Should paternity testing be mandatory? 1 in 25 fathers not biological parent

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

I understand the drive here, I understand what underpins the incredible hurt here. It's partially male ego - only raising your own seed and not being a "cuck". But there's the obvious trust bit too; discovering that a partner wasn't faithful and has been lying to your face for years, can only hurt.

It's got nada to do with the recent nonsense of being a "cuck". One of the biggest things any animal will do is reproduce. It's what animals including humans do. And that drive is fundamentally to reproduce one's own genetics. The emotional hurt from cheating comes from a large part of that. Doubly so for men in this particular situation as any offspring a woman has she's 99% sure is hers. Maternity testing is pretty much a non thing for this reason. In humans and other social animals there is the group raising of kids, some of whom may not be directly related. The village raises the children angle. Stepparents would plug into that, though as I pointed out stepparents make that choice going in and cultures that practice this also make the choice to do so.

In law the protection of personal choice is right up there in importance. In the recent referendum one aspect of it was women who had been raped having the option of termination of a pregnancy resulting from that. And damn right too. On top of the terrible physical and emotional assault their reproductive choice is removed. I don't see why that aspect of reproductive choice is seen as mostly a non issue for men.

But mandatory testing, I don't see the benefit except for a minority of men who have trust issues.

You might have added for some balance; "and for a minority of women who are untrustworthy", but you didn't, which does suggest some bias on the matter.

Adamocovic

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

Mandatory paternity testing sounds a bit oppressive. Most people know who the father of their child is. I don’t know how you would come up with the 1/25 stat. Surely you don’t know what you don’t know.

I was at a party with my OH when I was pregnant with my third child and someone conversationally asked my husband how he knew that the child was his. I was completely blindsided.

It feels like there’s a certain cohort of posters that have issues with trusting women.

At first I would have agreed with you about it sounding somewhat oppressive, then I read an interesting point suggesting it should be introduced in order to add proof when adding the fathers name to the birth certificate.

The above point for me has nothing to do with trusting the woman but rather from a legal standpoint. It makes sense to me that not only some people but even the Government would want evidence for a legally required document that is added to the registry.

I agree the article seems hard to follow in terms of where concrete evidence comes from. A lot of taking previous studies and using that information for estimates which could be giving figures too high or too low. Generally when paternity tests are demanded it's in untrustworthy relationships. I know in the UK quite a number of paternity tests are demanded each year and roughly 48% of the time it is proven the man isn't the father. So a slight majority of the time is a case of either the man hoping he isn't or being paranoid, but still sees a high percent who find out they are not. This is usually regarding not wanting to pay for child support for a child they believe not to be there's however.

I know of someone who probably knows all about this sort of thing. I used to go to school with a guy who moved away. Didn't speak to him after but added him on Facebook. Saw him post about his kid and partner/gf quite a lot, park photos, days out etc. Then one day came online to a status by him, basically said he knew people already had known for months, but turns out they had an argument and she confessed the child wasn't even his in the heat of the argument. So after the words were planted he decided to get a test. Turns out it wasn't his child. However in his post he said he would still raise the child as his own but basically he was through with the mother. I think it turned out the child's biological father wanted nothing to do with it, I'm not sure if she then decided to come after him for child support. Now was mad this was all on facebook. Wouldn't have known about it if he didn't post it! Not using it as a point in all this but I may never have another time where I have a story relevant to the subject :P

On the people with issues trusting women I think that really goes both ways. Not only on the internet but in real life you see both men and women who have trust issues regarding their same or opposite gender.

Cleopatra_

Jaysus. I don't even know how I find time to post on boards with all of my whoring around with men trying to trap them into parenthood with babies that aren't theirs. It's exhausting, truly.

Considering that this is a rare occurrence then paternity testing on request is more than adequate.

VinLieger

Wibbs wrote: »

I can't believe I read that TBH. You spend decades raising a child you think is yours and this is deliberately kept secret from you? Never mind the cheating that created said child. Unreal. Small as a lie my arse.

But in essence it is a lie, trying to categorise the levels of deception between two people so we can legislate and criminalise them is a bonkers idea in my opinion.

Ush1

VinLieger wrote: »

But in essence it is a lie, trying to categorise the levels of deception between two people so we can legislate and criminalise them is a bonkers idea in my opinion.

Committing fraud is lying. You can commit theft by simply lying.

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

It's got nada to do with the recent nonsense of being a "cuck". One of the biggest things any animal will do is reproduce. It's what animals including humans do. And that drive is fundamentally to reproduce one's own genetics. The emotional hurt from cheating comes from a large part of that.

That's exactly what I mean. "Cuckold" is a very old concept, entire religions and huge chunks of our traditions and ceremonies revolve historically around the man protecting his reproductive imperative, ensuring that he's not raising some other man's child.

I'm not ignoring the social or mental aspect of that for men. It's incredibly strong, and it's not an issue that women ever have to consider.

But it's also on a grand scale, a conceptual problem rather than an actual problem. Without getting into the philosophical, in the end it doesn't matter whose genes are in the kids that you call your children. It won't kill you or harm your health or otherwise result in a bad outcome for you...until you find out.

It's interesting that you mention choice, because yes, men should absolutely have the ability to choose whether they raise their child or someone else's. But exercising that choice doesn't require that we test every child for paternity.

In fact, much like women's choices, there are many tests available which might lead a woman to choose abortion; but none of them are mandatory.
Perhaps a little more involvement of the father in any birth is what's called for; send every new father an information pack which includes some basic leaflets and a simple question (amongst others); "Would you like a paternity test". Then the man is free to choose whether he wants one or not and whether he wants to deal with the outcome of that knowledge.

You might have added for some balance; "and for a minority of women who are untrustworthy", but you didn't, which does suggest some bias on the matter.

Well, no. Mandatory testing wouldn't be of benefit to women who are untrustworthy. Why would I say that?

eviltwin

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

Mandatory paternity testing sounds a bit oppressive. Most people know who the father of their child is. I don’t know how you would come up with the 1/25 stat. Surely you don’t know what you don’t know.

I was at a party with my OH when I was pregnant with my third child and someone conversationally asked my husband how he knew that the child was his. I was completely blindsided.

It feels like there’s a certain cohort of posters that have issues with trusting women.

There's a small minority of men upset women got abortion rights at the weekend. They have to find some way to stick it to them.

_Brian

Why would we try and legislate for our social problems.

Have we gone so far down a road of social collapse that we need to legislate for every potential outcome.

If a father feels there is a chance this has happened then he can chase testing if he wants but why place the burden on everyone.

Adamocovic

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

Jaysus. I don't even know how I find time to post on boards with all of my whoring around with men trying to trap them into parenthood with babies that aren't theirs. It's exhausting, truly.

Considering that this is a rare occurrence then paternity testing on request is more than adequate.

Could be wrong here but haven't noticed any lewd comments like the one you are sarcastically remarking.

The problem there would be for mandatory paternity testing would be the financing. I'm sure the government wont pay the fee of ~€175 (roughly €11/€13 million a year) and there would be stern opposition about any idea of forcing parents to pay this.

I do, like I stated before, find it interesting however that regarding the birth certificate, a legally required document, no legally required proof is demanded from the father, when he is listed in the registry.

But on that, I'm sorry if wrong here, my understanding is that if they couple are married the husband is automatically added as the father. For unwed couples the mother gives the fathers name, and if not present they will get in touch with him.

Like I said, not saying it should be mandatory as that would be a complicated procedure to introduce but in terms of just the workings involving birth certificates and the national registry this debate or point has been very interesting for me.

Adamocovic

VinLieger wrote: »

But in essence it is a lie, trying to categorise the levels of deception between two people so we can legislate and criminalise them is a bonkers idea in my opinion.

You guys do realise Paternity Fraud exists in the UK and other regions?

It's not a criminal offence but can see damages being awarded to either party.

zapitastas

VinLieger wrote: »

Grand so and what would you suggest the punishment should be? Really looking forward to hearing any option that doesn't in some way needlessly hurt the child involved

Reimbursement for whatever costs the child has accrued would do it.

eviltwin

I can't see this taking off. What if I admit to having a fling and name someone other than my husband as the father? Will we test every single man named? Seems this idea is more about shaming people, namely women, for extra curricular sex.

JMNolan

VinLieger wrote: »

But in essence it is a lie, trying to categorise the levels of deception between two people so we can legislate and criminalise them is a bonkers idea in my opinion.

I'm truly confused as to how you think deception between two people cannot be legislated for. There are many instances in law where deception between two people is already criminalized and legislated for.

VinLieger

Ush1 wrote: »

Committing fraud is lying. You can commit theft by simply lying.

Indeed it is, now try to prove to the level required in court that the lie was intentional for the financial gain of the mother which would be required to prove fraud.


When I say "just a lie" im talking legally obviously, to the people involved its much more than a lie but when talking in the sense of the original poster who wanted to criminalise it then it is "just a lie" and how do your criminalise a lie where its virtually impossible to prove knowledge of or intent for financial gain which would be required in the case of fraud?

JMNolan

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't see this taking off. What if I admit to having a fling and name someone other than my husband as the father? Will we test every single man named? Seems this idea is more about shaming people, namely women, for extra curricular sex.

You only need to test one man to determine if he isn't the father.

Cleopatra_

Adamocovic wrote: »

You guys do realise Paternity Fraud exists in the UK and other regions?

It's not a criminal offence but can see damages being awarded to either party.

I'd have an issue with paternity fraud being a criminal offence (are we going to make adultery a criminal offence next?) but I wouldn't have an issue with a man seeking financial compensation for a child that wasn't his that he unknowingly raised.

eviltwin

JMNolan wrote: »

You only need to test one man to determine if he isn't the father.

So it's not about identifying the biological parent? Then it just becomes an exercise in shaming women.

Dyr

For health reasons alone it should be

If everyone on your actual fathers side were brown bread by 60 you might want to know about that.

JMNolan

eviltwin wrote: »

So it's not about identifying the biological parent? Then it just becomes an exercise in shaming women.

No, it's about proving that the man named as the father is not the father. You must understand that surely, it's only purpose is to prove who isn't the father or to confirm who is. Surely the child is entitled to know this information?

VinLieger

JMNolan wrote: »

I'm truly confused as to how you think deception between two people cannot be legislated for. There are many instances in law where deception between two people is already criminalized and legislated for.

Indeed but its deception with a gain for one party like in the case of fraud.

JMNolan

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed but its deception with a gain for one party like in the case of fraud.

So your claim is it can't be deception for gain?

eviltwin

JMNolan wrote: »

No, it's about proving that the man named as the father is not the father. You must understand that surely, it's only purpose is to prove who isn't the father.

If you find the partner isn't the father wouldn't the next step be to identify who is? What not use it to prove parenthood? All this seems to be is a tool to control one party while the other can spawn children and get away with it. I'd imagine that women would to know if their spouse had secret kids they knew nothing about.

Adamocovic

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

I'd have an issue with paternity fraud being a criminal offence (are we going to make adultery a criminal offence next?) but I wouldn't have an issue with a man seeking financial compensation for a child that wasn't his that he unknowingly raised.

Exactly. I hope no one is suggesting it should be a criminal offence. The way it works in the UK is pretty much how you stated above. Used for paying damages if it is proven fraud was committed.

I just brought it up as I saw a debate about legislating a lie. When fraud is deception and there is actually Paternity Fraud in other regions (not too sure about here). Hopefully it ends the debate on whether it is possible or not. :pac:

Ush1

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed it is, now try to prove to the level required in court that the lie was intentional for the financial gain of the mother which would be required to prove fraud.


When I say "just a lie" im talking legally obviously, to the people involved its much more than a lie but when talking in the sense of the original poster who wanted to criminalise it then it is "just a lie" and how do your criminalise a lie where its virtually impossible to prove knowledge of or intent for financial gain which would be required in the case of fraud?

Erm, okay. I think there is often proof that would hold up. Infidelity, she may have told other people etc..

zapitastas

eviltwin wrote: »

If you find the partner isn't the father wouldn't the next step be to identify who is? What not use it to prove parenthood? All this seems to be is a tool to control one party while the other can spawn children and get away with it. I'd imagine that women would to know if their spouse had secret kids they knew nothing about.

Surely the woman would have a good idea who the real father was. Or maybe not but that would be her problem.

JMNolan

eviltwin wrote: »

If you find the partner isn't the father wouldn't the next step be to identify who is?

How do you propose doing that? Test every man on the planet?

_Brian

eviltwin wrote: »

So it's not about identifying the biological parent? Then it just becomes an exercise in shaming women.

Possibly so.

I’m really baffled as to what exactly is going on at the moment.

Recently we have seen a upsurge in the reporting and conviction of men for sexual harassment and abuse of women which is a good thing without any shred of doubt, it’s challenging an old social norm where it was buried and used as a form of power over women.
We see the recent vote on the 8th and the obvious changes that will bring for women and their choices.

The odd thing is there seems to be an alarming cohort of men that see these things and want something too. I see men posting vehemently that they want an option out of parenthood, for compulsory paternity testing. Threads whining that they feel their masculinity is somehow being eroded by these changes.

I’m not young, married with kids and can’t fathom what is happening to men that they feel so threatened by the changes we’re seeing in society. Many are fighting changes as if it somehow makes them less of a man. Excusing behaviour of obvious sexual harassment as “banter” and “laddish”.

It’s a bizarre situation and many “men” are embarrassing themselves by resisting more equality for women.

VinLieger

JMNolan wrote: »

So your claim is it can't be deception for gain?

No im saying a lie without financal gain or loss legally not fraud and that is the closest version of a current law to what you are suggesting.

VinLieger

JMNolan wrote: »

How do you propose doing that? Test every man on the planet?

Ahh so your okay with holding women accountable but when it comes to holding men accountable for their actions it suddenly becomes not that big a deal?



Hilarious double standard

Adamocovic

JMNolan wrote: »

How do you propose doing that? Test every man on the planet?

They already have Reverse Paternity DNA testing for finding out who the father is when he is unavailable. For this to work however the person would need an idea of who the likely person or persons may be.

If it's a case of a one night stand and no information of the individual or way of finding out I'm not sure what would be done.