If woman who knows or fears a baby may not have the “father of record” so to speak, will still most likely react will give the same fury as an honest and faithful woman. The lies and deception will propagate more lies and deception.
I missed this earlier
A rather frail strawman but I’ll bite.
If my proposal of a master genetic database were created, the cheating hubby who fathered a child by another woman would get nailed too. Works both ways. Ain’t equality grand.
In addition such a DB could easily give science miilions of quality samples to cross reference for any number of genetic research projects, trait inheritance, evolutionary studies, I’m sure someone in the biz could come up with hundreds of ways that such information could be put to use for the betterement of science without a single paternity claim. Such a DB could probably easily be supported by fees for cross referenceing to find the real dad.
This would be a disaster for relationships. Alot of guys, I would wager to say most guys, would most definitely NOT want to get stuck paying 18+ years of child support for a kid that wasn’t theirs. They might be more willing to do so if they didn’t find out until the kid was in his teens and the marriage had remained intact. But this method leaves it possible for the woman to declare 3 days afterwards that the child isn’t his, divorce him and go marry the biological father, and laugh all the way to the bank.
Since I think most guys would want to avoid that, they’d be more likely to highly desire the test if declining carried permanent consequences. However, as has already been pointed out, it’s possible that the mother would be rather upset by the lack of trust evidenced thereby, and some fathers might be afraid to demand the test for fear of drawing the woman’s wrath. So some people might end up being royally screwed by this system because it both generates tension between the parties and creates permanent consequences of potentially giant stature economically.
For the most part, the flowchart works…
but here, what about the biological father?
There are reasons that, in modern adoptions, he needs to sign away his rights to the child as well.
This seems quite unfair to him.
And again, who is going to pay for the DNA testing? This $500 might be pocket change - but does it means higher insurance premiums or $500 fewer in services for me?
Also, the proposed giant genetic database idea scares me more than I can coherently discuss.
The legal ramifications of adoptions and such should stay the same. The testing only comes into it when someone questions the paternity of the child.
Tack it onto the person who has to pay for support…happy? I’m kicking ideas around right now trying to find a way to set up such a program now that people would want to have the samples taken. Does it mean higher insurance premiums, most likely yes. So does everything else that becomes common practice in baby deliveries. Group beta strep testing, respiratory therapists and NICU nurses on standby, Your insurance companies would probably be happy to kick down for the tests so they don’t end up paying bills for a kid that is not the child of their customer. I would pay another couple bucks a month for that testing being part of childbirth.
Why? Its not like someone is following you around by your “genetic trail”. Its not going to tell anyone you use drugs or that you like kiddie porn. I worry more about who is playing with my credit than who might know how much adenine I have in my DNA sequence. It could be used to identify you when and if you died, it might also be able to help narrow the field in hunting for organ donors.
I think there’s a difference between opting for this test before or close to birth and deciding to do it when the kid is older. Morally and ethically if you’ve invested say, eight years of fathering in a child and then the relationship founders and you opt for DNA testing I think that’s wrong.
If you love and are invested in the well being of a child then to all intents and purposes you are that child’s father. To decide to test, just to avoid paying money is wrong.
But when the paternity of the child is questioned, when test is done - the man named as “father” isn’t the father (which is how we got to B in the first place).
it says:
This “option” to be the father such that a legal adoption would take place would take away the rights of the guy who is the biological father. The really great guy offering to pay for this non-biological kid for it’s lifetime should not be able to take away the rights from the biological father without the biological father’s consent. (And if bio-dad doesn’t consent, then what?)
So, if I understand correctly, I am going to have to pay higher premiums for this - a service that has nothing to do with the health of the child (which I’m willing to pay for) or the safety of the child, or the health, safety, or well being of the mother (which is what beta strep testing and NICU nurses on standby are for).
PLUS (if the above stats are correct) the incorrectly presumed fathers are more highly prevalent in lower income families - where it is less likely that the mothers will be able to support the kid alone; and the children will become a higher tax burden. So I’ll be paying more in taxes as a result of this policy.
Why would women (who know who their children are), men who trust their wives (who are pretty confident with regard to who their children are), or the childfree segment of the population (who have no children to worry about) possibly support this?
Wait a minute, amarinth, now you seem to be saying that the potential bio father should also have the right to demand paternal screening,
How else could he establish his paternity? Esp. if mom didn’t play along.
It gets right back to mandatory.
No, Mr. Unaware (above) should be left alone in his happy ignorance.
Maybe if I use names -
Jane has a child.
Jane says that Bill is the father.
And we enter the flowchart.
Step 1: Jane (obviously) is listed as the mother.
Step 2: The doctors ask Bill and Jane if they want to have paternity tested.
Bill says “yes.” (He has forgiven Jane of the affair she had with Steve 9 months ago - but he’s still curious.)
So now we’re at step 2B.
The test results come back - Bill isn’t the dad
So now to step 2Bii
According to the flowchart - Bill can choose a. to decline to support the child.
or b. to adopt the child, and support it for the next 18 (or so) years.
Correct?
What about Steve?
I am arguing that terminating Steve’s parental rights without Steve’s knowledge or consent unilaterily and unchangeably at the time of the baby’s birth isn’t fair to Steve.
(perhaps Steve wants his rights terminated, perhaps he never would have found out, but in case he does down the line, he should have the option of doing something about it. An instant adoption denies him of such an option.)
This is not an argument for mandatory testing, it’s an argument against that instant, permanent state of “adoption.” I find the current state (rebuttable presumption of parenthood) a much better solution.
mangeorge, this isn’t an either/or situation. We don’t have to choose between allowing any guy to adopt any baby with the permission of the mother, and allowing any guy to have a paternity test on any baby born to woman he had sex with nine months ago. If the test comes back negative, what’s wrong with “Sorry, you either tell us who the father is, or the kid doesn’t get one listed on the birth certificate”.
Actually I think that the child’s welfare is a red herring with regard to this particular discussion. The child will definitely have a father, who will have to pay his share, although it’s in everyone’s interest to establish paternity quickly and fairly.
This is exactly how I see it.
Put like that, it’s clearly an undesirable situation. But in many jurisdictions, that’s how it is currently. At least the proposed system offers the man the opportunity to take the test.
Also, there’s this: the legal father may get custody of the child - certainly the mother’s lack of moral fibre doesn’t say much for her child-rearing potential - and he’d be laughing all the way to the bank. Now I know that in practice if the Pope and Myra Hindley had kids then she’d get custody - that’s another system due for reform, but outside the scope of this discussion.
That’s the reason for making the test either mandatory or possible for one partner to take without the knowledge of the other. Either that, or the women in question need to learn to understand that it’s not a question of their husbands not trusting them, but rather a sensible recognition that it’s possible for their trust to be misplaced.
At first I thought, tough. He shouldn’t have had an affair with a married woman and if Bill is prepared to accept the child as his own (especially when he knows that it isn’t) why allow Steve to break up the family? Steve comes out of this reasonably well, he gets to perpetuate his genes without any further obligations.
But on second thoughts, although in this case it is implied that Bill and Jane have a stable relationship, it would be easy to think up situations that put Steve in a better light. For example if Jane and Steve are married, then she leaves him for Bill while carrying Steve’s child. So I think you have a point, I think that Steve should be the legal father if either he wants to or Bill rejects the child.
Given that Steve may not even know about the child, I think the best solution to this one is to say that all children at birth get checked against a DNA database. Steve would get a letter informing him of the situation and a short time in which to ‘stake his claim’. Note that inclusion in the database could still be voluntary.
For the life of me, I can’t get my mind around the following scenario:
Brad: What a beautiful baby we have, honey!
Sheila: Isn’t he? And he has your eyes!
Brad: And you know, DNA screening is so inexpensive and readily available now, we can have him tested with no problem!
Sheila: Tested? For what?
Brad: Well, you know. Just in case.
Sheila: Just. In. Case. WHAT?
At core, DNA testing, whether demanded on a personal level or a societal level, IS about mistrust. I don’t think you could convince a lot of women that testing their babies “just in case” (which implies “…you cheated on your husband”) is not an issue of lack of trust in their integrity.
Let the individual man request paternity tests if he wishes. He has a right to whatever reassurance he will gain from the results. But I truly don’t know how you could implement mandatory testing without legislating that women in our society need to be regulated to keep them honest, and that men are not ethical enough to support their own children unless required to do so.
And how many men who are not the biological fathers of the children they are told they are would, though they were suspicious of something, not have the test done because the woman would have to be informed of it?
How many would let fear of making her angry consign themselves to being the father on record of a kid that isn’t theirs?
I’m sorry, but due to the fact that no DNA proof of paternity has been forthcoming, you will not be allowed to have this baby. This birth has been cancelled until further notice. You will please reverse any dilation accomplished up until this point and shall cease and desist any further efforts immediately. Resume normal breathing patterns and exit towards the rear of the corridor, taking any personal possessions along with you. A reimbursal will be arranged with your insurance carrier within 72 hours.
It hasn’t been mentioned yet, but at least in my state anyway (California, not confusion) it’s mandatory for the hospital to offer a DNA paternity test to any unmarried couple having a baby. This happened to my brother five or six years ago, his ahem girlfriend got pregnant at seventeen, backed out of an open adoption at the very last second, gave birth to the child, and kept it. At the hospital, the nurse showed up and told my brother they were obligated to offer him a paternity test due to the fact that they were not a married couple, which he subsequently declined.*
Peace,
~mixie
*Silly, stupid bastard should have taken it.
Well as has been said…if those numbers are accurate, maybe we do need more regulation. Hell if 1 in 10 people passing your house checked to see if you left a door or window open we would probably all get robbed a few times a year, even being careful. 1 in 10 is a very significant number of people. This probably effects 12-15 MILLION men in this country at those rates. Hell its more likely (by the numbers) that any given man is cuckolded than gay.
If homsexuality is a group deserving of attention and consideration (which I feel it is), this larger group dealing with an intense and emotionally charged situation as well is just as deserving of our attention and support. I would probably rather find out my wife was gay than find out that our newborn child was fathered by another man. These men are victims of a horrific emotional fraud and should have protections of LAW, not just a simple enough to ignore distasteful look from friends and relatives.
Once upon a time spousal abuse was seen as a “personal problem” now it is seen for the horrific homewrecking nightmare that it is. People are jailed for abusing their spouse regardless of the reason. Its time for this “personal problem” to get brought into the light and for something to be done about it. I seriously doubt anyone here thinks a man should be obligated to pay support on a child he did not father unless he chooses to do so with the information needed to make a choice in HIS best interests. If it is not his child his obligations should be ZERO. Burden on the taxpayers bullshit, mom knows she had sex with someone else, withold assistance until she coughs up a name. If it takes that long to remember names of guys you were sleeping with maybe you need to learn to deal with the financial responsibilities of your new baby on your own. Brutal, yes, but how long do we have to look to find horrendous abuses of the system. I bet many of us know someone who has “that guy from the party” living with them living off the AFDC and food stamps so they can sit around, watch TV, and have more kids. THIS is a burden to society. The one shot $500 cost for a test is pocket change against the ongoing support of a family on welfare/medicaid at our tax expense.
So do we take the $500 flat fee on every kid, with the eventual ability to cross reference anyone with a genetic sample. OR do we keep throwing people on welfare because a woman refuses to make dad take responsibility for what he has sired.
If it was mandatory, there would be no questions, no asking for it, no hurt feelings and bruised egos, it would just be done right along with the other tests that will be done on the baby. No accusations, its just done. If the test shows no match the staff can let dad know, just like letting a parent know of any other “non-normal” test result.
I would have to be DAMN sure that it wasn’t mine to openly request the test. If my wife had a baby that was obviously not mine, say a baby who was apparently black when I am white. Short of that kind of evidence, asking for the test openly is a sure fire pissed off SO.
Well as has been said…if those numbers are accurate, maybe we do need more regulation. Hell if 1 in 10 people passing your house checked to see if you left a door or window open we would probably all get robbed a few times a year, even being careful. 1 in 10 is a very significant number of people. This probably effects 12-15 MILLION men in this country at those rates. Hell its more likely (by the numbers) that any given man is cuckolded than gay.
If homsexuality is a group deserving of attention and consideration (which I feel it is), this larger group dealing with an intense and emotionally charged situation as well is just as deserving of our attention and support. I would probably rather find out my wife was gay than find out that our newborn child was fathered by another man. These men are victims of a horrific emotional fraud and should have protections of LAW, not just a simple enough to ignore distasteful look from friends and relatives.
Once upon a time spousal abuse was seen as a “personal problem” now it is seen for the horrific homewrecking nightmare that it is. People are jailed for abusing their spouse regardless of the reason. Its time for this “personal problem” to get brought into the light and for something to be done about it. I seriously doubt anyone here thinks a man should be obligated to pay support on a child he did not father unless he chooses to do so with the information needed to make a choice in HIS best interests. If it is not his child his obligations should be ZERO.
Burden on the taxpayers bullshit, mom knows she had sex with someone else, withold assistance until she coughs up a name. If it takes that long to remember names of guys you were sleeping with maybe you need to learn to deal with the financial responsibilities of your new baby on your own. Brutal, yes, but how long do we have to look to find horrendous abuses of the system. I bet many of us know someone who has “that guy from the party” living with them living off the AFDC and food stamps so they can sit around, watch TV, and have more kids. THIS is a burden to society. The one shot $500 cost for a test is pocket change against the ongoing support of a family on welfare/medicaid at our tax expense.
So do we take the $500 flat fee on every kid, with the eventual ability to cross reference anyone with a genetic sample. OR do we keep throwing people on welfare because a woman refuses to make dad take responsibility for what he has sired.
If it was mandatory, there would be no questions, no asking for it, no hurt feelings and bruised egos, it would just be done right along with the other tests that will be done on the baby. No accusations, its just done. If the test shows no match the staff can let dad know, just like letting a parent know of any other “non-normal” test result.
I would have to be DAMN sure that it wasn’t mine to openly request the test. If my wife had a baby that was obviously not mine, say a baby who was apparently black when I am white. Short of that kind of evidence, asking for the test openly is a sure fire pissed off SO.
One slight problem (among many others). Those “other tests” aren’t really mandatory. Women refuse them all the time. It’s required to have consent before doing ANY medical proceedure.
It’s standard proceedure to put drops in a newborn baby’s eyes. I told them not to do it to any of my children. If they don’t have my consent, they can’t do it, or they’ll risk a serious lawsuit. Most parents agree to it, so it seems almost mandatory, but it’s actually still optional.
So you’ll still have to get permission from the parents before you take their blood, or the blood of their child. Unless you’ve committed some crime the state has no right to ORDER you and your new child to give DNA samples.
Thanks, Ryan.
Anyway;
I hate to make this comparison, but it is, in spirit, a valid one.
I compare taking a mandatory dna sample of every child born to implanting a microchip in every child. In eather case, you have to trust officialdom.
There are very good, and valid, reasons for both practices. But the risk is high. Too high for me.
Besides, don’t you men feel a little wimpy for asking for this? It’s like taking the easy way out.
