Mandatory paternity testing at birth?

Post Reply New Topic

There is no logical reason to expect men to universally trust women when it is not necessary, it is not fair, and it is not an effective way to prove genetic assurance.



You say this now, but you have implied in earlier statements that this law must assume women are cheaters liars and whores. If you acknowledge that other motivations are possible you acknowledge that this law doesn't have to offend women by its mere existence.



I think such decisions should be at the personal level with personal conditions, but I think personal decisions should be made with the most accurate information available. And I believe in this case the consequences of these decisions having extreme long term responsibilities on the father that the father should have the same information that the women has inherently through her relation to her child.



This is unsatisfactory.

1. If the paternity comes into question at a later date the man still might be held legally responsible even if the information changes his loyalties.
2. The true genetic father loses out on his parental rights and loses any time he might have been spending with his child.
3. Establishing genetic assurance makes the role of father steadfast, the father will not poof and disappear because he has discovered the child is not genetically his.
4. This does not solve genetic assurance in the context of sexual equality
5. Who do you think this is targeting? Who do you think would be affected that isn't what you call a target.

You just aren't getting it. Making it mandatory DOES assume women lie and cheat. IF the man doesn't trust the woman, then he can petition for a paternity test. There is nothing unsatisfactory about this.

The law needs to protect the child that requires child support. They can require a paternity test in all cases where child support is ordered for all I care. Just don't make it mandatory for every child and father. It's unnecessary and an insult to women.

The fact that you can't see this doesn't make it less true, nor does it mean I'm arguing purely from an emotional standpoint.

No it doesn't it assumes men shouldn't have to trust women universally. The man shouldn't have to declare he does not trust his spouse to have the same genetic assurance as her, your argument assumes that because he wants objective proof he doesn't trust her.

Also

Here is what marks this method as unsatisfactory.
1. If the paternity comes into question at a later date the man still might be held legally responsible even if the information changes his loyalties.
2. The true genetic father loses out on his parental rights and loses any time he might have been spending with his child.
3. Establishing genetic assurance makes the role of father steadfast, the father will not poof and disappear because he has discovered the child is not genetically his.
4. This does not solve genetic assurance in the context of sexual equality
5. Who do you think this is targeting? Who do you think would be affected that isn't what you call a target.



This has barely anything to do with child support, its about genetic assurance and the rights of fathers. The genetic father has inherent rights, the presumed father has declared rights. Why should the presumed father have rights denied to the genetic father?



Can't see what? You continue to assert this is about insulting women when I have given evidence it is not, you have given no evidence. You have shown nothing but emotion, you have no right to claim your argument is anything but emotional.

From a political standpoint it definitely matters if women find it offensive, no matter what their reason is. When taken from "a Mans right to genetic assurance" perspective paternity becomes a male issue rather than a problem that affects men, women, children, and tax payers in general.

The phrase genetic assurance implies that trust is not enough when a woman says a child belongs to a man. While this may be a minority issue, it is not the reality of most relationships, particularly marriage. Since women can vote, a man's genetic right of assurance vs. a woman's trustworthiness is not the best approach if you want to see a political change happen.

The results of that search are scattered and unorganized, The opinions themselves likely have not had time to form. The bill being relatively young politically speaking.

Maybe that makes sense to you, but I don't think there are many woman that are going to see it this way. Wanting objective proof from someone who says they are telling you the truth, by definition, means you can't trust their word for it. Trust is a vital part of any relationship, to suggest that you cannot take someones word for something and need objective proof, spells trouble in any relationship. How could a man possibly convince a woman that he wants objective proof for genetic assurance, but he trusts that she is not sleeping around. What would the rationale be? I trust you but I know you can't control your sexual urges. What other rationale could there be?

Politicians do have a relationship with their voters, and it is likely that some women are going to look at it this way. Regardless of a man's objective concerns, a politician will probably take this real factor into account when making a decision on a whether a law like this is a good direction to go in.

If genetic assurance is a right(which i hold as true and none of you so far have contested) then it cannot be upheld objectively by one persons word. This takes away that problem you do not have to accuse a presumably innocent woman(that you obviously have some attachment to) of wrongdoing to have the objective truth that your child is genetically yours. Whether or not the man trusts his spouse becomes irrelevant when paternity tests become standard before declaring a father.



EDIT: Incase I am being unclear, my point is there is no logical reason to give women this power over men when a more objective process for declaring paternity is available. Such a change would further gender equality while preventing paternity fraud, which is healthy in the long term for the man and the child.

Last edited by ikorack on 04 Mar 2011, 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sorry, ikorack, but I just don't see that the current legal environment discriminates against men.

A woman giving birth has the advantage, of course, of knowing that the child she carries is hers (except in the rare instances of surrogacy, or implantation of the incorrect embryo fertilized in vitro). But this is not an inequality of the law's creation, and I don't see that your proposed solution is appropriate.

I would be far happier supporting a proposal that facilitated access to genetic screening for paternity, provided that appropriate privacy safeguards were in place. Where you lose me is the requirement that it be mandatory. At that point the government has stopped helping citizens who need it, and begun imposing burdens on citizens who don't want them.

As for parental rights vs. the rights of the child, we can argue 'til we are blue in the face. But the law is, at least for the time being, settled. I know it is not the way that you would choose to formulate the law, and I respect the thought and passion that goes into your position. Seek to have the law change its course, by all means--but that's a political fight, not a legal fight.

When the mothers word is taken as the presumptive truth(when a more objective method is available) then yes it is an inequality of the law's creation.



Access is already there, but taking the test in this environment is taken as an accusation towards the woman, which is not how it should be. Making it mandatory with a court procedure for opting out eliminates this accusation, and places the genders in parity at least as far as gender assurance.



But the way the law is settled does not eliminate the rights of the parents, it simply sets the rights of the child first(which is arguably how it should be). When the child is not qualified to decide what rights he/she wishes to take advantage of why shouldn't the parents rights be taken into account?

I'm not aware of any laws denoting genetic assurances as a right.

All men have the same rights as all women, rights are inalienable extensions of humanity(as far as the American constitution is concerned anyways). Women have the right of genetic assurance through virtue of birth, men following the logic of all men and women having the same rights are entitled to the same objective genetic assurance that women have.

"By virtue of birth" is not a law stating women have a right to genetic assurance.

Like I said many times before... if the man doesn't believe the woman he has the right to petition for a paternity test. Forcing this on couples that don't want/need it is simply not okay, though I understand your reasonings behind supporting such a thing.

Focusing on its lacking of explicit presence in law does nothing against my argument, I am not stating it is a right that has legal precedent. My proposal included an option that would allow a court to declare the father without a test. The Kansas law allows for a court to settle paternity if mother or father objects.

Although I don't understand why it would matter if the mother objects, is a mothers DNA needed for a paternity test?

If you like you could also do a search on "Mandatory Paternity test in Tennesee" This is the second year that a mandatory paternity test has been attempted in that state.

The internet is not an accurate method of getting opinions, but when there are no scientific polls, it is the only way I know of gauging public opinion on issues. When I brought up the issues of the different negative aspects that might be involved you questioned if the public thinks about things like this. At that point I hadn't done any research. But, what is available shows that there are at least some people out there that are looking at it in similiar ways.

There are some men's issues groups that show support for it, but the bias for those groups is evident. There are some feminist groups that are pushing to eliminate paternity tests. There is no chance I see of that ever happening.

I think we already have somewhat of a middle ground available. Even if a married individual was concerned but did not want to chance a problem in their marriage if the concern was unwarranted, there are home DNA tests that can be performed by the male, without knowledge or consent from the spouse. For $79.

So, that takes care of the genetic assurance issue for the 60% of births that occur among married people. I understand that this may not resolve the issue of childsupport for men that are not the genetic father in marriages, but at least a male can get the genetic assurance they want.

For the other 40% of births that single women have, court challenges come into play. For those that can gain access to the child, the Home DNA test can be an effective means of determining whether or not a court challenge is needed.

The group that is largely left out in the cold are the men that don't know they have fathered a child. I'm not sure how much of a significant help a mandatory paternity test is going to be for these guys; if the mother doesn't know their name or won't name they stay out in the cold.

Your still basing your arguments around practical concerns, which is not my focus. If the men are entitled to know their children are theirs, why wouldn't the state governments require proof?

But who says they are entitled to it?