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

[Mistame]

Except they are the same type of scenarios. The essence of both are cheating. The essence is ruined family. False paternity ruins it the same as a man cheating during "toddler time".

They're only the same type of scenario if you think that standardized paternity tests are inherently insulting to women. In which case, you're being irrational and infantile. So like I said, irrelevant.

Fatherhood is in many ways about more than blood (or you insult every man who's ever adopted a child and considers himself a father).

Fatherhood is first and foremost about genetics (blood). That doesn't mean men can't accept a child who's not theirs as their own. Nor does it make them less of a "father" for doing so. To imply that the claim that genetics come first is "insulting" to adoptive fathers is irrational.

The biggest thing posters who are for it hold is that "Paternity lawsuits!" And paying child-support for a child who isn't theirs. The obvious solution to that is not ensure that every father who thinks he's a father is that. It's to make law and set presidents that if paternity can't be confirmed (by blood or legal status if adopted) they owe nothing. And no one in this thread argues that what stated there isn't be how it should be.

Saying that "Some fathers aren't really the father of the child they think is theirs, and when they find out they don't want to support said child. Thus we have to make sure that it never happens. To do this we need to test and confirm it with every child that is born".

For the fifth time, society has a vested interest in having an accurate record of the biological parents of every single child. You can talk about changing laws until your blue in the face, but these laws always have and always will put the "father" at the bottom of the list of priorities.

I can't read that statement without reading "We can't trust women not to cheat and lie on their significant other" between the lies. It's straight-out impossible for me.

Not everyone can be objective and think rationally. That you and others come to that deduction is indicative of a processing failure on your end.

The entire issue at hand is about trust (yes, being accurate about genetics is important for some factors on health, but the majority of this thread has not been about that).

It's partially about trust. In the real world, no one is completely trust worthy. When it comes to anything that has legal ramifications, whether it's paternity or marriage, the validation of facts always trumps hurt "feels" over some misconceived notion about "trust". No one should ever get married without a prenup and no one should ever accept the word of someone else in regards to paternity.

The entire suggestion screams "WE AS MEN DO NOT TRUST WOMEN NOT TO CHEAT AND LIE ABOUT CHILDREN!" So saying that isn't the case just sounds shallow.

That's hyperbolic drivel. At worst it says, "Men have the right to know whether or not 'their' child is truly theirs." If someone takes it wrong, that's their fucking problem.

The obvious solution is what I stated. It shouldn't be possible to pay child support for a child you've got no legal obligation to. And unless you've officially adopted it or paternity can be proven you should never have a legal obligation to a child.

The problem is that the way the system is currently set up, you can accept paternity and the responsibility without actually knowing for certain that the child is yours. And if you don't find out about until later, you're stuck paying it because your life is irrelevant when pit against the life of some bastard child.

Also, if you after 10 years find out that it's not yours and leave. You're an asshole..

The worst thing one can do in a relationship is lie. If someone has lied to you for 10 years, especially about something as important as the paternity of the child you believe to be yours, the very least you should do such a treacherous cunt is leave. And if the child isn't yours, it's no longer your problem. That may make you an "asshole", but the opinions of those who think that are irrelevant.

[Phlegethon]

OMG just checked some US pages and thats correct, what a messed up system that is

Yeah you know. Male privilege and all that. You have the right to go fuck yourself and all that

[Bad Management]

This thread makes me loose all faith in humanity.
How the fuck can you deny the man factual proof that "his" child is actually his?
I've tried to view this case in every way possible, and I see not a single reason as to why this is a problem.
Other than ofc you're all cheating cunts, and don't give a shit about who raises your kid with you, as long as he has money.

There is literally not a single VALID argument against this, not one.

Makes me even more happy I got a vasectomy, which every man should do these days, considering how lawless we are in cases such as this.
Sperm can be frozen, so there's not a single downside to this, except for a lot of frustrated women ofc.

[Mehrunes]

Good job on completely ignoring the possible solution I exposed, which makes it perfectly clear what I think about men's right (unless you are biased against women, like you are and that's why you don't see it) and how I would practically approach the issue.

The part in parentheses is not only an inane projection, but makes little sense. The idea that I ignored something of your post or don't get your stance because of bias against women is nothing more than a monumentally idiotic assumption about me doing so because you're a woman. I mean, I even specifically mentioned a guy I was arguing against in one of my replies to you, did I argue with him because of bias against women too in your deluded mind? And you made it clear what you think about the topic two or three posts ago, I'm aware of your stance.

Don't tell me you don't care about it because you just want to discuss the ideological BS you have in your mind, because that's not how conversations go: you either discuss with someone else and take their points into account or you're doing a monologue (which is what you are doing, trying to impose your views on mine when it is so clear I don't mean any of what you are accusing me of meaning).

I won't tell you that because the entire premise is what's BS here. Abject BS, even. And how conversations go is that I'm free to address the part I want and not the ones I find irrelevant. Like your stances on fetal testing weren't relevant to what I found objectionable. And I'm not imposing anything. Especially in the last post, as such I'll have to ask you to point those supposed imposing parts in that one specifically instead of snipping things and masking inane claims by making it unclear what specifically you're referring to. But since you insist so nicely, I can address your solution (that I haven't outright disagreed with either given how I didn't mention it). In later paragraph you talk about it though.

And no, I'm not an hypocrite: I don't think women should have everything for free.

My question wasn't about "everything" and "everything" is irrelevant to whether you're a hypocrite or not.

The bracelet story is a false equivalence though because you're not only robbing the mother of the right to know her biological child (which would equate to robbing the father). You are also robbing the children of the right to know their biological parents AND you are doing that on a systemic level since the bracelet tagging is done for every child (whilst paternity fraud is a relatively low occurrence, meaning you're comparing apples and bananas). Chances are that the number of parents going home with a child that's not their own would be so much higher than the % of fathers raising someone else's kid. So good job in making a wrong even bigger. That's incredibly out of touch with reality.

I'll take reductio ad absurdum for $400. And newsflash, the child not knowing its biological parents is a result of the topic of this thread too, all the way since OP. In regards to the second part in parentheses (another example of pure brilliance), the difference in numbers makes it a comparison between apples and larger apples, given how other than that the other aspects are the same. And because of that, and the subject of cost which you did not address, not a false equivalency.

However, being a false equivalence does not mean that we should ignore paternity fraud, just don't come up with bullshit arguments.

Indeed, we just don't detect it, basically leave things as they are (as per your solution, more on that later) and let it continue to happen.

All of that because you think that *I* think that men should not have the right to test for paternity nor have a system put in place for them to assure that they can get it done without legal obstacles.

Inane projection strikes again. You made it clear about the right to test very early. And I haven't denied it. As for the legal obstacles part, about which you apparently have some chip on your shoulder, you do realize I talked about them only either in direct reply to your first post or when talking about said first post of yours and how it, being a general statement (particularly, before you narrowed down your stance to Switzerland), did include that thanks to how you phrased it (with nothing whatsoever in regards to your later stances)? No, of course you don't.

That's not my stance, nor it is that men don't matter.

I could swear that I mentioned time and time again that the thing I find objectionable in what you said is your priority list in regards to the subject. Which doesn't imply whatsoever that men don't matter according to you. It's that some of them matter, in regards to the subject, less than the price tag of the systematic screening. Now ponder on the difference between "less" and "not".

My stance is pragmatic and simply based on what I can observe in reality, which, so far, holds the same value as your stance based on some numbers you pulled out of the internet (but seriously, U.S public healthcare doesn't even cover things we consider basic healthcare here in Europe, let me know when it will start covering systemic paternity testing because it's cost efficient, rotfl). Not to mention the ethical problems you are dodging because they don't suit your narrative.

It's like you decided to expand the frontier of abject bullshit every time you write something in parentheses. Go ahead, quote me saying US will start covering systemic paternity tests in this thread. Hint: I said there are many societal reasons why it won't be the case, so have fun chasing things that don't exist. And paternity fraud numbers seem to be similar in various countries. US healthcare being crap does no favors to your argument, since as I said, the cost of paternity tests there is higher than in other places I checked, so unless the cost of raising a child is vastly lower in said other places, if anything the ratio of cost to money being defrauded is even better in favor of systemic tests there. A dismissal based on a shitty attempt at being snarky achieves jack shit in regards to the numbers. Considering how your main problem with this is the numbers, one would think you'd do better than that. But then again you haven't actually provided any whatsoever, so it's not particularly surprising. And what ethical problems? The only ones you've raised were in regards to fetal testing which was another topic.

Honestly, if you need to picture every single women as your enemy, go ahead and keep thinking like that.

Inane Projection III: Revenge of the Inanity.

It is abundantly clear to anyone who cares to listen that I don't think men should have no rights or that their rights don't matter, I just think we have limited resources and there are health-related problems that should come first.

It's perfectly clear to me too, given how I haven't mentioned once that you think men should have no rights and how I precisely disagreed with your priorities on how they matter, not that they don't.

I offered a solution (which probably is not perfect) that has the merit of covering all the basic issues in this thread - the right to know, the right to decide not to find out and the expense.

Not perfect indeed. Considering how other than the realm of illiteracy that you dwell in, I did not mention the subject of women having the power to prevent it in context other than discussing your first post, let's use your country as an example. Paternity tests are legal and as such men have the right to know. They also have the right to decide. Which leaves the expense. That it sure addresses. Given how you want men to pay if they turn out to be the father, why even involve the system? It's minimal deviation from current status quo. Literally the only thing it change is that men who turn out to not be the father won't.

And I can't say I've seen many arguments about the cost of test itself for the fathers. There have been some, but only a few that I recall. Now, how many men are there that don't take a paternity test only because they can't afford that? Given how to consider it they already either have suspicion in regards to paternity, or want to base this commitment on actual knowledge and not assumption that's the basis for paternity otherwise. So even if they are in difficult financial situation, they are considering said commitment and its implications, which involve a cost thousandfold higher. Which makes it rather unlikely they wouldn't borrow the money for the test in such circumstances (and yet another reason for why this system is pointless).

And cost of the test aside either way, what this solution does not address is that some men may choose not to take it wrongly and fall victim to paternity fraud, the pressure of their partners (non-legal, before you whine again) and paternity fraud in general. Yes, you're probably right.

A solution that gives no power whatsoever to women to prevent men getting their paternity test done (so I'm not sure why you insist on that point, must be your complex with women).

Inane Projection IV: A New Projection. And not only is your whining about said power tangent based on your illiteracy, it wasn't even mentioned whatsoever in the post you replied here, which makes you full of shit.

More importantly, a solution that could actually be implemented in reality. You keep arguing from your high ideological castle (rotfl), assuming shit and pretending to explain people you don't even know what they really think. Seriously, get your head out of your ass.

Funnily enough, an assumption and talking about what I supposedly think. Despite me saying already in regards to the first post of yours that I worked with what you've written and not what you think (which goes either way and includes not assuming what you think). I then only defended my interpretation of said first post as logically valid given its general nature and the wording contained therein. You clarified your stance later, and if you bothered learning how to read, you'd have noticed I haven't argued against said clarification (in context of what you meant there that is). So take your own advice.

Now please, make the both of us a favor and don't answer because it has become pointless. You just really want to be right.

Kinda hilarious given the amount of projections, dishonesty and other similar bullshit contained in your post.

[Mizix]

Gosh you're triggered You still have to give me one single argument that actually starts from the premise of you understanding my points instead of projecting your views on me. It's a lost cause and, as such, I'll move on. Have a nice day.

[medievalman1]

This thread makes me loose all faith in humanity.
How the fuck can you deny the man factual proof that "his" child is actually his?
I've tried to view this case in every way possible, and I see not a single reason as to why this is a problem.
Other than ofc you're all cheating cunts, and don't give a shit about who raises your kid with you, as long as he has money.

There is literally not a single VALID argument against this, not one.

Makes me even more happy I got a vasectomy, which every man should do these days, considering how lawless we are in cases such as this.
Sperm can be frozen, so there's not a single downside to this, except for a lot of frustrated women ofc.

My issue with the OP isn't with the possibility of a paternity test happening, or with it being available. My issue is with the test become standard protocol/mandatory/required/etc.

[Deleted]

It's fault of the bio parent who was never there, not fair to shift responsibility to others n make them raise others Bastards.

That person might not know about the kid though, in which case it isn't their fault. I'd say the responsiblity in such a case lies on the mother first and foremost, and an informed father to the same degree.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, erm no.

Im sorry if anyones been through the above sceanrio, but don't punish every woman in the country because of a minority.

Going through childbirth is stressful enough - more so on some women more than others - the last thing they need on their mind is thinking theres a doctor waiting there to draw blood from the baby because the system / father doesn't trust them.

You actually DNA test by swabbing the inside of their mouth and taking some spit. That's not a horrible intrusive procedure that mothers need to worry about. So unless the mother knows she has been fooling around, she has nothing to worry about.

- - - Updated - - -

People go through divorce all the time. I was a child when my parents did. So were 3 of my siblings. It's very different from getting dumped right at birth, never even having two parents.

The question is about mens rights. It's completely useless to add some irrelevant "most importantly" points into it, that still have nothing to do with the question, and weren't even a consideration in the said question.

Here's how it should have gone: "Should men be allowed to know if they are the parent of a born child? Yes/no?" Valid question, with no added bs in it.

I feel you phrased it correctly at the end there. My answer to that question would be yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Because I'm against the whole ownership model for relationships and marriage. The whole bit about "mah stuff" gets worn out.

Since you don't care about "your stuff" would you be so kind as to send a few thousand dollars my way?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm astounded by the amount of people who voted yes.

Don't get me wrong, I understand a part of it. Has your wife been faithful? Are you building a family on solid basis, etc.

But quite frankly, to me it just seems to add an additional layer of pressure on everyone. The moment of birth no longer becomes a beautiful moment but a moment of stress and anxiety. What if it's not your child? You're going to leave him there because your wife has been unfaithful? You're going to have a tantrum in the hospital?

Personally, I think this right belongs to the child when he hit adulthood and the parents if they agree. Nobody else.

Would it suck to find out my SO had cheated and created a child with someone else while in our relationship? Sure. But I would rather know and make forthcoming decisions in my life based on knowledge, rather than being duped and potentially finding out much later down the road when I've greatly invested into someone (the cheating mother) that didn't deserve it.

[shadowmouse]

Since you don't care about "your stuff" would you be so kind as to send a few thousand dollars my way?

Since the qualifier was "for relationships and marriage" I had to ask: "bungee, are you in a relationship with anyone who speaks English?" Nope! Thank you for playing but you are not a winner. I did, however, recently give 10K to one of the quasi-adoptive daughters and another 10k to my fiancee. So, it would seem that I do give stuff away to people who are close to me. You aren't, and that is unlikely to change.

[Mehrunes]

Gosh you're triggered You still have to give me one single argument that actually starts from the premise of you understanding my points instead of projecting your views on me. It's a lost cause and, as such, I'll move on. Have a nice day.

Which part of me acknowledging that you're not against men having the right to know is me not understanding your points? You're in favor of that, including no other legal obstacles for it (like women having the option to prohibit it and whatnot). You're also not against men, I haven't said you were. The issue was your priority and putting the cost of the systematic checking above what it prevents. I also addressed your solution, that by your own admission wasn't perfect, and pointed out the flaws I see in it. Given how you haven't actually established me not understanding your points with anything other than illiteracy or just stating it to be the case, you're at best throwing rocks in glass houses. This post is just you still being full of shit. So yes, I think I'll have a nice day indeed.

[Deleted]

Since the qualifier was "for relationships and marriage" I had to ask: "bungee, are you in a relationship with anyone who speaks English?" Nope! Thank you for playing but you are not a winner. I did, however, recently give 10K to one of the quasi-adoptive daughters and another 10k to my fiancee. So, it would seem that I do give stuff away to people who are close to me. You aren't, and that is unlikely to change.

But you're against the ownership part for relationships, so we wouldn't have to be close. Now send me your stuff.

[shadowmouse]

But you're against the ownership part for relationships, so we wouldn't have to be close. Now send me your stuff.

Nyah, I'm old, and I'm just not gender fluid enough. We ain't in a relationship and I don't see that happening.

[Deleted]

Absolutely not. This will lead to way more problems than it will solve. I agree that men have the right to know they are the father, but that is something the women should have the decency to handle. It is not something that should be forced.

It should certainly not be in the hands of women. Because they are the ones who have most to gain out of injustice being perpetrated in this case. This is like arguing that sentencing for sex crimes should be in the hands of rapists.

The option to have paternity confirmed via DNA-test should be available to all men as part of reproductive rights. It would also be good if it were standard procedure because hospitals having proper family history for new patients is a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not dictating who's responsible. I'm saying you can't punish an innocent for the actions of her mother. The child does need support, and I understand that a "tricked" man shouldn't bear that burden, but the only real options left are some sort of impossible manhunt for the real father, or taxpayers paying that portion of the child support.

Would you say that it's more or less fair for us taxpayers to share that burden, than to thrust it upon one person who is in fact normally not in any way responsible for a child he is in no way related to?

- - - Updated - - -

If you (plural) want compulsory parernity tests, then I say we put all new fathers under surveilliance as the new life with a demanding blob of flesh will make the sexlife will take quite a hit and they may be tempted to get sum elsewhere. See, now you'll all think this is the most misandrist, sexist and stupid idea ever, whereas paternity tests on 100 % of all births aren't, because you're so blinded by your agenda, selfpity and that every woman is a cunt out there to get you

See the difference is that, even if he did "get sum" elsewhere, there is no way of that scenario ending in the woman being legally forced to care for and pay for another person for the next 18 years unless she explicitly wants to. A paternity test is not a cheating test, you can cheat and still "pass" the paternity test. A paternity test is about determining the father and thus ultimately which man should be financially and emotionally responsible for the newly conceived human being.

[shadowmouse]

The option to have paternity confirmed via DNA-test should be available to all men as part of reproductive rights

Sigh.

It is. You need to talk to your SO in advance, so both parties know what the expectations are. You may need to have qualified legal counsel draft a pre-nup or equivalent to address local legal requirements. None of that requires state mandated testing, much as the fact that some men cheat does not justify you being forced to undergo regular, state-mandated STD testing. Still, some men do cheat, so I assume that you are down with your spouse asking that you use one of these (may be NSFW in some regions). Right? Sauce, this is goose, that is gander.

As a side issue, since all women are cheating <censored, etc.> you have, of course, had your own paternity tested, right? After all, everyone here saying women are cheating <censored> have just said that about their mothers -- you bastards. Of course, you are also able to verify that your father really did have to work late that night, and never dipped his wick with that secretary. /facepalm

Short answer? If you want a paternity test, it is well within your rights to request one. If local law does not support that, work it out in advance with your SO -- "Baby, I love you and want to be with you, but you women can't keep your legs together so I want a paternity test if you get knocked up." If you can't sell that, the LGBTQ community doesn't seem to have the same problem.

Cheers!

[Deleted]

Sigh.

It is. You need to talk to your SO in advance, so both parties know what the expectations are. You may need to have qualified legal counsel draft a pre-nup or equivalent to address local legal requirements. None of that requires state mandated testing, much as the fact that some men cheat does not justify you being forced to undergo regular, state-mandated STD testing. Still, some men do cheat, so I assume that you are down with your spouse asking that you use one of these (may be NSFW in some regions). Right? Sauce, this is goose, that is gander.

As a side issue, since all women are cheating <censored, etc.> you have, of course, had your own paternity tested, right? After all, everyone here saying women are cheating <censored> have just said that about their mothers -- you bastards. Of course, you are also able to verify that your father really did have to work late that night, and never dipped his wick with that secretary. /facepalm

Short answer? If you want a paternity test, it is well within your rights to request one. If local law does not support that, work it out in advance with your SO -- "Baby, I love you and want to be with you, but you women can't keep your legs together so I want a paternity test if you get knocked up." If you can't sell that, the LGBTQ community doesn't seem to have the same problem.

Cheers!

Because of recent scientific advances that weren't widely available when I was born or even a child I don't think (can't say I know for sure) whether my paternity was tested. That isn't necessarily my concern though, I have a good relationship with my father and believe him to be my biological father, even if it wouldn't matter to me in the end. I still wouldn't want to raise another man's child. You can't seem to grasp that this isn't about infidelity, it's about being informed to make a decision about whether or not to raise another person's children in their stead.

If the government had just showed up on your doorstep one day and said "hi, your wife decided to adopt this child and signed the papers so now you are legally the father and must provide for this child, regardless of whether or not you wanted to adopt or were at all part of this decision", would you feel that is a fair situation?

[shadowmouse]

You can't seem to grasp that this isn't about infidelity, it's about being informed to make a decision about whether or not to raise another person's children in their stead.

No, you can't seem to grasp that this is a question of law. Does the state have any business *mandating* a paternity test? If you want information, get it, but own up to what you are asking. That's on you, not the state. If you think you have a question about paternity, take the steps to get it tested. That's kind of like whether you and your SO want to have sex with one of you dressed as a smurf -- completely up to the two of you and none of my concern. The government doesn't need to say you can, it doesn't need to say you can't, that's between the two of you -- same for paternity testing.

Wearing a chastity device isn't about whether you really are cheating, it merely eliminates the question. A woman should have a right to know that if you think she can't keep her legs together, you aren't taking advantage of the fact you won't get knocked up to cheat on her. Right? I mean, you might be the guy out there knocking up some other woman, and your child support would take away from the family's assets! Who knows what STDs you might be exposing her to, you might even endanger her offspring -- what if you get Zika? If you aren't boffing random women, what's the problem?

Or we could go back to treating both partners like consenting adults engaged in a relationship that both agreed to? I prefer this option.

[Deleted]

No, you can't seem to grasp that this is a question of law. Does the state have any business *mandating* a paternity test?

Yes, i do not see any problems with this what so ever.

That's kind of like whether you and your SO want to have sex with one of you dressed as a smurf -- completely up to the two of you and none of my concern.

It is not even remotely the same, dressing up a smurf doesn't in any way make you financial responsible for 18 years.

The government doesn't need to say you can, it doesn't need to say you can't, that's between the two of you -- same for paternity testing.

You have given no reason as to why this should not be up to the state. The state has to protect it citizens, that this protection is needed is as clear as day when one in twenty-five are not raised by their biological parents.

Or we could go back to treating both partners like consenting adults engaged in a relationship that both agreed to? I prefer this option.

It has been shown that this is not an option at all, as 1 in 25 times it goes wrong. I would prefer an option where it is an impossibility for a woman to lie about it.

[shadowmouse]

You have given no reason as to why this should not be up to the state.

Let me say it clearly then.

1) I don't think the state has any business in our bedrooms.

2) I don't think that the state should be involved in genetic testing at all, particularly when that data will inevitably be made part of a government database that will a) follow us forever and b) be as vulnerable as any other government database in terms of hacking.

3) To apply across the US, this would need to be a Federal law. I do not see a compelling state interest that would justify a Federal law for something that is foremost a matter for the states individually.

I would prefer an option where it is an impossibility for a woman to lie about it.

Handle that on your own. Reduced to the absurd, you also don't need to own a gun, those can be used for crimes or suicide. You don't need to own a vehicle, it would eliminate DUI and other problems, we have Uber now. Also, lead by example, stick your dick in the sleeve and give your wife the key, she doesn't want you to lie either.

[Deleted]

Let me say it clearly then.

1) I don't think the state has any business in our bedrooms.

2) I don't think that the state should be involved in genetic testing at all, particularly when that data will inevitably be made part of a government database that will a) follow us forever and b) be as vulnerable as any other government database in terms of hacking.

3) To apply across the US, this would need to be a Federal law. I do not see a compelling state interest that would justify a Federal law for something that is foremost a matter for the states individually.

1 Determining paternity is not in any way "the state messing with our bedroom"

2 The are already genetic testing testing on multiple things, determining paternity along with them is not in any way the same as "big brother" following you.

3 Protecting unsuspecting fathers is more then enough reason to make this into a federal law. I see no reason what so ever why this should not be done.

Handle that on your own.

Right, you should be more suspicious of your spouse, that clearly is the answer.....

Reduced to the absurd, you also don't need to own a gun, those can be used for crimes or suicide. You don't need to own a vehicle, it would eliminate DUI and other problems, we have Uber now. Also, lead by example, stick your dick in the sleeve and give your wife the key, she doesn't want you to lie either.

Some incoherent rambling??

[Mistame]

Does the state have any business *mandating* a paternity test?

The "state" (ie, society), has a vested interest in having an accurate record of the biological parents of every child.

Wearing a chastity device isn't about whether you really are cheating, it merely eliminates the question.

A chastity device is about prevention. Paternity tests are about confirmation. Again, anyone who takes "women can't be trusted" from such a measure is clearly incapable of rational thought.

I don't think the state has any business in our bedrooms.

Birth typically happens in a state-funded hospital. Your point is irrelevant.

I don't think that the state should be involved in genetic testing at all, particularly when that data will inevitably be made part of a government database that will a) follow us forever and b) be as vulnerable as any other government database in terms of hacking.

Seriously? Conspiracy theory-esque notions from biological parent records?

To apply across the US, this would need to be a Federal law. I do not see a compelling state interest that would justify a Federal law for something that is foremost a matter for the states individually.

So you're implying that child support laws should not be applicable across state lines, then? Because any case where laws mandate that a "parent" provide financial support to a child, it should be mandated that said parent is factually identified as a biological parent. No other person holds that responsibility.

[shadowmouse]

The "state" (ie, society), has a vested interest in having an accurate record of the biological parents of every child.

We got along fine before. Other than your personal opinion, you haven't made a case for this being a compelling enough reason to justify a law.

A chastity device is about prevention. Paternity tests are about confirmation.

Biology is handy for you that way, isn't it? Conveniently, men don't get pregnant.

Birth typically happens in a state-funded hospital. Your point is irrelevant.

In some places it may, it some places hospitals are private, in some places private hospitals may receive some funds from government and some from other sources. So, no, not "typically".

Seriously? Conspiracy theory-esque notions from biological parent records?

No, it is a fairly well known issue on data collection and has been discussed as an issue in DNA testing. For data collection one example is the Social Security number -- how its use expanded and how it has become part of identity theft. There have been similar questions about government programs to collect children's fingerprints.

So you're implying that child support laws should not be applicable across state lines, then?

Again, no. I made a specific point about how law in the US works. There are specific limits about how laws can be made, and while the Commerce Clause has been used to give the Federal government wide ranging power, there are limits to it.

You are within your rights to request a paternity test. You are within your rights to as your SO to agree to testing in advance. You are within your rights to seek to change laws that unreasonably restrict either of those acts. None of those things require a law forcing paternity testing.

Determining paternity is not in any way "the state messing with our bedroom"

As you see it.

determining paternity along with them is not in any way the same as "big brother" following you.

As you see it.

Protecting unsuspecting fathers is more then enough reason to make this into a federal law.

That isn't the way the Constitution is written. There are rather specific requirements for something to be a Federal law, generally the police power is held by the states.

Right, you should be more suspicious of your spouse, that clearly is the answer.....

I think that once you feel like you need paternity testing, you've already gone well down that road. What's left is whether the government should help you duck responsibility for that. They shouldn't, if for no other reason than government regulation tends to get bogged down in politics and inefficiency. I gather that a similar complaint exists about EU regulation of various things. Many of the injustices involving child support are examples of how government regulation gets things wrong.