What would a world with mandatory DNA testing of all children be like?

Great Debates
101

Hundreds of millions of dollars a year is a “minimal cost” to make sure that men aren’t lied to by women? When an even easier, cheaper, and less intrusive solution is right in front of you? I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

I married a wonderful woman who hasn’t, and wouldn’t lie to me. I have three wonderful children whom I would happily support, emotionally and financially and love just as much if they weren’t biologically mine. And even if that were true, I still wouldn’t want the government to make sure that women don’t lie to me in case I have to support them.

I’m not sure how many times I have to say something before it sinks in with you. Is the magic number 12? Because, as I’ve said over and over, yes, it does suck, and I have compassion for, a man who’s wife cheated on him and he decided to care for the children not knowing for sure they are his. It’s a bad, bad world we live in, filled with evil, vile women taking horrible advantage over poor trusting men. But running to the government and asking them to spend millions of dollars and increasing the cost of health care even more to appease these poor men’s “suffering” is ridiculous.

As I’ve said: “Even if I accepted your position that we need to change the law to protect these poor, stupid men, there is no way I would agree that mandatory DNA testing of ALL children is the way to do it.” You want to get rid of the problem, let the men get out of child support and let them sue the mother for everything they paid that didn’t go to the children. It’s a helluva lot cheaper, easier, and less intrusive than requiring blood tests for every kid born.

102

Yeah, got that. Awhile ago. And agreed. It sucks for the man. We were all happy with reaching that point. And right after we reached that kumbaya moment, she comes in and posts: “It’s the coercive and inflexible nature of it that I oppose, esp. when inflicted on a man who is trying to do the right thing by supporting a child who is not his biological offspring.” So she opposes something (coercing child support for duped men) that she agrees is necessary. I find that kind of thinking … interesting for a lack of a better word. It’s like saying I oppose chemotherapy.

But let’s just let it all go. It’s a minor, off topic issue that seemingly is resolved and was never really a huge issue anyway. We can all find our happy places and move on.

103

Except that your “solution” doesn’t work. It’s been tried; it’s failed.

I rather expect that’s exactly what most of the men you are sneering at thought.

You can’t even pretend to have compassion for a full paragraph, apparently.

Arguments like yours unintentionally demonstrate just how much hatred and contempt for men is a part of these laws, and of those who support them. IMHO, the real reason the law’s supporters handwave away the plight of the innocent men is because they don’t care or actively enjoy the thought of those men’s lives being ruined.

Are you under the delusion that court cases are free ? Are LESS expensive than a test ? Are less intrusive ?

And I fail to see why turning relationships between the genders into even more of a war zone is “easier” than a test.

104

I think I am responsible for the dystopian derailment. I brought up the database to point out that if this was a standard practice it would leave a lot of children without support, unless the test also identified the biological father as well as eliminating the husband.

Basically there are two ways this could work: first, as some have described, a test with the only record being a related or not related result. All the state knows (and then maybe only if the husband chooses it to go on record) is that the husband is not the father. The only intrusion is the test is mandated. It is no more intrusive than any other mandatory test or a mandatory vaccination. Second, would be if there was a database and every baby had the sperm provider (since either “father” or “real” is apparently to loaded to use in the case) positively identified.

I originally brought it up because the difference is significant if we are discussing the social effects of this (which was what the OP asked about). In the first case the test would have a large effect on the behavior of married women (less willing to allow pregnancy by someone other than spouse) and a smaller one on men who sleep with women married to someone else (since they would need to be able and willing to identify the person if there spouse refuses to accept the child). The second would have a larger effect on men, and would make one night stands much riskier since even if you give a fake name, you would be on the hook for child support.

Jonathan

105

OK-- make the couple pay. They can split the cost or send it to their insurance company. Would that make you feel better? If they are covered by Medicaid, then the government would have to pay for it, but they would also be paying for a lot of other, more costly medical procedures at that point anyway.

Aren’t you lucky? Being compassionate would cause you to realize that not everyone is so lucky (statistically, there’s an even chance they’re not). And you are a saint, a paragon of men, because you would have no ambivalence or mixed feelings, nor would your wife. Not everyone is in your peachy situation, and there is no legal remedy for those less fortunate souls.

No, you are not compassionate towards them. You’ve called them stupid, and been nothing but snide about their feelings. You can say you’re compassionate all you want, but the proof is in your words.

Wow. You think lawsuits would be a superior solution to a $79 dollar test? Not very good at math, are you?

I will say this ONE. MORE. TIME. And then, if you still don’t get it, I will be convinced that you are either not reading what I write, or that there is a doppelganger of me in an alternate universe posting what you think I’m saying. I do not oppose child support. I think the way it is currently structured and implemented is coercive and inflexible. I think it should be reformed to be a bit more realistic and fair to fathers. This is… let me say it clearly now… *not the same thing as saying men should not be compelled to support their children. * There is no contradiction in my stance, and in any case, it is completely unrelated to the issue of mandatory paternity tests at or before birth.

106

Great. Now I have to pay $89 because some guy is too scared to ask his wife to take a DNA test or thinks he doesn’t need it. Boy, that sure doesn’t make me feel any better.

You can spread out the costs anyway you like, but it’s still hundreds of millions of dollars. A year. Just to ensure that some poor guy doesn’t believe his wife when she tells him it’s his kid. Nope, doesn’t make me feel better at all.

Damn straight I am. I’m also incredibly smart, good looking, witty, fun to be around, very comfortable with myself and my life, and, most of all, humble. Can’t forget the humble. But enough about me.

No legal remedy? How about … oh I don’t know… get a DNA test when the kid is born? I’ve heard you say they’re cheap. Life is gonna be tough when you can’t summon up the guts to ask your wife/girlfriend for a blood test or that you trust her enough. Betrayal isn’t easy. But it’s also not always up to the government to solve. Maybe you’re right. Given the great amount of murders, rapes, kidnappings, thefts, robberies, assaults, and poor penmanship in the world, I do spend too little time worrying about the marriages of other people, or supporting forcing everyone who has a kid to spend a total of hundreds of millions of dollars a year to help those poor sods out. It’s a personal flaw, I guess.

You caught me. I have only a limited amount of true compassion in this world, and I waste it on people getting murdered, kids being abused, and little stuff like that.

It certainly does suck when your wife lies to you, and you have to support a kid you’ve already supported for years. It’s a tough break in an evil world. But making everyone who has a kid spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year total to stop it is, to me, incredibly silly.

Not one test. 4 fucking million of them a year. Required. By the government. By law. For every person having a kid. All because some men have wives who lied to them and they didn’t spring for the test themselves? Not to mention the government telling me that I have to take the test to have a kid. And you think I have trouble with math? Thanks for the laugh.

107

You realize that this is a remedy only if men somehow already know that they’ve been cuckolded … So it’s not actually a remedy at all.

108

It’s RUBYSTREAK by the way, not RUDYSTREAK, Hamlet. Maybe it’s this “Rudystreak” who is writing all these posts you are replying to that are only tangentially related to what I’m actually saying… my doppelganger, if you will.

How many times do you have to be told that some people who trust their spouses and act in good faith have their trust betrayed, through no fault of their own? Can’t you imagine a scenario where a man has no idea that his wife is cheating? It happens all the time. The man, in that case, is not able to make an informed decision because he is being actively lied to. Then, he is dragged into the fun and exciting world of government mandated child support payments, which greatly limit his personal freedoms, all because he was a good husband who trusted his wife.

I know, boo hoo, you don’t care, as long as someone pays to support the kid. If that’s really how you feel then what is the point of further debate? You’re never going to be able to see my point, and I doubt I’ll be able to see yours.

Apparently you are limited, because you know, you can feel compassionate about all the murders and rapes AND the men who are deceived AT THE SAME TIME. You can also probably walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, but don’t hurt yourself.

Maybe you can try to stay on topic. This thread is about mandatory DNA testing before or at birth. Bringing up the idea of vacating support later is not part of this thread no matter how many times you try, desperately, to change the subject.

The government requires people to spend money to do things all the time. $40 if you want to get married. $25 to renew your drivers license, etc. A $79 fee is not particularly onerous IMO. You think it is. Fine. Agree to disagree. Or, engage in several more pages of pointless arguments about whether or not $79 dollars is a lot of money for a couple to be asked to pay.

Yes, I think you have trouble with math, since you advocate court cases for men who discover that they have been defrauded by false paternity. Never mind how they would ever even find out, or how awful it would be to find out about it years into your relationship with the child. Never mind that the law does not allow this remedy anyway, and the law would likely not be changed. Never mind that a trial like that would be exorbitantly expensive, and that it would cause everyone involved quite a bit of pain, especially the child, whose interests are tantamout, right? It’s definitely a better solution to a painless $79 paternity test before any of that happens. Why? Because Hamlet says so.

109

Srory for mistpying your nmae. Il try 2do btetter.

Seeing as how I never disagreed, and do, in fact agree with this, how about… oh never?

Just so you know, this is all stuff I agree with. But don’t let me interrupt you, you seem to be on a roll.

You’re mistaken. I do see your point. I’ve seen it. I’ve understood it. I’ve agreed with part of it. But, having the government force every single person in the US who has a child to submit toDNA tests is not the solution to the problem.

I can’t. I broke my compassion-meter after Katrina.

It is a alternative solution to the problem. And it’s the better one.

Sure. Why not? It’s just money. And it’s just the government. All to protect those men who don’t ask their wives for a paternity test.

Now, please pay attention here, because you seem to continue to miss it. The $79 paternity test before it happens is a great idea for those people. I join you in advocating that everyone should have one. But that is a world, a big, expensive, stupid world, away from the government REQUIRING that every person get a DNA test. Think of it as getting tested for diseases before beginning a sexual affair. Or making sure your partner is monogamous. Great ideas that I wholeheartedly support. And it would be incredibly stupid for the government to require them of everyone.

110

ORLY?

How is it that you can claim to understand everything I say and then say this at the end? How can you “make sure” your partner is monogamous? Why is it “incredibly stupid” for the government to mandate it?

The problem as I see it is because of the draconian and irreversible nature of the child support system in the US. If the penalty for wrongful paternity is going to be as limiting and coercive as it is (and I do think it is-- feel free to disagree, but do say why), then men should be given all reasonable chances to make an informed decision before getting into it. If you don’t realize you are “one of those people” who needs a paternity test, then you are shit out of luck, as it currently stands. So, as you say, either let men out of it via legal remedy, or have mandatory paternity tests. IMO, either is fair, but neither seems very likely to be enacted. The paternity test is cheaper and preempts a lot of suffering all around, and hurts no one. The cost is the only downside, and we have already agreed to disagree on that.

Which do you think is more likely to happen: men will be allowed to vacate child support when they find out they are not the biological father, or mandatory paternity tests at or after birth?

111

:slight_smile: Nice.

Not every bad thing that happens has to have a governmental solution, especially not one that costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year and involves getting the government involved in stuff that is absolutely none of their business. Just as the governmental mandating everyone MUST get have a VD test before they can legally have sex with another person would be incredibly invasive and costly, so is mandatory DNA testing. Both are, on their own, good ideas, but now when mandated by the government.

Every single man has a reasonable chance to make an informed decision, and if they have any doubt, they are free to conduct their own DNA test. I fully support that, and would have no problem with legislation that lets potential fathers conduct DNA tests. But the fact that women lie to men and that causes men to care for children that are not biologically their own, does not require that every single man, woman and child must be tested before birth.

If you want to get into the “let men out of it via legal remedy”, might I suggest the other thread.

I don’t find it fair to require every man, woman, and child to get a DNA test at birth to “solve” a problem of those men that are being lied to by their wives. Again, it’s bringing a nuclear weapon to a knife fight. It’s more unfair than fair.

The government does not exist to solve every problem people have. And it certainly doesn’t exist to force people to pay for and submit to medical tests to appease those who didn’t get a paternity test for themselves.

112

The problem is not simply that the men are lied to by their wives. It’s that they are forced to pay for it for 2 decades in some very restrictive ways. I don’t see why the testing is at all like bringing a nuclear weapon to a gun fight. It’s just not that big a deal. Aside from the cost, you have failed to articulate why you think it is. What do you find so incredibly unfair? You have said that getting involved in familial disputes is not the realm of the government, but alas, you’d be quite wrong.

I would agree with this, except the government very much DOES involve itself in the child support issue. In for a penny, in for a pound. And I don’t think it’d be doing it to “appease” anybody. It’d be doing it to prevent injustice. IMO, it’d be worth it. In yours, it wouldn’t. So, we are at an impasse which were are unlikely to resolve.

113

Rudystreak. Despite your handwaving them away, I’ve made my points, responded to yours, and made most of my case. Anything further would simply be repeating myself over and over to you. I think we can call it a day.

114

Had to get a last shot in though, didn’t you? But I agree with the rest of it: I’m tired of repeating myself and having you talk past me to make whatever point you wanted to make. It’s been, um, fun?

115

And you’re not?

You amuse me.

116

Hamlet,

how much grace period would you give the cuckold before he is on the hook for decades of child support?

117

I never said I was better than you. :wink: Just that, in this case, I have a better argument.

118

Rubystreak

I have here a brick wall. Perhaps you would have more success if you put your points to it. I have already explained to it the simple fact that the DNA test takes place AT BIRTH, so its good to go.

Let Rudystreak do all the running around in circles.

119

Somewhere in this thread, someone apparently made it sound that if you’re found not to be the father after several years of raising a child, that you should continue to do so after find out that you’re not. Someone also said that people will likely agree that he should continue to raise the child.

I disagree with that notion. What if you want to have a child some day? Seems likely that if you were fooled into believing the one you raised wasn’t yours, you should be able to walk away and find a more honest woman and start your own family. Seems that would be kinda tough if a court forced you to pay child support for a child that wasn’t yours to begin with. Especially when courts make child support payments as high as possible, only affording you your life expenses after a child support payment=no opportunity for you to have your own kid to support and raise.

If you want to continue to support a child that isn’t yours, big kudos to you. But one should be able to walk free and clear if they find out the child isn’t theirs after several years of raising the child, and be afforded the chance to have a biological child of their own. If forced to pay for what is not theirs, and not in their interests, that’s tyrannical.

“But it’s for the CHILD, PA”

Is there a law that states so, other than a judges gavel that determines that a childs interests are above those of the man that is not his father?

120

But at that point, the kid isn’t yours genetically, but you’ve already treated it like it is yours. If a mother and father found out their kid was switched at birth, should they both have the option of just giving it up if they discover it’s not theirs when the child is eight years old? Maybe I just don’t get why biology is such an important concept…