Mandatory Paternity Testing (how to, conversation, average, problems)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is what it is really about. They don't want the men to have a choice because they know that they might choose something different from what they want.
Who doesn't want you to have a choice?? You already have the choice to get a paternity test. No one is stopping you.
Just because you have no problem wiping your feet on the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean the rest of us do. It's not because I'm a feminist; it's because I actually care about the rights of Americans. Get your own test and pay for it yourself. Don't ask me to pay higher insurance premiums or more taxes because you can't trust the women you sleep with. I won't agree to it. Don't ask me to approve medical procedures on people without their consent. I won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
As Julia noted, what's the point of mandatory anything when you can electively get the test if you want it? I'm lost on this point.
As an aside, tho,if anybody walked up to me or our hopeful future child, and attempted to take any kind of tissue, my husband would slap you into next year. Just saying.
Really... how hard is it to understand the situation that I had quoted? A guy trusts his wife to be faithful, never having any doubts in their relationship or fidelity. He comes to learn that the child is not his, but yet he's stuck paying child support for 18+ years. If you don't understand that... you're just dense.
Secondly... it's obvious neither of you have any clue how a DNA test works these days. It's a simple buccal swab, a doctor (or nurse for that matter) rubs a q-tip on the inside of your cheek and the child's cheek. The samples are sent off to a lab and compared. Completely painless and non-invasive.
When done on a large scale, the cost to produce the tests are dropped to almost nothing. As it stands now... the cost of a paternity test (from a for-profit organization) is around $200. You can be assured that they are making a significant profit on them. Make it mandatory and non-profit and you take out a significant chunk of the cost. On top of that... a typical birth done by vaginal delivery costs between $7,000-$10,000 to the insurance companies. That's not including complications. Like I said... having mandatory paternity test would not raise your premiums, the cost is negligible.
On the note of violating someone's "Bill of Rights"... what do you call forcing a non-biological father to pay child support? What do you call a court forcing a potential father to undergo a paternity test? I await your response.
Good not hearing you call me an ignorant moron.
As stated over and over if its the quality of your mate, you chose the wrong mate. I think the point was ability to love a child that is not yours biologically. If a person can despise a child they once loved due to damaged pride caused by a deceptive mate then they dont deserve either one. I imagine in your make believe plot the wife would want a divorce but still love the child.
Hi 2mares,
If you post like this, you will never see it again.
I'd agree. Its not merely a test about the child. Though at birth there would be no bond. If the test is negative, then the actual father can take up the slack. That is the point of the test.
I doubt we have the same view on biology. Though my interpretation is that I am quite certain there is a hardwired drive that is behind male possessiveness and jealousy that is bred into males. Switching babies happened rarely, and even that being the case, a woman's biology has still replicated; the biological cost is nil and nature has no reason to punish. The punishment is more to maternal instinct. Men who were not particularly worried whose children they raised through cuckoldry were subjected to selective pressure and removed out of existence. The only ones left are ruthlessly punished by negative impulses. The more social pressure applied, the more blow back from selective pressure. We will just keep creating more crops of increasingly jealous males.
If for some reason men were socialized this way, why is it universal across almost all cultures? Why would they be socialized this way? Why do men fear cuckoldry? I do not take seriously any approach that jealousy is a learned behavior.
What do you call a court forcing a potential father to undergo a paternity test? I await your response.
Where there is a showing of probable cause, it's merely a remedy that will allow the child to get the support it needs to survive. By contrast, where the government blanket-forces all men to submit to DNA tests they did not elect, it's a clear violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Unlike forcing him to pay child support, which is an entirely different issue. Incidentally, what exactly are you suggesting? That DNA tests should be mandatory, but potential fathers shouldn't be required to undergo "paternity tests"? Hmm, methinks it's you who doesn't understand how paternity tests work. The only way I see that mandatory paternity testing could be fair to everyone (and, first and foremost, the children), is to require all males of reproductive age to submit a DNA sample to a central database. Once a child is born, that child's DNA will be matched against all the DNA samples in that database, so that we learn not only whether or not the mother's husband is the biological father, but, if he is not, who the biological father actually is -- so that we can then hold that biological father liable for child support. Would that work for you?
Of course, this creates precisely the problem that Julia, Braunwen and I have been talking about -- a massive database of everyone's DNA which, of course, will then inevitably be used for nefarious purposes. It doesn't matter that the test isn't "invasive". Lots of things aren't a "big deal" physically. A pat-down takes less than a minute. So would searching your car. And a home search wouldn't necessarily take a long time or involve ripping out floor boards. It wouldn't physically hurt you if the government read all your mail and e-mail, and recorded and transcribed all your telephone conversations. Yet we don't allow this kind of trampling on people's privacy and personal autonomy without some evidentiary showing that a crime -- a crime -- has been or is being committed. An infrared radar can be used to "see" through walls and monitor people without actually, physically invading their space -- and yet the Supreme Court has ruled, within the last decade (and unanimously, too), that this kind of monitoring is unconstitutional without a warrant supported by probable cause. The US Constitution makes no distinction between invasive searches or non-invasive searches, major inconveniences, or minor inconveniences. It merely states that people are to be secure in their persons, papers and effects, and that their life or liberty not be taken away without due process. Which mandatory paternity testing would violate in about umpteen ways.
I think the issue has been thoroughly fleshed out here. A man who suspects his wife or girlfriend is having a child that isn't his has the option of requesting a DNA test. If she balks, he can initiate a legal proceeding, the outcome of which will almost invariably be to order the test. And so all these men who are demanding that paternity tests be made mandatory for everyone merely seek to hide behind the Big Bad Government in exercising their prejudices and resentments against women -- and not just any women, but wives and girlfriends. They are too cowardly to confront their wives with their suspicions and their hatreds, and so they want to have a scheme which will allow them to lie about their attitudes towards their SO's and blame the Government. In other words, what they seek isn't "certainty" on paternity, but an accommodation for their own cowardice and lack of character. And this is one of those predicaments for which neither the law nor the government should provide relief.
Really... how hard is it to understand the situation that I had quoted? A guy trusts his wife to be faithful, never having any doubts in their relationship or fidelity. He comes to learn that the child is not his, but yet he's stuck paying child support for 18+ years. If you don't understand that... you're just dense.
I do understand it. I already responded to someone else's scenario of the same thing. It's sad. It stinks. I'm sorry for that person. I'm sorry you didn't hear me say that the first time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
Secondly... it's obvious neither of you have any clue how a DNA test works these days. It's a simple buccal swab, a doctor (or nurse for that matter) rubs a q-tip on the inside of your cheek and the child's cheek. The samples are sent off to a lab and compared. Completely painless and non-invasive.
I don't care. I do not, and will not, approve of mandatory medical procedures on the American population. A person has the right to refuse it, and parents have the right to refuse it on their children's behalf. I do not approve of forced abortion, I do not approve of mandatory birth control implants, I do not approve of implanting things in people without their consent, I do not approve of sterilizing even the most heinous criminals without their consent ... get the picture? My body is MINE. Your body is YOURS. I will not ask the government to take a sample of you without your consent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
On the note of violating someone's "Bill of Rights"... what do you call forcing a non-biological father to pay child support?
It's sad, as I said. Get a paternity test so you're sure. No one is stopping you. Leave the rest of us alone.
Let's say Jack and Diane get a divorce, and it's discovered that little Johnny is not Jack's son. Johnny is five. We don't know who the father is (Diane doesn't know or isn't telling), only that Jack is not the father. You do not want jack to pay child support, and I don't really have a problem with that--or I want to not have a problem with it. Now Diane cannot support herself and Johnny. "Too bad, the stupid ****!" jeer a few guys here, but that doesn't put food in Johnny's mouth. Diane must go on welfare and get food stamps. Do you understand why the state is not falling all over itself to get out the check book?
How do we find Johnny's "real" dad, so we can make him pay? This is HIS problem, right? Now we're talking about a database of all American male DNA, so we can figure out that Bruce is Johnny's dad. Not that I would ever approve such a thing, for reasons I stated above, but this is the logical component of mandatory testing. If guys want to be let off the hook, someone else has to be put ON the hook, because the state doesn't want to pay if it doesn't have to.
Somehow I think that most of the men who are trumpeting about how much we need mandatory paternity testing would not like that very much. Especially the ones who talk about "pump and dump" ... oops, it looks like a few of them are dads now. Surprise!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
What do you call a court forcing a potential father to undergo a paternity test? I await your response.
It should be obvious. I am against mandatory medical procedures.
Where there is a showing of probable cause, it's merely a remedy that will allow the child to get the support it needs to survive. By contrast, where the government blanket-forces all men to submit to DNA tests they did not elect, it's a clear violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Unlike forcing him to pay child support, which is an entirely different issue. Incidentally, what exactly are you suggesting? That DNA tests should be mandatory, but potential fathers shouldn't be required to undergo "paternity tests"? Hmm, methinks it's you who doesn't understand how paternity tests work. The only way I see that mandatory paternity testing could be fair to everyone (and, first and foremost, the children), is to require all males of reproductive age to submit a DNA sample to a central database. Once a child is born, that child's DNA will be matched against all the DNA samples in that database, so that we learn not only whether or not the mother's husband is the biological father, but, if he is not, who the biological father actually is -- so that we can then hold that biological father liable for child support. Would that work for you?
Hi Redisca
What is highlighted is a good point. The rest is not. You don't need a massive database to compare two people. The results can be discarded. I think the mother knows who the father is on a negative most of the time. She then can sue for paternity. Either way, its not a bystanders problem.
Quote:
Of course, this creates precisely the problem that Julia, Braunwen and I have been talking about -- a massive database of everyone's DNA which, of course, will then inevitably be used for nefarious purposes. It doesn't matter that the test isn't "invasive". Lots of things aren't a "big deal" physically. A pat-down takes less than a minute. So would searching your car. And a home search wouldn't necessarily take a long time or involve ripping out floor boards. It wouldn't physically hurt you if the government read all your mail and e-mail, and recorded and transcribed all your telephone conversations. Yet we don't allow this kind of trampling on people's privacy and personal autonomy without some evidentiary showing that a crime -- a crime -- has been or is being committed. An infrared radar can be used to "see" through walls and monitor people without actually, physically invading their space -- and yet the Supreme Court has ruled, within the last decade (and unanimously, too), that this kind of monitoring is unconstitutional without a warrant supported by probable cause. The US Constitution makes no distinction between invasive searches or non-invasive searches, major inconveniences, or minor inconveniences. It merely states that people are to be secure in their persons, papers and effects, and that their life or liberty not be taken away without due process. Which mandatory paternity testing would violate in about umpteen ways.
I think the issue has been thoroughly fleshed out here. A man who suspects his wife or girlfriend is having a child that isn't his has the option of requesting a DNA test. If she balks, he can initiate a legal proceeding, the outcome of which will almost invariably be to order the test. And so all these men who are demanding that paternity tests be made mandatory for everyone merely seek to hide behind the Big Bad Government in exercising their prejudices and resentments against women -- and not just any women, but wives and girlfriends. They are too cowardly to confront their wives with their suspicions and their hatreds, and so they want to have a scheme which will allow them to lie about their attitudes towards their SO's and blame the Government. In other words, what they seek isn't "certainty" on paternity, but an accommodation for their own cowardice and lack of character. And this is one of those predicaments for which neither the law nor the government should provide relief.
I disagree. The argument is to prevent it from appearing as an accusation. Many men will decline because they do not want it to appear as such. It has nothing to do with prejudice against women that is not justified. Women cheat. Men cheat. Some victims do not find out until later. Should it be when someone needs a bone marrow? Is that a good time to start looking for the biological links? Should doctors lie? If someone runs a credit check, does that mean they think the subject is a bum? I would say that you are projecting your bias against men.
I have no problem with trust but verify in ether direction. Many men trust, and it turns into a mess for everyone including the child.
Though still, you are correct that the potential for abuse exists. That was an excellent point.
Who doesn't want you to have a choice?? You already have the choice to get a paternity test. No one is stopping you.
I am afraid you may have missed the run up to the conversation. But I will try to sum it up.
Guy wants a test, women say he does not trust her (may be true)
Guy trust woman doesn't get the test. Child turns out not to be his, he must pay child support, judge tells him sorry you should have not trusted her (always happen in this situation)
Guy doesn't want to raise the kid, women say it shouldn't matter how can he be so cold after having bonded with the child (his wife is very warm, but, she got him a kid with another man ). If It doesn't matter why did the woman not tell the truth? That is where I say that she doesn't want him to be able to have a choice because.... you can fill in the blanks
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
