about settled families and uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions. We don't even know wether there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expedition" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!
That's what the govt concern is - Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions that are actually of no benefit to that family or society!

reservd:
Did you bother to acknowledge the deceit on the man over the years to believe all he was doing was for his blood. Do you bother to acknowledge the pain and loss the man wil feel after knowing he has been living in a fool's paradise. If there was nothing wrong or crime in it, why not come out clean from the onset. Let the man know and decide himself to take care of the child and not to be deceived and used by another for selfish and manipulative reason

It is entirely up to the man to decide if he'd accept the child. But once he accepts the child and bonds with the child and have a settled family, he can't come out years later to start screaming DNA.
The state's concern is to discourage such uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions and have the man save his money and focuse on raising a child that knows him as his only father, a child that is almost cerrainly his biological child!

Ghtgh:
Obligation? You just want to be foolish for laughs🤣. Go raise every homeless kid then.

Obligation in the sense that on once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child and has a settled family that includes the child, he can't come out years later to start shouting DNA.
The state's concern is to discourage such uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions and have the man save his money and focuse on raising a child that knows only him as his only father, a child that is almost certainly his biological child!

LordReed:
You want the state to block ALL DNA Testing of minors. That remains a shortsighted proposition and we are trying to get you to see that but your myopic view is drilled down to this one thing that no matter how many people tell you it is a terrible idea, you refuse to come to your senses.

Not at all. Haven't you been reading? The issue here is uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions. This is about settled families! We don't even know wether there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expedition" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!
That's what the govt concern is - Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions that are actually of no benefit to the family or society!

QuinQQ:
It is entirely up to the man to decide if he'd accept the child. But once he accepts the child and bonds with the child and have a settled family, he can't come out years later to start screaming DNA.
The state's concern is to discourage such uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions and have the man save his money and focuse on raising a child that knows him as his only father, a child that is almost cerrainly his biological child!

Read your initial post.....👇👇👇

QuinQQ:
Simple resson: if you've had a child since infancy, he is your child and you're his father and you're obligated to take care of that child till age of maturity. That's how Nature intended it.
It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!

Now compare both and see whether they are saying the same thing.

bentenny:
Read your initial post.....👇👇👇


Now compare both and see whether they are saying the same thing.

This is mostly his thread with Quin answering everyone with nonsense contradictory statements such this example you are giving. Great work exposes a fraud.

Did nature intend this nasty shish? Are we animals now? Even some animals are monogamous.

Secretbloodline:
Maybe you aught not make a harlot into a house wife? Some women love it big and can't get enough even if it's from the enemy of her husband as long as she cums. Any man willing to accept one bastard an unfaithful woman shall bring may wake up and find all his children are his enemies. And then there's the thing of inheritance both spiritual gifts and physical assets passed down father to his son isn't shared by the bastard. A stupid man who accepts a harlot wife and her bastard children risks his estate passed on to his enemies.

See talk. I've told you before: there is NO WAY you can be sure your ancestors are your exact biological ancestors. The only thing you can be fairly sure about is that your mother is your biological mother!

But this is not even about all that. This is about maintaining a settled family unit till children are raised.

The state's concern is to discourage unwarranted DNA fishing expeditions. Once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child over years within a settled family unit, he can't suddenly start screaming DNA!

bentenny:
Read your initial post.....👇👇👇


Now compare both and see whether they are saying the same thing.

Of course I was saying the same thing. If you've raised a fairly grown child from infancy you can't suddenly start shouting DNA years later. You must wait till the child reaches maturity

QuinQQ:
Am I right or am I just somewhat rght?

Here's my OP (original post):

Simple resson: if you've had a child since infancy, he is your child and you're his father and you're obligated to take care of that child till age of maturity. That's how Nature intended it.
It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!
Other people fight for custody of children tooth and nail. Some pay millions for a child in the black market. You don't have to do any of that. He's your child and you get ALL the benefits of fatherhood. He carries your name, references you as his father, and if he ever becomes something ALL fatherhood glory will go to you!

Bro are you out of your fuvking? That's fraud !!!

QuinQQ:
See talk. I've told you before: there is NO WAY you can be sure your ancestors are your exact biological ancestors. The only thing you can be fairly sure about is that your mother is your biological mother!

But this is not even about all that. This is about maintaining a settled family unit till children are raised.

The state's concern is to discourage unwarranted DNA fishing expeditions. Once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child over years within a settled family unit, he can't suddenly start screaming DNA!

Nonsense. A lion begets a lion and a goat begets a goat. Did you know Ifa Oracle is 99 percent accurate and only God knows 100 percent? Ifa Oracle is a male divination system invented by Orunmila an ancient Yoruba priest who obviously was a mathematician.

My j2 haplagroup is the same as my father Gerald de France and my great uncle John Henri de France the patriot, my forefathers in Flanders Merovingian Project all tested positive for J2 haplagroup. I tested positive for j2 haplagroup whilst in the US military Medical Center. A huge percentage of Creole men are descendants of King Louis and the original French Kings, Holy Roman Emperors, Kings of Poland, Sweden and Belgium. We share the same bloodline as the Palestinians who are paternally j2 haplagroup and the Spanish Crypto Jews in Mexico and Central America.

QuinQQ:
Same to you.
I do my best to use my God-given brain, instead of being ruled by instincts like a lower animal

na who u get belle for carry go give one Cuck0ld make him happily take care of?

QuinQQ:
But you can skip all that by simply going back to how it used to be - if you have a child from infancy you're his father and you have an obligation to raise him. And that can be accomplished by simply banning DNA testing of MINORS!

What of the other that knacked the hell out of the woman doing dog style reverse cowgell. He will just go just like that. The government should hail promiscuous women

slimik:
Bro are you out of your fuvking? That's fraud !!!

What is fraud?

QuinQQ:
It is entirely up to the man to decide if he'd accept the child. But once he accepts the child and bonds with the child and have a settled family, he can't come out years later to start screaming DNA.
The state's concern is to discourage such uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions and have the man save his money and focuse on raising a child that knows him as his only father, a child that is almost cerrainly his biological child!

See, DNA DIY kits dey everywhere, these days u just need to buy one kit online, do ur child an ordinary cheek swab and follow d instructions on d kit then wait for results
as dem d born dem, no to do am so that we no go end up raising another man's bastards due to ignorance and naivety.
How many children u plan born with other people carry give another man?

DMCA:
See, DNA DIY kits dey everywhere, these days u just need to buy one kit online, do ur child an ordinary cheek swab and follow d instructions on d kit then wait for results
as dem d born dem, no to do am so that we no go end up raising another man's bastards due to ignorance and naivety.
How many children u plan born with other people carry give another man?

Lie. There is no paternity test you can complete at home. You must send to a lab.
Also, some jurisdictions (like this below) prohibit these kits even in US. We can do same in Nigeria.

Do you REALLY think a man ought spend his megre resources and time trying to prove that a teenager he's raised and loved since infancy is not his biological?

QuinQQ:
Lie. There is no paternity test you can complete at home. You must send to a lab.
Also, some jurisdictions (like this below) prohibit these kits even in US. We can do same in Nigeria.

Do you REALLY think a man ought spend his megre resources and time trying to prove that a teenager he's raised and loved since infancy is not his biological?

yes, that is why it is called peace of mind kit, especially if ur type says dey are pregnant for him.