R0bert,

The virtue of being truthful (Satyam) is mentioned in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Accordingly, the fruit of not hiding the truth, is that the truth will not be hidden from you either (just as the fruit of refraining from violence is that no violence will occur around you, and the fruit of refraining from stealing is that good things will come into to your life), so once the truth is not hidden, one sees clearly and cannot be deceived.

Of course, this does not happen instantly, because previous actions still have their course, but to the extent that I was able to follow those teachings, I have experienced them to be true.

Essentially, you have two choices: either everything is random/mechanic, or there is some sense in life.

If everything is mechanic, then why go on living, especially when death is inevitable and the final result is always the same? In fact, why would the world as a whole continue living? why should the laws of physics continue to operate for one more nanosecond?

But if there is a sense in life, and the physical world consistently follows the laws of physics, then what should be surprising about the spirit, or consciousness, also consistently following certain laws?

Yuyutsu, this is probably going off topic but!!

It would seem that what you suggest then leads to the assumption that when bad things happen to people it is a result of their own bad actions.

Liam gets ripped because he has done bad, a woman who gets raped deserves it because of her own bad actions (maybe the outfit she was wearing). It would become very easy to ignore the sufferings of others based on the assumption that their sufferings were always a consequence of their own actions.

"But if there is a sense in life, and the physical world consistently follows the laws of physics, then what should be surprising about the spirit, or consciousness, also consistently following certain laws? "

How do you then tell which actions are a result of which other actions? If I use a hammer to hit a nail there is nothing in physics to suggest that later the same nail or another one will come back and hit the hammer. Physics allows me to repeatedly hit an innocent nail with a hammer or with multiple hammers. The nail need never have attacked a hammer. I know that's not what you are saying but I don't see anything in physical laws to suggest the kind of link you propose in the non physical space.

The idea that only wrong doers suffer harm and wrong does not match with my view or experience of the world. Innocents have been harmed by others throughout history.

I've seen nothing in this to suggest that the harm done to Liam was the result of any general level of wrongdoing on his part, his ex chose to break their marriage vows, his ex chose to not use appropriate protection, his ex chose to leave him believing a lie when the lie was significant, his ex chose to seek personal gain from that lie. Not Liam's actions but the actions of another.

R0bert

this is a tragic story about two very unhappy people. Mr Magill was cheated and deceived and that is always an awful experience. He has lost three children he must have loved whether they were all genetically his or not. As a feminist and a human being I can feel nothing but great sympathy for him and for his children. I can also completely understand his anger. If it is true he was refunded his child support that is as it should be. However, it mustn't be forgotten that child support is given to support children - as the name implies - not necessarily wives, and it is not the children's fault that the sperm that made them was not his. Who is supporting the children now? Is their genetic father contributing to their upkeep or have they lost their standard of living as well as the man they must have loved as their father? They must also have lost faith in their mother and their ability to rely on her word - if not yet, because they are too young, then certainly they will realise this later. What a mess she has made of her life too.
As I was not privy to the case or the evidence I will not pass judgement on the court outcome. I will just ask one question, why are we so quick to use this human tragedy as a vehicle for expressing our own biases and prejudices about men and women and their propensity to lie and deceive? As Hamlet has pointed out, deceit and lying are human chracateristics, they are hardly gender based. And it is interesting how few posts mention the fate of the true innocent victims here, the three kids. If men are such loving and concerned fathers (and most of them, I am sure, are) why isn't their first thought for the devastation wrought on the children, rather than the injustice perpetrated on the man?

It’s great to read all the thoughtful comments and references here.

"the subject literature review concluded that when a father is certain about paternity the rate of finding non-paternity is low (median 1.7%) but when the father is unsure about paternity the rate is high (median 29.8%)" (Cornflower, Thu, 16 Nov 2006)

The study by Kermyt Anderson (2006) on Worldwide Non-paternity Rates - cited by rogindon and Cornflower above - shows that non-paternity rates differ vastly based on the paternity confidence of the men involved. The overall rate of non-paternity will remain unclear without data on the number of men with high paternity confidence and those unsure about paternity. This is an important article:

§ http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/A/Kermyt.G.Anderson-1/papers/abs_patconf1.html

Even if the extent of paternity fraud or mistaken paternity is a "relatively low" 1% to 3% in the general population, this does not in my view reduce the moral gravity of its social consequences for children, their misled ‘step-fathers’ and natural fathers all of whom suffer an identity fraud.

The social research on misattributed paternity in Australia is interesting too. Michael Gilding (2005) and Gilding & Lyn Turney (2006) - both articles are in the journal "People and Place" - argue that:

§ The view that between ten and 30 per cent of all births involve misattributed paternity is an urban myth. The data suggests that the number is closer to 1% and not more than 3% (Gilding, 2005)

§ The balance of public opinion is now in favour of DNA paternity testing even without the knowledge of the mother. Mostly, men & women in Australia hold much the same views on paternity testing (Gilding & Turney, 2006)

The latter article describes results from the Swinburne National Technology and Society Monitor (SNTSM), which conducted representative surveys of public perceptions about DNA paternity testing in 2003 and 2005.

Our politicians should consider these public perceptions and the need to respect the parental rights of both women and men when reviewing the relevant legislation.

When frequency of paternity fraud in one’s own family reaches 33% (or of course Magill’s 66%), 1% to 3% seems a little on the low side. Regardless (we’ll never know until we routinely test), 2,500 to 8,000 children in Australia EVERY year, year after year, are fraudulently conceived. Add to that, a proportion of the 30% plus, abortions. Conceivably here, the 1%-3% rate may be a little higher.

Even at the more optimistic range of estimates, this adds up to a lot of abuse. If you consider that both the children and their social fathers will at some point in their lives care, then double these numbers to arrive at the number of people impacted. Multiply them many more times if you count the mother, the biological father, and the siblings.

But fathers must be either a resilient lot, or just plain stupid – they seem undeterred by the potential for 18 years of CSA abuse, the $200k or so in estimated costs to raise a child to adulthood, nor property settlements ranging from 66% to 80% and above. According to politicians and popular literature, fathers see very little beyond the consensual sex. Hell, things could get quite complicated if they were given similar reproductive choices to women.

Also of interest:

One in 25 Dads Isn’t Biological Father, British Study Shows

11 Aug 2005 (Bloomberg) – "One in 25 dads may unknowingly be raising another man’s child, according to a study by British researchers published in next month’s issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Researchers at John Moores University in Liverpool, England based their findings on a review of medical and social science research spanning more than 50 years. They determined that rates of paternal discrepancy, or PD, where a father is not the biological parent of his child, range from 0.8 percent to as much as 30 percent, with a median of 3.7 percent.

PD is generally a result of unprotected sex and multiple partners and typically associated with a woman having an affair outside marriage. The number of cases recorded is rising because of an increase in situations in which genetic discrepancies can be detected such as organ donation, male infertility treatment, screening for diseases and DNA profiling during police, judicial and emergency investigations, researchers said...."

Maybe the incidence in Australia could be closer to these numbers. 3.7% is sizeable: the $ amount of fraud is high because income and assets are affected (min $200,000 per case); and the effect on the families also has to be factored in. But just talking about $$, a company board wouldn't be very happy if 3.7% of employeees defrauded the company by a minimum of $200,000 (each).