Please lock me away
And don’t allow the day
Here inside, where I hide with my inferior genetic profile.
I don’t care what they say, I won’t stay
In a world with mandatory DNA testing of all children.
Needs work.
Because unless you get the test right off, it doesn’t matter if you are the father or not; you still owe money to her.
There’s also Chimaerism to consider
Now I’m not a woman, but in situations not involving a date rape drug, I tend to suspect the woman would remember someone’s penis besides her husbands in the hooha.
Well, if she stopped sleeping with the man who wasn’t her husband and then was only sleeping with her husband, then found herself pregnant, she might assume it was her husband’s. Still a shitty thing to do. Adultery is bad enough but dragging in kids is just wrong. If I were (hypothetically) sleeping with two men and fell pregnant, I’d definitely abort.
It should be strict liability. If she had sex with more than one man, she should be subject to a legal obligation to “genuinely know” before she makes any claim of paternity.
I can’t for the life of me understand why you feel this way. If it were mandatory, there would be no breach of trust in existing relationships. No one would have to make an implicit or explicit accusation by asking for a test. No man could be deceived about the paternity of his child, and no child have to go through the heartbreak of finding out, much later in life, that the presumptive father isn’t really his father and now, Not-His-Dad goddamn pissed off to find that out.
There is really no down side that I can see. I don’t see what’s repulsive about it at all. I’m not sure at all where your reaction comes from. Your tirade about the government jailing adulterers is entirely irrelevant and hyperbolic. There’s just too much at stake as the child support laws stand right now, and trusting your partner can and will be penalized when it comes to paternity. Mandatory testing would make everything much simpler for everyone.
Regardless of whether it’s fraud on the part of the mother, the standard is “the best interests of the child”, which the courts have consistantly held to mean “someone’s gonna’ pay”, foremost whatever man was EVER the presumed father, by either marriage or (even mistaken/fraudulent) assumed paternity.
Yes, and mandatory testing before paternity is assigned would end that practice forever. That’s all to the good IMO. It’s in the best interest of the child to know who his biological father is, a fact that is totally ignored by the current set-up.
Don’t you think it’s just the tiniest bit intrusive? As marvelous as it would be to rectify the looming, pervasive social problem of illegitimate children and cuckolded husbands, don’t you worry about other, less wholesome uses for such a database? And what about people who don’t want their genes on file with the government? I realize that insidious uses of DNA bases isn’t what this thread is about, but to be honest, I find the whole idea of a mandatory database insidious anyway, including the innocent use posited here, as a helpful guideline for assigning child support payment.
Really? Always? Even if their biological dad is an irresponsible, violent, waste-of-space crackhead, for example? Even if the man raising them loves them and is a real stand-up guy? Honestly, the only scenario I can think of where it truly matters for the kid to know their bio dad is if he’s needed for medical reasons like a bone marrow transplant or something.
I’m not addressing the idea of a database, just the proposal of mandatory paternity testing. The OP says nothing about creating a database of people’s DNA.
Yes, they should know who their father is, even if he is not a very nice or good person. He still contributed half their DNA, and that could be relevant information for them for myriad reasons at many points in their lives. If paternity testing were mandatory before paternity is assigned, and a man who was not the biological father was raising them, that would be his choice. The man who chooses to raise and love them is still their father, but they have a right to know he’s not their biological father, and who that is. You have no idea when it might truly matter. Even if there is never a medical reason for it, some people just want to know-- that’s why genealogy is such a popular hobby. It is part of your identity, no matter how you might want to marginalize it.
To see it from another point of view, though, I’ve known quite a few male humans (I won’t call them men) who were perfectly fine and dandy with the notion that it’s OK to get a woman pregnant and then not help raise the baby or support it in any way. They’d visit Baby now and then, play with it, and then hand it back to Mom and take off for another few weeks. Neither sex is innocent of trashy behavior.
I’d be in favor of it. There’s the benefit of kids knowing their genetic and health heritage, and guys would know who their kids are, and women would be able to assure the guys that yes, this IS your child.
FTR, I’ve been married over 31 years, and never cheated. Thought about it plenty of times, but I think that I’d really have to get divorced before I could even go out on a date with another guy.
Oh, absolutely. But here’s where I have the problem — and I think you and I may agree on this:
The trashy, sleep-around, no-responsibility men have more rights and protections than a lawful, dutiful husband. Slick Sleeparound gets to protest his innocence and demand a DNA paternity test, while Hank Husband gets told “sorry, doesn’t matter, too late, you should’ve protested at the proper time.”
As the OP, I’d say that no database is required. I’d also say that telling the child is not required.
I’d almost go so far as to saying that either parent could refuse to hear the results as long as the father understood that he was committing to fund the child for 18 years no matter what, but I think if you let the parents refuse the system would break down and we’d be back to where we are now… the mother would be insulted if the father didn’t refuse to know the results, and even though the state would have all that great information at the time of birth, a bunch of dads would sign waivers anyway.
I think the hypothetical society would have to force the outcome of the test on mom and dad, and if real dad isn’t the biological father and he wants to assume responsibility anyway, he makes the decision right there and it’s over, kid never has to know. OTOH, he can walk free and clear.
Also, thanks to whoever brought up an increase in abortions before, that’s something I hadn’t thought of. Not sure how I feel about that.
You have no problem with the government MANDATING DNA testing? It doesn’t strike you as, oh I don’t know, a tad bit … intrusive? Hell, the police need a warrant to get DNA, hair, and fingerprints, yet you’d have the government mandate testing for every child born. And that’s not to mention the millions of dollars a year it would cost and the creation of a database of genetic information on eveyone born in the US.
I don’t have a problem with such intrusions and costs when there is an actual dispute as to paternity or one of the parties themselves want to request and pay for it. But having the government REQUIRE it is a huge intrusion.
OK, what if we did this:
At the hospital, after the baby is born, the doctor, “father,” and baby all go into a room. The doctor offers to perform a paternity test on the spot. He explains to the father that if he refuses, he will be held responsible for child support for 18 years, even if he later finds out that the kid isn’t his. They agree that this will be completely secret, nobody will tell the wife.
Then, us men just keep it a huge secret from all women everywhere. And if the “father” comes out screaming that she cheated on him and it’s not his kid, we’ll all just agree to say that men have magic powers.
That’d probably work too, and it wouldn’t require the test to be strictly mandatory.
As a cover, put a sign outside the room that says “Non-stop Three Stooges films and Sports Bar” in neon and have the doctors splash Pabst on everyone.
If the OP’s proposal were acceptable, and since it’s already acceptable that “kids come first”, and with a majority position that that “somebody has to pay”, it would then likely be acceptable that if you were deemed not the father, but spent signifigant time with the child in question, you would be forced to pay anyway under some ‘emotional bond’ excuse the court would use.
Guys, I’m sorry, but we have no win in this fight.
I see a problem here…
No! Foiled by my own innate sexism yet again!