Should Paternity Tests Be Mandatory?

Probably because you can only be a victim of false paternity by not employing the readily available methods to confirm paternity.

I’m not saying they’re not a victim however. If someone sells me a car with a busted transmission I’m no less a victim just because I could and should have has the quality confirmed

Brother, if you go 18 years (or more) of paying for children that weren’t yours, giving away your time and youth–which can never be replaced–possibly giving up opportunities you would have taken to have your own children (and provide for them), because you were led to/allowed to believe they were yours…You are a victim. And of a pretty disgusting act.

Which is why I said

That being said, if forced to create a “victim” score, I’d inherently place false paternity much lower than other victim based crimes. The exception I’d give is in cases where the mother KNOWS the child isn’t the guys but lets him think it anyways. I’d just call that fraud

1 Like

Right, but I replied to your reply to my reply to him. Where he used single quotation marks as if to question the use of victim. I appreciate that agree, though.

Knowingly lies? If she’s had sex with someone else, and then has a child within a time frame that could fit that point of conception…She at least KNOWS the possibility. That is a serious friggen omission when the other will be investing emotion, time, money, and possibly their own chance at having biological children. Without consent.

Assuming in those 18 years you are still married, I don’t think I would be as mad as you led on above. The knowledge that they aren’t mine, biologically, would not change the 18 years of paternal relationship I’ve had. I can’t just suddenly stop loving the damn kid.

If I had been divorced and paying child support, you’re damn right I’m infuriated!

EDIT: Individuals love their step children all the time. Most, in my experience, who raise the kids actually call them their kids. The only difference is when you find out.

1 Like

Because you choose to continue to act as a father, doesn’t dismiss that you were SERIOUSLY wronged.

Society has essentially no sympathy for cuckolds. You’re a sucker if it happens to you because you didn’t check. But if you do check, you’re a suspicious loser who probably has no confidence. In the course of a few dozen posts, both of these opinions have been expressed nonchalantly and without real alternatives or acknowledgment of the intractability of the situation.

It’s an embodiment of the misguided belief that if a woman feels like sleeping with someone or not being faithful to someone, that’s an objective assessment of the worth of the other people involved and as such they should bear responsibility. In other words, this state of affairs only makes sense if you believe that a man who gets cheated on always objectively deserved it.

Ultimately, the bigger problem with our legal structure is that if a man accepts that he is the father of a child and acts as such for any period of time, he is legally the father indefinitely. Not only can he not be compensated for time, resources, and opportunities lost, he is generally obligated to continue supporting the child until adulthood.

The first change that needs to be made is that paternal obligations become null and void if it becomes clear that the supposed father is not biologically the father. The obligations can be reinstated if it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the father knew at the time that he accepted the obligation that the child wasn’t genetically his.

Second, if a man bears costs from paternity obligations that he entered into under false pretenses, the biological mother and father can be prosecuted civilly and criminally for fraud.

I would add that the objections to mandatory paternity tests that have been raised in this thread are rather superfluous. The cost is not really very high as compared to the cost of childbirth. An over the counter paternity test can be as cheap as $30 (so says google). That’s what a hospital tends to charge for a dose of ibuprofen postpartum. The cost would fall out in the wash.

As far as trust issues, mandatory means that trust doesn’t come up. Simply from a societal cohesiveness standpoint, it would be worth it. No more paternity suits down the road because everybody knows the truth going in.

In what situation does the mother not know that the child isn’t the guy’s?

In the corner case where she was drugged and gently raped and has no recollection of the encounter, I’ll grant there might be an exception. What other situations are you talking about?

Of course you did, otherwise why even make that particular comparison?

(You’re doing it again.)

As an aside, it is not clear to me that there is a “victim” in a case of false paternity. Certainly being unaware that a child is not biologically yours is not a crime in and of itself. Do any states have a law obligating a mother to disclose to her husband that a child might not be biologically his?

The absence of laws against it suggests otherwise.

But you take my point, yes? The unavoidable implications are that your wife is 1) a ‘trifling’ woman, shall we say; and 2) scheming and duplicitous.

No, I actually didn’t. Otherwise, you would have quoted the equating. There are however comparisons that I was making. Victim blaming.

“The absence of laws against it suggests otherwise.”

The laws not reflecting the wrongness of slavery for some time, didn’t make it right. At least not to people such as myself. If something is wrong, we don’t wait for the laws to spontaneously catch up. We speak up.

Frankly, this is a specious and callous circular argument that if valid would make all discussions of legislation or potential legislation superfluous.

3 Likes

Sure, it COULD. I’m operating under the assumption that the girl was still having unprotected sex with the main guy and as such can’t confirm who the dad is without running a paternity test.

Agreed

So the way I see it false paternity has 2 realistic options.

Option 1: woman having unprotected sex with 2 men, doesn’t know for sure which one is the father without a paternity test.
Option 2: woman having unprotected sex with the “other guy” only (to know he’s the dad).

Sure, but I wouldn’t dream of faulting the nurse for doing her job. Making sure I have the option of a paternity test is quite literally one of the things I’m paying for

Now you’re comparing false paternity to slavery, as if the moral/ethical issues underpinning both are equivalent. So to recap:

  1. The ‘victim’ of false paternity has been subjected to a crime of a magnitude similar to someone who has been raped and/or beaten by their spouse; and
  2. the ‘crime’ of false paternity stands equivalent to slavery in terms of its underlying moral turpitude.

On this I agree–we are engaged in a specious and callous argument.

Obviously (I hope) I wasn’t really advocating for punching nurses; I was merely highlighting one of the implications of paternity testing.

Of course I am comparing (but not equating), because it fits the implication of your line of reasoning. There isn’t a victim because the law does’t say there are.

Sorry, but anyone else reading this can see what my point actually was.

2 Likes

I didn’t mean my reaction was limited to punching her.

I didn’t hold it against either nurse to ANY degree, as they weren’t (to me) implying my wife slept around, they were doing their job

Never said 1. or 2. and have explicitly stated I am not equating them in terms of SEVERITY.

Would you punch a doctor for suggesting your daughter get an HPV test even if she claims to be a virgin?

The point is not about blaming certain people. The idea would be to do the test broadly because detecting things early prevents problems down the road that will be born not only by the individuals involved but by society generally.