Mandatory DNA Testing at Birth ?

t4k30

OK here's the deal, I was looking at a story from the US. Basically this dude had a kid when he was 16 after messing around, fast forward 15 years. The dude is now married, his wife and his daughter don't really get along. In the middle of an argument the mans wife claims that the daughter from when the dude isn't his daughter, obviously the dude went mental at his wife saying how could she disrespect his own flesh and blood ect. However the notion stuck in his head and he had himself and the daughter DNA tested. It turns out his "daughter" from when he was a teen isn't actually his. The case goes through the courts and the judge rules that even though the girl isn't actually his that he must continue to pay child support as it is in the best interest of the child.

Is this really fair ? What do you think of the Idea of mandatory DNA testing at child birth to determine the true father ? Good Idea ? Bad Idea ? would you be for or against the idea ?

Khannie

My 2c: Very expensive for the edge case benefits.

seamus

Agreed with Khannie. It seems like an excessive measure for a small handful of such cases.

In the above case you mention, you can't forget that there's both a biological and a social dimension to being a parent. Sharing DNA with someone doesn't make you their emotional parent anymore than not being biologically linked means that you have no connection.

The man was looking after the child for 15 years in a parental capacity, so genetic or not, the man was socially the child's father and shared an emotional parental bond with the child.

It's unfortunate that he was "duped" into it, but that's in the past and it doesn't undo 15 years of parenting. He was basically looking then to cut the child off and the court decided that wouldn't be in the best interests of the child. And they're right - in a lot of ways it would do serious damage to the child to think that someone who loved her for 15 years could ditch her very quickly over something that wasn't her fault.

L.Jenkins

Fucked if I'd pay for someone or something that's not mine!

iguana

I think that if it became a routine test then the expense per test would be lessened significantly and I believe that at some point in the future pre-natal dna will be routine. It will also be cheaper overall if it is done as a test administered by public healthcare rather than by private companies.

I've read that a lot more men than you might expect are raising children who they do not know they are not the biological father of, which leads to serious heartbreak when it comes to light. It's also quite dangerous for a child not to know half his/her family medical history. So I think it's the type of test that can be justified doing routinely. All expectant mothers are tested for HIV but what percentage have that virus? I suspect less than men who are duped into believing they are fathers.

It's now possible to test foetal dna from a pregant woman's blood from about the 2nd trimester. And I think paternity tests should be routinely done at this point. There would be no need to make it mandatory, anyone who wished to opt out could, but as there is no danger to the baby from the test it would certainly make the father question why.

Scanlas The 2nd

Khannie wrote: »

My 2c: Very expensive for the edge case benefits.

The stats say otherwise. Millions of men are raising kids not their's.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/whoand8217s-your-daddy/5969

goose2005

Khannie wrote: »

My 2c: Very expensive for the edge case benefits.

Not really. Newborns get a raft of tests performed on them anyway, this would just be one more. Children have a right to know their father; men have the right to not be tricked into raising another man's child; and the man who is the father has a right to know it too.

Bottle_of_Smoke

seamus wrote: »

Agreed with Khannie. It seems like an excessive measure for a small handful of such cases.

In the above case you mention, you can't forget that there's both a biological and a social dimension to being a parent. Sharing DNA with someone doesn't make you their emotional parent anymore than not being biologically linked means that you have no connection.

The man was looking after the child for 15 years in a parental capacity, so genetic or not, the man was socially the child's father and shared an emotional parental bond with the child.

It's unfortunate that he was "duped" into it, but that's in the past and it doesn't undo 15 years of parenting. He was basically looking then to cut the child off and the court decided that wouldn't be in the best interests of the child. And they're right - in a lot of ways it would do serious damage to the child to think that someone who loved her for 15 years could ditch her very quickly over something that wasn't her fault.

Sorry but f*ck that. The mother should be charged with fraud. It's not his kid he shouldn't be paying for her. The real father should be pursued or the state should pay maintennance. But not a guy who happened to sleep with her mother 15 years ago.

I do think DNA testing should be mandatory. Its in a woman's natural instincts to make the best future for her kids so they can't be trusted to tell the truth about paternity.

Mrmoe

If I was the guy in question I would take the mother to civil court and sue her ass for everything I spent over all those years. I would also expect the mother to be prosecuted in a court of law for fraud and denial of the child and the real father the right to develop a relationship and know about each other.

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I do think DNA testing should be mandatory. Its in a woman's natural instincts to make the best future for her kids so they can't be trusted to tell the truth about paternity.

I beg your pardon?

If that were true all our kids would be Mick Jagger's.

Khannie

goose2005 wrote: »

Not really. Newborns get a raft of tests performed on them anyway, this would just be one more. Children have a right to know their father; men have the right to not be tricked into raising another man's child; and the man who is the father has a right to know it too.

I think DNA testing is fairly expensive though, no?

Nevyn

And can't be done in this country, all dna testing is outsourced to labs in the UK.

iguana

Khannie wrote: »

I think DNA testing is fairly expensive though, no?

Not particulary if it is done on a mass scale. What makes it so expensive now is the fact that it's only performed by a small amount of private companies. If the test was included into the litany of tests performed on all expectant mother the costs would drop massively. And if for no other reason than a child who's paternal medical history includes types of cancer, diabetes or heart issues has a right and a need to know that, these tests should be done.

It could even work out cheaper to the healthcare system for people to have better knowledge of their familial histories. That way someone who feels unwell isn't going to the doctor and saying their family has a history of heart problems and diabetes and getting tested for that when in reality their family history is intestinal cancer. By the time the cancer is discovered it's much further advanced so more aggressive treatments are needed and the chance of survival is lower. Apart from the human cost, it's also much more expensive to the state to be performing the wrong tests and then treating more entrenched illnesses.

metrovelvet

iguana wrote: »

Not particulary if it is done on a mass scale. What makes it so expensive now is the fact that it's only performed by a small amount of private companies. If the test was included into the litany of tests performed on all expectant mother the costs would drop massively. And if for no other reason than a child who's paternal medical history includes types of cancer, diabetes or heart issues has a right and a need to know that, these tests should be done.

It could even work out cheaper to the healthcare system for people to have better knowledge of their familial histories. That way someone who feels unwell isn't going to the doctor and saying their family has a history of heart problems and diabetes and getting tested for that when in reality their family history is intestinal cancer. By the time the cancer is discovered it's much further advanced so more aggressive treatments are needed and the chance of survival is lower. Apart from the human cost, it's also much more expensive to the state to be performing the wrong tests and then treating more entrenched illnesses.

There are other tests you can do for medical history and they do this in NY State. Where samples from the baby are sent to a lab to detect illnesses that may pop up later.

What I would worry about here is legislation which permits health insurance companies to get their hands on that info and either deny you health insurance or raise your premiums.

Aside from the cost of dna testing, there is the lack of legislation around that labs then do with the samples.

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

Aside from the cost of dna testing, there is the lack of legislation around that labs then do with the samples.

But that's the problem with it being done by random private companies. If the test was done as part of your general care the information would be as private as any of your medical details. As I've said all expectant mothers are tested for HIV and other STDs, expanding such tests to confirm paternity wouldn't be that different. And the tests could be routine but not mandatory.

t4k30

Khannie wrote: »

My 2c: Very expensive for the edge case benefits.

I was doing some research into the topic it costs about €260 to do in a specialized private lab. If the procedure became more common the price would surely drop !!

t4k30

metrovelvet wrote: »

I beg your pardon?

If that were true all our kids would be Mick Jagger's.

Have you seen the state of mick Jagger nobody wants him as your father.
Are you saying that money is the best sign of a good father ?

metrovelvet

t4k30 wrote: »

Have you seen the state of mick Jagger nobody wants him as your father.
Are you saying that money is the best sign of a good father ?

No but that's what bottle of smoke implied. And he came out and said that women can't be trusted because they would lie about paternity if it meant a better life for their child.

I would argue that most women know that a better life for their child is actually knowing whom and where they come from.

metrovelvet

iguana wrote: »

But that's the problem with it being done by random private companies. If the test was done as part of your general care the information would be as private as any of your medical details. As I've said all expectant mothers are tested for HIV and other STDs, expanding such tests to confirm paternity wouldn't be that different. And the tests could be routine but not mandatory.

I'm surprised maintenance recovery havent suggested this already.

cnocbui

I don't think mandatory testing at birth should ever be considered. The problem with this case is the judge made a very poor decision which one would hope might eventually be overturned.

Putting a legal stamp of approval on breeding practices that mimic the cuckoo's, is really not on IMO.

Bottle_of_Smoke

metrovelvet wrote: »

I beg your pardon?

If that were true all our kids would be Mick Jagger's.

Give you a scenario. Girl married for 2 years, has a one night stand with a randomer and gets pregnant.

Its in her instincts to protect her child's future, therefore I don't think she can be trusted to tell her husband the truth about paternity.

The stats backed up by studies show a lot of women aren't being honest with their partners.

LegacyUser

Frankly i am pretty suprised at the general response to this topic.
Firstly, on the guy who raised a kid for 15 years and then wnats to cut her off because she not genetically related to him makes me sick! Any adult who raises a child for 15 years should have more to think about than money, i mean come on, he got the benefits of being part of that girls life, of all the intangable benefits to raising a PERSON!!
I have a 4 year old daughter, not with her Mum anymore but i can tell you what, if she wasn't mine, i wouldnt want to know, i watched her come into this world and am her Dad and ALWAYS will be!

I think that this focus on the money aspect of raising children is pathetic, anyone who has kid's would know, paying for them is not what being a parent is about and cutting them off either emotionally or financially after 15 years just because of genetics... come on!

Im not saying it's ok for women to lie about paternity if they know, but once you raise a child, you are the parent, and i really cant imagine any real father cutting off a child they have raised over money, or genes...

That's my 2 cents!

iptba

I find it interesting how seriously it is taken if babies are mixed up in a hospital near birth (or there was a chance there was a mix-up) - anything and everything is done to try to ensure a woman has her own child and knows it (i.e. blood tests).

Any situation that leaves any doubt is seen as being very traumatic for the woman.

It does not seem that fair that men don’t have the same surety about parentage.

As people have pointed out, statistics suggest that even in marriages it is not that unusual (can’t remember exact figures but think I heard figures it might be in the range 5-10%??).

I know of a case recently where an Irish woman (her mother is a friend of my mum’s) was getting money from another man (I think the relationship had only lasted a few months) till the boy was around 8. The father insisted on testing at that age as the boy didn’t appear to be like him. I’m not sure if he had a legal right or not but it happened anyway and the boy wasn't his son. He won’t be getting that money back from what I heard.

Mrmoe

The costs of genetic testing are falling as the year progress. In a few years it will be cheap enough to get your entire genome sequenced and a profile of susceptable diseases and illnesses. I think even from this health point of view it is important to know their real father so they can be forewarned about what diseases they may be susceptable to. I know of some people who were able to have potential life saving pre emtive surgery based on illnesses of their ancestors.

goose2005

iptba wrote: »

I find it interesting how seriously it is taken if babies are mixed up in a hospital near birth (or there was a chance there was a mix-up) - anything and everything is done to try to ensure a woman has her own child and knows it (i.e. blood tests).

Any situation that leaves any doubt is seen as being very traumatic for the woman.

It does not seem that fair that men don’t have the same surety about parentage.

Or the big fuss when an IVF centre implanted a couple of women with the wrong eggs. Can you imagine the scandal if such an error wasn't 1 in a million, but 1 in 20 or even 1 in 10?

G-Money

I don't know if it should become a standard routine test that gets done, but for me, I simply couldn't get past the deliberate betrayal and deception and the woman wouldn't get another penny from me. I can imagine it's torture for the guy, especially if he's really bonded with the child and then he finds out it's not his. So there's not only how the woman lied about who the father was, but the fact that he feels like this child is his now.

Also there is the guy who actually is the father, he needs to be brought into the picture in some way as well.

It's not something that happens by accident either and it sickens me to think that this goes on. There's absolutely no justification for it, ever. I think what annoyies me the most are the women who just cover it up and let the guy think he's the father. It disgusts me.

Dr Galen

am i reading this right? people are seriously arguing here for mandatory DNA testing just to be sure that their partner wasn't cheating?

Yes, this happens, but I've yet to see really solid stats on how often. I think this is nonsensical knee jerking to a few media hyped stories tbh. Fair enough, a 1 nighter might lead to such a situation, but even then I really don't think its near common enough to be going down this road. I'll stand corrected though if someone can produce some stats.

If you don't trust your partner enough, and think that she might pull this one on ya, then you've got serious relationship problems going on.

SugarHigh

A birth cert is a legal document so I think they should make sure what is written on it is true.

SugarHigh

Shocked... wrote: »

Frankly i am pretty suprised at the general response to this topic.
Firstly, on the guy who raised a kid for 15 years and then wnats to cut her off because she not genetically related to him makes me sick! Any adult who raises a child for 15 years should have more to think about than money, i mean come on, he got the benefits of being part of that girls life, of all the intangable benefits to raising a PERSON!!
I have a 4 year old daughter, not with her Mum anymore but i can tell you what, if she wasn't mine, i wouldnt want to know, i watched her come into this world and am her Dad and ALWAYS will be!

I think that this focus on the money aspect of raising children is pathetic, anyone who has kid's would know, paying for them is not what being a parent is about and cutting them off either emotionally or financially after 15 years just because of genetics... come on!

Im not saying it's ok for women to lie about paternity if they know, but once you raise a child, you are the parent, and i really cant imagine any real father cutting off a child they have raised over money, or genes...

That's my 2 cents!

You don't know enough of the facts about the case to have an informed opinion and this thread isn't even about that case specifically it was just used as an example.

Wibbs

Dr Galen wrote: »

Yes, this happens, but I've yet to see really solid stats on how often. I think this is nonsensical knee jerking to a few media hyped stories tbh. Fair enough, a 1 nighter might lead to such a situation, but even then I really don't think its near common enough to be going down this road. I'll stand corrected though if someone can produce some stats.

Yea there's a fair bit of paranoid hype about it. It does happen of course. From the bits Ive read on it(and from what a mate of mine who is a geneticist told me), it's common enough. Then again as he said it depends on how you read the stats. A fair amount of men are raising kids that aren't their own but know about it. And thats fair enough. Sexual cheating is very common though. IME anyway.

If you don't trust your partner enough, and think that she might pull this one on ya, then you've got serious relationship problems going on.

I would agree. That said I personally know of two men this has happened to. In both cases the women admitted there may be some doubt early on. One left her and the kid the other stayed. The latter was a major head scratcher, but each to his and her own.

If it happened to me? I'd scrape the woman off and no mistake. Drag her through the courts and break her on the wheel of breach of contract. The child? I dunno. Probably stick around. Maybe not. I can be a cold hearted cnut over this kinda thing.

SugarHigh

Dr Galen wrote: »

If you don't trust your partner enough, and think that she might pull this one on ya, then you've got serious relationship problems going on.

Every woman is capable of this in the right circumstances because there is just too much incentive to lie.

KaiserMc

10% is the figure being banded around the net for the amount of children being raised by father's that are not genetically related but the experts reckon the figure to be between 4 and 6% http://www.parentdish.com/2007/04/30/close-to-4-percent-of-men-unknowingly-raising-another-mans-chil/
There were tests done in a disadvantaged area of Liverpool and they found that 30% of the children were not related to their fathers, can't remember how many people were involved in the test though.. If I find the link I'll post it

iguana

SugarHigh wrote: »

Every woman is capable of this in the right circumstances because there is just too much incentive to lie.

Of course there is. If you look at any of the threads in PI/RI about cheating it seems that at least half of the posters advocate keeping schtum. If a woman gets pregnant from cheating she may be even more inclined to stay quiet as she might be fearful of losing her relationship and a stable environment for her new child. (That said not every woman will cheat.)

I suspect that there aren't as many men believing they are father to children they aren't related to as is often claimed. However I believe that the consequences to those families who are in this situation are so bloody horrible that everything that can be done to stop this ever happening should be done.

Lets be honest, how many babies are stolen from hospitals? Yet hospitals take security measures to stop that from happening. How many babies are born with Spina Bifida? Yet all women planning to get pregnant are advised to take folic acid. I've never been in a car crash, but I always wear my seat belt. If something is rare but awful you still take steps to prevent it. So I think that now the technology is there it would be an idea to automatically test paternity as early into a pregnancy as possible.

minidazzler

Shocked... wrote: »

Frankly i am pretty suprised at the general response to this topic.
Firstly, on the guy who raised a kid for 15 years and then wnats to cut her off because she not genetically related to him makes me sick! Any adult who raises a child for 15 years should have more to think about than money, i mean come on, he got the benefits of being part of that girls life, of all the intangable benefits to raising a PERSON!!
I have a 4 year old daughter, not with her Mum anymore but i can tell you what, if she wasn't mine, i wouldnt want to know, i watched her come into this world and am her Dad and ALWAYS will be!

I think that this focus on the money aspect of raising children is pathetic, anyone who has kid's would know, paying for them is not what being a parent is about and cutting them off either emotionally or financially after 15 years just because of genetics... come on!

Im not saying it's ok for women to lie about paternity if they know, but once you raise a child, you are the parent, and i really cant imagine any real father cutting off a child they have raised over money, or genes...

That's my 2 cents!

The GUY makes you sick? He was lied to when he was 16! Imagine how different his life could have been, except he had a kid to take care of, because he did the right thing.

The woman knew he probably wasn't the dad, but left him believe it for 15 years.

Sure it's regretable that there is a child in the middle, but the fact is he is NOT the father, he never chose to be the father, he should not be required by any law to pay for someone who he didn't father.

He had no idea she wasn't his until the woman said it to him.

I would be in favour of routine testing. However, I looked into this before, pre-natal testing is apparently dangerous for the feotus, according to the clinic that e-mailed me back.

iptba

Shocked... wrote: »

Im not saying it's ok for women to lie about paternity if they know, but once you raise a child, you are the parent, and i really cant imagine any real father cutting off a child they have raised over money, or genes...

That's kind of the point: if there was testing at birth or even before birth, then there wouldn't be the bonding to break and neither side would necessarily feel too bad.

iptba

"Paternity fraud" appears to be the search term to use.

I don't have much time to look myself but here's one piece:

http://www.mens-rights.net/law/paternityfraud.htm

Statistics

The commonality of paternity fraud is difficult to estimate. There are no known tests in place to determine how many men are victims of paternity fraud.

The following factors are primarily responsible for the lack of data on the subject.

1. Governments from the Western world do not collect data on the subject. This is most likely derived from the fact the Governments of the aforementioned nations do not prohibit their civilians from committing paternity fraud.

2. The difficulty in acknowledging paternity fraud. Until the advent of DNA Testing during the early 1990's, technology wasn't sophisticated enough to identify paternity with absolute certainty.

The result is there isn't enough data on the subject to draw an accurate conclusion about its commonality.

The advent of Paternity Testing kits has led to many men discovering that they were deceived into believing they are biologically related to the children they were and/or still are raising. Around 30% of men who use Paternity Testing kits discover they are not biologically related to the children they are raising. [6]

Therefore, it's safe to conclude that paternity fraud is a societal issue that needs to be rectified.

But I'll still be interested in stats people come across. I certainly don't think it's a non-issue.

Mike 1972

While paternity fraud is something I would be quite concerned about I would be a damn sight more concerned about living in a state where the government had assumed the right to access everyones DNA from birth :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

L31mr0d

I think a lot of us are forgetting the main incentive for mandatory DNA tests at birth...

Maury and his ilk would no longer have any source material for their shows so would be cancelled and taken off the air for good. Win!

Wibbs

In the stats iptba quoted it looks bad; Around 30% of men who use Paternity Testing kits discover they are not biologically related to the children they are raising. But chances are that those men had a strong enough suspicion anyway, so nearly a third were proven right. Still leaves two thirds who werent. Of the men who dont have any suspicion I'd say its less than 10%. We wont really know until widespread testing, though as I say I knew two men in this very position(I suspect a third).

I'm with minidazzler on his take though. The guy in this case had his choice taken from him. The childs choice to know her father was taken from her. Now maybe he can continue on with the daughter, but it'll be hard to look at her without seeing the betrayal. Hopefully he can, but the ex wife? Utter scumbag.

iptba

Mike 1972 wrote: »

While paternity fraud is something I would be quite concerned about I would be a damn sight more concerned about living in a state where the government had assumed the right to access everyones DNA from birth :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

The government doesn't necessarily have right to access your medical records so it could be the same with this.

iguana

iptba wrote: »

The government doesn't necessarily have right to access your medical records so it could be the same with this.

Yup, I doubt there is one person in Europe who hasn't had blood taken from them for a test at some point or another. If the government really wanted to surreptitiously make a DNA database of us all they could anyway. But they don't, our medical records are usually private and our blood samples, etc, are destroyed. This would be no different and it wouldn't be mandatory but routine.

CDfm

It always amazes me how people can explain away paternity fraud thru bonding and social bonding.

You have NCTs for cars, surveyors reports on houses so why not DNA testing on children.

People do have a right to know who there parents are as you have all kinds of physical and mental illnesses that have genetic origans. When you go to the doctor you are asked about your parents medical history or if you are looking for life assurance.

What has happened to truth and honesty???

Wibbs

The simple fact is that(outside of a hospital fcuk up) women always know their child is theirs. Its a given for them. They carry and nurture it and they give birth to it. You dont hear talk of a maternity test too often. A man's position is always based on trust and nothing else.

Human's are different to other great apes in that human females hide their fertility and oestrus. They even hide thier fecundity in other ways. Women have constantly engorged breasts, unlike other great apes. Who only have same when breast feeding. It seems at some time in the past hiding ones fertility was considered a good bet for women. Human males are much more in the dark than our primate cousins and human females are much more in control of their progeny than in our cousins.

In the vast majority of conceptions and births, this doesnt matter, but the doubt at times is understandable. Hence patriarchal societies have lauded women's chastity, virginity and sexual constancy.

If we talk about reproductive equality, things like abortion and contraception that may and have benefited women in their choices(and good thing too), then DNA testing also levels the playing field. For all.

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

Human males are much more in the dark than our primate cousins and human females are much more in control of their progeny than in our cousins.

You've never heard of emperor tamarin monkeys have you?:D

Apart from when the mother is nursing the father carries the baby. However emperor tamarins normally have twins. I'm not sure whether the twins caused the society or the society caused the twins, but the tamarins have a solution that means "dad" doesn't have to carry two babies. Polyandry.

A female tamarin usually mates with two males. Neither male knows which is the father of the twins so both follow the mother around and when she sticks her tongue in and out (which is how she communicates that she is finished nursing) each male takes one baby and looks after it until the mother comes back to resume nursing. The males are both rivals and teamates. They must work together to raise the babies despite not knowing which the father is, or even if they each are, in the case of heteropaternal superfecundation, which baby is which, or if either baby is his at all.

CDfm

Iguana - we are not monkeys and tamarin monkeys do not pay maintenence.

When you have polygamy you also have shared responsibility. So are you saying DNA testing and pursue the absent father as I agree with that.

Wibbs

iguana wrote: »

You've never heard of emperor tamarin monkeys have you?:D

Yea I have, but they're monkeys not great apes. Handy one for the female in that case( a few of the tamarin species do that too IIRC?). Its not as clear cut though again AFAIR. That kind of group reproductive behaviour is seen in animlas like wolves where it smore extreme though. One male mates, but others malesof the extended group help raise the kids.

What I meant about being in the dark is women dont show obvious signs of ovulation compared to other great apes. They're pretty much fertile all the time. They have much more opportunity to play the field as the male unlike in other apes can't protect his genetic "investment". This is reflected in our physiology too. Male gorillas who have harems and less chance of other males coming in(though it still goes on) have tiny testicles. Male chimps where the females are open to play the field and do so, have huge testicles to compensate. Human males are in the middle size wise, so its seems we evolved them to take that into account.

Women today have much more say than men over the reproductive process if they so chose. They can hide a guy on the side and become pregnant by him. If the main guy finds out 10 years on he's not the father he's expected(in this case anyway) to keep providing for the child that results.

In the more normal cases of when a woman becomes pregnant she can also chose to keep or stop the pregnancy with no input from the man. Even if he doesnt want the child. He has no input in this until the child comes along and then he has to maintain the child.

So I'd still argue in the human model the woman has the upper hand. The more equal society becomes(which is good) the more of an upper hand she will have. Now in the past biology limited women quite a bit in the equality stakes. Technology, such as safe contraception (and abortion) and laws that protect her have evened up the score and thats a good thing. So why cant the same technology not even up the score for men in areas we previously could only guess at? Such as mandatory DNA testing(male pill would be great too). Whats good for the goose.....

CDfm

I think objections to it on the basis it harms kids are just silly. The real reasons it gets objected to is that women get caught out and it hurts them financially.Thats the real reason for resistance.

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

I think objections to it on the basis it harms kids are just silly. The real reasons it gets objected to is that women get caught out and it hurts them financially.Thats the real reason for resistance.

It can't harm the kids if the tests are done 14-16 weeks into the pregnancy. The foetus can hear the inner workings of the mothers body, but it can't distingush the voice of the "father" let alone have any bond or care if it never gets to meet that man once it's born. It would also be a lot less of a loss to the man as he isn't going to have bonded as much as he would have with a child her held in his arms.

minidazzler

Mike 1972 wrote: »

While paternity fraud is something I would be quite concerned about I would be a damn sight more concerned about living in a state where the government had assumed the right to access everyones DNA from birth :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Noone suggested it be mandatory. It should be standard, but with an opt out policy.

iguana

minidazzler wrote: »

Noone suggested it be mandatory. It should be standard, but with an opt out policy.

Tbf, the title of the thread suggests mandatory testing.:p

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

Tbf, the title of the thread suggests mandatory testing.:p

There should be a convention on it.someone who rquests it risks being called a bad parent or trying to avoid their responsibilities.

It should be a normal thing with no negative inference from wanting to know.