Dad finds out that none of his kids are biologically his.

facehugger99

If you haven't any lead in your pencil you shouldn't be surprised if another man draws on your canvas.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

judeboy101 wrote: »

I smell bull****, how do you go your whole life not knowing you have CF ? And if CF caused infertility then surely the gene would die out as its rarely a point mutation.

If a man is carrying one copy of the gene, he won’t have cystic fibrosis, therefore won’t be infertile (unless for some other reason). He’ll just be a carrier. It’s a recessive disease. CF occurs when both parents have a copy of the gene and the foetus receives a copy from each. Two copies of the gene are needed for it to manifest.

ArchXStanton

This is why there should be mandatory testing at birth for the messed up times we live in

anitaca

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Except that this puts every man in a "remain ignorant or get dumped" quandry. No win situation.



Projection on my part, apologies. When I typed up my two posts here I was just thinking how utterly devastated I'd be if I found out that I wasn't related to my dad and that his family's long history in Ireland (we have a lot of revolutionaries among our ancestors) was therefore irrelevant to me - that that blood didn't actually run through my veins. Didn't mean to be exclusionary at all, was just thinking about myself.

I don't believe that anything close to a majority of people would betray someone like this, but I do believe that a large enough proportion of human beings are selfish assholes that people should be protected from having their lives destroyed so fundamentally on the off chance that someone in their life happens to be one. Robbing someone of their blood identity is evil beyond belief.

For the record, I also advocate that adopted children should be told that they're adopted from the youngest age that they can understand what it means, to avoid traumatic heartbreak later in life after being misled throughout childhood.

Genetic identity is simply something I do not believe should be left at the mercy of chance or the hope that someone isn't a scumbag. There are enough scumbags in the world that blind faith shouldn't be good enough when it comes to this. Maybe it isn't as important to others as it is to me, but I can't put into words how soul-destroying it would be for me to be told that my family aren't actually my genetic family, and I believe that however small a percentage of people this happens to, it's so awful and soul destroying that it's worth protecting everyone from even the remote possibility of this happening to them. Remove chance from the equation altogether and certify peoples' genetic identity as a matter of scientific fact rather than blind faith.

It is a bit late to certify your genetic history since your dads dad might not be his dad or his dads dads dad might not be his dad....


(not arguing for or against paternity tests)

lawred2

josip wrote: »

Fcuking hell. As if being diagnosed with cystic fibrosis wasn't bad enough.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-46827601/the-dad-who-found-out-he-wasn-t-his-kids-biological-father

Not all happy families, 2 of his sons aren't talking to him and have asked why he's making all this public.

what a vile slag

razorblunt

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How do we know that his wife is the real Mother?

As the say in Scotland, your tartan is your Mother's Family Name not your Father's because you be more assured of her than him!

seamus

ArchXStanton wrote: »

This is why there should be mandatory testing at birth for the messed up times we live in

Nonsense, the incidence is too low to justify mandatory testing.

The right of the named father to have a DNA test carried out should maybe be protected in law, but indiscriminately paternity testing every baby born is getting into weird gestapo territory.

And this is likely far less common than it used to be; people, women in particular, have more freedom to choose their own partners and end relationships when they're not working. Thus if they feel the need to collect some other guy's beans, they'll just go off with him, they're not trapped in the original relationship.

Captain Chaos

Deleted User wrote: »

While this is a very sad case, to say that he’s infertile from birth because of Cystic Fibrosis, is alarmist. He may be infertile, but not all CF sufferers are.

Over 97% of men with CF are, but they are not sterile, they can have children with IVF.

Captain Chaos

judeboy101 wrote: »

I smell bull****, how do you go your whole life not knowing you have CF ?

This aswell,

I thought life expectancy with CF was around 50 max and that is if you have specialist medial care.

Ariadne

Captain Chaos wrote: »

This aswell,

I thought life expectancy with CF was around 50 max and that is if you have specialist medial care.

I replied to this question earlier in the thread.

Muckka

Supposedly 20% is the percentage of men who are not the paternal father's to the kids they're raring.

So in potentially 1 in 5 partners are having a little bit on the side.
But they're the one's who get caught.

Imagine what else is going on.

Graces7

flazio wrote: »

In my opinion the fact that he wasn't the sperm donor doesn't make him any less their father.
If he did all the dad duties for those kids then that makes him the dad.

was about to post that if no one else did; thank you and yes. More to being a dad than sperm.

Graces7

Muckka wrote: »

Supposedly 20% is the percentage of men who are not the paternal father's to the kids they're raring.

So in potentially 1 in 5 partners are having a little bit on the side.
But they're the one's who get caught.

Imagine what else is going on.

No thank you...

josip

Muckka wrote: »

Supposedly 20% is the percentage of men who are not the paternal father's to the kids they're raring.

So in potentially 1 in 5 partners are having a little bit on the side.
But they're the one's who get caught.

Imagine what else is going on.

It's only 20% among fathers who are suspicious and test.
It's a lot lower than 20% normally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

RacoonQueen

Avalyn Scarce Gear wrote: »

Typical emotional blackmail. It should be mandatory to DNA test both people involved to avoid these scenarios. Typical boards response though.

Bullsh*t. I'd be fu*king disgusted if I was seeing someone and was pregnant and he didn't believe the child was his because it fu*king would be his. It is not emotional blackmail to be hurt by an accusation that you cheated on someone you love when you didn't. You can't build a further relationship on the idea that they didn't trust you, not could you fully trust them. The fact you actually got thanks for that post, is a typical boards response though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, it’s a weird one. I’ve no children so this is all hypothetical but if my husband asked for a paternity test, I’d agree without hesitation - nothing to hide and all - but it would change our relationship for sure. I’d just think he didn’t trust me. And I realise a lot is at stake but it would definitely change the relationship dynamic.

Yep and it would make me question him. I'd wonder if he was cheating then. So relationship dynamic definitely would change.

Riskymove

josip wrote: »

How could the king be sure he and his sister had the same biological father?

I think it is more that everyone knew the woman was 100% the mother

and you knew who her mother was and her mother before her and so on

so all the mothers were Queens or Princesses at the time

no one could guarantee who the father was

Muckka

I blame those men who are willing to sleep with women who have partners.

It's not the women's fault at all.
She was probably going through a bad patch at the time, and her husband or boyfriend wasn't being supportive.

So she was vunerable and some guy took advantage of her emotional state and she ended up falling into his arms and experienced an impulse of a surge of oxitocin and it wasn't her fault she was in the love zone.

It's the man's fault if his lover strays, not her fault at all

RacoonQueen

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Bullsh*t. I'd be fu*king disgusted if I was seeing someone and was pregnant and he didn't believe the child was his because it fu*king would be his. It is not emotional blackmail to be hurt by an accusation that you cheated on someone you love when you didn't. You can't build a further relationship on the idea that they didn't trust you, not could you fully trust them. The fact you actually got thanks for that post, is a typical boards response though.




Yep and it would make me question him. I'd wonder if he was cheating then. So relationship dynamic definitely would change.

every time anyone gets tested for something do you describe it as a presumption that they have it?

if there was a test to 99.9% verify if a man was cheating would you defend a woman using it if it were an "invest twenty years of your life" juncture?

its nice that people are pulling out the "biology is only a part of fatherhood" softener, but we shiuld be clear- that's a lovely sentiment for a fella who has knowingly raised another man's children as his own, its patronising bolloçks to say it to a fella who has been used in this fashion unbeknownst to himself.

ohnonotgmail

Muckka wrote: »

I blame those men who are willing to sleep with women who have partners.

It's not the women's fault at all.
She was probably going through a bad patch at the time, and her husband or boyfriend wasn't being supportive.

So she was vunerable and some guy took advantage of her emotional state and she ended up falling into his arms and experienced an impulse of a surge of oxitocin and it wasn't her fault she was in the love zone.

It's the man's fault if his lover strays, not her fault at all

Sweet sufferin jaysus.

id treat that like the wide-cast net it is and swim right by it tbh

speckled_park

Muckka wrote: »

I blame those men who are willing to sleep with women who have partners.

It's not the women's fault at all.
She was probably going through a bad patch at the time, and her husband or boyfriend wasn't being supportive.

So she was vunerable and some guy took advantage of her emotional state and she ended up falling into his arms and experienced an impulse of a surge of oxitocin and it wasn't her fault she was in the love zone.

It's the man's fault if his lover strays, not her fault at all

lol

0cp71eyxkb94qf

Muckka wrote: »

I blame those men who are willing to sleep with women who have partners.

It's not the women's fault at all.
She was probably going through a bad patch at the time, and her husband or boyfriend wasn't being supportive.

So she was vunerable and some guy took advantage of her emotional state and she ended up falling into his arms and experienced an impulse of a surge of oxitocin and it wasn't her fault she was in the love zone.

It's the man's fault if his lover strays, not her fault at all

You are doing women a disservice with this type of attitude as you're making out they're incapable of controlling their emotions.

Muckka

Avalyn Scarce Gear wrote: »

You are doing women a disservice with this type of attitude as you're making out they're incapable of controlling their emotions.

Do our emotions control us or do we control our emotions ?

I often wonder about that.

My comment was an observation not a judgement.

Sorry if I offended anyone, it wasn't my intention.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

every time anyone gets tested for something do you describe it as a presumption that they have it?

if there was a test to 99.9% verify if a man was cheating would you defend a woman using it if it were an "invest twenty years of your life" juncture?

its nice that people are pulling out the "biology is only a part of fatherhood" softener, but we shiuld be clear- that's a lovely sentiment for a fella who has knowingly raised another man's children as his own, its patronising bolloçks to say it to a fella who has been used in this fashion unbeknownst to himself.

Well, people generally usually just get tests if there are indicative symptoms. There’s are exceptions, such as mammograms after 50 for all women and screening for other cancers in older people because the incidence increases with age. But generally, if someone is sent for testing, there will be supporting reasons. Docs do not send people willy nilly for scans, sometimes even with indicative symptoms. Believe me, this is something with which I am intimately acquainted.

So, willy nilly paternity testing seems unlikely at birth unless they can make it a very cheap and easy process.

Wibbs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Sweet sufferin jaysus.

"It's not the woman's fault at all". Yep I think we can all agree that's crazy stuff, but in the dafter regions of mainstream feminism that's not a particularly odd thing to think or say. It's quite common in fact. The "women are agentless victims and men are to blame" credo again.

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

"It's not the woman's fault at all". Yep I think we can all agree that's crazy stuff, but in the dafter regions of mainstream feminism that's not a particularly odd thing to think or say. It's quite common in fact. The "women are agentless victims and men are to blame" credo again.

I dont think "women are helpless in the presence of men and are hostages to their emotions" is quite part of current feminist theory.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, people generally usually just get tests if there are indicative symptoms. There’s are exceptions, such as mammograms after 50 for all women and screening for other cancers in older people because the incidence increases with age. But generally, if someone is sent for testing, there will be supporting reasons. Docs do not send people willy nilly for scans, sometimes even with indicative symptoms. Believe me, this is something with which I am intimately acquainted.

So, willy nilly paternity testing seems unlikely at birth unless they can make it a very cheap and easy process.

yes but you didnt answer the question you bolded

there are obvious junctures- in most long term, expensive and involved ventures, not just medical- where verification of fundamentals seems a logical and sensible step without it being an accusation of anything.

if a court in a given jurisdiction would not return every cent this woman has thieved from this man- not to mention the emotional distress she has caused him and her children- then the corollary of safeguarding in advance suggests itself

joe40

Muckka wrote: »

Supposedly 20% is the percentage of men who are not the paternal father's to the kids they're raring.

So in potentially 1 in 5 partners are having a little bit on the side.
But they're the one's who get caught.

Imagine what else is going on.

Does this 20% include fathers who are with women that have kids from a previous relationship but the biological father is not on the scene any more.

I don't believe the stat is anywhere near 20% of men raring kids that are not biologically theirs - without their knowledge.

That is a bull**** statistic I would love to see a source.

hatrickpatrick

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Looking at it in a dispassionate, theoretical way, it’s easy to say “What’s the problem?” but think about the ramifications within relationships. Like I said in another post, if my husband wanted to confirm paternity of his child, I would agree to it without hesitation. But let’s not pretend it wouldn’t leave questions hanging in the air. Asking for a paternity test is inextricably questioning the fidelity of the woman in the relationship. If you’ve never been unfaithful, that’s tough to swallow. Your character is being tested and questioned.

That's exactly why I'm saying it should be automatic, to avoid this. Fundamentally, I don't believe that any human being is 100% trustworthy. I've been f*cked over often enough by people close to me who I genuinely trusted that I just don't believe in blind faith anymore. Performing these tests as a standard part of post-natal care eliminates that entire problem from the equation. Otherwise, like I said, every man has a choice between paternal certainty or his relationship. Doesn't seem remotely fair to me.

hatrickpatrick

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So, let just assume all mothers are cheating liars and let the government test them accordingly?

No, let's assume that all human beings are inherently dishonest on some level, and that this issue is too important to establish based on a human being's word alone.