Would it offend you?

[OnTheWay]

If a state or federal law mandated paternity testing for all new borns before a father's name could be entered on a birth certificate?

[Knowledge3]

If people could control their lustings after the flesh and corrupted passions, there wouldn't be a need for such a law.

[OnTheWay]

Well that's true enough. but that not being the case I'm just interested if people would be offended by the notion. A activist group in Washington wants to "update" the legal manner in which legal paternity is established. As it stands if you're wife was cheating on you, conceived a child, and you only found out about it after the fact a court could still require that you pay child support. Their proposed solution is mandatory paternity testing. I didn't really see it from this angle, but my wife was quite offended at the notion we'd have to do blood tests before I could be put on the birth certifcate when we have babies.

[Knowledge3]

I vote undecided.

If someone felt it neccessary to test my legal paternity, I would not have a problem with it because I have nothing to hide.

[gzt]

and what if there's a false negative?

[UberLutheran]

If a state or federal law mandated paternity testing for all new borns before a father's name could be entered on a birth certificate?

I think the government has absolutely no business entering into the business of determining who is (or is not) the father on a birth certificate.

There are instances where the mother (and the father) are giving up the child for adoption and really do not want to be contacted; or where the mother really doesn't know who the father is.

If the mother knows who the father is -- fine. If the father wants to be listed on the birth certificate -- fine. REQUIRING paternity testing for all newborns -- bad idea.

[cassc]

Let's face it, indiscretions happen even when they should not. Many couples are able to forgive their spouse for infidelity and move on to live happy healthy moral family lives. IMO forcing mandatory paternity testing would only lead to conflicts either causing more broken families or more abortions in order to avoid this testing. I wish I believed that it was irrelevant but I think this would lead to more problems in our society not less.

[EmperorConstantine]

Oh no! I accidentally voted no, when I meant to vote yes. :doh:

Firstly, I think it is sad and a bad sign on the part of the world that such a law should have to even be thought of in the first place.

Not only do I see this as a great invasion of privacy on the part of the government, but also I could see no limits after this.

What's next? Government mandating if you can have a boy or girl? Or a kid in the first place?

Point is, I just see worse things coming after this.

[Dust and Ashes]

It wouldn't offend me personally but I can grab onto a conspiracy theory pretty easily and would view it as a slippery slope kind of thing.

[kamikat]

I gotta say that as a mom and a woman, I would raise a HUGE stink if someone had tried that on me. That insults my integrity and honesty. Believe me, I was mad enough with all the questions during my first pregnancy. My son was huge and they kept asking me if the conception date was wrong. My husband was out of town on business all summer and to imply that my son had been concieved earlier than he actually was was a huge insult.

[Matrona]

This kind of creeps me out, but it would have saved a lot of grief in this Anna Nicole Smith case (bless her soul). I mean, that baby is being pitched around like a football with no one who cares about her interests beyond the money she may or may not inherit, and it could have been prevented if her father had been known from the beginning.

[Philothei]

Yes it would offend me as I see the sanctity of the family to be offended. I understand why they would want to make such a law but still I think it would create more problems than solve them. What about if the test is wrong? or for one reason or another (let's say someone who wants the child to be his) using illegal means to obtain paternity.Or if the wife and the husband knowlingly want to raise that child together, but they do not want anyone to find out that this child is from another father. Or the woman does not want to abort a child that was concieved through rape? this law will violate the sanctity of the family. The above circumstances are between the couple and their spiritual father not the Govt, it is invasion of privacy.

God bless,
Philothei

[MariaRegina]

Yes it would offend me as I see the sanctity of the family to be offended. I understand why they would want to make such a law but still I think it would create more problems than solve them. What about if the test is wrong? or for one reason or another (let's say someone who wants the child to be his) using illegal means to obtain paternity.Or if the wife and the husband knowlingly want to raise that child together, but they do not want anyone to find out that this child is from another father. Or the woman does not want to abort a child that was concieved through rape? this law will violate the sanctity of the family. The above circumstances are between the couple and their spiritual father not the Govt, it is invasion of privacy.

God bless,
Philothei
Philothei brings up a good point.

If the paternity testing is elected to be done before the birth, then that procedure will not only increase the risk of an abortion if the results are undesirable or a mistake, but also it could increase the risk of a miscarriage through that procedure.

Anything mandated by government decreases our freedom.

That is why I am also against mandated flu shots or mandated vaccinations.

[ufonium2]

I don't know. My dad is a family court judge, so I've been around this stuff my whole life, and I think we have to realize that while such procedures seem stupid, insulting, and pointless to us (Trust me, I'm with you. I thought I was going to explode if one more medical person asked if my son was planned or wanted.) , that they exist for a reason.

While we're all discussing this as if it is in place to prevent men from raising a child who might not be theirs as their own, a sacrifice we can all agree is extremely noble, I don't think that would be the government's concern. In fact, the government could probably institute some kind of workaround wherein a man who knows he isn't the father could still be listed on the birth certificate as long as he consents to it. So basically an at-birth adoption, which is really what we're talking about anyway, with the provision that the adoptive dad's name is put on the birth certificate. I can't see a problem with that, other than that the father will be forced to know, one way or another, if the child is biologically his.

But as I said, I don't know. I've seen a whole lot of drama that could have been avoided if the correct father was on the birth certificate. Also, a lot of women I know don't list a father on the birth certificate, even if they know full well who the father is (and may even live with him), because that way they can get welfare to support the kid, rather than the father. I don't know what we can do about that, short of having a national DNA registry, but it's really annoying to know how often women choose to lie to the government about this.

[nikolayalexandroff]

Well that's true enough. but that not being the case I'm just interested if people would be offended by the notion. A activist group in Washington wants to "update" the legal manner in which legal paternity is established. As it stands if you're wife was cheating on you, conceived a child, and you only found out about it after the fact a court could still require that you pay child support. Their proposed solution is mandatory paternity testing. I didn't really see it from this angle, but my wife was quite offended at the notion we'd have to do blood tests before I could be put on the birth certifcate when we have babies.
Them crazy technocrats.

[Xpycoctomos]

The question was if I would be offended. So, I said no.

But I am still against the law for reasons not having to do with hurt pride or feelings. I agree with others that there is too much gray area which could lead to more problems than solutions. Also, I don't think it's the govs business.

[Xpycoctomos]

One question I have (although it's not my only concern). Who's paying for this? The Federal Government? The State? Us? Child-birth is expensive enough and perhaps I am wrong but I was under the impression that DNA tests aren't like $20. For many of us a couple hundred dollars may not be a big deal... but for a poor couple who can't even afford the Internet (excluding most of us) :) and are on WIC, this seems like a lot. And if the State is paying for it... well, let me tell you the at least in Michigan, we have to cut our police down significantly, schools can barely make it on what they have and we don't even know where the money is going to come from for that next year, benefits are getting cut for state and city workers and I honestly could go on and on.

To me, it's just one more thing that costs money and that will be taken away from things that matter.

This is not my only concern by any means, but it seems like quite a loft proposition considering the poor economic state of our Country and of many States (Michigan, perhaps being among the worst... but even so, I don't think any States are celebrating right now).

John

[Photini]

It wouldn't offend me really. I think that is letting the government (or whoever) get too close to me though.

[OnTheWay]

Run of the mill paternity tests are cheap, and note the test would be done after birth. Technically as the father has a right to a paternity test anyway the state's already paying for them.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding that it would mean a man who is not the biological father could not be entered on the birth certificate. Actually what's being proposed is that the paternity tests just have to come back and be given to the man before he enters himself as the legal parent. As such he couldn't be tricked via deception into assuming a responsiblity that family courts won't let him out of later.
Well, I guess I understand that whole "government should stay out of this" thing, and I'd agree. But the fact is the government is involved in these matters and the way they go about shanking down child support payments is absolutely draconian. If the government needs to get out of family issues, and I think they do, that is also going to mean dismantling these government child support, alimony, and other family collection related agencies that serve no public interest. I just see as double billing tax payers. First we have to pay for welfare programs, which I don't automatically object to. Then we have to pay for family related collection agencies and everything related to them, hence the court costs charged to them are obviously burdens on the tax payer. If a woman gets welfare assistance with medical, cash, or daycare, the state takes her child support to "pay back" the welfare. Save for the fact that when they collect the tax payers don't get any money back which would beg one to ask were the profits are going, but that's another issue. As it stands it would just be cheaper to give them the welfare and not bother worrying about family collections, and I fully admit that I blame conservatives for a lot of these situations, as the result of "personal responsibility" clap trap during the "deal with America" era.
I don't know if this sort of thing is the solution but it does seem to me that something needs to be tweaked a bit.

[Shubunkin]

It used to be (way back when) that if a child was conceived out wedlock, but the woman was married to another man, that her legal husband had a legal right to the child, and sometimes the husband would accept that responsibility. Sometimes the couple can work something like that out. I guess not so these days. :(

[OnTheWay]

It used to be (way back when) that if a child was conceived out wedlock, but the woman was married to another man, that her legal husband had a legal right to the child, and sometimes the husband would accept that responsibility. Sometimes the couple can work something like that out. I guess not so these days. :(

I think the difference is way back then it was in the best interest of everyone to be reasonable with eachother. Now days it's a matter of being hounded and 18 years of federally mandated wage garnishments if you become a legal parent and things don't work out. I do think it's reasonable that someone might be a little reluctant to make that commitment with no out.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

It wouldn't offend me, but I don't think I like the idea of it. Mostly because I don't really trust government (of any country) with personal information (they already know too much). I'm also afraid of where this testing would lead. What would be next?

I think if a father wants to have it done because he's uncertain that he's the father, let him order the test (or the mother, for that matter). If not, let it go.

I can see where the temptation would be to have this sort of testing, however. I suspect that there may be more children out there than we realize who are being raised by men who aren't really their biological fathers (sad but true in this age of immorality). But I still think it's something that people should be able to choose to do or not do (testing).

[Xpycoctomos]

I think if a father wants to have it done because he's uncertain that he's the father, let him order the test (or the mother, for that matter). If not, let it go.


The problem with this is that it assumes we know who the father is. Perhaps you mean the Husband? There might be issues of someone have medical rights (even if limited) over the child when LEGALLY the child is not theirs yet (ie hasn't been signed yet).

But, an easy way to get around this in some cases is just legally giving custody to the husband (if their married at the time of birth... or perhaps time of estimated conception????), this would then give him legal right to demand a paternity test.

But,s till, I agree with the sentiment of your post totally.

John

[Vasya Davidovich]

Yes, this would offend me.

It would be a slur upon my wife.
It would be a slur upon the sanctity of our union (no matter if sin or immorality had crept in - God makes the union sacred).

It would be yet another example of invasive government. We need less government, not more. We need fewer rules, fewer legislation, not more. We need to keep the government out of that which is intimate, that which is holy. Family is the bedrock of society, not the government.

I believe that paternity testing could be a good idea in time of divorce or when determining child support, provided that it is requested by one parent or the other. Why not? The marriage is dead anyway.

However, I cannot believe that giving the government more information and more power can be good for us, so cut the "mandatory" and stay out of the marriage bed.

- Vasya.

[VickiY]

And what happens to trust in a marriage when there's a mix-up of test results in a hospital? Even though a wife can get a second test that will correct the mistake, those months of waiting and correcting the paperwork will be ghastly for all concerned.

As stated above, it also has custody implications. If the mother were to die before the testing were complete, AND there was an error, a father might be denied the right in law to his own child.

And, finally, I'm not married, but if I were, and ANYONE called into question my fidelity to my husband, they'd be missing some limbs....

[VickiY]

I vote undecided.

If someone felt it neccessary to test my legal paternity, I would not have a problem with it because I have nothing to hide.
Ummm...YOU may not have anything to hide, but the question would be whether or not your WIFE did.

[OnTheWay]

I guess I don't see the mix-up issue. This all gets contracted out to private companies, and the test is very straight forward and never wrong or open to interpretation. In the end if you don't want your husband to find out you're carrying another man's child the best way to avoid that is to avoid adultry. I guess I just don't see the need to protect one party's "right" to deceive another. That would be sort of like making it illegal to hire a PI if you thought a company you had invested in was defrauding you.

Then again there probably are guys that know their wives are sleeping around and just don't want to have that knowledge confirmed. I guess I'm moving from undecided to opposing mandatory for all birth, but I do think that a paternity test should be mandatory before a court can order child support.

[Xpycoctomos]

it's not at all unheard of that blood samples get mixed up. I mean, it will happen (and more than once) at any given hospital that DNA samples get mixed up... it's just probability. Espoecially if everyone is doing it. i'm not saying this is necessarily a reason not enforce the law (although it speaks to me... that could cause so much damage to a marriage that even after the mistake is rectified, the damage is done), I'm just saying that tests go wrong all the time, not becuase they're subjective but becuase of any milions of reasons due to human error (putting the sample away in the wrong spot, labeling it wrong, etc...). I mean, if doctors can accidentally amputate the patient's leg, anything is very possible.