Would you support mandatory genetic testing for paternity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there fixation on getting the government to mandate something that people already can do freely?

They can't. It is incredibly hard for a biological father to can an order for a test to establish paternity.

Not if he’s already the legal father.

Once again, this is how the government wants it, so don’t look to them to help you undo someone else’s standing with paternity.

The state doesn’t want a situation where mandatory testing reveals that a woman’s partner (the presumed father) is proven not to be her baby’s biological father, so another guy submits a DNA sample for analysis, thinking he’s the biological father, but testing reveals that the baby’s not his either. No one else comes forward for testing or is named by the mother, so now there’s no one who has established paternity. Mom can’t support baby on her own, so she and baby end up on government assistance.

From a public policy perspective, it’s better for the wrong guy to support the kid than for no guy to support the kid.

Also, under your proposed system, would every single man have to submit to DNA testing upon his 18th birthday, to be stored in a database in case paternity needs to be determined someday or would it be optional for unmarried men who aren’t seeking to establish paternity? A system that helps men escape legal paternity for children who aren’t theirs biologically, but doesn’t determine who is the biological father, leaves children fatherless. The state isn’t going to go along with that. To get automatic paternity testing for newborns mandated, the government would have to have a database of every single man’s DNA. I don’t think men would be very happy about that.

Before the BC is finalized, they can do a paternity test. They can do it at the hospital before release when possible and just charge a small fee for it or mandate health insurance pays for it.

You clearly didn’t read the entire post you’re responding to. What you’re suggesting merely proves or disproves the biological relationship between a man who comes forward as the presumptive father and a newborn. The state has zero incentive to do that, so they will not mandate it.

They do to go after child support. And, to protect the child.

[Anonymous]

I can think of no better way to increase the number of abortions. In the real world, many married women who cheat are also having sex with their Hs. When they get pregnant, they may not know which of 2 men--or more--is the father. If the woman and her H are together and he doesn't know about the cheating, she is likely to choose to keep the child.

If, however, she knows she's going to have to have the child take a paternity test as soon as it's born, it's more likely she'll choose to have an abortion rather than blow up her marriage, especially if there are other older kids in the mix. And she may well end up aborting her H's child.

Plus these tests are not foolproof. I know this is a different situation, but there is a case where a woman was accused of welfare fraud because her DNA didn't match that of any of her 3 children. The state where she resided required maternity and paternity tests when welfare payments for kids are sought. Her ex-partner argued that he shouldn't have to pay support because he agreed to have children with her. He argued that she "must have" used donor eggs without discussing it with him. So, he could escape his child support obligations because of her fraud.

Thing was...she was a chimera but didn't know it. Short version: she had 2 different sets of DNA.In her case, the DNA her kidsi nherited was not the one that showed up in blood work. The DNA in her blood was NOT inherited by any of her kids.https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/case-lydia-fairchild-and-her-chimerism-2002

Now...granted this was an unusual case--though not unique. It does show that blind reliance on DNA is unwarranted because a MAN can be a chimera too and thus may hand one set of his DNA down to his kids while the other shows up on a DNA test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:- of all newborns?

Also:

- what would you guess is the percentage of children born in wedlock who are genetically the father’s child?

Yes. Would also help with the undocumented situation where everyone pretends the father is American but can’t prove that nor who.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why?? I think they can already mandate it if someone is trying to reject paternity, right?

If birthright citizenship goes away (I don’t think it will but with this SCOTUS you never know) this will have to be done in some situations.

There’s no feasible mechanism for it to go away so Open Borders and anchor babies it is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Men want the legal right to establish paternity when they want it or evade paternity when they don’t want it, and they want the law to enforce this in the way that is most convenient for them, so that even if they deposit their sperm inside another man’s wife, they have an easy path to claim the resulting child.

Given that the mother could claim or reject paternity of her unmarried partner to either retain sole parental rights or seek child support either immediately or in the future, why shouldn't men have legal rights? Why are you intent on continuing policies that are blatantly one sided?

Before paternity tests there wasn't much of an alternative. But we can do better now.

If a married woman gives birth to another man’s biological child, but her husband wants to claim paternity and raise the child as his own, I’m not sure the mother can deny her husband’s paternity rights, even if she wants to. The law spells out how this is handled. The woman or the biological father would have to use the legal system to pursue paternity for the biological father. He would not have paternity rights or obligations based simply on the woman’s desires.

Likewise, if the woman wanted her husband to have paternity rights, but the biological father pursues them through the legal process, the woman’s preference is not the determining factor in legal paternity.

Women didn’t write or pass these laws. Women aren’t the majority of legislators who could change them. Women aren’t the majority of the Supreme Court who could overturn them. Why don’t men change these laws? Probably because it’s not in the government’s interest, but feel free to ask the men who have the power to do something about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bad idea and total overreach.

+1 terrible idea. I have two very close friends who both have children fathered by AP’s instead of their H’s. This would wreck probably 10-20% of marriages.


HORRIBLE IDEA.

This is exactly why it should be mandated.

And incest cases

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Men want the legal right to establish paternity when they want it or evade paternity when they don’t want it, and they want the law to enforce this in the way that is most convenient for them, so that even if they deposit their sperm inside another man’s wife, they have an easy path to claim the resulting child.

Men have the right to know if it’s their child. It’s not about evading child support. Men want to take care of their kids, not the ap kids. Why should a man pay for a child who isn’t theirs that they were lied to about.

All very true, but men generally have free will to decide where to deposit their sperm and can use the legal system to address any issues resulting from their choices. Only the government can make paternity testing mandatory, and they’re unmotivated to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can think of no better way to increase the number of abortions. In the real world, many married women who cheat are also having sex with their Hs. When they get pregnant, they may not know which of 2 men--or more--is the father. If the woman and her H are together and he doesn't know about the cheating, she is likely to choose to keep the child.

If, however, she knows she's going to have to have the child take a paternity test as soon as it's born, it's more likely she'll choose to have an abortion rather than blow up her marriage, especially if there are other older kids in the mix. And she may well end up aborting her H's child.

Plus these tests are not foolproof. I know this is a different situation, but there is a case where a woman was accused of welfare fraud because her DNA didn't match that of any of her 3 children. The state where she resided required maternity and paternity tests when welfare payments for kids are sought. Her ex-partner argued that he shouldn't have to pay support because he agreed to have children with her. He argued that she "must have" used donor eggs without discussing it with him. So, he could escape his child support obligations because of her fraud.

Thing was...she was a chimera but didn't know it. Short version: she had 2 different sets of DNA.In her case, the DNA her kidsi nherited was not the one that showed up in blood work. The DNA in her blood was NOT inherited by any of her kids.https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/case-lydia-fairchild-and-her-chimerism-2002

Now...granted this was an unusual case--though not unique. It does show that blind reliance on DNA is unwarranted because a MAN can be a chimera too and thus may hand one set of his DNA down to his kids while the other shows up on a DNA test.

That’s rare and not a good reason not to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Men want the legal right to establish paternity when they want it or evade paternity when they don’t want it, and they want the law to enforce this in the way that is most convenient for them, so that even if they deposit their sperm inside another man’s wife, they have an easy path to claim the resulting child.

Men have the right to know if it’s their child. It’s not about evading child support. Men want to take care of their kids, not the ap kids. Why should a man pay for a child who isn’t theirs that they were lied to about.

All very true, but men generally have free will to decide where to deposit their sperm and can use the legal system to address any issues resulting from their choices. Only the government can make paternity testing mandatory, and they’re unmotivated to do so.

It takes two to make a child. Both parents are responsible, not a man who isn’t the dad. It takes years to get through the court system and moms can scream abuse, breastfeeding and other things to block contact. It’s all pure greed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Men want the legal right to establish paternity when they want it or evade paternity when they don’t want it, and they want the law to enforce this in the way that is most convenient for them, so that even if they deposit their sperm inside another man’s wife, they have an easy path to claim the resulting child.

Given that the mother could claim or reject paternity of her unmarried partner to either retain sole parental rights or seek child support either immediately or in the future, why shouldn't men have legal rights? Why are you intent on continuing policies that are blatantly one sided?

Before paternity tests there wasn't much of an alternative. But we can do better now.

If a married woman gives birth to another man’s biological child, but her husband wants to claim paternity and raise the child as his own, I’m not sure the mother can deny her husband’s paternity rights, even if she wants to. The law spells out how this is handled. The woman or the biological father would have to use the legal system to pursue paternity for the biological father. He would not have paternity rights or obligations based simply on the woman’s desires.

Likewise, if the woman wanted her husband to have paternity rights, but the biological father pursues them through the legal process, the woman’s preference is not the determining factor in legal paternity.

Women didn’t write or pass these laws. Women aren’t the majority of legislators who could change them. Women aren’t the majority of the Supreme Court who could overturn them. Why don’t men change these laws? Probably because it’s not in the government’s interest, but feel free to ask the men who have the power to do something about them.

If he chooses to, he should have the option to know the tryst before agreeing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Men want the legal right to establish paternity when they want it or evade paternity when they don’t want it, and they want the law to enforce this in the way that is most convenient for them, so that even if they deposit their sperm inside another man’s wife, they have an easy path to claim the resulting child.

Given that the mother could claim or reject paternity of her unmarried partner to either retain sole parental rights or seek child support either immediately or in the future, why shouldn't men have legal rights? Why are you intent on continuing policies that are blatantly one sided?

Before paternity tests there wasn't much of an alternative. But we can do better now.

Unmarried mother here. As I said in another post, this isn’t true. At least in this area you can’t just put someone on the birth certificate if they don’t agree and fill out a form in front of a notary. Likewise, there are mechanisms for either party to establish paternity after the birth if they don’t agree. The man can file a legal action to establish his paternity and the mom can file for child support and they will help establish paternity.

A woman can’t just unilaterally saddle someone with paternity or take it away if they aren’t married. I would actually argue that unmarried men have more rights in this situation than married men do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Men want the legal right to establish paternity when they want it or evade paternity when they don’t want it, and they want the law to enforce this in the way that is most convenient for them, so that even if they deposit their sperm inside another man’s wife, they have an easy path to claim the resulting child.

Given that the mother could claim or reject paternity of her unmarried partner to either retain sole parental rights or seek child support either immediately or in the future, why shouldn't men have legal rights? Why are you intent on continuing policies that are blatantly one sided?

Before paternity tests there wasn't much of an alternative. But we can do better now.

If a married woman gives birth to another man’s biological child, but her husband wants to claim paternity and raise the child as his own, I’m not sure the mother can deny her husband’s paternity rights, even if she wants to. The law spells out how this is handled. The woman or the biological father would have to use the legal system to pursue paternity for the biological father. He would not have paternity rights or obligations based simply on the woman’s desires.

Likewise, if the woman wanted her husband to have paternity rights, but the biological father pursues them through the legal process, the woman’s preference is not the determining factor in legal paternity.

Women didn’t write or pass these laws. Women aren’t the majority of legislators who could change them. Women aren’t the majority of the Supreme Court who could overturn them. Why don’t men change these laws? Probably because it’s not in the government’s interest, but feel free to ask the men who have the power to do something about them.

If he chooses to, he should have the option to know the tryst before agreeing.

Warn your sons that marrying a woman conveys automatic paternity to them for any children their wives give birth to during the marriage. It’s one of the consequences of marriage that they should know about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Currently laws provide limited legal protections for men wrongly identified as fathers as well as for men wrongfully not identified as fathers. They make it shockingly easy for women to commit fraud to either deny parental rights or seek financial gain.

If you are so concerned about this happening to you, go get your own test.

And that is not how any of this works— a woman doesn’t just declare that a certain man is the father. Do you even have kids? You have no idea what you’re talking about, especially how the legal system treats paternity for married and unmarried people.

Seriously— Get offline. This is not a real societal problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Currently laws provide limited legal protections for men wrongly identified as fathers as well as for men wrongfully not identified as fathers. They make it shockingly easy for women to commit fraud to either deny parental rights or seek financial gain.

If you are so concerned about this happening to you, go get your own test.

And that is not how any of this works— a woman doesn’t just declare that a certain man is the father. Do you even have kids? You have no idea what you’re talking about, especially how the legal system treats paternity for married and unmarried people.

Seriously— Get offline. This is not a real societal problem.

How would a man even obtain standing to get a court order for a test in such a situation?

[Anonymous]

How do you mandate that a man and that a child submit their DNA??? Seems crazy. Another example of an issue that may impact <5% of society run amuck.