Should all babies be DNA tested?

Oceanic Nebula

It seems to me to be incredible that any name can be put down as the Father on a baby's birth cert. Surely an official government document should require some proof of such claims.

What do you think, should we have mandatory paternity test proving for certain that the correct name is down as the baby's Father?

Ihatecuddles-old

Who's going to pay for it??

crockholm

You'd put Maury Povich and Jeremy Kyle out of work if we did

wolfpawnat

Only a man can put his name on the birth cert, if he has doubts, that's between him and the woman. He doesn't have to put his name down. If she won't let him then maybe he should wonder then too.

Oceanic Nebula

Ihatecuddles wrote: »

Who's going to pay for it??

The government.

Fr_Dougal

I think it's a great idea, having the fathers name down should be mandatory too, except in the cases of pregnancy arising from a sexual assault.

Sure do you even need a baby to get a birth cert in this country?

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/court-crime/former_newham_registrar_jailed_for_helping_gang_illegally_claim_4m_in_benefits_1_1856467

tritium

Yes, should be mandatory to have a fathers name on the birth cert too where possible

Czarcasm

Oceanic Nebula wrote: »

It seems to me to be incredible that any name can be put down as the Father on a baby's birth cert. Surely an official government document should require some proof of such claims.

What do you think, should we have mandatory paternity test proving for certain that the correct name is down as the baby's Father?

Even with a paternity test OP that's still not enough reason to add the father's name to the birth certificate, nor to give the father any legal rights over the child-

Test results from paternity testing cannot, in themselves, be used to add the father's details to the birth certificate, nor do they give the father any legal rights.

Having the father's name on the birth certificate does NOT prevent the mother from getting One-Parent Family Payment.

A child has a right to be financially maintained by both parents and to inherit from them once paternity of the child has been established. This applies whether or not the father's name is on the birth certificate.

Source: http://www.treoir.ie/information-registration.php

Oceanic Nebula wrote: »

The government.

Now OP, seriously, given that there were 75,174 births recorded in Ireland in 2010, and court approved DNA testing costs €600 at a minimum; quick calculation tells me that adds up to €45,104,400.


Source: http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/birthsdeathsandmarriages/numberofbirthsdeathsandmarriages/

http://www.treoir.ie/information-paternity.php

The government hasn't got two pennies to rub together, and you expect them to find €45m to pay for paternity tests for every child born in this country?


Not going to happen.

crazy cabbage

but but but what about immaculate conceptions

Rasheed

There's far more important genetic screening to do on new borns than DNA testing, if the government were going to go down that road.

bgrizzley

hmm, methinks there would be a whole lot of divorces...

NPE

orestes

crazy cabbage wrote: »

but but but what about immaculate conceptions

Actually, according to my birth cert I don't have a mother.

Ham Wallet

Yes No

crazy cabbage

crazy cabbage wrote: »

but but but what about immaculate conceptions

I'm not sure what being born without sin has to do with this

crazy cabbage

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm not sure what being born without sin has to do with this

becouse there would be no father to go on the birth cert therfore no point in DNA testing?

Peregrine

Anyway, no. It would cost too much and I don't see the point in doing it.

crazy cabbage

crazy cabbage wrote: »

becouse there would be no father to go on the birth cert therfore no point in DNA testing?

That's not what immaculate conception means

highgiant1985

orestes wrote: »

Actually, according to my birth cert I don't have a mother.

Reamer Fanny

crockholm wrote: »

You'd put Maury Povich and Jeremy Kyle out of work if we did

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt2i0ts-uck

crazy cabbage

bluewolf wrote: »

That's not what immaculate conception means

I will show myself out

orestes

highgiant1985 wrote: »

Some kind of bizarre clerical error apparently, it's never been fixed. My mother is English and my folks got divorced when I was younger and she remarried, which just adds to the fun. If you think you're confused you should imagine how the poor folks at the passport office feel when I try to explain it to them.

RDM_83 again

Czarcasm wrote: »

Now OP, seriously, given that there were 75,174 births recorded in Ireland in 2010, and court approved DNA testing costs €600 at a minimum; quick calculation tells me that adds up to €45,104,400.


Source: http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/birthsdeathsandmarriages/numberofbirthsdeathsandmarriages/

http://www.treoir.ie/information-paternity.php

The government hasn't got two pennies to rub together, and you expect them to find €45m to pay for paternity tests for every child born in this country?


Not going to happen.

Well there's a counter argument to this financial argument in that being duped into raising a child that is not ones own could be considered a type of fraud (financially at least) as there's been payouts in other jurisdictions so the cost to the state has to be balanced against the cost of this "fraud" to Irish citizens.

taking a non paternity event rate of 2% (this figure is very much at the lower end of wildly varying estimates).

That means out of the 75,174 birth per year means there is aprox 1503 non paternity events (NPE).

Average cost of raising a child is 220,000 (1) using UK figures (I would presume the figure in Ireland would actually be higher but I will use this one) since the "fraud" is only occuring against one party this figure can be halved (110,000 pounds) , when converted to euro this is 128,661.

1503 NPE x 128,661 = 193377483 euro.

This is a figure that far out weighs the cost to the state of carrying out testing.
In terms of government financing this fraud is cost neutral however I believe it should be part of the governments duty to protect its citizens from fraud, this won't happen though as it would be portrayed by some as the government "mistrusting" woman and spun from a "gender wars" angle rather than it simply being proactive in protecting its citizens having large scale fraud committed against them, for this reason I am just using the estimated cost rather than implying any moral/social reason for carrying out testing.

ps this thread has been done before and it was surprising how many posters are vehemently against the idea





(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jan/24/cost-to-raise-a-child-compared-to-decade-ago

Czarcasm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Well there's a counter argument to this financial argument in that being duped into raising a child that is not ones own could be considered a type of fraud (financially at least) as there's been payouts in other jurisdictions so the cost to the state has to be balanced against the cost of this "fraud" to Irish citizens.

Other jurisdictions RDM, you cannot apply stats from other countries to this country. At least my figures were based on facts, whereas the rest of your post is just made up figures based on assumptions, so nowhere near as accurate as you might think.

Tar.Aldarion

Ihatecuddles wrote: »

Who's going to pay for it??

The baby

martinedwards

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm not sure what being born without sin has to do with this

sex within marriage isn't sin in the eyes of any religion I can think of......

RDM_83 again

Czarcasm wrote: »

Other jurisdictions RDM, you cannot apply stats from other countries to this country. At least my figures were based on facts, whereas the rest of your post is just made up figures based on assumptions, so nowhere near as accurate as you might think.

Ok so you don't think being duped into raising another mans child and the huge financial sacrifices involved can be considered being defrauded particularly as people tend to have set amount of children. People that are aware of the situation is a completely different matter however in the case where it is kept hidden you are removing the choices from two men including the biological fathers chance to know his child. If you don't consider it an act of fraud what do you consider it?

My figures are approximate however I chose a figure for NPE that is very much at the lower end of international estimates, or do you think people in Ireland are exceptional?

In terms of the costs of raising a child I don't think there has been a serious attempt at working out the costs, however these links will back up my figure and honestly can you give me a reason why would the cost of raising a child be significantly less than the UK a country with a lower cost of living ???

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/raising-children-can-be-extremely-expensive-26514758.html

http://www.mychildcare.ie/finances.asp (irishtimes article is behind a paywall unfortunately)

martinedwards

martinedwards wrote: »

sex within marriage isn't sin in the eyes of any religion I can think of......

Don't shoot the messenger. She's referring to doctrine so take it up with the church :P

The sin referred to is Original sin, and Mary is supposed to have been born free from original sin.

orestes

martinedwards wrote: »

sex within marriage isn't sin in the eyes of any religion I can think of......

That's not what it means either, it means Mary was born free of sin completely. The immaculate conception doesn't have anything to do with the conception of Jesus.

Amirani

orestes wrote: »

That's not what it means either, it means Mary was born free of sin completely. The immaculate conception doesn't have anything to do with the conception of Jesus.

I'm always shocked at the number of "Catholics" that don't know this.

orestes

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'm always shocked at the number of "Catholics" that don't know this.

I just assume that if someone says the immaculate conception that they are talking about Jesus, it saves time and a lot of facepalming.

hatrickpatrick

It absolutely should. Would avoid so much unnecessary drama.

pabloh999

crockholm wrote: »

You'd put Maury Povich and Jeremy Kyle out of work if we did

They're American and english

Czarcasm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok so you don't think being duped into raising another mans child and the huge financial sacrifices involved can be considered being defrauded particularly as people tend to have set amount of children.

I never said anything about the moral consequences of raising another man's child, I just said your figures were grossly inaccurate. You can consider it what you want, but legally (which is more relevant than what you or I consider), it's still not committing fraud. Would the man have spent just as much or just as little on the child anyway if the child were his? Yes. So the costs involved would be the same regardless.

People that are aware of the situation is a completely different matter however in the case where it is kept hidden you are removing the choices from two men including the biological fathers chance to know his child. If you don't consider it an act of fraud what do you consider it?

I'd consider the above a very confusing scenario. It's still not fraud legally speaking.

My figures are approximate however I chose a figure for NPE that is very much at the lower end of international estimates, or do you think people in Ireland are exceptional?

That was my problem with your assertions, your data was inaccurate and full of presumptions. I don't think you can apply figures from the UK to Ireland when the two countries have very different social structures, social morals and populations.

In terms of the costs of raising a child I don't think there has been a serious attempt at working out the costs, however these links will back up my figure and honestly can you give me a reason why would the cost of raising a child be significantly less than the UK a country with a lower cost of living ???

If you had read your own article, there was one serious attempt back in 2002, and that was based on the economic climate at that time; the economic climate had changed since then, and given the article was written in 2009, I have no doubt the forecast figure has risen yet again since in 2013

There have been few attempts to calculate the average figure for a child in Ireland, but the last known attempt was made by John Geraghty, chief executive of LA Brokers.

He estimated in 2002 that it cost an average of €120,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18, and that didn't include the costs of going to college.

Although he has not made any calculations since 2002, Geraghty told the 'Irish Independent' that he and his team believe the cost of raising a child to age 21 would be a staggering €250,000-€300,000 in today's money.

In 2002 john Geraghty (Chief Executive of a brokerage firm selling insurance products) made his forecast based on raising a child to the age of 18 with no college education was €120,000. He then in 2009 seven years later shifted the goalposts to age 21, and the figure skyrocketed to a scaremongeringly high anywhere between €250,000 and €300,000, sure what's fifty thousand euro between parents when it comes to your children, right?

Well, according to a 500 person survey conducted by Bank Of Ireland, it can mean sending your child to college or not for €38,000.


So what does all this mean? Well it means you've just been scaremongered into thinking about how you're going to finance your child's future. Not to worry-

John Geraghty, the same guy who earlier came up with the fuzzy figures, also just happens to be the guy with the solution all your worries-

John Geraghty, of LA Brokers, suggests putting your child benefit into a product like the Eagle Star's child's savings plus plan, which is a savings plan that invests in any mix of Eagle Star investment funds.

So, what have we learned from all this?

Well for starters- always check the legitimacy your sources!

Secondly, don't just place blind faith in statistics. Drill down into them and try and work out how they came up with the figures.

Thirdly, forecasts are just that, and they can be wrong, because economies, like people, can be unpredictable as fcuk.

Fourth and finally- Don't believe everything you read in the media, especially a puff piece full of product placement and free advertising.

SeanW

martinedwards wrote: »

sex within marriage isn't sin in the eyes of any religion I can think of......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Victor

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I think it's a great idea, having the fathers name down should be mandatory too, except in the cases of pregnancy arising from a sexual assault.

So you want rape victims to be outed?

Moonbaby wrote: »

Sure do you even need a baby to get a birth cert in this country?

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/court-crime/former_newham_registrar_jailed_for_helping_gang_illegally_claim_4m_in_benefits_1_1856467

And which country do you mean by "this country", seeing as the article is about a London council?

Fr_Dougal

Victor wrote: »

So you want rape victims to be outed?

And which country do you mean by "this country", seeing as the article is about a London council?

And who would 'out' them, Victor? I find posts like that disturbing.

Amirani

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

And who would 'out' them, Victor? I find posts like that disturbing.

It would be fairly easy to identify them as the ones who have kids with no paternal name on their birth certificates.

Fr_Dougal

NiallSparky wrote: »

It would be fairly easy to identify them as the ones who have kids with no paternal name on their birth certificates.

I understand that, but the notion of wanting to 'out' a victim of a crime is obscene. Plus it's only a matter of time before birth certificates are issued in card form, so there'll be no reference to parents for non-official use.

Victor

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I understand that, but the notion of wanting to 'out' a victim of a crime is obscene.

But it is the logical conclusion / implication of what was suggested.

Plus it's only a matter of time before birth certificates are issued in card form, so there'll be no reference to parents for non-official use.

Whut?

Birth certificates are public documents, that anyone can access. There has never been any suggestion that access be restricted or that they be in card form.

Capt'n Midnight

Ihatecuddles wrote: »

Who's going to pay for it??

The $1,000 genome is getting closer all the time. Compare that to the price of one years health insurance. Actually compare it to the cost public hospitals will charge to private insurers from July.

The genie is out of the bottle. It's going to happen.

It's a pity they are destroying the heel prick tests instead of just anonymising them :mad:

Freddy Smelly

Ihatecuddles wrote: »

Who's going to pay for it??

the parents of the child perhaps?

also dna testing all babies and storing it on a database, would make it harder for criminals in the future to get away with rape, child molestations, and murders.

Freddy Smelly

Freddy Smelly wrote: »

the parents of the child perhaps?

also dna testing all babies and storing it on a database, would make it harder for criminals in the future to get away with rape, child molestations, and murders.

This is a great thread.

Even if we get past the implication that mothers are likely to be perpetrators of paternity fraud unless proven otherwise, and the suggestion that rape victims can leave the fathers name blank on birth certs, thus informing the child and the world at large of it's conception, now it's suggested that we keep dna information on database for every individual. Just in case they commit a crime in later life.

Pretty soon insurance companies would be accessing this information and refusing people cover, banks will be assessing the risks in loaning to people with less desirable dna profiles, in case they don't receive maximum payoff, and what little privacy people don't voluntarily surrender on Facebook will be printed on our id cards. Anonymity will be a memory.

Brave New World indeed.

Freddy Smelly

Candie wrote: »

This is a great thread.

Pretty soon insurance companies would be accessing this information and refusing people cover, banks will be assessing the risks in loaning to people with less desirable dna profiles, in case they don't receive maximum payoff, and what little privacy people don't voluntarily surrender on Facebook will be printed on our id cards. Anonymity will be a memory.
.

they do already. and have been doing it for years.

people with health issues often get refused loans, or pay higher health insurance premiums than those who dont

Freddy Smelly

Freddy Smelly wrote: »

they do already. and have been doing it for years.

people with health issues often get refused loans, or pay higher health insurance premiums than those who dont

Not quite the same as having your DNA profile.