Support NeoGAF

[cyclonekruse]

And which of those people was I replying to?

You said "no one" in the thread was talking about an optional test. That is factually false, period.

But you want a direct example of you addressing an optional test? Sure:

If she doesn't want that label, then she shouldn't do it. The mandatory DNA test thing is a bit sketchy with regards to privacy and all, but a man shouldn't be forced to pay for a kid that isn't his. Instead of mandatory tests, there should perhaps be confidential tests where the man can get tested without having to have the mother of the kid agree with it.

Or if a guy wants to accuse his girlfriend of cheating on him he should come right out and say it. Apparently it's ok for a guy to secretly mistrust his girlfriend, though, so whatever. I'm sure that always works out to a stable relationship anyways.

That was the quote of yours which I originally cited as being soapboxy. And that's what prompted my questioning of what is wrong with a private opt-in test.

 

[maharg]

That was the quote of yours which I originally cited as being soapboxy. And that's what prompted my questioning of what is wrong with a private opt-in test.

Fair enough, I went too far on that one.

 

[cyclonekruse]

Fair enough, I went too far on that one.

Fair enough.

To address your point that it would potentially be a legal landmine, I don't necessarily disagree. It would have to be handled delicately. Obviously, the "father"/father would be free to provide a sample if he chooses. The issue would be figuring out how legal it would be to obtain a sample from the baby for the purposes of a paternity test since it cannot give consent. On an ethical level, I don't see a mouth swab as any more invasive or harmful to the baby than the normal slew of tests they run to see if the baby is healthy, so I don't think that should be an issue.

 

[RagnarokX]

What if they make the tests mandatory for genetic medical history reasons, and make the results of whether or not the man is the father private. Men who have no suspicion and even men who do would be unlikely to order a test unless they were being forced into the relationship. Men who are interested should be able to get such information without fear of hurting the feelings of their partner if they do turn out to be the father.

 

[Korey]

I don't see the moral implications of this at all, to be honest.

It's just making sure that everything is as it should be right off the bat, instead of with family drama later on in the child's life, child support issues, etc. Everyone benefits from this, and for most people it would be nothing but a formality.

It's like checking ID at the door. There are no moral issues here.

If this had been standard hospital procedure all along, we wouldn't be having a debate here since in my opinion, and nobody would have moral problems about it.

 

[poppabk]

I'mma stop you right here. Please go look at the thread title. Where's opt-in? Who's talking about opt-in? No one. The proposal was for mandatory paternity testing. I'm on a moral soap box, that's true. But my moral soap box is about allowing you and everyone else to not have the government force you to question the underpinnings of your private relationship on the day your kid is born. I feel really comfortable on this soap box, because the other soap box in this thread scares the fuck out of me.

And you can already opt-in to a paternity test. No one needs to pass a law about that.

But you are ok with the government forcing someone to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a child that they are not biologically related to and who they have no personal relationship with, just because they signed a piece of paper due to a fraudulent representation of a third party?

 

[maharg]

But you are ok with the government forcing someone to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a child that they are not biologically related to and who they have no personal relationship with, just because they signed a piece of paper due to a fraudulent representation of a third party?

If I'm against banning pencils because you could potentially kill someone with one does that mean I'm for killing people with pencils?

 

[someday]

The medical history of the father and his family could help detect stuff not normally tested. Not to mention that if the biological father has been tested positive for STDs, the chances to take appropriate actions could be invaluable.

This was what I was talking about in my earlier post. Before the child gets an STD from the father, the mother would have it. The child would get it from the mother not the father.

Again, we're talking about paternity testing, not full genetic testing. The utopia you describe isn't at issue here. Any benefits for genetic testing of the parents as I understand it are only useful before they have children at all. Little is gained from testing the parent's DNA after the child is already created. If you want genetic counseling for the child, you would just check the child's DNA. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you though.

For myself, I chose not to due to cost, primarily, but also because it wouldn't have told me that I WOULD 100% get breast cancer. It would just tell me if I had a gene that could make me more susceptible to it. I was already getting yearly mammograms so why pay for that?

 

[poppabk]

If I'm against banning pencils because you could potentially kill someone with one does that mean I'm for killing people with pencils?

I feel really comfortable on this soap box, because the other soap box in this thread scares the fuck out of me.

I thought that the other soapbox that scared the fuck out of you was people saying that this was a potential solution to the problem of non-biological fathers being forced to pay child support.

 

[poppabk]

Again, we're talking about paternity testing, not full genetic testing. The utopia you describe isn't at issue here. Any benefits for genetic testing of the parents as I understand it are only useful before they have children at all. Little is gained from testing the parent's DNA after the child is already created. If you want genetic counseling for the child, you would just check the child's DNA. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you though.

For myself, I chose not to due to cost, primarily, but also because it wouldn't have told me that I WOULD 100% get breast cancer. It would just tell me if I had a gene that could make me more susceptible to it. I was already getting yearly mammograms so why pay for that?

Women who are at high risk for developing ovarian cancer have limited screening and prevention options, and in many cases the cancer has spread to other organs by the time it produces symptoms or is detected. This is why some women are willing to consider surgical removal of the ovaries in order to prevent ovarian cancer

"According to recent studies, women who have inherited a mutation in one of the two genes known to predispose a woman to breast and ovarian cancer — BRCA1 or BRCA2 —have approximately a 10 to 40 percent risk of developing ovarian cancer during the course of their lives, as well as an increased risk for developing cancer of the fallopian tubes. In contrast, only about 1.4 percent of women in the general population develop ovarian cancer during their lifetime. (This translates to a 1 in 70 risk for women in the general population.)"

"Molecular genetic testing for germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is available on a clinical basis for individuals who are identified to be at high risk based on their personal and/or family history and for at-risk relatives of an individual with an identified germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. No currently available technique can guarantee the identification of all cancer-predisposing mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Furthermore, mutations of uncertain clinical significance may be identified."

You are wrong. If you knew that there was a history of ovarian cancer in your fathers family then you would likely get tested for the BRCA mutations, if you didn't you probably wouldn't. No doubt you made your own decision based on the fact that you don't have a family history of ovarian cancer, so there is a very low chance that you have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

 

[Devolution]

You are wrong. If you knew that there was a history of ovarian cancer in your fathers family then you would likely get tested for the BRCA mutations, if you didn't you probably wouldn't. No doubt you made your own decision based on the fact that you don't have a family history of ovarian cancer, so there is a very low chance that you have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

If there was a consensus about family history and health they'd let adoptees get more information about their birth parents. All my mother was allowed to get was information taken at the time of her adoption, back in 1946. You basically have to already exhibit a genetic related disorder or disease before you can access your true records.

 

[poppabk]

If there was a consensus about family history and health they'd let adoptees get more information about their birth parents. All my mother was allowed to get was information taken at the time of her adoption, back in 1946. You basically have to already exhibit a genetic related disorder or disease before you can access your true records.

Act 101 not only legally recognizes open adoptions in Pennsylvania but through it the Department of Public Welfare has streamlined the social history and family medical history registries. From adoptions finalized on or after the active date of the new law in March 2011, original parents are required to provide the new registry system with family medical history.

There is a consensus about the family history and health and things are moving forward with this but the problem is that any past adoptions run right into HIPAA laws and informed consent, and the genetic testing wasn't envisioned when your mother was adopted.
Regardless two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[The Albatross]

I'm only for this if they do mandatory MATERNITY tests of newborns as well. Seriously guys.

 

[someday]

You are wrong. If you knew that there was a history of ovarian cancer in your fathers family then you would likely get tested for the BRCA mutations, if you didn't you probably wouldn't. No doubt you made your own decision based on the fact that you don't have a family history of ovarian cancer, so there is a very low chance that you have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

To be honest, when I was considering this there was absolutely no mention of ovarian cancer and a connection. It was solely about my mother having breast cancer and what my chances were of getting that. I thought about it but didn't get the test because I couldn't easily afford $2500 to find out the information my doctor was giving me. It wasn't covered by insurance for me. And honestly, I know my father but still have no idea if there is a history of ovarian cancer in his family.

 

[Devolution]

There is a consensus about the family history and health and things are moving forward with this but the problem is that any past adoptions run right into HIPAA laws and informed consent, and the genetic testing wasn't envisioned when your mother was adopted.
Regardless two wrongs don't make a right.

Didn't say two wrongs don't make a right just that the idea that people have the right to their own medical history doesn't extend very far in some circumstances. The precedent isn't really there.

 

[bishoptl]

I'd much prefer to see Iowa state's ability to sue for fraud passed as federal law instead. As an extension of that, I'd also consider providing subsidized paternity tests to those who want it. Mandatory is silly for many reasons already stated in this thread, but privacy issue is troubling and costs would be prohibitive.

 

[maharg]

I thought that the other soapbox that scared the fuck out of you was people saying that this was a potential solution to the problem of non-biological fathers being forced to pay child support.

What? No, the other soap box is people invading my privacy for their insecurities.

 

[shanshan310]

But you are ok with the government forcing someone to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a child that they are not biologically related to and who they have no personal relationship with, just because they signed a piece of paper due to a fraudulent representation of a third party?

At the end of the day it's the child that is most important. And in many cases the man has already established himself as the father, so they would have a strong relationship. Cheating is shitty, but you know what else is shitty? Rejecting a child you have loved and raised because of the faults of the mother.

Hey, I have an easy solution. Keep a diary of when you have sex. Then when your wife finds out she's pregnant you can go nuts calculating the date of conception on your own.

 

[Odoul]

At the end of the day it's the child that is most important. And in many cases the man has already established himself as the father, so they would have a strong relationship. Cheating is shitty, but you know what else is shitty? Rejecting a child you have loved and raised because of the faults of the mother.

So a random man has to serve a financial life sentence because some woman conscripted him?

 

[shanshan310]

So a random man has to serve a financial life sentence because some woman conscripted him?

Jesus It's hard to take you seriously when you speak with such hilarious hyperbole.

It's a tough one, it really is. Especially in cases where the paternity was only uncovered after many years. Here's the point you neglect though. It's not just some random guy. It's a guy who had sex with a woman. A guy who probably didn't wrap it up, but by chance
ended up not being the fastest sperm to the egg. The kid has the potential to be his. It's not as if these evil women are just pointing fingers at poor helpless men. I'd imagine that in many cases not even the woman knows. The real issue here is the woman cheating, or if she was in multiple relationships, simply guessing wrong. In the latter cases it would be natural to get tested.

 

[Devolution]

So a random man has to serve a financial life sentence because some woman conscripted him?

Life sentence? It's till the kid's 18. If you want to raise a kid with someone but don't trust them, ask for the paternity test yourself. Relationships are all about trusting your partner. This is why those who do don't want to damper the situation by making such a thing mandatory. Will they also inform the mother of any other kids the guy has fathered? Or does this kind of thing only target the mother's possible infidelities?

 

[mike23]

Life sentence? It's till the kid's 18. If you want to raise a kid with someone but don't trust them, ask for the paternity test yourself. Relationships are all about trusting your partner. This is why those who do don't want to damper the situation by making such a thing mandatory. Will they also inform the mother of any other kids the guy has fathered? Or does this kind of thing only target the mother's possible infidelities?

This is ridiculous. Without getting into the mandatory part:

18 years of half wages plus a lifetime of not having that money. $200,000+ over 18 years is enough to ruin any plans of retirement. So in effect, yes it is a life sentence to their finances.

Is the man claiming that the woman is the mother of these other children and that she has to make substantial payments for each one for the rest of her life? No, because a woman is (almost) always sure that she had a baby and that the baby is hers. A guy can't show up one day with a kid and say "hey, this is our baby, you need to give me 10-20k per year or you'll go to prison". You can't make this situation about equal rights when the situation logically only applies to one gender.

 

[Odoul]

Are people serious with some of these replies?

It's not about sexism.

It's not about the number of one's sex partners.

It's not about the welfare of some random ass kid.

It's about being responsible for a child that you are actually a parent of.

If you find out five years later that your child isn't actually your child, all forced payments should be cancelled immediately. If a man chooses to stay in the kids life and support that should be strictly his choice. The mother and the child shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of support. Not from him at least.

As long as a piece of paper binds responsibility to a person there should be extremely cheap, if not mandatory, proof that he's actually the father.

 

[shanshan310]

It's not about the welfare of some random ass kid.

That's exactly what it's about. That's exactly why these laws exist. Not so some hypothetical gold digger can scam you into buying her prada bags for 18 years.

 

[Cyan]

It's about being responsible for a child that you are actually a parent of.

It's about mandatory paternity tests for newborns. At least, this thread is.

If you're worried about a piece of paper binding responsibility for a child that's not yours, how about we address that relatively low-frequency problem rather than imposing mandatory stuff on the entire population?

 

[Devolution]

This is ridiculous. Without getting into the mandatory part:

18 years of half wages plus a lifetime of not having that money. $200,000+ over 18 years is enough to ruin any plans of retirement. So in effect, yes it is a life sentence to their finances.

Is the man claiming that the woman is the mother of these other children and that she has to make substantial payments for each one for the rest of her life? No, because a woman is (almost) always sure that she had a baby and that the baby is hers. A guy can't show up one day with a kid and say "hey, this is our baby, you need to give me 10-20k per year or you'll go to prison". You can't make this situation about equal rights when the situation logically only applies to one gender.

You didn't actually address the issue.

 

[RagnarokX]

This is ridiculous. Without getting into the mandatory part:

18 years of half wages plus a lifetime of not having that money. $200,000+ over 18 years is enough to ruin any plans of retirement. So in effect, yes it is a life sentence to their finances.

Is the man claiming that the woman is the mother of these other children and that she has to make substantial payments for each one for the rest of her life? No, because a woman is (almost) always sure that she had a baby and that the baby is hers. A guy can't show up one day with a kid and say "hey, this is our baby, you need to give me 10-20k per year or you'll go to prison". You can't make this situation about equal rights when the situation logically only applies to one gender.

I'm interested in hearing an example of a woman having a baby that wasn't hers. Did some guy drug her and implant her with a fertilized egg from another woman?

And yes, the situation has inherent sex differences. Women can always be sure who the mother is, men can't be sure they are the father. Paternity tests give men the same amount of security in knowing if they are the parent as women have naturally. But few men want or need the test.

 

[maharg]

I honestly find the dna-essentialist approach to this thing very strange. If you dedicate ten years of your life to raising a kid who's sperm wasn't yours, knowingly or not, and your income goes towards giving that kid a good standard of living, that kid is far more yours than it ever was the dude with the sperm's.

 

[tafer]

This was what I was talking about in my earlier post. Before the child gets an STD from the father, the mother would have it. The child would get it from the mother not the father.

Let me try again.
- The parents of the child are, as far as they know, free of any form of STDs.
- The mandatory paternity test shows that the current partner of the mother isn't the father of the child.
- It's plausible that the mother had unprotected sex with someone else.
- Considering the implications of such scenario, the mother is tested for STDs. (Could be a mandatory test for certain cases)
- A STD is found: The partners of the mother and the child have been exposed to said infection.
- Additional tests are required to establish who else may be infected and depending on the severity of the case (think HIV), the mother and her current partner most identify all the people they had sex with for obvious reasons.

It is extremely invasive, but it can save lives. Once again, society should reach a compromise between privacy and public health.

Again, we're talking about paternity testing, not full genetic testing. The utopia you describe isn't at issue here. Any benefits for genetic testing of the parents as I understand it are only useful before they have children at all. Little is gained from testing the parent's DNA after the child is already created. If you want genetic counseling for the child, you would just check the child's DNA. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you though.

For myself, I chose not to due to cost, primarily, but also because it wouldn't have told me that I WOULD 100% get breast cancer. It would just tell me if I had a gene that could make me more susceptible to it. I was already getting yearly mammograms so why pay for that?

poppabk explained the genetic part and its importance. However, at the end of the day, the effectiveness of said studies depends on the capabilities of the health care system.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

I'm with you on that.

Chances are people have been looking after not-really-their-own children for thousands of years, and with no particular problem. Why fuck it up now?

Marriage rituals pre-dates civilisation itself. Since man's been shitting in caves he's tried to erect an edifice that'll ensure those kids he's raising are actually his.

 

[Wiktor]

It's for the child's best interests. Can't say I like it, but there isn't really a suitable alternative.

Sure there is. Letting father be free of financial responsibility if later paternity test prove he's not the father. Anything else should have no place in any civilized society. Can you imagine if after sentencing somebody to prison no proof of his innocence would ever be accepted? This is exactly the same situation. It's barbaric, it's wrong and demoralizing

 

[Keio]

I honestly find the dna-essentialist approach to this thing very strange. If you dedicate ten years of your life to raising a kid who's sperm wasn't yours, knowingly or not, and your income goes towards giving that kid a good standard of living, that kid is far more yours than it ever was the dude with the sperm's.

Came here to post this. I tip my hat to you.

There is a strong evolutionary track to oscuring who the father is. Better keep it that way.

 

[jimi_dini]

I honestly find the dna-essentialist approach to this thing very strange. If you dedicate ten years of your life to raising a kid who's sperm wasn't yours

That's exactly the point. If someone wanted to do that, he could simply adopt a child. Or give his money to children in Africa. That's totally fine then, because it's his choice. If he gets cheated by his back-then wife and afterwards has to give almost all his salary to this child and the cheating wife, then it's not his own choice. He got tricked into it.

Hell, why not tell the man and if he really wants to give his salary to a child that is not his, let him decide.

I mean think about this: someone raises a child and then after 20 years he finds out, that his wife cheated on him and this part of his life was a total lie. That's totally fucked up. He will probably accept the child as "his" although it's not. But his trust gets totally destroyed. I doubt that someone like this could ever have a relationship again.

 

[maharg]

That's exactly the point. If someone wanted to do that, he could simply adopt a child. Or give his money to children in Africa. That's totally fine then, because it's his choice. If he gets cheated by his back-then wife and afterwards has to give almost all his salary to this child and the cheating wife, then it's not his own choice. He got tricked into it.

Hell, why not tell the man and if he really wants to give his salary to a child that is not his, let him decide.

I mean think about this: someone raises a child and then after 20 years he finds out, that his wife cheated on him and this part of his life was a total lie. That's totally fucked up. He will probably accept the child as "his" although it's not. But his trust gets totally destroyed. I doubt that someone like this could ever have a relationship again.

I'm not saying the guy needs to stay in a relationship with her. I'm just saying that the sperm donar is only the 'father' in the most abstract way possible. When he stops providing child support because of a paternity test, do you think the kid's gonna go "oh well that makes sense, mommy please find my real daddy now. The guy I grew up with has nothing to do with me"? No. That guy is their father, not some guy its mom fucked 10 years ago.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

Mandatory is bad because of how intrusive it is. To trust someone is a personal decision and getting fucked over is part of that game. However in case of legal and custody battles people should have the right and an affordable option to find out the truth.

 

[Chinner]

so if a family has a dna test which turns out the father isn't the father for the child, and the DNA database has records of the actual genetic father, will the genetic father have to pay and support the child?

 

[jimi_dini]

When he stops providing child support because of a paternity test

If it's done right after birth, the "father" would immediately walk away and the child would never know him as "father". Better yet - maybe this stops those bad apples to try to trick "fathers" into believing they are fathers. If everyone was honest, there would be no issue at all, but sadly it's not.

 

[ShadyLurker]

Mandatory is bad because of how intrusive it is. To trust someone is a personal decision and getting fucked over is part of that game. However in case of legal and custody battles people should have the right and an affordable option to find out the truth.

I agree. I just can't justify the cost (however minimal it may be) for mandatory testing that the majority of couples don't even want. I don't want or need the gov't to tell me I can trust my girlfriend.

I think some people have the right idea with the optional test. Like possibly a check box on a form. I don't have a problem with my tax dollars going to a test that a man feels is necessary before he commits to raising a child. It's a big moment in one's life. He should be able to know all the facts before he signs. However, I would not be comfortable with my taxes going towards a test that people don't want and in some cases (such as my own) find intrusive. It's a waste of time and money.

 

[maharg]

If it's done right after birth, the "father" would immediately walk away and the child would never know him as "father". Better yet - maybe this stops those bad apples to try to trick "fathers" into believing they are fathers. If everyone was honest, there would be no issue at all, but sadly it's not.

I feel like I've made my position on making people do it at birth pretty clear, so I'm not going to go there. But people in this thread have talked about thinking it right to stop child support even well after birth if it's found out that they aren't the father, and that just strikes me as kind of horrifying.

When you sign that birth certificate you aren't making a promise to the mother, you're making a promise to the kid.

 

[jimi_dini]

When you sign that birth certificate you aren't making a promise to the mother, you're making a promise to the kid.

Based on belief/trust that it's yours and the mother didn't trick you and also that you would have an honest relationship. All that is shattered to pieces. It's like signing a contract based on certain information, which later turns out to be totally falsified.

 

[maharg]

I'm sure that kids everywhere are comforted by the idea that their dad only loves them so long as their mom didn't lie to him.

 

[ShadyLurker]

Based on belief/trust that it's yours and the mother didn't trick you and also that you would have an honest relationship. All that is shattered to pieces. It's like signing a contract based on certain information, which later turns out to be totally falsified.

In which case you should definitely end the relationship with the mother if you feel that way, not the kid's fault so I don't see why he/she should feel any repercussions from their mother being dishonest.

 

[Bleepey]

I'm sure that kids everywhere are comforted by the idea that their dad only loves them so long as their mom didn't lie to him.

Would you have no problem if a girl intentionally committed paternity fraud and you found out the child you may not have wanted, was not yours yet is somehow your responsibility. Also, most of the money garnished from your wages is being used to subsidise a woman you may not want anything to do with.

 

[Cipherr]

I'm sure that kids everywhere are comforted by the idea that their dad only loves them so long as their mom didn't lie to him.

The money from child support != I love you.


Im sorry I find the idea that a person should be obligated to pay child support, even if they aren't the parent absolutely ridiculous. I understand the underlying reasoning, but this isnt a utopian world of rainbows and unicorns. If it were, the selfless men and women who go off to fight for their country in the military would come home and be waaaay more financially comfortable that they are, instead of coming home and having to work. I personally think the things they do are worth more compensation than they get, but it just doesn't work that way IRL.

Yes, making sure the child has proper support and opportunities is a great thing. Going about securing that support by requiring it from someone who doesn't rightfully owe that responsibility at all isn't cool. Its a ridiculous shortcut.

In which case you should definitely end the relationship with the mother if you feel that way, not the kid's fault so I don't see why he/she should feel any repercussions from their mother being dishonest.

But the kid will feel them, thats life. The horrible truth of life is that bad decisions made by parents, can and do sometimes lead to their offspring suffering from it in some form. That's a reality that you cannot 'fix' wholesale by making some guy do something he shouldn't have to, no matter how hard you try.

 

[maharg]

The money from child support != I love you.


Im sorry I find the idea that a person should be obligated to pay child support, even if they aren't the parent absolutely ridiculous. I understand the underlying reasoning, but this isnt a utopian world of rainbows and unicorns. If it were the selfless men and women who go off to fight for their country in the military would come home and be waaaay more financially comfortable that they are, instead of coming home and having to work. I personally think the things they do are worth more compensation than they get, but it just doesn't work that way IRL.

Yes, making sure the child has proper support and opportunities is a great thing. Going about securing that support by requiring it from someone who doesn't rightfully owe that responsibility at all isn't cool. Its a ridiculous shortcut.

What I find bizarre is the notion that a child you raised suddenly becomes not yours like it's some kind of hot potato just because its dna came from someone it's never even met. You rightfully owe that responsibility because when the baby was born you accepted it on behalf of the child, not on behalf of the mother. You're that kid's dad whether you like it or not. Some random dude out there sure as hell isn't.

 

[jimi_dini]

I'm sure that kids everywhere are comforted by the idea that their dad only loves them so long as their mom didn't lie to him.

If mommy lied to him about this, then actually he is not "dad". He is then just in a money purse relationship - if even that. Mommy rather dumped him some time ago but keeps him as purse, which is nice for her I guess. Anyway if it's such a problem, then that's an actual argument pro mandatory paternity tests right after birth. So that such issues never occur.

 

[maharg]

If mommy lied to him about this, then actually he is not "dad". He is then just in a money purse relationship - if even that. Mommy rather dumped him some time ago but keeps him as purse, which is nice for her I guess. Anyway if it's such a problem, then that's an actual argument pro mandatory paternity tests right after birth. So that such issues never occur.

Yes, the solution to something that hardly ever happens is to impose a massive financial overhead on childbirth, including a massive invasion of privacy, by government mandate. Obviously.

I can't even fathom this logic.

 

[Bleepey]

What I find bizarre is the notion that a child you raised suddenly becomes not yours like it's some kind of hot potato just because its dna came from someone it's never even met. You rightfully owe that responsibility because when the baby was born you accepted it on behalf of the child, not on behalf of the mother. You're that kid's dad whether you like it or not. Some random dude out there sure as hell isn't.

Who told you that just because you pay child support, you raised a child? I often hear stories of guys who pay child support for kids they can't see, have to sue to get visitation rights for their child, and have their wallets ass raped for a child they can only see on weekends at most.

 

[Cipherr]

If mommy lied to him about this, then actually he is not "dad". He is then just in a money purse relationship - if even that. Mommy rather dumped him some time ago but keeps him as purse, which is nice for her I guess. Anyway if it's such a problem, then that's an actual argument pro mandatory paternity tests right after birth. So that such issues never occur.

Right. I mean, what is it exactly that people are saying crosses the threshold of becoming the dad here? Because legally isnt it signing the birth certificate? If thats the case then do the test before allowing the signing.

But if the threshold is being the genetic father, and in the discussed scenarios, this guys is NOT the genetic father, then where exactly is he "dad" and obligated again?

Yes, the solution to something that hardly ever happens is to impose a massive financial overhead on childbirth, including a massive invasion of privacy, by government mandate. Obviously.

I can't even fathom this logic.

I'm sure there's plenty of people out there today paying a truckload of child support for a child after finding out their lady fathered the child with another man; who ALSO don't exactly agree with the government interjecting themselves into their lives either.

Again, in the end Im not completely for or against the mandatory tests at birth. But they should absolutely be mandatory before child support. And if they were, that would lead to issues of possible deadbeats trying to dodge the test; which makes me lean towards the idea of tests at birth more and more.

But when it comes to a guy not being the biological father, I don't think they should be obligated to pay child support in those scenarios at all. No exceptions.

 

[jimi_dini]

Yes, the solution to something that hardly ever happens is to impose a massive financial overhead on childbirth, including a massive invasion of privacy, by government mandate. Obviously.

childbirth isn't cheap anyway. It wouldn't really matter if it's another 200$ or not. It's already at least 3500$ in US. If I had the option, I would rather spend 200$ so that I may never get any doubts, which would actually be pro relationship in the long term as well. And the invasion of privacy can be circumvented by destroying DNA samples and keeping the tests private. I mean tests like HIV tests are also kept private. All medical data should actually be kept private.