Mandatory paternity testing at birth?

Post Reply New Topic

That is legally very shaky. There is no law that can compel a person to submit to a genetic test. Such a wide spread test would constitute a "fishing expedition" which is on very shaky ground, legally speaking. I seriously doubt that the courts would uphold any law that made such testing mandatory.

ruveyn

If there is a paternity question, then it is the couple's problem not mine.

hmmm true, maybe it could have a provision which allowed for someone to be opted out through a court proceeding.

@jacoby
No one said it was your problem.

Last edited by ikorack on 28 Feb 2011, 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

this is silly
humans have one of the highest paternity of any mammal.
about 90%
why are you trying to ferret out the loose women?
in my experience they are very pleasant.
-Jake

A loose woman with a kid is still a loose woman, not ferreting out anyone. Unless your definition of ferreting doesn't include elimination. In which case I would say, that whether or not a woman is loose is irrelevant to whether or not a man should be tied to another man's child.

if you are worried you should have a paternity test done.
but to hoist it on everyone is draconian.
some people like ignorance.
some people use fiction to make their relationships work.
it is not the governments job to prevent your cuckoldry.
-Jake

Parental fraud is a crime and this would all but wipe it out, if someone wants to use fiction to support a relationship they can do so with a paternity test.

I meant sometimes it is important to the "father" not to know.
mommy's little babies - daddy's little maybes.

Logically you are right but this is a sleeping dog I would be careful about waking up.

-Jake

Maybe it is important, maybe it isn't. I already offered a solution to negate the compulsive factor. But the presumption should be that the 'father' wants to know, not that he wants to be ignorant.

so a father should have the right to run a paternity test on his punitive youngins?
sure why not. as long as he is not totally married to the idea of staying married.

-Jake

You know, thinking about it purely as a 'mandatory paternity test' is probably the wrong way to go about it. I see it has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. I think a better methodology would be a standardized genetic test that looks at the DNA for particular signs of genetic disease. Later in life the person will be better prepared; a person with a heart defect, for example would thus be on the boat, so to speak, with taking care of their heart from early on. As a side benefit the genetic identity of the person would also be definitive. I don't know if it should be mandatory or voluntary. I imagine however, if it were economical, most people would probably have it done, outside of personal taste or religious reasons.

Your assuming they would be married, your assuming he wants to be married. This is also the trait that makes me want to say mandatory with an opt out. She can't blame him for taking the test if its mandatory, and if the process for opting out is a pain in the ass parental assurance would become a given.

I don't understand the first sentence, particularly the punitive part.

@Vigilians
Done after or before birth? done after you avoid the issue of genetics and make a stronger case, done before birth you suddenly bring up an association to eugenics

sorry, it works married or not.
I just hope the fella is right in thinking that they are not his children.
continuing the relationship might be hard to maintain
if he accuses a innocent woman.
-Jake

@ikorack:

I suppose I'm too ethical, I actually didn't consider that , as I referred to someone with a genetic defect being more prepared to deal with it, rather then just eliminating them. So I suppose ethically it would be more responsible to do it after birth. I think it would also be rather invasive to do it pre-birth. If we have genetic manipulation down enough at some point, it might become the ethical responsibility of parents to have their genetic code 'repaired' in a very early stage.

Like I said its not accusing if its mandatory.(even if it has a court opt out, which would have to be difficult for practicalities sake) This is why its mandatory because otherwise the woman will become offended. But this is not about the woman it is about the man, he has a right to know and not simply believe it is his child. Women have no reason to stand in the way of this. And by removing any justification for offense we achieve equality on the matter of paternity. Is that not good enough?

The issuing(aka the parents shouldn't receive it until after it is done) of a birth certificate should be delayed until after the test is done.

Then they can deal with it themselves. Our legal system is perfectly capable of dealing with paternity suits. The government has no authority to mandate paternity tests and it would be a massive waste of tax payer money.

Quite honestly, I don't even know if I believe a court-order paternity test should be legal