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.
Sure, and there are a span of personalities in between as well.
More power to the suckers and sheep, huh? If that helps you reconcile your pov, more power to you I guess. The fact that you would have to be a sucker and a sheep in order to engage in a relationship isn't anything that can be applied to anyone but yourself. Event tho it's quite common on this forum to assume one pov comprises reality for the other billions of people on this planet, I still find it to be an odd approach to life.
I wonder if that's true. For example, I wonder how often the bulk of proponents for mandatory anything take their partners to the clinic for an STD test. How many people take the risk of sleeping with someone that just could have HIV (condom or not)? I bet plenty of you do/would, so the cries of risk/protection fall short, which is why I think this conversation is about something else rather than simple protection.
Case in point. It's not about not taking risks.
Well, that doesn't make sense to me. A person would have to live in a unpredictible way through out a marriage for this to be reasonable. I'm sure some people do, but is that the norm? I doubt it. Ime, people tend to get into routines. Deviations from those routines are difficult to miss.
OTOH, and as mentioned earlier, I recognize that some couples may never really know eachother. That may be completely normal for a lot of people. Heck, I've seen it with my parents and it can go on for years.
Yea, I think a paternity test runs from $200-500/test. I read the tests that are accepted in court run around $500. There are ~4 million babies born in the US every year. That's 2 billion/year if I got my zero's right.
On the bright side, that would create some, much needed, new jobs . Mandatory testing would also increase the rate of bad test results. That's a lot of testing to be done every year. It will take several years to increase capacity and weed out the labs taking short cuts.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 04-11-2010 at 04:35 AM..
Does anyone have a link to actual paternity stats? I can find stats for men who are tested (I've read as high as 28% here) but they are a subset of the population that would be at high risk for negatives since they must have reason to question paternity to have the test in the first place. I'm trying to figure what the rate would be if you included the men who don't question the paternity of their children. I'm trying to figure out what percentage of men are mislead.
Anyone know what percentage of men who don't get tested turn out to not be the child in question's father?
I haven't been able to find a stat addressing this question either. eta: I linked this earlier...
"A 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%), suggesting that the widely quoted and unsubstantiated figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate. However, in situations where disputed parentage was the reason for the paternity testing, there were higher levels; an incidence of 17% to 33% (median of 26.9%). Most at risk were those born to younger parents, to unmarried couples and those of lower socio-economic status, or from certain cultural groups.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud
That citation needs to be reviewed.
And I've been trying to employ some shabby math/statistics working my way down from the total infidelity number to get an idea... with no luck since it's confusing the heck out of me.
Infidelity statistics- According to this paper, over the course of a marriage women cheat 20-50% (men are at 30-60%). Over the course of a single year, it's ~5%. I'm trying to figure how this plays out. So, at the very most, and this may be a simple way of looking at it (and it's early where I am so forgive me if my reasoning is off), 5% of babies born to married couples per year could be a matter of paternity fraud. That 5% can add up real quick. But, that 5% is a grossly inflated number since there are a host of other variables that can't be ignored. What are the ages of that 5%? Surely, they don't all account for young, fertile, married women. I'll need to find a stat for that. And the average number of children per marriage is another consideration.
But, different studies are reporting different figures. This paper (http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~dms76/infidelity%20in%20committed%20relationships.pdf - broken link) is noting studies/surveys that suggest infidelity reporting is far greater for cohabitators and dating women compared to married women. I didn't realize any reports included non-married people. What's interesting is that some reporting on infidelity looks like emotional infidelity is included. Unless I'm reading it wrong. Also, this paper notes that having children can increase the probability of infidelity. So, that throws me off, too. If children increase risk, it lowers the paternity fraud %. Another interesting finding is that women that are better educated than their husbands significantly engage in EM at greater rates. Again, another variable that's going to lower the % since education and the practice of safe sex are correlated. And age of marriage seems to plays a role and the younger one's are involved in EM at greater rates. It's probably this ladder group that should be looked at, but that's just a hunch on my part.
Meh, maybe I'll try to get back to this after I have some coffee.
I haven't been able to find a stat addressing this question either. And I've been trying to employ some shabby math/statistics working my way down from the total infidelity number to get an idea... with no luck since it's confusing the heck out of me.
Infidelity statistics- According to this paper, over the course of a marriage women cheat 20-50% (men are at 30-60%). Over the course of a single year, it's ~5%. I'm trying to figure how this plays out. So, at the very most, and this may be a simple way of looking at it (and it's early where I am so forgive me if my reasoning is off), 5% of babies born to married couples per year could be a matter of paternity fraud. That 5% can add up real quick. But, that 5% is a grossly inflated number since there are a host of other variables that can't be ignored. What are the ages of that 5%? Surely, they don't all account for young, fertile, married women. I'll need to find a stat for that. And the average number of children per marriage is another consideration.
But, different studies are reporting different figures. This paper (http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~dms76/infidelity%20in%20committed%20relationships.pdf - broken link) is noting studies/surveys that suggest infidelity reporting is far greater for cohabitators and dating women compared to married women. I didn't realize any reports included non-married people. What's interesting is that some reporting on infidelity looks like emotional infidelity is included. Unless I'm reading it wrong. Also, this paper notes that having children can increase the probability of infidelity. So, that throws me off, too. If children increase risk, it lowers the paternity fraud %. Another interesting finding is that women that are better educated than their husbands significantly engage in EM at greater rates. Again, another variable that's going to lower the % since education and the practice of safe sex are correlated. And age of marriage seems to plays a role and the younger one's are involved in EM at greater rates. It's probably this ladder group that should be looked at, but that's just a hunch on my part.
Meh, maybe I'll try to get back to this after I have some coffee.
That 5% doesn't add up any more quickly than the 95% who don't cheat in a given year. The ratio stays the same. (Sorry, math teacher here ).
Even running with the long term percentages, cheating would have to take place at the same time as conception to be a problem so I think we can conclude that the rate of misassigned paternity is much lower than the cheating rate. Typically, a fertile woman only has about a 70% chance of concieving within a year and even if she's having an affair, there is still a good possibility her husband is actually the father.
Getting creative here: Even if you assume a cheating rate of 50%, what percentage of cheating takes place near the time children are concieved? Do these women carry on affiars throughout the marriage or is it a one time deal she later regrets and never does again? If we assume that half of all cheating takes place close to conception and that mom continues to have sex with her husband (to cover any oops that might happen...after all if she stops having sex with him he will KNOW any baby that happens to pop up isn't his), we're looking at, at most, 12.5% of babies with misassigned paternity.
The assumption that 50% of all cheating takes place close to the conception of one of the couple's children is probably high. Most women who get pregnant are trying to get pregnant. I would be willing to bet that the cheating rate is lower among women, actively, trying to get pregnant because she doesn't want to get caught so I'd be more worried about an unplanned pregnancy (Gee, both of mine were unplanned....we were still in the talking phase when the stick turned blue...).
Anyway, the point is, the percentage is probably much lower than many here are trying to claim it is. I did find stats for paternity tests. 28% are negative, however, this is the segment of the population that is questioning paternity. We have no idea what percentage of men who don't question (or simply don't test) are not the father but I'd be willing to bet it's less than that 28% because the group being tested should be the high risk group. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything on percentage of fathers demanding paternity tests so I'm left wondeing 28% of what segment of the population here? If it's 50%, it's significant. If it's 10%, it's really not.
That 5% doesn't add up any more quickly than the 95% who don't cheat in a given year. The ratio stays the same. (Sorry, math teacher here ).
Yea, I was hoping you could maybe come up with a plug/play equation for the stats lol.
Quote:
Even running with the long term percentages, cheating would have to take place at the same time as conception to be a problem so I think we can conclude that the rate of misassigned paternity is much lower than the cheating rate. Typically, a fertile woman only has about a 70% chance of concieving within a year and even if she's having an affair, there is still a good possibility her husband is actually the father.
Getting creative here: Even if you assume a cheating rate of 50%, what percentage of cheating takes place near the time children are concieved? Do these women carry on affiars throughout the marriage or is it a one time deal she later regrets and never does again? If we assume that half of all cheating takes place close to conception and that mom continues to have sex with her husband (to cover any oops that might happen...after all if she stops having sex with him he will KNOW any baby that happens to pop up isn't his), we're looking at, at most, 12.5% of babies with misassigned paternity.
The assumption that 50% of all cheating takes place close to the conception of one of the couple's children is probably high. Most women who get pregnant are trying to get pregnant. I would be willing to bet that the cheating rate is lower among women, actively, trying to get pregnant because she doesn't want to get caught so I'd be more worried about an unplanned pregnancy (Gee, both of mine were unplanned....we were still in the talking phase when the stick turned blue...).
Anyway, the point is, the percentage is probably much lower than many here are trying to claim it is. I did find stats for paternity tests. 28% are negative, however, this is the segment of the population that is questioning paternity. We have no idea what percentage of men who don't question (or simply don't test) are not the father but I'd be willing to bet it's less than that 28% because the group being tested should be the high risk group. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything on percentage of fathers demanding paternity tests so I'm left wondeing 28% of what segment of the population here? If it's 50%, it's significant. If it's 10%, it's really not.
Well, that wiki link cites a median of 3.7%. That's pretty low in comparison.
Yea, I was hoping you could maybe come up with a plug/play equation for the stats lol.
Well, that wiki link cites a median of 3.7%. That's pretty low in comparison.
Well, I was trying to do worst case just to show it can't be very high at all.
While Wiki isn't the most reliable site, 3.7% sounds reasonable. IMO, this is not high enough to warrant running paternty tests on every child born. With 96.3% being unnecessary, and the tests costing $500 a pop, your cost per negative test is through the roof at over $13,000 per negative test result.
I don't think anyone can make a case for testing all babies born given a low risk of the man not being the father and the fact that any man who wants the test can demand one.
Well, I was trying to do worst case just to show it can't be very high at all.
While Wiki isn't the most reliable site,
Eh, it's not bad. It's as reliable as other typical encyclopedias from what I've read. There is a citation, and I tried to open it, but I think I will need to restart my computer for that to work because I wasn't able to pull it up.
Quote:
3.7% sounds reasonable. IMO, this is not high enough to warrant running paternty tests on every child born. With 96.3% being unnecessary, and the tests costing $500 a pop, your cost per negative test is through the roof at over $13,000 per negative test result.
I don't think anyone can make a case for testing all babies born given a low risk of the man not being the father and the fact that any man who wants the test can demand one.
There is an additional issue that kind of got lost in the shuffle, but I think it's worth mentioning. Proponents of mandatory testing have said here that the cost will be negligeable due to "volume", as in, DNA tests now are only expensive because few people do them. If more people do them, the cost will go down. As in, if a certain lab already makes $5 million a year on DNA tests, why the hell would its owners want to make 5 times that amount, instead? [/end sarcasm]
It is an axiom, of course, that every man on the Internet is a big-ass financier (as well as a geneticist and a philosopher), but that theory just shows an utter lack of understanding of economics and how markets work. In fact, it just shows a plain absence of good old common sense. Why the hell should labs lower their fees on a procedure that the government requires you to have? In fact, why the hell should they not raise those prices through the roof? We already have that exact situation with insurance. Everyone who owns or leases a car is required to have auto insurance, but while the insurance companies' customer base keeps growing (and personal injury payouts are shrinking for a variety of reasons), the cost of insurance is going up, not down, and it outpaces inflation. And it's the same with pretty much all other kinds of mandatory insurance. The situation with vaccination is similar, and one of the reasons that drug manufacturers are pushing so hard to eliminate exemptions is so that they can then raise prices at will. Suppose you don't like the DNA test lab fee. What are you going to do -- not have the test done? It's required -- remember? And even if you have lots of different labs, requiring the test will alter competition among them to the point that the difference will be between more exorbitant and less exorbitant, but they will all pretty much charge an arm and a leg. So my prediction is that if mandatory paternity testing is ever enacted, the cost of such testing will go up -- way, way, way up.
Eh, it's not bad. It's as reliable as other typical encyclopedias from what I've read. There is a citation, and I tried to open it, but I think I will need to restart my computer for that to work because I wasn't able to pull it up.
No, a case can not be made. It's irrational.
Actually, NO. Wiki can be edited by any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to edit it. I teach chemistry and I've had students come to me with WIKI printouts thare are dead wrong. I've gone in and corrected a few myself only to have someone change it back. It's so bad, the school I teach at refuses to allow WIKI as a source. What it is good for is finding food for thought but I'd back anything up with data from another site I found there.
Just a for example, I had a student argue with me that dissolving one "MOLECULE" of salt in water would drop the freezing point by several degrees and she had a WIKI print out to prove it. The print out wasn't even right if it had been 6.02 times 10 to the 23 formula units of salt let alone the single "molecule" (molecule in quotes because salt is ionic and doesn't come in molecules).
Actually, NO. Wiki can be edited by any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to edit it. I teach chemistry and I've had students come to me with WIKI printouts thare are dead wrong. I've gone in and corrected a few myself only to have someone change it back. It's so bad, the school I teach at refuses to allow WIKI as a source. What it is good for is finding food for thought but I'd back anything up with data from another site I found there.
Just a for example, I had a student argue with me that dissolving one "MOLECULE" of salt in water would drop the freezing point by several degrees and she had a WIKI print out to prove it. The print out wasn't even right if it had been 6.02 times 10 to the 23 formula units of salt let alone the single "molecule" (molecule in quotes because salt is ionic and doesn't come in molecules).
Wiki is dangerous. More than half the information is wrong and is biased. I'm saying this coz I used to be a contributer to Byzantine and Roman history, and then some Turkish fool would show up (thinking I'm American, and I'm not, LOL, it's their inborn counter-crusader paranoia) and change it coz it insults his heritage. It goes into a train of edit wars. It grows old. Wiki truly is information hijacking, wait until someone who doesn't like it shows up and writes his own version of facts.
There is an additional issue that kind of got lost in the shuffle, but I think it's worth mentioning. Proponents of mandatory testing have said here that the cost will be negligeable due to "volume", as in, DNA tests now are only expensive because few people do them. If more people do them, the cost will go down. As in, if a certain lab already makes $5 million a year on DNA tests, why the hell would its owners want to make 5 times that amount, instead? [/end sarcasm]
It is an axiom, of course, that every man on the Internet is a big-ass financier (as well as a geneticist and a philosopher), but that theory just shows an utter lack of understanding of economics and how markets work. In fact, it just shows a plain absence of good old common sense. Why the hell should labs lower their fees on a procedure that the government requires you to have? In fact, why the hell should they not raise those prices through the roof? We already have that exact situation with insurance. Everyone who owns or leases a car is required to have auto insurance, but while the insurance companies' customer base keeps growing (and personal injury payouts are shrinking for a variety of reasons), the cost of insurance is going up, not down, and it outpaces inflation. And it's the same with pretty much all other kinds of mandatory insurance. The situation with vaccination is similar, and one of the reasons that drug manufacturers are pushing so hard to eliminate exemptions is so that they can then raise prices at will. Suppose you don't like the DNA test lab fee. What are you going to do -- not have the test done? It's required -- remember? And even if you have lots of different labs, requiring the test will alter competition among them to the point that the difference will be between more exorbitant and less exorbitant, but they will all pretty much charge an arm and a leg. So my prediction is that if mandatory paternity testing is ever enacted, the cost of such testing will go up -- way, way, way up.
Everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay. If you have no choice but to buy, you'll pay a lot. I would expect prices to go up, way up because labs will have to buy more equipment, hire more people and pay overtime to handle the volume. You'll also see human error increase and the child might be 5 before you get the results .
Honestly, if I owned a lab, my prices wouldn't go down. They'd go up. I'd make as much as I could off of this folly before the goverment decided it was just too expensive to continue because I know that once other labs come on line, in anticipation of increased volume and the government drops the practice as a budget cut, I might not be able to make a living at all. Make hay while the sun shines.
You are correct. As with anything, when demand is high and supply low, prices INCREASE.
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.
. Mandatory testing would also increase the rate of bad test results. That's a lot of testing to be done every year. It will take several years to increase capacity and weed out the labs taking short cuts.
The ratio stays the same. (Sorry, math teacher here 
). 
Everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay. If you have no choice but to buy, you'll pay a lot. I would expect prices to go up, way up because labs will have to buy more equipment, hire more people and pay overtime to handle the volume. You'll also see human error increase and the child might be 5 before you get the results 