Should a blood test at birth be standard procedure to confirm who is the father?

[Deleted]

I'm not against paternity tests if there is reason to doubt the woman, but they shouldn't be compulsory. It is completely wrong to consider all women to be lying bitches until proven that they aren't, just as it's wrong to assume all men to be [whatever]. Are you able to see that questioning the honesty of every new mother out there is wrong? As far as I'm concerned, it's like banning abortions because some (who?) "use it as birth control" or banning alcohol because some people become alcoholics.

Incidentally, i'm opposed to abortions, at least morally.
I think, since

No, its because paternity establishes a series of legal and financial obligations on the father.
Therefore, it is important that actual paternity is established.

But if you want to get rid of any and all legal obligations on the 'father' Sure.
But as long as it carries even a minutia of legal weight, then no, Paternity needs to be proven and not asserted.

I don't want or need women to be treated better than men,

You are in favour of the status quo, which benefits women.
That's to say, you baseline is biased, but you think you are on the average.

The government didn't come chasing after the father, so I guess those legal and finanical obligations aren't that important as far as the authoroties are concerned?

And they throw some 'fathers' in jail.
Or force some to pay for kids they can prove are not theirs.

[Muzjhath]

I meant it in interpersonal way. If the man isn't the one initiating it, there wouldn't be hurt feelings between the couple. As for system, it's not exactly an entity capable of trust. And innocent until proven guilty? It's not a trial and a paternity test isn't a punishment. It's a preventive measure. I don't know about Sweden, but in Poland all courts have metal detectors at the entrance. Does that mean the system doesn't trust everyone going in? Does it view the victims of crimes coming in to testify as guilty of wrongdoing until proven otherwise? Or is it just sifting out the actually guilty without making judgment calls about the general population entering, because the ones who may want to smuggle in a weapon (to kill said victim wanting to testify, for example) are otherwise indistinguishable without such preventive measures?

A court in a democracy ought to see even the person charged and put on trail innocent until proven guilty. The fact that court houses at times have safety networks is because they get targeted and are thus needed.
Having paternity tests on every couple is assuming the women guilty until proven innocent. Which is where I say "Stop, that's issuing systematic mistrust".
The courthouse has metal detectors because it's not uncommon for people to try and use the opportunity for revenge, or silencing a target. Depending on what type of thing going on so it becomes quite a bit of a false equivalency. Same as airports have safety checks because they're juicy soft targets, and the Swedish Parliament has safety checks all over and depending on where in the building you need further checks to enter than just getting into the lobby, which you (at least last I was there) could just walk into no questions asked. But if you look like you're hiding something under a coat a guard will come talk with you, or if you forget a bag on a bench. @Faenskap had a great comparison on the issue of trust that I agree with. And if someone feels that every woman needs to have that kind of mistrust upon them. Don't pro-create, that's the only advice I can give.

[Lutris]

If you can't trust someone you're in a relationship with, then leave them before children get brought into it.

An inherently distrustful relationship is an unhealthy relationship, and you will never be happy in it.

(this is why like a third of all marriages end in divorce *eyeroll emoji*)

[Deleted]

A court in a democracy ought to see even the person charged and put on trail innocent until proven guilty. The fact that court houses at times have safety networks is because they get targeted and are thus needed.
Having paternity tests on every couple is assuming the women guilty until proven innocent. Which is where I say "Stop, that's issuing systematic mistrust".
The courthouse has metal detectors because it's not uncommon for people to try and use the opportunity for revenge, or silencing a target. Depending on what type of thing going on so it becomes quite a bit of a false equivalency. Same as airports have safety checks because they're juicy soft targets, and the Swedish Parliament has safety checks all over and depending on where in the building you need further checks to enter than just getting into the lobby, which you (at least last I was there) could just walk into no questions asked. But if you look like you're hiding something under a coat a guard will come talk with you, or if you forget a bag on a bench. @Faenskap had a great comparison on the issue of trust that I agree with. And if someone feels that every woman needs to have that kind of mistrust upon them. Don't pro-create, that's the only advice I can give.

This has nothing to do with women and everything to do with babies' health

[Mehrunes]

Yeah, because there are so many healthy opinions originating from the forum goers here. No one said "man-trapping, misandrist, cruel, selfish, lying, cheating whore" in one post, I chose to write all of the attitudes in one sentence. Taking offense from this thread? Maybe, because it appears that women are lying and deceitful according to some, it'd be like you as a man reading that all men are women-hating, violent rapists. But no, this thread makes me lose faith in humanity more than I take offense, as it is with any gender related thread.

Barely anyone said any of these individually either. Two mentions of misandrist, aimed at specific posters, at least one of which is a man. One mention of cruelty aimed at women, but only women who trick men into raising a child of another man. One mention of selfish women, same story as cruel (with more comments calling men selfish for wanting to know and other reasons). More mentions of lying, but still in that context. Same with cheating. There is one comment about "it not being uncommon" for women to trap men though.

[Muzjhath]

This has nothing to do with women and everything to do with babies' health

Your argument is that. Most people in this thread arguing about it has everything about paternity, or in some cases about money. And in most western nations they do a check for dangerous conditions and such already. And as I put it in my first post, I didn't defend the women who do cheat or when it is a legitimate issue. But since that's not the norm (The article from the UK linked where it at ~2% of births), it's not something so big that it has to become an issue.
Now if we want to have the discussion "Should we do a genetic screening for potential complications during the life of a person", that's a -very- different discussion that should have a thread of it's own.

[Lutris]

You continue to demonstrate the mental capacity of a toddler and complete inability to comprehend how the real world works. Testing every child does not imply every woman is a whore. In order to attend the Olympics all athletes have to pass drug tests. Does that imply that every single athlete is a drug addict!?

Actually, they kind of were/are. Athletes, that is. Mandatory drug testing was introduced because the overwhelming majority of athletes were doping up with steroids and other performance enhancing drugs.

It was literally the solution to the problem of "pretty much all athletes are doping and we should stop that".

[Mehrunes]

A court in a democracy ought to see even the person charged and put on trail innocent until proven guilty. The fact that court houses at times have safety networks is because they get targeted and are thus needed.
Having paternity tests on every couple is assuming the women guilty until proven innocent. Which is where I say "Stop, that's issuing systematic mistrust".
The courthouse has metal detectors because it's not uncommon for people to try and use the opportunity for revenge, or silencing a target. Depending on what type of thing going on so it becomes quite a bit of a false equivalency. Same as airports have safety checks because they're juicy soft targets, and the Swedish Parliament has safety checks all over and depending on where in the building you need further checks to enter than just getting into the lobby, which you (at least last I was there) could just walk into no questions asked. But if you look like you're hiding something under a coat a guard will come talk with you, or if you forget a bag on a bench. @Faenskap had a great comparison on the issue of trust that I agree with. And if someone feels that every woman needs to have that kind of mistrust upon them. Don't pro-create, that's the only advice I can give.

Both are preventive measures. How is one a sign of mistrust to every person involved but the other one is not? This is mental dissonance. And 1 in 50 men being affected by it makes it not uncommon either and actually a higher number than the amount of crime victims being silenced. Even outside of courts, let alone inside them, because most crimes are rather small and not significant enough for criminals to go to such measures.

[Deleted]

i aint saying shes a gold digger...

[Kalis]

A cuckold would be one who not only finds out the kid isn't his, but who isn't man enough to straight up ask for a test.

A cuckold is a man whose wife has cheated on them, it has nothing to do with them discovering the infidelity or them not being man enough to ask for a test.

[Mehrunes]

My 'idea', as some sort of gender counter agrument, and it'd probably be popular in the Momfia, was that fathers should be put under surveillance to make sure they aren't cheating, and risking the family breaking apart, STDs (I'm just making up shit, but please roll with it). OP based the topic on a real life scenario, but how many women decieve like that, just as how many new fathers shag some piece of ass while the new mother goes insane from sleep deprivation and fucking collic at home?
The point is, it is a stupid idea, as it's labelling all fathers as potiential cheaters until proven otherwise, just as compulsory paternity tests are a way of telling women they can't be trusted until the tests confirm they can be. The latter gathers a lot of support here, even though I find both ideas to be stupid

While I see the logic behind it, there is an intrinsic difference here. Men cheating and that resulting in pregnancy won't make their partners believe the child is theirs because it's not their uterus the child is growing in. It's not about cheating per se, it's about (possibly lifelong) paternity fraud. Which is a tad more problematic than cheating itself. And which has no equivalence for women (well, with some bizarre exception of the man bribing an in-vitro doctor to change the eggs to that of his mistress). Just so happens it is a result of cheating.

[Muzjhath]

Both are preventive measures. How is one a sign of mistrust to every person involved but the other one is not? This is mental dissonance. And 1 in 50 men being affected by it makes it not uncommon either and actually a higher number than the amount of crime victims being silenced. Even outside of courts, let alone inside them, because most crimes are rather small and not significant enough for criminals to go to such measures.

One is a sign of mistrust to half of everyone involved. Who all happen to share one thing in common. The other is towards everyone in a "high risk", even if it's just an imagined risk. For your argument to work airports would be far better than courts imo, since it's far more neutral ground. Or to only security-screen people there connected to the side of the defendant in a case and no one there accusing. Then it'd be the equivalent of what you're suggesting.
Punishing 49 people because 1 person can't be trusted, isn't a solution. These kind of tests I can't see as anything else than a punishment because of a few bad apples.

Are there legitimate reasons to have comprehensive DNA screenings of fetuses? Yes, Xarim had one in checking for genetic disorders, even if to do that you need high powered computers and bots if on a scale for everyone and everything. But if you check for that you can just skip checking paternity since that'll become a non-issue health speaking (aside from medical history, but won't get that from the DNA check anyway).

[Total Crica]

standard procedure?

as in you have to pay for the test regardless if you want it or not?

no.

however, any man who is named a father by a mother and WANTS this test done should have the right to have it done

[G3 Ghost]

standard procedure?

as in you have to pay for the test regardless if you want it or not?

no.

however, any man who is named a father by a woman and WANTS this test done should have the right to have it done

I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that if they were to make the test mandatory, it would be at least partially covered by any decent insurance policy.

Which is essentially my entire argument for making it mandatory. While it is not the most expensive thing in the world, it is still an expense on top of having a new child.

[Total Crica]

I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that if they were to make the test mandatory, it would be at least partially covered by any decent insurance policy.

Which is essentially my entire argument for making it mandatory. While it is not the most expensive thing in the world, it is still an expense on top of having a new child.

still no, ask for it if you want it done, should be a right, not mandatory since anyone who doesn't care about this issue should not be charged for it

advertise that it can be done if you want awareness, don't charge ppl for it unless they want it done - its not a medical need, no one is going to die without the procedure

[Dadwen]

I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that if they were to make the test mandatory, it would be at least partially covered by any decent insurance policy.

Which is essentially my entire argument for making it mandatory. While it is not the most expensive thing in the world, it is still an expense on top of having a new child.

As I said before I think it should be mandatory (takes trust out of the picture and it's not the Doctors place to trust your wife it's his\her place to trust hard facts and science) and if by chance if the test does not match the "father" they can request it so they can get a complete medical records for the child's benefit (they don't have to force the findings on the husband but should make it available discreetly to him if he wants it).

[Faenskap]

Incidentally, i'm opposed to abortions, at least morally.
I think, since
But if you want to get rid of any and all legal obligations on the 'father' Sure.
But as long as it carries even a minutia of legal weight, then no, Paternity needs to be proven and not asserted.

You are in favour of the status quo, which benefits women.
That's to say, you baseline is biased, but you think you are on the average.

And they throw some 'fathers' in jail.
Or force some to pay for kids they can prove are not theirs.

Or banning driving because of deaths/grave injuries on the road, ban Facebook because some people have their children drowing while checking the feed (true story), banning WoW/online games people some people play till they die... Point is, some people are irresponsible but the responisble shouldn't be punished for the actions of the former, which would be the case with complusory paternity tests

If it turns out that Tim has a daughter ages 10 that isn't really his daughter, he shouldn't have to pay child support if he divorces/breaks up with the mother, nor be sent to jail if he refuses. If Bob isn't quite sure if he's the father to his 3 month old child, he should have the oppurtunity to have a paternity test done.

But paternity tests should never be compulsory, as it is sending a message to aspiring mothers saying "we don't trust you", and again, "if you've done nothing wrong, you needn't fear" doesn't help, at least not for me, because I don't cheat or lie, as I mentioned earlier, and I don't want to be regarded as a person who does.

What exactly do you mean with

'fathers'

, biological deadbeat fathers, or those thinking they are the father but aren't?

[Jotaux]

How does his definition not say the same thing as yours?

His definition says the man knows about the infidelity but the definition does not have that requirement. Its really just simple reading comprehension.

[Deleted]

A court in a democracy ought to see even the person charged and put on trail innocent until proven guilty. The fact that court houses at times have safety networks is because they get targeted and are thus needed.

It seems to me that since males are targeted by some females to raise a child that is not their that safety measures are needed there too...

Having paternity tests on every couple is assuming the women guilty until proven innocent. Which is where I say "Stop, that's issuing systematic mistrust".

And do you figure that? As i have mentioned above, some males are targeted by this, why cant they know the truth? The only females that would be at a disadvantage are the ones that are trying to pull one over their partners eyes, that should be illegal since this does give a heavy burden to the the male without potentially wanting it in the first place.

The courthouse has metal detectors because it's not uncommon for people to try and use the opportunity for revenge, or silencing a target. Depending on what type of thing going on so it becomes quite a bit of a false equivalency

Have to disagree, it is not uncommon for males to raise offspring that is not theirs without knowing it, this will only effect those people.

@Faenskap had a great comparison on the issue of trust that I agree with. And if someone feels that every woman needs to have that kind of mistrust upon them. Don't pro-create, that's the only advice I can give.

No it is not a great comparison by any means. The only reason to oppose this is that you feel that a woman should have the ability to pick the father that she wants. You do not want fathers to have the right to know. And as long as it is not mandatory it will break up perfectly good relations, i do not think that the mother will have allot of trust in her SO if he just asked for a genetic test. If it is mandatory she has not got any reason to get upset about it unless she is trying to cheat her way out off it.

[Ragedaug]

Short of the edge cases where no man matches the DNA. That leads you with the issue of a child going unsupported.

So if a mother can't remember who she was F'ing, she just gets to pick the father? That type of reasoning is just asinine.