Blog powered by Typepad

News orgs

« Fran O'Sullivan: Gutless police give up on party spending rorts | Main | Ideas for increasing NZ Income per capita »

May 16, 2006



I'm not sure why Xavier is so highly rated by you - he features low on the scientific rader.

And the statement by the contributor is correct: the genetic component IS ended at conception. Short of donating an organ or giving blood, a father cannot donate anymore genetic material to the child; but then neither can the mother, for the embryo/foetus/child development, whilst occuring in the womb, follows its own path.

Post-natally, all other influences are strictly not genetic for no biological material is passed. However, genetics does influence, to a small degree, the views of the parents etc. But then, personal views, societal constraints and other influences are also important, ie. "nature and nurture".

But the nature, from a genetic point of view, is done at coneption.


You accept some genetic influence on the parent. My point is that genetics infuences the views of the parents, and the child. there is a very strong bond that is not explained by environment or nurture, therefore genetics must play some part.

Stating that there is no genetic influence after conception and that a mans role is optional flies in the face of biology. what is instinct if not something passed in the genes.

I like Xavier's scientific views because although of the left he tends to approach subjects with a fact based rather than spin based approach.

I have not the slightest clue how he is rated in the nz scientific community

John Anderson

It doesn't look like much of a slapdown.

I'm pretty sure of the science in terms of 'genetic role'.

The Mormon church might be a 'fringe church' although looking at its influence in terms of numbers its pretty influential, but their views on the value of patriarchy are pretty similar to views reinforced by 'mainstream' NZ churches.

The point was that forcing a father on a family by insisting that a couple stay together purely because they conceived a child together is dangerous and silly. It doesn't matter whether it's the church, the state, or the local rotary club - it's a crap idea.

It doesn't take into account:

- women don't always want to live with the father of their children.
- men don't always want to live with the mother of their children
- couples sometimes use sperm donors and don't wish their children to have to deal with the genetic father
- many children have other positive male role-models not based on genetics which I think are just as positive

Basically your ridiculous whiny authoritarian notion that 'Maybe it should be a crime to raise a child without a father' does not take in to account real life.

The comments to this entry are closed.