Should DNA testing be required when a child is born?

[crossfire]

No. But I’m sorry more often than not these things happen. It goes both ways. There are women who are unfit to parent and can easily do away with responsibility for taking care of children. I think DNA testing is a sure way to make men and women responsible. As far as signing a document I mean for the purpose of those who are willing to bare the responsibility of taking care of a child even though genetically they are not related.

If there is question of genetic relationship hence the necessary mandate of DNA testing.

What about gay couples?

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least you are open to an opt out!




You mean make a dead-beat dad the expected norm, and have to sign a document declaring that you are "out of the norm?"




Well, because the state gets involved in child support enforcement, and for tax purposes. If has has that kind of bond with the child, and still wants to be a dad/father figure, why make it more difficult for him to do so? What if he wants to be an emergency contact for the children? What if he is needed to make an emergency decision on behalf of the child in case of a medical emergency? Are people such as this actually that rare? Say it isn't so!

Earlier in this thread I gave some real life examples of men that were accused of being fathers and since they were not there to defend themselves they were assumed to be guilty. The states charged them with child support even though they were not fathers nor involved in any way in raising those kids. Was that right? Would it be right for a woman that you barely knew to accuse you, often in a different state, of being the father of one of her kids and find out years later that you had a rather massive bill for that? This does happen. If the accused father and child were tested at birth it would protect both the man involved (he would be let off the hook if he was not the father, and the mother (if she was telling the truth it would be much harder to shirk one's duty as a father). No one has argued that years after the fact with a man acting as a father that he could suddenly change his mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about gay couples?

Last I checked it was pretty hard for a gay man to knock up his partner, the same applies to lesbians.

Did someone forget to take a sex ed class?

 

[crossfire]

Last I checked it was pretty hard for a gay man to knock up his partner, the same applies to lesbians.

Did someone forget to take a sex ed class?

So how does this lack of DNA connection work with homosexuals with children who break up?

 

[crossfire]

Earlier in this thread I gave some real life examples of men that were accused of being fathers and since they were not there to defend themselves they were assumed to be guilty. The states charged them with child support even though they were not fathers nor involved in any way in raising those kids. Was that right? Would it be right for a woman that you barely knew to accuse you, often in a different state, of being the father of one of her kids and find out years later that you had a rather massive bill for that? This does happen. If the accused father and child were tested at birth it would protect both the man involved (he would be let off the hook if he was not the father, and the mother (if she was telling the truth it would be much harder to shirk one's duty as a father). No one has argued that years after the fact with a man acting as a father that he could suddenly change his mind.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be freely available. I'm just saying they shouldn't be mandatory. (I'm sure health care providers would love to get ahold of the records to see whom they want to deny coverage to!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how does this lack of DNA connection work with homosexuals?

I have yet to see a homosexual couple where one accused the other of impregnating him or her. Find me an example and we can discuss it.

And I see that I was right. Someone did skip out that day of sex ed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be freely available. I'm just saying they shouldn't be mandatory. (I'm sure health care providers would love to get ahold of the records to see whom they want to deny coverage to!)

I would say that if the people are not married then it should be. Men can be fooled by women at times.

"Oh honey, you know that you are the father".

If non-married people knew that they would automatically face such tests then women would be much less likely to make false claims. In married couples there is often already an assumed duty (though that is tied to the rather dated idea of women as property). In other words, you broke it you bought it attitude of the wife somehow being the husband's property and he is culpable for her acts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know what? I have changed my mind. A child also has a right to know who his genetic father is. There are many health questions that depend on knowing one's families medical history. Also since women are not property and a married man should not have to suffer because of his wife's actions they should be able to go after the real father for support if the wife cheated on him. When strong emotions are involved both members sometimes need protection. The husband, if he was the father, could not deny his kids, even if they did not look like him. If there was someone out there messing around he might find that there was a price to pay for his activities. Why would anyone oppose this?

 

[crossfire]

I have yet to see a homosexual couple where one accused the other of impregnating him or her. Find me an example and we can discuss it.

And I see that I was right. Someone did skip out that day of sex ed.

Indeed homosexuals who want to procreate need to do intentional things in order to produce a child.

A heterosexual man could certainly state his intentions up front on not wanting to procreate as well as cutting down his chances of causing an unwanted pregnancy by wearing a condom with spermicide. (Just sayin'. Or did you miss that sex ed class?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed homosexuals who want to procreate need to do intentional things in order to produce a child.

A heterosexual man could certainly state his intentions up front on not wanting to procreate as well as cutting down his chances of causing an unwanted pregnancy by wearing a condom with spermicide. (Just sayin'. Or did you miss that sex ed class?)

Now, now, let's not try to be clever when it is clearly too late.

Condoms do not always work. They do have a failure rate that is rather frightening. Now if used properly that rate drops quite a bit, but the problem with sexual relations is that they are often not well planned out, even if one does use a rubber. For example if the "rubber broke" it is almost always due to misapplication. Not due to a failure of the product or of the guy being "too big". This demonstrates how the "too big" claim is simple ego stroking at best:

Now they did use XL condoms in this video, but I have seen the same done with any off the shelf brand, and jump ahead to 2:35 if you want to just see how it is done:

 

[crossfire]

You know what? I have changed my mind. A child also has a right to know who his genetic father is. There are many health questions that depend on knowing one's families medical history. Also since women are not property and a married man should not have to suffer because of his wife's actions they should be able to go after the real father for support if the wife cheated on him. When strong emotions are involved both members sometimes need protection. The husband, if he was the father, could not deny his kids, even if they did not look like him. If there was someone out there messing around he might find that there was a price to pay for his activities. Why would anyone oppose this?

Well, because humans being humans, it's gonna happen. How will open knowledge of the actual (non matching DNA) affect these children and their treatment by their peers and other adults?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, because humans being humans, it's gonna happen. How will open knowledge of the actual (non matching DNA) affect these children and their treatment by their peers and other adults?

Hard to say. Since it is so common these days it really is not that big of a deal. It appears that you are supporting injustice. Don't the men that are accused of being fathers that are not the father have rights?

 

[crossfire]

Hard to say. Since it is so common these days it really is not that big of a deal. It appears that you are supporting injustice. Don't the men that are accused of being fathers that are not the father have rights?

I'm not saying that DNA testing shouldn't be freely available and employed if needed, especially in such cases. I'm just saying DNA testing shouldn't be mandatory.

Yeah, birth control fails and accidents happen. However, isn't the idea of stating your intention up front in the video in the OP by using condoms actually the prudent way to go? Wouldn't that cut down a lot on all of these false accusations?

 

[crossfire]

I admit, I do have an emotional component involved. I miss my Grandpa. He was the bestest ever, even though only one of my grandma's three children was his. I was hoping such men weren't such a rarity, because the world would be better off with more men like him.

<edit to add after a big cry>
Sorry for my irrational rants. I've found the source.

 

[crossfire]

Again, I apologize. I miss my grandfather. He's been gone for close to twenty years now. This thread has caused me to mourn his death anew. I'll go back and clean up my irrational rants now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not saying that DNA testing shouldn't be freely available and employed if needed, especially in such cases. I'm just saying DNA testing shouldn't be mandatory.

Yeah, birth control fails and accidents happen. However, isn't the idea of stating your intention up front in the video in the OP by using condoms actually the prudent way to go? Wouldn't that cut down a lot on all of these false accusations?

Yes, one should try to be safe. That is still no excuse for false claims of someone that one was with. That is why testing should be mandatory if there is any doubt at all. A child has a right to his genetic heritage. The man that is the father should be held to account. A man that is not the father should not be held to account. If a man, such as your grandfather, still wishes to be the father that is his choice and more power to him. But that is not an excuse to punish those that do not feel the same way.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

What about gay couples?

The same gay couples are no different and I've seen it.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Again, I apologize. I miss my grandfather. He's been gone for close to twenty years now. This thread has caused me to mourn his death anew. I'll go back and clean up my irrational rants now.

May he be in the highest and nearest to the Creator...