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.
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.
Well, now you are picking and choosing -- making paternity testing mandatory in one aspect, but optional in the other. That's not fair. If all infants are required to be tested against the husband to ascertain whether he is the father, then all men must submit their DNA for keeping it on file, so that the infant's paternity can be ascertained right then and there. Conversely, if the mother can sue for paternity and force a test to confirm it, a man today can do the same thing to disclaim paternity; no need for blanket government coercion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
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 IS an accusation, gwynnedd. If your wife asked you to wear an electronic bracelet, so she could make sure you aren't fathering any illegitimate children while she isn't watching, there is no way to cast is as a mere "trust but verify" sort of thing, as opposed to evidence that she simply doesn't trust you. Ultimately, this is the nature of marriage: you have to take a risk. Both partners do. If you want something risk-free, don't get married -- it's as simple as that. Wives don't have any certainty either as to what their husbands are doing when they are by themselves. And none of what you are saying negates my main point: if you believe this "trust but verify" thing, you are more than welcome to have that arrangement privately with your wife. Your belief that this is an essential marital policy does not furnish a justification to use the coercive power of the government (and taxpayers' money) to force EVERYONE to follow it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Men cheat.
You have any ideas on how to get the government to treat every man as a presumptive cheater?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
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?
But you are not against sealed adoption, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
If someone runs a credit check, does that mean they think the subject is a bum?
I don't live with my creditors. I don't sleep with them. I don't put my life in their hands. I don't have their children. The scope of my relationship with someone who needs to run a credit check is extremely limited -- and if they don't trust me, I won't lose sleep over that. Unlike marriage, my relationship with them is at arm's length. There is much effort on this board and pseudoscientific literature to characterize marriage as a terse exchange of sex for goods, identical to, say, shopping or borrowing money -- but that's simply not the reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
I would say that you are projecting your bias against men.
I have no doubt you would say that, but it wouldn't be true. I am not the one advocating mandatory DNA collection here.
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
have no problem with trust but verify in ether direction. Many men trust, and it turns into a mess for everyone including the child.
Many women trust, and it turns into a mess for everyone including the child. What's your solution to that? This is the risk you take when you get into a relationship.
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
Once again -- the "guy" in your scenario already HAS a choice. The "guy" is perfectly free to go to court and get that paternity test. No reason for force everyone to do it as a matter of government policy.
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.
Ask Diane, very good chance she knows who Johnny's dad is. However, right now as it stands Jack will have to pay. There is no need for a database, Diane can just tell the judge who the father is, they can test the suspected men. But she won't, because she already has Jack as a sucker. Why tell the truth if you don't have to? Especially when you can benefit from it.
Exactly. Switch from doing maternity testing as the standard in hospitals to paternity testing when the child is born so they don't get mixed up in the nursery and whatnot. It's cheaper and just as sure, unless the women have something to hide.
Once again -- the "guy" in your scenario already HAS a choice. The "guy" is perfectly free to go to court and get that paternity test. No reason for force everyone to do it as a matter of government policy.
Sure... he has the choice to get screwed now or later.
He goes for the test now, wife says "he doesn't trust me". Then come the divorce proceedings in what could have been an otherwise normal family, because the wife blows it out of proportion. And the man ends up paying child support for 18+ years.
He goes for the test later. Court says... "you shouldn't have trusted her". Too late, you're paying child support for 18+ years.
The cost of the test is a non-issue. Insurance works by determining the average cost to insurance an individual... inclusive of an entire population, and divvying it up equally. That means that the guy that never has any health problems, visits the doctor for a checkup every couple of years (costing maybe $20/yr) pays the same as the woman who pops out a kid every year for 6 years (minimally $60,000). We're all paying for everyone else... stop trying to pretend like we're not. Adding in another test that costs maybe $50 is negligible.
Ask Diane, very good chance she knows who Johnny's dad is. However, right now as it stands Jack will have to pay. There is no need for a database, Diane can just tell the judge who the father is, they can test the suspected men. But she won't, because she already has Jack as a sucker. Why tell the truth if you don't have to? Especially when you can benefit from it.
There is no need for mandatory paternity testing, the husband can just tell the judge he suspect the child isn't his, and the judge can order the test.
Once again -- the "guy" in your scenario already HAS a choice. The "guy" is perfectly free to go to court and get that paternity test. No reason for force everyone to do it as a matter of government policy.
I am against mandatory testing, I have already stated this. maybe you should reread what I said before.
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.
