"Of course, it's outrageous that 30 states would enact such unfair-to-men laws."

I just checked and I am in Oz, this topic is about Oz law and Judge Judy does not apply

Keep it KISS mate

If you are Oz bloke and have doubts about a putative "offspring" [for whatever reason] then Oz law is totally equitable and non invasive of privacy

but as I say you MUST keep clear of blood sucking lawyers

the very first bloke I helped on this issue already had had the DNA test done [at 6 grand to "his" lawyer, who of course MoonLighted as a CSA COAT]

it was doom and gloom as lawyer's letter said Lab said he WAS the father

So I checked the Lab and they had said he was NOT the father

get the picture

The surest way that a man will not be required to pay any maintenance for a child, but still wants to have sex with women: have a vasectomy.

Remain childless. Simple really

Excellent points countrygal.

It is a thorny issue as you say; like walking through a minefield of competing rights and responsibilities.

I first liked your idea of DNA testing in the case of child support ie.the mother's right to refuse = loss of financial support. In theory this sounds good but if the child is in fact the father's (biologically) does it mean he is denied access if no child support is paid.

I can see another minefield in the making. Do we assume that if the mother refuses a DNA test, that her husband is not the child's father?
This may not be the case.

"I first liked your idea of DNA testing in the case of child support ie.the mother's right to refuse = loss of financial support. In theory this sounds good but if the child is in fact the father's (biologically) does it mean he is denied access if no child support is paid."

but you are not listening [to me as Oz expert on these matters] nor educating yourself independently

read my lips - the mother does not HAVE any right to refuse a DNA test

... well except permission from Germaime Greer, Adel Horin and Elsbeth McElsbeth of the Lonely/Greedy Mother's Federation

We have a Constitution which says one obeys the law, not the newspaper

I am sure, even if you are a feminist, you are capable of going to austlii and reading the L-A-W LAW

Judge Judy only applies to Oz TV, not to Oz Law

ie Get Real Dude

yvonne you can do far better than that last post. Unless I've completely missed your point it seems about the equivalent of telling women they have no need for access to abortion. If they want to have sex with men have their tubes tied.

Adults engaged in consentual sexual activities both have a choice in the matter, if not it's rape and a different issue. If the issue boils down to vasectomy's for men then tell me why the abortion debate does not boil down to sterilisation for women (with some exceptions for rape and genuine life threatening medical conditions)?

People of far less compassion and intellect to yourself might think that simplistically but I don't think that is you.

For the record very little of the cost of a vasectomy is covered by all the various health related "protections". My understanding is that it's about $1,130 directly out of pocket (plus any follow up visits, medications etc) even with private hospital and extra's cover.

R0bert

DD, you may be corect about Oz law, but don't pretend that feminists here in Australia are not seeking these sorts of changes. My comment showed far more than technicalities though, as there is a revealing psychology behind exploiting law and deceiving men about paternity.