• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Mandatory paternity tests for newborns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ronito said:
I think in every case is not necessary. However if there is going to be child support then yeah this is a good idea. It'll remove an excuse from the father, and further reassure them and stop all these guys that are claim to be sure they're paying for a kid that isn't theirs.

Every birth? nah. But I do think if you're putting in a claim of child support/child support plan then yeah this is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Obviously adopted children would have to be exempt.
 
ronito said:
I think in every case is not necessary. However if there is going to be child support then yeah this is a good idea. It'll remove an excuse from the father, and further reassure them and stop all these guys that are claim to be sure they're paying for a kid that isn't theirs.

Every birth? nah. But I do think if you're putting in a claim of child support/child support plan then yeah this is a good idea.
Click to expand...
This is the logical approach. Mandatory would be a waste of money and probably more detrimental to overall society family health. And yeah, that 30% number is bogus, its not a representation of all births, just a percentage of men who were correct in their suspicions that the kid really wasn't theirs (Maury winners).
 
I don't know how anyone could be against this aside from if there were costs involved and if they were high.

That's great that there are people out there that take care of other people's kids, but that is by choice. Believe it or not, there are people out there that would be upset that kids they believed were their own biologically turned out to not be so.

The ones saying that guys should be living a charade on purpose get me the most though, as if looking for the actual father is out of the question.
 
CornBurrito said:
I do have an opinion on this. And yes, the source was provided for me. But you are the one who got all upset over the fact that I even requested a source to begin with.
Click to expand...

Well, I suspected that your demand was motivated by your opinion about the underlying issue rather than any good-faith doubt about the dreaded unsourced assertion. It appears I was correct.

Now that that's out of the way, why don't you share your opinion? Is a state-mandated paternity test an unwarranted intrusion into private affairs or a necessary and proper check on those devious women and the victimized men who are too weak to demand a paternity test for themselves?
 
Dude Abides said:
Well, I suspected that your demand was motivated by your opinion about the underlying issue rather than any good-faith doubt about the dreaded unsourced assertion. It appears I was correct.
Click to expand...

If you want to know my opinion, I don't have any problem whatsoever with mandatory paternity tests.

So no, you're wrong. I was motivated by my desire to see people back their factual statements up.

lol. I've never seen anyone so upset that someone requested they back up one of their claims. jesus christ.
 
CornBurrito said:
If you want to know my opinion, I don't have any problem whatsoever with mandatory paternity tests.

So no, you're wrong. I was motivated by my desire to see people back their factual statements up.

lol. I've never seen anyone so upset that someone requested they back up one of their claims. jesus christ.
Click to expand...

Many factual assertions were made in the thread, you picked one and only one for which to demand substantiation, exposing your claim to be motivated by a desire that people back their factual statements as a lie. Once substantiation was provided, it turned out you had nothing to say on the merits, and certainly nothing relevant to the assertion for which you demanded a source, thus confirming the lie.

lol. I've never seen anyone so upset that their weak attempt at pedantry was exposed.
 
Dude Abides said:
Many factual assertions were made in the thread, you picked one and only one for which to demand substantiation, exposing your claim to be motivated by a desire that people back their factual statements as a lie. Once substantiation was provided, it turned out you had nothing to say on the merits, and certainly nothing relevant to the assertion for which you demanded a source, thus confirming the lie.

lol. I've never seen anyone so upset that their weak attempt at pedantry was exposed.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone else made a statistical claim. But the "10%" claim came up at least 3 times. Once from Aeisis who put it as a question. Once from Cubsfan who stated it as fact (which I asked for a source) and once from you.

What other factual claims were made besides that one? Most of the first page is "I agree with this" or "I disagree because, big.gov/intrusive/costs."

And if other factual claims were made, I doubt they were made by over 3 fucking people within the first 2 pages.

And initially someone else had asked for a source for the 10% claim, and you responded to their post by just regurgitating the 10% statistic, without a source. Which is what started the whole thing.
 
I approve of this. Why should I be responsible for someone else's child? if I wanted to be responsible for a kid that isnt mine i'd go adopt a kid in need.
 
Count Dookkake said:
I dunno if they should be mandatory, but they should be free and easily available upon request.
Click to expand...
Well they are easily available. Like I said before since the mother and I are not married we both had to sign papers stating I was the father. One of the papers is for a DNA test if you want to make sure, so again this law is not need.
Also on a side note, I also found out in California if say your wife cheats on you and has another mans baby, and your still married, legally the kid is now yours and you have to pay for it.
 
I'm in favor, since that would make for some deep dish hilarity from over here. :)

I already know a few couples that would have brought firearms to the office over the actual results of these kinds of tests.

Go go go!
 
LMAO at the male paranoia when it comes to kids.

Protip: if you don't want to worry about whether or not you're the father of the kid, don't get involved with lying skanks.
 
Fuck dat! I like the idea of a man unknowingly raising my seed, especially if I can't afford it. This law means the child suffers
 
CornBurrito said:
I don't think anyone else made a statistical claim. But the "10%" claim came up at least 3 times. Once from Aeisis who put it as a question. Once from Cubsfan who stated it as fact (which I asked for a source) and once from you.
Click to expand...

Factual =/= statistical. Both Aesis and Cubsfan suggested the 10% was a reason mandatory testing is a good idea, which is why I didn't think the forced testing crowd would take issue with that number. Clearly it was my mistake to give the benefit of the doubt here.

And initially someone else had asked for a source for the 10% claim, and you responded to their post by just regurgitating the 10% statistic, without a source. Which is what started the whole thing.
Click to expand...

False.
 
Why make it mandatory? It should remain voluntary. I understand the sentiment of not wanting to raise a child who's not yours, but don't force this shit on everybody.
 
grumble said:
Sorry, 10%? Where is this? Not in Canada, the uk or the us. Wiki non paternity.
Click to expand...

I don't know why I didn't think of this last night.

Rates of non-paternity

The rate of non-paternity is commonly quoted to be around 10%.[1][3][4]

However, 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 figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate. 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 of parental discrepancy were those born to younger parents, to unmarried couples and those of lower socio-economic status, or from certain cultural groups.[5]

A 2006 study examined non-paternity rates from 67 published studies. Non-paternity rates for men who were judged to have high paternity confidence ranged from 1.9% in the U.S. and Canada, 1.6% in Europe, and 2.9% elsewhere. In contrast, men in studies of disputed paternity, considered to have low paternity confidence, the rates of non-paternity were higher – 29% in the U.S. and Canada, 29% in Europe, and 30% elsewhere.[6]

The rates value varies according to the population studied:

United Kingdom:
- 1 to 2% in a sample of 1,678 men[7]
- 1.3%[8]
Mexico: 9.8% to 13.8% in a sample of 396 children[9]
Switzerland: 0.3 to 1.3% in a sample of 1,607 children[10]
United States:
- A study in Michigan of 1417 white and 523 black children found non-paternity rates of 1.4% and 10.1% respectively.[11]
- A study of 1748 Hawaiian families with 2839 children reported a non-paternity rate of 2 to 3%.[12]
France: 2.8% in a sample of 362 children[13]
Click to expand...

Very helpful.

Gentleman Jack said:
I suppose the 'chump' argument comes from the perspective of a man covered by the proposed New Jersey bill that didn't go anywhere. It's easier to feel chumped out and leave after 9 months of a pregnancy you didn't cause than after any amount of time spent bonding with the child post-birth.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. I mean, I think of a situation like... Let's say you and your significant other have an issue with cheating at some point that occurred around the time of conception. What if you reconcile and decide to stay together, and the two of you decide that you'd rather not know the paternity of the child because it is easier to move forward with the understanding that whatever the truth might be, you are going to raise it? Do you think you should be forced to know?

I'm fine with paternity tests being readily available for those who ask. I just think that people do have motivations for not wanting to know. I think it would be easier to bond with the child under the presumption that it was mine, rather than being forced to know. And if we did want to know, well we always have that option.
 
Mumei said:
Well, yes. I mean, I think of a situation like... Let's say you and your significant other have an issue with cheating at some point that occurred around the time of conception. What if you reconcile and decide to stay together, and the two of you decide that you'd rather not know the paternity of the child because it is easier to move forward with the understanding that whatever the truth might be, you are going to raise it? Do you think you should be forced to know?
Click to expand...

Could always burn the envelope containing the test results. Beyond that, I'd say that almost anyone willing to raise a child in those circumstances would be willing to raise a child they know isn't theirs - what takes priority, the parent's right to ignorance or the child's right to know, especially if there are health implications?
 
Devolution said:
Can't wait till the inevitable case where they fuck up the testing and then shit really hits the fan with some families. Mandatory sounds like a really flawed idea for that alone.
Click to expand...

Would it be that different from hospital fuck ups that result in switched babies?
 
AShep said:
LMAO at the male paranoia when it comes to kids.

Protip: if you don't want to worry about whether or not you're the father of the kid, don't get involved with lying skanks.
Click to expand...
This might be a valid argument if they had "Lying Skank" tattooed on their forehead. In my experience the craziest women are the best at hiding it.
 
Kabouter said:
Is there any sufficient public interest served that warrants this significant intrusion of the government into this particular area of private life, and all the assorted negative consequences that also come from it? Because I sure as hell don't see it.

I once read that an estimated 8% of children (here in the Netherlands) don't have the father that they think they do. That's a hell of a lot of broken homes this sort of law would have caused.
Click to expand...
Providing children with accurate medical histories would be one public interest served.
A parent deliberately falsifying their childs medical history to hide an infidelity is kind of reprehensible when you think about it.
 
poppabk said:
Providing children with accurate medical histories would be one public interest served.
A parent deliberately falsifying their childs medical history to hide an infidelity is kind of reprehensible when you think about it.
Click to expand...

A bunch of states don't give a fuck about this otherwise they'd open their birth records.
 
Doesn't really seem realistic. I don't think telling your partner you want a paternity test would go over well in any case either though, so it makes sense some would support it. It's sad that people can end up raising someone else's child, even if love is stronger than just a blood connection. Everyone has the right to the truth and to a child of his/her own if they are capable of having one.
 
AShep said:
LMAO at the male paranoia when it comes to kids.

Protip: if you don't want to worry about whether or not you're the father of the kid, don't get involved with lying skanks.
Click to expand...

That's like calling people stupid for getting on the titanic for the voyage that it sank. I don't think most guys enter relationships with women they know or suspect will cheat on them.
 
Gentleman Jack said:
I'm speculating here, but the result of this might just stack the deck too much against women.
Click to expand...

hodgy100 said:
Abolishing child support would be an awful idea. So many fathers would have kids then just run away Scott free. You can't allow that either!
Click to expand...

You should also get rid of the idea that it's the woman's job to take custody. If she wants to raise the child full time, and he doesn't at all, she gets to pay for it entirely. If however she doesn't want full custody, the father should get 50% and also pay for the child directly for the costs he makes when raising the child.

Likewise, it is really, really, unfair when you want to raise your child, aren't allowed to because the child is assigned 100% to the other parent, and than you still have to pay that parent for the pleasure.
 
I can't understand people who support this. Making things like these MANDATORY is a bad start. Just get a fucking test to see if you're the parent or not yourself if you are suspicious of your wife/girlfriend/one night stand & want to be 100% sure you're not paying for anyone else's child, no need to make everyone go through it.
 
Famassu said:
I can't understand people who support this. Making things like these MANDATORY is a bad start. Just get a fucking test to see if you're the parent or not yourself if you are suspicious of your wife/girlfriend/one night stand & want to be 100% sure you're not paying for anyone else's child, no need to make everyone go through it.
Click to expand...
It being mandatory would take out all the emotional stuff.

My parents are divorced and I know exactly how much money my parents have to give me every month while I'm going to university. I know how much of that my dad has to give me and I know how much my mum has to give me. There's absolutely no emotional crap involved - I'm not being greedy, they're not being cheap and we have that on paper.

If it was mandatory, a test wouldn't mean that there's a lack of trust somewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dunkin testing out new Beverage Buckets
2
90
923
StreetsofBeige replied
Idea For AI TV Remote For Ad Blocking
11
290
ReBurn replied
Starship's 10th Flight Test imminent [complete]
2
50
1K
calistan replied
  • Poll
France tests banning phones in 200 schools
Social  2
86
6K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
Henry Cavill screen test as James Bond for Casino Royale, 2006
27
3K
Men_in_Boxes replied
Top Bottom