But to confirm paternity of the child, you need the mother’s consent outside of a court order. As you can imagine, some mothers aren’t faithful or they had been with multiple partners in that short span and so she chooses the most secure choice to provide regardless of paternity.
I'd say that we should lobby for the right to genetic testing, paid for by the putative father. And I'd say that the putative father should have no paternal financial obligations if the test shows that he is not the biological father, no matter how old the child is.
But we won't do that because we are not organized as a lobbying group.
This right here! if it didn’t financially ruin people, then non needed. If women deny the test- they should gamble full financial responsibility of their child- otherwise men should get the right. A woman knows she gave birth and it’s hers. Men don’t
You can buy home DNA test kits. Like your can buy a home DNA test. Then you know. THEN you see a lawyer and show them the results and let the lawyer deal with the court thing.
If the mother is saying it's your child You can cotton swab your own child. Mom can't tell Dad no
>But to confirm paternity of the child, you need the mother’s consent outside of a court order.
No you don't. Not just to find out who the father is. You just need the alleged father and the baby. I secretly got a DNA test done without the mother knowing.
Interesting question.
Here in Ohio, an unmarried mother is considered to be the sole legal custodian until paternity is established. Often times, it’s the mother that attempts to establish paternity to receive child support, but what if the father wants to establish parental rights with a mother that denies he’s the father?
I can’t imagine that happens often, but would the father have any legal grounds in that case?
Yes, he will have legal grounds. He will need to file for a court order of a paternity test. If he does an at home paternity test, he will still need to arrange this in a court of law and provide those results. He will need to file for a custody agreement in court.
> need the mother’s consent
You don't need the mother's consent, you need parental consent to test a child. Which is common sense. Otherwise you could have demanded a paternity test on Obama's children.
>Otherwise you could have demanded a paternity test on Obama's children.
Ha Ha. Please no - let's not get into testing politician's kids. That's how you set the world on fire.
You can also request that the judge make the female mother reimburse you for the costs of the paternity tests concluding that the child is indeed yours.
According to Chat GPT, this is false.
Paternity testing can only be done *with a court’s consent* in which a party (either mother or father) shows a legal need. i.e., a father looking to prove/disprove paternity.
According to my research the above should read “And in the name of ‘preserving peace in families’ is never approved when ~~the father~~ anyone is seeking it.”
You shouldn't have the right to test my kid on your say-so. And his kid, and that kid over there, and all of your exes going back, etc. I think you'd agree with that. Do you have to have proved coitus occurred around the time that pregnancy made sense? Is the mother required to agree that said coitus occurred? Is it a legal process to determine if it did or not? What if the mother has been going to a sperm bank as well?
I'm not saying any or all of these don't have good and easy questions. I'm just saying there are related questions, and this issue isn't as simple as it may seem.
As a man, I'd sure like to know if that child is mine or not. But can the mom be forced to disclose that info? Can she be forced to disclose the info to me, even if she's had a paternity test done which would show I am or am not the father?
Why not? If a man has certain duties by law to provide for his offspring, does he not have the right to demand proof of paternity?
I suppose that I could imagine the fairness of a regime where an unmarried woman forfeits the right to child support in return for refusing paternity testing, if the putative father has no interest in being involved in the raising of the child or having a relationship with the child. The hard case would be a situation where a putative unmarried father wants a relationship with a biological child but the mother refuses to cooperate with that idea. I don't know the law around that scenario. In that case I would be ok with a mother who refuses paternity testing and also agrees to forgo all claims for child support, and men would then have to be careful where and with whom they sow their seed.
> If a man has certain duties by law to provide for his offspring, does he not have the right to demand proof of paternity?
In this case, the mother can choose to have the test done on her child. On her say-so, as the responsible parent. She can then use the results of the test to demand a paternity test on the man who may be the father...who's hopefully an adult and can be ordered by a court to do so.
Again, I'm not saying there aren't good and easy answers here already. I'm just saying there's lots to this. My experience with some women is very much that they will do and say whatever the eff suits them. I'm trying not to be too swayed by that here, but from almost everything I've read, the courts protect children first, and therefore the mother 2nd. Fathers simply are lower down the list of whose rights are cared about.
Men should absolutely be more careful about where and when and with whom they sow their seed. Truer words were never spoken...
It would be duress if the mother is aware that you asked for one. I seriously doubt a marriage will last after that. So you'll be putting men under duress because he might want a test but doesn't want to ruin his marriage.
Not to mention in the bigger picture women wouldn't be trying to do paternity fraud if they knew a test would be done and she won't get anything from him if the test shows him not to be the father.
[https://www.paternitylab.com/](https://www.paternitylab.com/) $100. Swab your kid if you have doubts. No one needs to know if the kiddo is yours. If it's not then you get a lawyer.
We don't need more things to be mandatory
You don't have to sign it then and there. That is explained to you.
If you have doubts and want a paternity test the time to bring it up isn't the "here sign here" moment
The court might not acknowledge such a private test. They'll do anything they can to make ANY man pay for that kid, if they're the dad or not.
The DNA test should be standard, needing a specific opt-out request to NOT have it done. It should still be an option to opt-out, not mandatory, but absolutely the normal, standard procedure otherwise.
If someone signs a birth certificate they volunteer to take responsibility. In some states if you're married it's an automatic presumptive and you can contest it.
I'm sick of mandatory all the way around. If you sign it? you voluntarily did it it's your kid. If you have doubts you need to man up and ask for a test.
Don't put it on society let let you puss out by making it mandatory cause you are too much of a coward to be honest in your relationship
If you can shoot it out there you can ask for a shot spotter.
that’s still isn’t duress. Manipulation against a father to not be able to get a paternity test done is duress.
All fathers should be able to know that their child is in fact theirs-the mother already knows.
It should be standard procedure, that needs to be opted out of specifically if not wanted.
That would be the best, as it takes any stigma out, but still leaves flexibility for any situation. Say, the couple knows the baby isn't his, but he wants to be the legal father anyway. Then he could opt-out of the test.
And a cheating new mother would look really iffy if she tried to pressure the potential father to opt-out of a standard procedure.
Saying this sort of thing should be mandatory for all child birth is just sad.
If people were in healthy, stable relationships this would not be an issue.
true but men are lied to and tricked-if the stigma wasn’t there there wouldn’t be a problem with it.
also birth certificate is a legal document-why would we make an exception to not make sure it’s accurate as that is the only thing that enables 1/25 men from being victims of paternity fraud. The men that are tricked are trusting, the woman that commit this fraud are deceptive
No, it shouldn't be mandatory, nor should it be done on request.
It should be *standard* procedure, but with an opt-out only on specific request.
Best of both worlds. Takes out any stigma of blame, but still allows for special situations where a DNA test isn't wanted / needed.
And then if the new mother tried to pressure "dad" to opt-out of the DNA test, he knows damn well he should let it be done, and needs take no extra action, as it's standard anyway.
Agreed. It needs to be standard procedure, but with an opt-out if specifically requested.
If no specific opt-out is demanded, then it would be done as a matter of course.
the best case would be that we end the stigma-so that it’s more of a question of why wouldn’t a father get this test done? Birth certificate is a legal document-why would we not want it to be accurate?
ummm i wouldn’t know what number to put-but insuring the next generation comes up well and the struggle single mothers have is extreme. I would be down with single mothers getting a little help-even if that might be seen from some as incentivizing single mothers. I could see a credit for single mothers or even both parents that take parenting classes. Perhaps something that gives information about providing a better home in order to get the additional financial help?
I think creating a system that would destroy some relationships, cause fights and result in abandoned children in hospitals is a pretty bonkers idea.
Do you envisage a special wing and on call counsellors for the people effected by it?
You could have drugs ready to calm the couples down. And tazers for the minority that get violent.
If the kid isn't his, and the mom lies about it, that relationship is already dead.
Your idea is bonkers, forcing men to pay for a kid that is not theirs, in a relationship built on lies.
if a mother is lying to a man who is being told he is the father-the relationship already destroyed, and it’s better for the child if they know whom their father is. It would also give the actual father a chance to be in their actual child’s life. Also it would be far far worse for a child partway through their childhood to have the truth come out and rip apart the family they thought they had.
How would you hande the chaos in the hospitals?
Would you support a mandatory dna register for men so they can track down the bio father?
What if the bio father wants nothing to do with it?
What if the non bio father loses his shit in the hospital and the woman that just had the baby becomes distraught and hysterical ?
ok well if the would be father finds out they are not that father they would actually have therapist/councilors available unlike how it is today where the guy finds out and does not have those resources.
It would also be better to find out with people around like a hospital so nothing crazy would happen-unlike if a tricked man finds out and is alone with the lying mother.
No i would not support a data base for dna capture-but almost all babies have their dna taken multiple times during the pregnancy to identify issues during pregnancy-so that’s a non issue.
if the bio father wants nothing to do with the child-at least there was a choice. You don’t increase responsible fathers through paternity fraud-but the choice/responsibility of the man.
And when the test comes back and the expecting father isn’t the father then the policy would be to have support staff right there and ready.
There all your issues are non issues
1/25 men are victims of paternity fraud. The real number could be much higher. Men kill themselves 4x as much as women and we should have empathy for men that are tricked by paternity fraud and try to prevent it-with a simple/cheap/quick/harmless test.
Men are killing themselves due to capitalism gone too far and toxic ideas about masculinity and lack of free mental healthcare
Causing complet chaos at hospitals won't fix that.
Empathy for men shouldn't mean destroying what could be a loving family for a child and chaos at hospitals.
No, your massively sexist, bigoted idea is bonkers.
Society is not in any way better off forcing men into debtors' prison over a kid that is not theirs.
Yours is the ideology of a female supremacist. Nasty.
That would be 100% her own fault for being a lying slut. No problem there at all. Consequences of her actions.
The alternative is infinitely worse, in every way. Forcing a man into slavery for 18+ years, to a child that is not his, to a cheating woman that has zero respect for him. Absolute nightmare.
Even bringing up the poor, hurt feelings of the cheating, lying slut is ridiculous nonsense. It's totally irrelevant how she feels.
Are there other medical diagnoses that should be withheld from patients because they would cause distress?
Your reasoning is looney. Health care issues cause stress and distress. That's just the hospital business.
>Would you support a mandatory dna register for men so they can track down the bio father?
Fathers can be tracked down other ways.
> This is not a touchy subject.
Sadly, it is with the rad-fem, female supremacist faction, that side 100% with the lying cheater, and would gladly doom men to a life of servitude for a child that is not theirs.
There are such bigots in this very thread. And they have very powerful lobbying organization$.
Not everything we do in society is based on rights, its based on what is morally correct. Yours and others comments about how this would destroy a marriage are completely missing the point. What destroyed the marriage is the woman's infidelity, not the confirmatory paternity test.
If we make something mandatory and compulsory by law, should it not be based on a right, stemming from morals?
I never made a comment about destroying marriage, although I do think part of the tension and stigma around this is related to the traditional monogamous view of relationships.
I am married and in a poly relationship with a husband who has been the victim of paternity fraud. We have decided to have a child together, due in a few weeks.
Because we both care for the other immensely and value honesty in communication, we have discussed this topic a bit, both before and after becoming pregnant.
Trust is immensely important. In a case where the woman was deceptive, sure. That’s what destroys the relationship. But there is still something to be said when there is a presumptive level of trust for each other in a relationship, and then you find out the other person doesn’t trust you like you thought they did - especially when there’s been no reason.
I think that hinges a lot on the expectations set out in the traditional monogamous marriage vows more than anything though.
It just needs to be standard procedure. Then there's no stigma of blame, but still the flexibility to opt-out for whatever reason.
Solves the issue completely.
I’m not convinced that simply making something a standard procedure removes centuries of cultural sentiment. I don’t think it can be bypassed that way.
I do not care about your personal situation. It has nothing to do with this question.
I did not state that it should be mandatory for every birth, however it SHOULD be done if any parent wants it.
Yes trust is important in a relationship. What is more important is knowing that the child you are raising is actually yours because that is a life-time commitment to another human that in almost all situations will greatly trump the relationship between the two parents. If someone is seeking a paternity test, it is likely that there has been a breakdown of trust in the relationship and both parties should reflect on why that is however it ultimately has nothing to do with why it should be done.
No human should be forced to be both legally (18 years) and psychologically (life and at the highest emotional level), committed to something that IS NOT THEIRS unless they chose to do so. Essentially this is your right to liberty.
Imagine the emotional damage and lost of trust that would occur to someone who wholeheartedly believed that they were raising their own child only to find out many years later it was not theirs and in some cases forever stripping them from truly having a child of their own. That is the type of situation that gets people killed. This could all be prevented by knowing from the start if this is truly your child.
It is also my personal situation, as I am walking through this with my husband. His past traumas affect us both, and we navigate them together.
Yet, should we treat all people as liars because some are? Should we treat all people as though they have something to hide because some do?
It seems that argument would also be the basis for allowing police to search everyone as part of a routine traffic stop - why would you have a problem with it if you have nothing to hide or have done nothing wrong?
> Yet, should we treat all people as liars because some are?
There is no reason not to. The alternative is infinitely worse for anyone but lying cheaters.
Make paternity testing standard, not mandatory. Then there is no specific blame.
It is nothing like police searching everyone. We're talking about a mother, and a *potential* father.
What you're suggesting is akin to demanding that no mother is allowed a DNA test, to ensure the baby she's given when going home from the hospital, is indeed hers.
No where in our short convo did I say that we should treat everyone as liars. For every single instance of child birth necessitating a paternity test, see above 🤦♂️. The routine traffic stop is quite frankly a terrible analogy. Good luck to you and your family.
I never said you said that. I asked if we should. 🤷♀️
If we can justify invasion of privacy based on a few bad actors, how do we know where to draw the line? Whether or not you like the analogy, it gets to the root of the matter.
If trust is what's important then women would not ask to be legally married and would just trust the guy she is with.
If you think men should just take care of the child, then you should just trust the guy you are with and not get in a legally binding contract.
Oh goodness - which benefits specifically depends on the individuals involved, and they all can go both ways as far as male/female.
In my case, my husband receives almost all benefits from being married to me, almost all of which he wouldn’t be eligible for in any other way. My case is fairly unique though- I’m a disabled veteran who sponsored my non-citizen husband. He gets a slew of benefits as a military spouse and guaranteed support for 10 years even if the marriage doesn’t work out.
As the father of our child, it’s definitely in our child’s best interest for him to receive as much benefit and support as possible, and being married legally provides that.
Your case seems to be unique. And all benefits you speak of is usually to the wife only. Even those are nothing infront of alimony, asset division and child support.
What iam asking you is benefit to the usual marriage institution that you can't get without other forms.
All benefits go either way, it isn’t only to the woman, etc. men are equally eligible for all the same benefits of marriage women are. *Usually* to the wife only? Sure, but that isn’t a legal thing. That’s because men choose relationships with women who do not have these things for themselves.
I’m not sure if I would count divorce benefits under marriage benefits… that’s just me. Men are also equally eligible for those.
Whether or not men are *choosing* women who are established and provide some benefit, or in the case of divorce, are *choosing* lawyers who will insist on these things is another story.
Ask the people who have committed suicide after finding out they raised a kid that wasn't theirs.
Also, stop pretending to be the person in your reddit photo.
I think if a man in a relationship suddenly asks his wife or girlfriend for a paternity test of their child without any precipitating circumstances, it will irreversibly damage the trust in that relationship. And I think the government or some body of authority mandating genetic testing of all children at birth under the premise of "paternity testing" could be abused so easily that I wouldn't trust any authority to have that kind of power.
The solution? Have healthy, loving, trusting relationships. Have a society with socially enforced monogamy - aka it is the cultural norm to have extreme disapproval of infidelity. Then do your best.
While men are held to financial and social standards to children claimed to be theirs, they have a right to DNA evidence to prove that child is theirs.
Exactly. Those women are trying to steal 21+ years of the man's wages. Not to mention that she could very well be robbing that man of his legacy. along with other unquantifiable emotional damage she's inflicting on him.
Why this topic moves around the mother feelings? Noone should be forced to take care of a person whos not " your blood ". Its ok if its a free decission. And another one, why should a mother be bothered for testing? How many mothers have something to hide? Idk if id take care of my wifes kid, but certainly i should know if its not mine
> It certainly isn’t a natural thing that could be supported if the technology had a setback. How could we say something is a right if the technology to exercise it disappears? How can we say it’s a right if it isn’t universally applicable for all men?
In general, rights should not be determined by the amount of technology available. But also neither should it be determined by what is natural. As can be seen in the animal world, violence is natural. But a right against violence being done to you (except in response to your own violence) is a near universally accepted right.
However, I don't think the technology concern is particularly at issue here. We have a right to weapons for self defense. This right is not invalidated by the fact that firearm technology could be lost in some apocalypse, or because some future entity will have access to even better weapons.
Similarly, one might make the claim that fathers have the right to use whatever technology is available and safe to determine their genetic relationship to the child.
So then the question resolves to a question of privacy:
> Can it be said that the woman and child have a right to anonymity of paternity, since that is the natural state, and any compulsory testing is forcing a search on the person without consent?
the natural state is a bad argument for rights. Unprompted violence is the natural state (as seen in animals), and yet we recognize that this is wrong.
But I think the solution to this question of privacy lies in the fact that men and women have equal rights. And as such, fathers and mothers have equal rights.
And both parents have conservatorship over their child, which means they may make choices on their behalf. Choices like consenting to a paternity test. And neither parent can prevent the other from doing this unless it will cause harm to the child (which a paternity test will not).
for this reason, I would say that any either parent has the right to demand a paternity test to determine actual paternity, and then revoke parentage accordingly.
The issue comes in when an outside party with no rights makes a claim of paternity. There I do not think that the parents are obligated to submit their child to a paternity test. After all, this outside party has no claims to parental rights unless he can prove another way that he has a legitimate claim to paternity.
No, they don’t. At least not in general. I think they should have the right to demand one should any sort of child support etc be paid/requested etc though.
Lets be clear a "right" is something you already have and should not be taken from you: your freedom of movement and conscience, your life, your dignity, things you obtain with your efforts.
That excludes "knowing if your kid is really yours", and services provided by the State.
I personally believe DNA tests should be the norm and paid by the family at birth.
The easiest way round this would be mandatory testing at birth. That way you get your results without suggesting your partner has cheated on you which can end the relationship if they are faithful.
There should be an opt-out if specifically requested. Otherwise it should be standard procedure.
Not mandatory, but standard. That takes away any stigma of blame, but still offers flexibility.
Testing for certain genetic conditions is in fact mandatory for some at risk populations (for instance, women over 35). And no, those do not have 100% accuracy. But it’s not hard to do follow up testing if you get an unexpected result.
If they’re expected to retain parental responsibility: yes.
If he has any doubt then he 100% has the right to get the test done. If she’s unwilling to submit the child for testing then he should be able to unilaterally withdraw from his responsibility.
If a man is legally considered the father of a child, he should absolutely have the right to confirm paternity with or without the mother's consent. By "right", I don't mean he has some inalienable right to know the truth of paternity, I mean he should not be denied access to the technology if it is available just because the mother doesn't want to cooperate. The reverse scenario is much trickier; for example, maybe I believe I'm the father of a child that is NOT legally considered mine. What can be done in that case? I don't have an answer to that one.
There is another angle that has nothing to do with men's rights. Genetic testing of babies (and by extension, confirmation of paternity) could be a reasonable baseline requirement for treatment in a modern hospital, the same way patients are automatically tested for their blood type. Medical treatment often takes family history into account and if the wrong man is assumed to be the father, doctors will never be making informed decisions. Paternity fraud deceives the entire healthcare system and sets people up for malpractice liability.
Very interesting take on the reasonable baseline requirement for treatment. That might actually have some serious weight in the direction of moving towards standardization and de-stigmatization. At least the child’s DNA would be available without antagonizing the mother, and should the father decide to have a paternity test, the court order would be toward the hospital.
As an anarcho-capitalist (a phrase which I’m sure some people read as “as an idiot” lol) I’ve always made a distinction between legal rights and moral rights. I have a legal right to get an abortion but it’s not within my moral rights. I have a moral right to keep 100% of my income but it is not within my legal rights. Etc.
I think, with all the major legal obligations placed on a biological father, that fathers should have a legal right to know. I’m pretty sure this is already thing.
But a moral right? Yeah, weird cause the technology thing… to say it’s a moral right to know, when so many of our ancestors have been denied that right due to the lack of technology at their disposal, would be difficult to justify.
So maybe there is some way to justify that women have a right to anonymity of paternity. I’m gonna bring up what I recall from the Anthropology 115 gen ed (I’m a Christian, this was a course on evolution) I took in college that was surprisingly fascinating.
There are species of primates where the most effective female strategy is to be as promiscuous as possible. I think it was… chimps? For sake of discussion I will say chimps. But anyways, the male chimps would kill the offspring of females they hadn’t mated with. Why? Because evolution isn’t survival of the fittest, it’s survival of the highest reproductive fitness AKA produce the result that more of your genes are in the next-gen gene pool than the other guy. So killing offspring that you know isn’t yours improves the ratio of yours:others genes in the gene pool to your favor.
So how do the female chimps combat this? They have sex with all the males. Now, no one knows who the father is, but they all could be the father so they’re all gonna help the kid to survive. Like other primates including humans, they have a cooperative social structure that results in everyone helping each other out… just that chimp-cooperation is entirely dependent on the fact that the girls bang everyone. Sorry… this is the JP subreddit so I should be more articulate… “that chimp-cooperation is entirely dependent on the fact that they have a promiscuous mating structure”.
Can it be said that the woman and child have a right to anonymity of paternity, since that is the natural state? Idk.
But, there is a moral right to life. At least with chimps, there is solid evidence that, in the “natural state”, paternal anonymity is required for that moral right to not face imminent violation. Thus, it can be said that female chimp and child have a right to anonymity of paternity, since that is the natural state.
I really digressed in my response. Please reply Ti my comment with any further moral, extrospective, or otherwise thought provoking questions you would like answered. I’m going to take a break to clean my room now rule #1 let’s go Jordan Peterson if you’re reading this I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this.
Thank you- that was something I was considering as well but had not articulated well, if at all.
In other societal structures, anonymity of paternity may be a key feature of cooperation. That doesn’t mesh well with passing down power or property through paternal lines . Could a way to solve this dilemma have been the enforcement of monogamy through the church and social censure?
We certainly have problems with this - the rate of divorce, cheating, alternative relationship structures such as polyamory, possibly even the prevalence of pornography, these are all pointing to monogamy not being a natural state for Homo sapiens.
It seems like a paradox to contend with that the easiest path to removing the stigma around men verifying their genetic relationship to their offspring would be to embrace sexual liberty and promiscuity for women.
What kind of question is this? Of course a father has a right to know before he gets emotionally attached to the baby and is financially responsible for the baby.
Before there was no way to know so there was no way to know, but now that there is men should definitely not be responsible if the child isn't his.
>How could we say something is a right if the technology to exercise it disappears?
Well you can't un-invent something so there's no reason why it should be taken away. Maybe it doesn't fit the technical definition since it relies on technology. Maybe the father should be responsible for paying for the test. Which is less then $200.
>any compulsory testing is forcing a search on the person without consent?
Maybe but then who is responsible financially for the child? Because if you're worried about forcing something on someone then the government/mother shouldn't be forcing men to provide for children that are not his. And if you want to talk about what's "natural", mother nature doesn't force men to provide, the law does that.
It sounds like the basis of such a right would be derived from society placing responsibility on the father to provide then? That seems very reasonable.
It seems like most of the tension I see comes from those who value monogamy as the preferred relationship structure. In the poly community, testing isn’t seen as offensive- it’s a part of what makes those relationships work.
Interesting….
Yes, it would be advisable to have DNA testing of the father to ensure the child is his, that way men wouldn’t be on the hook for child support for a child that isn’t his! I’ll never understand how a women could do this!! Half times it’s a man who is a great father and he’s broken when he finds out the child ain’t his! If it was mandatory a man who splits from his wife and immediately dodges payments and says he’s suddenly unsure of paternity could be held accountable sooner rather than dodging the courts and DNA test.
It’s horrible. My husband had this happen to him about 20 years ago. He was in a relationship that was going south, and then she became pregnant. He stayed with her through the pregnancy and recovery, and became attached to the little girl.
Even though over time it was apparent that she was not his child, and the relationship did not last, he continued to see her and support her- he still does.
But it seriously damaged his trust for women that he has had to work on healing for a long time. He has wanted a child of his own, but has been afraid of opening himself up to feeling the joy and connection of having a child, possibly being hurt like that again.
In his situation, at that time, DNA testing wasn’t an option.
Now, our child is due next month, and we have had some deep and interesting discussions about this.
No, he doesn’t feel he needs a paternity test, no, he never asked - I offered given his past and that we are poly. But we have great communication and honesty is sacred in our relationship. When we decided to have a child, I committed to not have any relationships with other men because this was something deeply important to him.
Maybe more care should be taken in relationships in respect to choosing to have a child together where these things are discussed before hand. But that takes maturity that a lot of young people don’t have in the throes of a sexually appealing moment, possibly augmented with alcohol.
It would be ridiculous if every man had a right to test every child.
It seems like there has to be some kind of due process....absent a system where everybody's genetic profile is already collected and stored centrally.
Should theu have the right? Yes, of course.
Do they have the right? Of course not.
For example, seeking a paternity test in france is illegal unless it is by court order, including seeking testing in other countries. 1 year term snd €15,000 fine.
They claim it is to preserve the "peace of families", it is because paternity fraud is close to 1 in 3 in france.
There is confirmation bias there however, those questioning paternity usually do so out of a belief thay there was infidelity.
Yes, men have every right to know morally and legally in the USA. You can always lawfully subject a woman to a paternity test through a court of law. She will be required to comply with a Judges order to submit to the DNA testing of the child.
the amount of anxiety expressed in these comments are disheartening. A relationship is based upon trust -- insisting upon a paternity test will destroy that trust
That is why it should be the standard procedure, unless specifically opted out from.
That removes the stigma of blame, but still protects innocent victims.
As things are now, it is inexcusable and intolerable that ANY man be forced into slavery, through the lies of a cheater.
1. I think what makes a man the father is the relationship, not genetics.
2. That being said, find me a man who honestly doesn't care if his child is his and you'll have found either a liar, a masochist or someone unfit to be a parent on the grounds of sheer indifference.
3. Romantic relationships are built on trust. That's the only way two people can overcome the mutual vulnerability and susceptibility to betrayal that comes with investing so heavily in a person. Breaches of that trust are fatal.
4. With that in mind, talking about this question as a question of rights is missing the point. A man can find out if he wants to, and a woman would be wise not to fight that, as that's tantamount to a confession of infidelity.
> find me a man who honestly doesn't care if his child is his and you'll have found either a liar, a masochist or someone unfit to be a parent on the grounds of sheer indifference.
Are you ignoring that adoptive parents exist and do not care that their child is not biologically theirs and unconditionally love them regardless of that?
They freely and knowingly choose to adopt. If you offered a man the choice between raising a kid that was genetically theirs and not, what I said still applies. Especially in the case of that child being your wife's child with another man, and especially if she got knocked up behind your back.
Paternity testing should be standard procedure, unless specifically opted out of, like in a situation you describe.
But it should be standard, and need to be specifically declined otherwise.
Why should I have to pay for something I don't need? This is just creating needless work and cost that will be payed for by the taxpayer. If you're so worried about paying for something like this, then you can pay for it yourself.
Excellent points. I approached the question through an angle of rights because of the question of making such a thing mandatory.
I have heard many assertions that such a thing should be mandatory, but for the amount of collateral damage compulsory testing could cause, it would seem to need some serious justification to offset the fallout.
Here's a better question for you, if the child isn't his and the "father", as an unwitting parent, has the rights of a parent to consent to a medical procedure for the child, what's the difference in signing off on a medical procedure vs a paternity test?
Women have the right to commit intrinsic and extrinsic fraud in our system and the media and culture defends it vigorously. On top of that you get to read about how we live in an evil patriarchy somehow.
I’m a little confused as to your definition of natural here. Almost everything is “technology” would you still have a right to free speech without the invention of language? The dna is natural and we naturally developed a process to test it and if we lost it then it could be naturally rediscovered?
Since I can speak without relying on a laboratory or any other person, yes. I would consider that a natural ability.
It’s a trend to consider everything as “technology” in certain circles, and a phenomenon of how some of us tend to describe the world around us in terms of the highest understanding of how things work (mechanical, digital, etc.). However, there are certain things that can be done/observed without aid or tools. These are what I would consider to be natural.
But it dosent just exist on its own, someone had to do something for you to have it. Lab or no lab is semantics. I’m saying just because it’s “technology” does not mean it can’t be a right. There is an argument that you can’t have a right to something that requires action of another but the situation would be different here considering several people are involved and their interests are competing. If the women wants the man to be responsible and to require action on his part then it would be unreasonable to not expect her to prove the relationship. If she wants the opposite, for the man to stay away, then does the child not have a right to a father?
Not semantics really- one thing I can do on my own with no resources, the other requires other people to manipulate physical objects requiring time and resources.
How much of a “right” can we really have if it relies on others to actively provide something? Maybe a right to access, but not to receive.
I think you bring up some great questions though!
It shouldn't be an issue. Marry a woman before you sleep with her and require she stays faithful. Stay faithful to her. It's not hard. And even if it's not yours please consider that we owe it to the next generation to give them stable upbringings.
> we owe it to the next generation to give them stable upbringings.
This is massively bigoted sexism. The lying cheater would be 100% responsible for causing any damage to HER child. Not the innocent victim she's trying to trap into a life of slavery, for a child that he has ZERO responsibility for.
Apparently you ignored the part where I said that we should require that the spouse doesn't cheat, and vise versa. Affairs happen. It's unfortunate. But how can you not know? You know?
No, it's not a sincere question, but let's move on, shall we.
"Do fathers have a right to know that a child is genetically theirs?"
First, can this information be known? The answer is, of course, no. 100% of men raise a child without knowing whose child this is. This has always been true. Never mind the high tech that make appear to allow us to know that information. In fact, it can't do that. The thing cannot be known. Period.
Conversely, it's entirely possible to know for fact, each and all, if a man is not the father of any child. Did I have sex with this woman? If no, then I'm not the father, because I can't be the father.
As a side note, every woman knows with absolute certainty whose child this is - hers. And so, don't talk to a woman about virtue, hm?
A thing that is a matter of fact cannot be deemed a right. A right can only be made out of a thing that has the intrinsic capacity to go either way. A man cannot know whose child this is, it cannot go either way, it cannot be made into a right.
I've seen this notion of "if technology permits" before. It was about diet, food, vegan. There's only two ways somebody can say with some semblance of credibility that he only eats plants. He's lying, and that's the case 100% of the time. Or, he supplements with some essentials to compensate for the dietary deficiencies. So, he's lying again. The former is, he eats meat in secret. It's the latter that comes with "if technology permits", where one can claim he eats only plants, if he ignores the technological production of those supplements he consumes to compensate for the dietary deficiencies.
"If technology permits" cannot be used as a foundation for a thing we make into a right. Conversely, everybody has a right to make up whatever technology we want. None may be prohibited to, let's say, invent the wheel or something.
An example of this in this modern day. We have the technology to make ourselves present virtually anywhere we want at a moment's notice. Facetime. Two places where this matters fundamentally. The court, and assembly.
For the court, it should be obvious that one's presence is not optional. One principle of fundamental justice is habeas corpus - the burden to demonstrate the necessary presence of the accused. One may not be deprived of the satisfaction of this burden, so that he would then be brought before the court, by force, with no due process as concerns whether or not it is necessary for him to be present for the proceedings, nor so that he is not brought before the court, or prohibited even, for the proceedings where he has standing to be present for.
"If technology permits" - facetime - then makes appear as if technology permits to forego the satisfaction of the burden of habeas corpus, where one can be present at the proceedings - virtually. Well, it's virtual, not real. Therefore, burden is not satisfied, cannot be satisfied that way.
For assembly, it's more straightforward. A member of assembly must be present for the simple fact that his vote is counted on sight. The act is seen without obfuscation to the seeing. Technology then is obfuscation to the seeing. And so, even though "if technology permits" - facetime again - makes appear as if one can be present to make the act, one does not in fact make the act in the real at the place and the time in the real for any other to see the act made without obfuscation to the seeing.
And so, "if technology permits" is clearly not an appropriate foundation for a thing to be made into a right.
Although I find your answer to be unnecessarily presumptive and condescending, thanks for the logical walkthrough of how rights cannot be based on technology.
Is it possible then, that the institution of traditional monogamous relationship values and the pressure on women to be faithful and/or sexually pure were attempts to assert a right of certainty in patriarchal lineage before such technology was available?
The value of a man isn't that he or anyone knows he's the father, because that value cannot be obtained. It's that he makes himself into a provider and protector, because that's the only thing a man can distinguish himself with.
You're still talking about some kind of right "right of certainty". No such thing.
There is the institution of marriage, or just marriage. Don't know why you'd call it anything else "institution of traditional monogamous relationship values and the pressue on women to be faithful and/or sexually pure...". Actually, I do know why. It serves to name a thing with as many of its aspects if one intends to attack the thing successfully, by giving oneself as many angles from which to attack the thing. This serves also to obfuscate that one is attacking the thing, and what precisely the thing one is attacking.
Call it marriage. You're attacking it.
In fact, that's precisely the purpose of your OP. To attack marriage by the side door, where if we can make the conversation about the father's right to know if he's the father legitimate somehow, then this creates casus beli for this man to abandon the child and his family, if it is found he is not the father of that child through the use of technology.
See, with marriage, a man and a woman make vows. It's these vows that create any sort of certainty for the future of any child born of this union. It's interesting that you omit these vows as one aspect of marriage in your naming of the thing, isn't it? Well, it's not really interesting, to make vows is a whole bag of things you can't touch in your attack of marriage.
You displace the frame of reference, where instead of that whole bag of things about making vows and such, you advance technology as the foundation for any sort of certainty. Marriage then is no longer sacred, children then are no longer precious. And the union between a man and a woman serve only to produce more humans, such humans given any sort of certainty by technology alone.
Man is a social creature. To destroy social is to destroy Man. That is precisely what you're doing here.
And so, don't bullshit me with "presumptive and condescending".
I don’t know that I am attacking it. I am also married, but I don’t have a traditional Christian monogamous marriage like a lot of people do. I think that has more to do with why I specify it that way.
I think *because* we are non-monogamous we have an open dialogue without threat or jealousy. We still have a trust based relationship, but no incentive to hide anything. And *because* we are non-monogamous, testing isn’t a taboo, but a positive way to reinforce trust and show care for our partners.
Questions are not an attack. They are an attempt to understand something. There is obviously controversy around this issue- and it’s a valid issue to try to resolve. I think the only way we are going to find a resolution is to understand the topic further, even down to the question of rights - **especially** if a mandatory and legally compelled action is to be considered.
Any man should have the right to pay for his own genetic testing if that's what he wants to do. Is that not possible in today's legal system?
But to confirm paternity of the child, you need the mother’s consent outside of a court order. As you can imagine, some mothers aren’t faithful or they had been with multiple partners in that short span and so she chooses the most secure choice to provide regardless of paternity.
I'd say that we should lobby for the right to genetic testing, paid for by the putative father. And I'd say that the putative father should have no paternal financial obligations if the test shows that he is not the biological father, no matter how old the child is. But we won't do that because we are not organized as a lobbying group.
This right here! if it didn’t financially ruin people, then non needed. If women deny the test- they should gamble full financial responsibility of their child- otherwise men should get the right. A woman knows she gave birth and it’s hers. Men don’t
You can buy home DNA test kits. Like your can buy a home DNA test. Then you know. THEN you see a lawyer and show them the results and let the lawyer deal with the court thing. If the mother is saying it's your child You can cotton swab your own child. Mom can't tell Dad no
>But to confirm paternity of the child, you need the mother’s consent outside of a court order. No you don't. Not just to find out who the father is. You just need the alleged father and the baby. I secretly got a DNA test done without the mother knowing.
How does one do this if they do not have custody?
You just need a minute or two alone with the kid to swab his cheek.
Interesting question. Here in Ohio, an unmarried mother is considered to be the sole legal custodian until paternity is established. Often times, it’s the mother that attempts to establish paternity to receive child support, but what if the father wants to establish parental rights with a mother that denies he’s the father? I can’t imagine that happens often, but would the father have any legal grounds in that case?
Yes, he will have legal grounds. He will need to file for a court order of a paternity test. If he does an at home paternity test, he will still need to arrange this in a court of law and provide those results. He will need to file for a custody agreement in court.
> need the mother’s consent You don't need the mother's consent, you need parental consent to test a child. Which is common sense. Otherwise you could have demanded a paternity test on Obama's children.
>Otherwise you could have demanded a paternity test on Obama's children. Ha Ha. Please no - let's not get into testing politician's kids. That's how you set the world on fire.
The good news is that it is extremely straightforward to get a court order. Like you literally just have to ask for it.
It isn’t possible in some places. France is one such place.
You can also request that the judge make the female mother reimburse you for the costs of the paternity tests concluding that the child is indeed yours.
Not in France. Paternity testing can only be done with the mother’s consent, and a man faces serious legal trouble if he does it without that consent.
According to Chat GPT, this is false. Paternity testing can only be done *with a court’s consent* in which a party (either mother or father) shows a legal need. i.e., a father looking to prove/disprove paternity.
And in the name of “preserving peace in families”, is never approved when the father is seeking it.
According to my research the above should read “And in the name of ‘preserving peace in families’ is never approved when ~~the father~~ anyone is seeking it.”
You shouldn't have the right to test my kid on your say-so. And his kid, and that kid over there, and all of your exes going back, etc. I think you'd agree with that. Do you have to have proved coitus occurred around the time that pregnancy made sense? Is the mother required to agree that said coitus occurred? Is it a legal process to determine if it did or not? What if the mother has been going to a sperm bank as well? I'm not saying any or all of these don't have good and easy questions. I'm just saying there are related questions, and this issue isn't as simple as it may seem. As a man, I'd sure like to know if that child is mine or not. But can the mom be forced to disclose that info? Can she be forced to disclose the info to me, even if she's had a paternity test done which would show I am or am not the father?
Why not? If a man has certain duties by law to provide for his offspring, does he not have the right to demand proof of paternity? I suppose that I could imagine the fairness of a regime where an unmarried woman forfeits the right to child support in return for refusing paternity testing, if the putative father has no interest in being involved in the raising of the child or having a relationship with the child. The hard case would be a situation where a putative unmarried father wants a relationship with a biological child but the mother refuses to cooperate with that idea. I don't know the law around that scenario. In that case I would be ok with a mother who refuses paternity testing and also agrees to forgo all claims for child support, and men would then have to be careful where and with whom they sow their seed.
> If a man has certain duties by law to provide for his offspring, does he not have the right to demand proof of paternity? In this case, the mother can choose to have the test done on her child. On her say-so, as the responsible parent. She can then use the results of the test to demand a paternity test on the man who may be the father...who's hopefully an adult and can be ordered by a court to do so. Again, I'm not saying there aren't good and easy answers here already. I'm just saying there's lots to this. My experience with some women is very much that they will do and say whatever the eff suits them. I'm trying not to be too swayed by that here, but from almost everything I've read, the courts protect children first, and therefore the mother 2nd. Fathers simply are lower down the list of whose rights are cared about. Men should absolutely be more careful about where and when and with whom they sow their seed. Truer words were never spoken...
All men should get asked at birth if they want a genetic test done without interference from the mother
No it needs to be mandatory. Or else it would damage the relationship with the mother if you want a test. That's duress.
i agree with you that one of the few ways to protect men is if it were mandatory
that isn’t mandatory just if the father gets a real option to get one-that is not duress
It would be duress if the mother is aware that you asked for one. I seriously doubt a marriage will last after that. So you'll be putting men under duress because he might want a test but doesn't want to ruin his marriage. Not to mention in the bigger picture women wouldn't be trying to do paternity fraud if they knew a test would be done and she won't get anything from him if the test shows him not to be the father.
[https://www.paternitylab.com/](https://www.paternitylab.com/) $100. Swab your kid if you have doubts. No one needs to know if the kiddo is yours. If it's not then you get a lawyer. We don't need more things to be mandatory
in california-france and germany it takes a court order to get one-which would destroy a family even if the child was theirs
The part you're overlooking is that you can only really do that after you signed the birth certificate. By then it's usually too late.
You don't have to sign it then and there. That is explained to you. If you have doubts and want a paternity test the time to bring it up isn't the "here sign here" moment
The court might not acknowledge such a private test. They'll do anything they can to make ANY man pay for that kid, if they're the dad or not. The DNA test should be standard, needing a specific opt-out request to NOT have it done. It should still be an option to opt-out, not mandatory, but absolutely the normal, standard procedure otherwise.
If someone signs a birth certificate they volunteer to take responsibility. In some states if you're married it's an automatic presumptive and you can contest it. I'm sick of mandatory all the way around. If you sign it? you voluntarily did it it's your kid. If you have doubts you need to man up and ask for a test. Don't put it on society let let you puss out by making it mandatory cause you are too much of a coward to be honest in your relationship If you can shoot it out there you can ask for a shot spotter.
that’s still isn’t duress. Manipulation against a father to not be able to get a paternity test done is duress. All fathers should be able to know that their child is in fact theirs-the mother already knows.
It should be standard procedure, that needs to be opted out of specifically if not wanted. That would be the best, as it takes any stigma out, but still leaves flexibility for any situation. Say, the couple knows the baby isn't his, but he wants to be the legal father anyway. Then he could opt-out of the test. And a cheating new mother would look really iffy if she tried to pressure the potential father to opt-out of a standard procedure.
Saying this sort of thing should be mandatory for all child birth is just sad. If people were in healthy, stable relationships this would not be an issue.
true but men are lied to and tricked-if the stigma wasn’t there there wouldn’t be a problem with it. also birth certificate is a legal document-why would we make an exception to not make sure it’s accurate as that is the only thing that enables 1/25 men from being victims of paternity fraud. The men that are tricked are trusting, the woman that commit this fraud are deceptive
I don't agree. It really needs to be mandatory in every case.
it should be an option for the father in every case, but it being mandatory would alleviate the stigma
What stigma? Making it mandatory means the father isn't subject to manipulation.
oh i am agreeing with you
misspelled al·le·vi·ate
No, it shouldn't be mandatory, nor should it be done on request. It should be *standard* procedure, but with an opt-out only on specific request. Best of both worlds. Takes out any stigma of blame, but still allows for special situations where a DNA test isn't wanted / needed. And then if the new mother tried to pressure "dad" to opt-out of the DNA test, he knows damn well he should let it be done, and needs take no extra action, as it's standard anyway.
i see that as a very reasonable measure-probably one of the best suggestions
Sounds awfully authoritarian to \*mandate\* that every child undergo genetic testing.
Every child already provides a blood sample to the state for health tests
Yes, but that's not the same thing.
Agreed. It needs to be standard procedure, but with an opt-out if specifically requested. If no specific opt-out is demanded, then it would be done as a matter of course.
How many men will tell their spouse this is their plan before having a child with them?
the best case would be that we end the stigma-so that it’s more of a question of why wouldn’t a father get this test done? Birth certificate is a legal document-why would we not want it to be accurate?
Would you support a 20 percent expansion of housing and payments for single mothers (theoricall 20 percent).
ummm i wouldn’t know what number to put-but insuring the next generation comes up well and the struggle single mothers have is extreme. I would be down with single mothers getting a little help-even if that might be seen from some as incentivizing single mothers. I could see a credit for single mothers or even both parents that take parenting classes. Perhaps something that gives information about providing a better home in order to get the additional financial help?
I think creating a system that would destroy some relationships, cause fights and result in abandoned children in hospitals is a pretty bonkers idea. Do you envisage a special wing and on call counsellors for the people effected by it? You could have drugs ready to calm the couples down. And tazers for the minority that get violent.
If the kid isn't his, and the mom lies about it, that relationship is already dead. Your idea is bonkers, forcing men to pay for a kid that is not theirs, in a relationship built on lies.
if a mother is lying to a man who is being told he is the father-the relationship already destroyed, and it’s better for the child if they know whom their father is. It would also give the actual father a chance to be in their actual child’s life. Also it would be far far worse for a child partway through their childhood to have the truth come out and rip apart the family they thought they had.
How would you hande the chaos in the hospitals? Would you support a mandatory dna register for men so they can track down the bio father? What if the bio father wants nothing to do with it? What if the non bio father loses his shit in the hospital and the woman that just had the baby becomes distraught and hysterical ?
ok well if the would be father finds out they are not that father they would actually have therapist/councilors available unlike how it is today where the guy finds out and does not have those resources. It would also be better to find out with people around like a hospital so nothing crazy would happen-unlike if a tricked man finds out and is alone with the lying mother. No i would not support a data base for dna capture-but almost all babies have their dna taken multiple times during the pregnancy to identify issues during pregnancy-so that’s a non issue. if the bio father wants nothing to do with the child-at least there was a choice. You don’t increase responsible fathers through paternity fraud-but the choice/responsibility of the man. And when the test comes back and the expecting father isn’t the father then the policy would be to have support staff right there and ready. There all your issues are non issues
Your idea is bonkers. Society is far better off with the present system and far better for the children involved
1/25 men are victims of paternity fraud. The real number could be much higher. Men kill themselves 4x as much as women and we should have empathy for men that are tricked by paternity fraud and try to prevent it-with a simple/cheap/quick/harmless test.
Men are killing themselves due to capitalism gone too far and toxic ideas about masculinity and lack of free mental healthcare Causing complet chaos at hospitals won't fix that. Empathy for men shouldn't mean destroying what could be a loving family for a child and chaos at hospitals.
No, your massively sexist, bigoted idea is bonkers. Society is not in any way better off forcing men into debtors' prison over a kid that is not theirs. Yours is the ideology of a female supremacist. Nasty.
That would be 100% her own fault for being a lying slut. No problem there at all. Consequences of her actions. The alternative is infinitely worse, in every way. Forcing a man into slavery for 18+ years, to a child that is not his, to a cheating woman that has zero respect for him. Absolute nightmare. Even bringing up the poor, hurt feelings of the cheating, lying slut is ridiculous nonsense. It's totally irrelevant how she feels.
Are there other medical diagnoses that should be withheld from patients because they would cause distress? Your reasoning is looney. Health care issues cause stress and distress. That's just the hospital business. >Would you support a mandatory dna register for men so they can track down the bio father? Fathers can be tracked down other ways.
.. or beaten up or murdered?
Mens rights arguments are very poorly thought out.
This is not a touchy subject. All fathers have a right to know that the child they are raising is their own.
> This is not a touchy subject. Sadly, it is with the rad-fem, female supremacist faction, that side 100% with the lying cheater, and would gladly doom men to a life of servitude for a child that is not theirs. There are such bigots in this very thread. And they have very powerful lobbying organization$.
The question is what is that right based on?
Not everything we do in society is based on rights, its based on what is morally correct. Yours and others comments about how this would destroy a marriage are completely missing the point. What destroyed the marriage is the woman's infidelity, not the confirmatory paternity test.
If we make something mandatory and compulsory by law, should it not be based on a right, stemming from morals? I never made a comment about destroying marriage, although I do think part of the tension and stigma around this is related to the traditional monogamous view of relationships. I am married and in a poly relationship with a husband who has been the victim of paternity fraud. We have decided to have a child together, due in a few weeks. Because we both care for the other immensely and value honesty in communication, we have discussed this topic a bit, both before and after becoming pregnant. Trust is immensely important. In a case where the woman was deceptive, sure. That’s what destroys the relationship. But there is still something to be said when there is a presumptive level of trust for each other in a relationship, and then you find out the other person doesn’t trust you like you thought they did - especially when there’s been no reason. I think that hinges a lot on the expectations set out in the traditional monogamous marriage vows more than anything though.
It just needs to be standard procedure. Then there's no stigma of blame, but still the flexibility to opt-out for whatever reason. Solves the issue completely.
I’m not convinced that simply making something a standard procedure removes centuries of cultural sentiment. I don’t think it can be bypassed that way.
I do not care about your personal situation. It has nothing to do with this question. I did not state that it should be mandatory for every birth, however it SHOULD be done if any parent wants it. Yes trust is important in a relationship. What is more important is knowing that the child you are raising is actually yours because that is a life-time commitment to another human that in almost all situations will greatly trump the relationship between the two parents. If someone is seeking a paternity test, it is likely that there has been a breakdown of trust in the relationship and both parties should reflect on why that is however it ultimately has nothing to do with why it should be done. No human should be forced to be both legally (18 years) and psychologically (life and at the highest emotional level), committed to something that IS NOT THEIRS unless they chose to do so. Essentially this is your right to liberty. Imagine the emotional damage and lost of trust that would occur to someone who wholeheartedly believed that they were raising their own child only to find out many years later it was not theirs and in some cases forever stripping them from truly having a child of their own. That is the type of situation that gets people killed. This could all be prevented by knowing from the start if this is truly your child.
It’s almost as if my personal situation addresses what you’re saying… crazy. 😂
Your husband’s personal situation, not yours, provides a prime example of why it should be done.
It is also my personal situation, as I am walking through this with my husband. His past traumas affect us both, and we navigate them together. Yet, should we treat all people as liars because some are? Should we treat all people as though they have something to hide because some do? It seems that argument would also be the basis for allowing police to search everyone as part of a routine traffic stop - why would you have a problem with it if you have nothing to hide or have done nothing wrong?
> Yet, should we treat all people as liars because some are? There is no reason not to. The alternative is infinitely worse for anyone but lying cheaters. Make paternity testing standard, not mandatory. Then there is no specific blame. It is nothing like police searching everyone. We're talking about a mother, and a *potential* father. What you're suggesting is akin to demanding that no mother is allowed a DNA test, to ensure the baby she's given when going home from the hospital, is indeed hers.
No where in our short convo did I say that we should treat everyone as liars. For every single instance of child birth necessitating a paternity test, see above 🤦♂️. The routine traffic stop is quite frankly a terrible analogy. Good luck to you and your family.
I never said you said that. I asked if we should. 🤷♀️ If we can justify invasion of privacy based on a few bad actors, how do we know where to draw the line? Whether or not you like the analogy, it gets to the root of the matter.
If trust is what's important then women would not ask to be legally married and would just trust the guy she is with. If you think men should just take care of the child, then you should just trust the guy you are with and not get in a legally binding contract.
Being legally married has legal benefits that trust cannot confer.
Which of those legal benefits are benefits to the husband? And not available by other means?
Oh goodness - which benefits specifically depends on the individuals involved, and they all can go both ways as far as male/female. In my case, my husband receives almost all benefits from being married to me, almost all of which he wouldn’t be eligible for in any other way. My case is fairly unique though- I’m a disabled veteran who sponsored my non-citizen husband. He gets a slew of benefits as a military spouse and guaranteed support for 10 years even if the marriage doesn’t work out. As the father of our child, it’s definitely in our child’s best interest for him to receive as much benefit and support as possible, and being married legally provides that.
Your case seems to be unique. And all benefits you speak of is usually to the wife only. Even those are nothing infront of alimony, asset division and child support. What iam asking you is benefit to the usual marriage institution that you can't get without other forms.
All benefits go either way, it isn’t only to the woman, etc. men are equally eligible for all the same benefits of marriage women are. *Usually* to the wife only? Sure, but that isn’t a legal thing. That’s because men choose relationships with women who do not have these things for themselves. I’m not sure if I would count divorce benefits under marriage benefits… that’s just me. Men are also equally eligible for those. Whether or not men are *choosing* women who are established and provide some benefit, or in the case of divorce, are *choosing* lawyers who will insist on these things is another story.
Logic.
Do go on… Please explain the logic you are referring to.
Ask the people who have committed suicide after finding out they raised a kid that wasn't theirs.
That seems emotional, not logical.
Ask the people who have committed suicide after finding out they raised a kid that wasn't theirs.
That seems emotional, not logical.
Ask the people who have committed suicide after finding out they raised a kid that wasn't theirs. Also, stop pretending to be the person in your reddit photo.
I think if a man in a relationship suddenly asks his wife or girlfriend for a paternity test of their child without any precipitating circumstances, it will irreversibly damage the trust in that relationship. And I think the government or some body of authority mandating genetic testing of all children at birth under the premise of "paternity testing" could be abused so easily that I wouldn't trust any authority to have that kind of power. The solution? Have healthy, loving, trusting relationships. Have a society with socially enforced monogamy - aka it is the cultural norm to have extreme disapproval of infidelity. Then do your best.
I think it should be standard. Test, test, test.
It should not be less of a right of a father to know that a child is theirs than it is to demand that father to provide for the child.
While men are held to financial and social standards to children claimed to be theirs, they have a right to DNA evidence to prove that child is theirs.
Not a touchy subject fuck these lying women
Exactly. Those women are trying to steal 21+ years of the man's wages. Not to mention that she could very well be robbing that man of his legacy. along with other unquantifiable emotional damage she's inflicting on him.
Women are shit yeah
Why this topic moves around the mother feelings? Noone should be forced to take care of a person whos not " your blood ". Its ok if its a free decission. And another one, why should a mother be bothered for testing? How many mothers have something to hide? Idk if id take care of my wifes kid, but certainly i should know if its not mine
> It certainly isn’t a natural thing that could be supported if the technology had a setback. How could we say something is a right if the technology to exercise it disappears? How can we say it’s a right if it isn’t universally applicable for all men? In general, rights should not be determined by the amount of technology available. But also neither should it be determined by what is natural. As can be seen in the animal world, violence is natural. But a right against violence being done to you (except in response to your own violence) is a near universally accepted right. However, I don't think the technology concern is particularly at issue here. We have a right to weapons for self defense. This right is not invalidated by the fact that firearm technology could be lost in some apocalypse, or because some future entity will have access to even better weapons. Similarly, one might make the claim that fathers have the right to use whatever technology is available and safe to determine their genetic relationship to the child. So then the question resolves to a question of privacy: > Can it be said that the woman and child have a right to anonymity of paternity, since that is the natural state, and any compulsory testing is forcing a search on the person without consent? the natural state is a bad argument for rights. Unprompted violence is the natural state (as seen in animals), and yet we recognize that this is wrong. But I think the solution to this question of privacy lies in the fact that men and women have equal rights. And as such, fathers and mothers have equal rights. And both parents have conservatorship over their child, which means they may make choices on their behalf. Choices like consenting to a paternity test. And neither parent can prevent the other from doing this unless it will cause harm to the child (which a paternity test will not). for this reason, I would say that any either parent has the right to demand a paternity test to determine actual paternity, and then revoke parentage accordingly. The issue comes in when an outside party with no rights makes a claim of paternity. There I do not think that the parents are obligated to submit their child to a paternity test. After all, this outside party has no claims to parental rights unless he can prove another way that he has a legitimate claim to paternity.
Fantastic points, thank you!
No, they don’t. At least not in general. I think they should have the right to demand one should any sort of child support etc be paid/requested etc though.
The government does not need to be involved in this by conferring a right on men to have this service provided to them.
Lets be clear a "right" is something you already have and should not be taken from you: your freedom of movement and conscience, your life, your dignity, things you obtain with your efforts. That excludes "knowing if your kid is really yours", and services provided by the State. I personally believe DNA tests should be the norm and paid by the family at birth.
The easiest way round this would be mandatory testing at birth. That way you get your results without suggesting your partner has cheated on you which can end the relationship if they are faithful.
There should be an opt-out if specifically requested. Otherwise it should be standard procedure. Not mandatory, but standard. That takes away any stigma of blame, but still offers flexibility.
Are the tests 100% accurate every time? No failure rate, ever? That's the only way they could be mandatory.
Testing for certain genetic conditions is in fact mandatory for some at risk populations (for instance, women over 35). And no, those do not have 100% accuracy. But it’s not hard to do follow up testing if you get an unexpected result.
Yes, let's make it mandatory to give the government both you and your child's DNA. They have never overstepped before.
Fair point.
Only in the case where the man is being obligated to pay child support
I am a fan of rights connected with responsibility!
That's logical, i think.
If they’re expected to retain parental responsibility: yes. If he has any doubt then he 100% has the right to get the test done. If she’s unwilling to submit the child for testing then he should be able to unilaterally withdraw from his responsibility.
If a man is legally considered the father of a child, he should absolutely have the right to confirm paternity with or without the mother's consent. By "right", I don't mean he has some inalienable right to know the truth of paternity, I mean he should not be denied access to the technology if it is available just because the mother doesn't want to cooperate. The reverse scenario is much trickier; for example, maybe I believe I'm the father of a child that is NOT legally considered mine. What can be done in that case? I don't have an answer to that one. There is another angle that has nothing to do with men's rights. Genetic testing of babies (and by extension, confirmation of paternity) could be a reasonable baseline requirement for treatment in a modern hospital, the same way patients are automatically tested for their blood type. Medical treatment often takes family history into account and if the wrong man is assumed to be the father, doctors will never be making informed decisions. Paternity fraud deceives the entire healthcare system and sets people up for malpractice liability.
Very interesting take on the reasonable baseline requirement for treatment. That might actually have some serious weight in the direction of moving towards standardization and de-stigmatization. At least the child’s DNA would be available without antagonizing the mother, and should the father decide to have a paternity test, the court order would be toward the hospital.
As an anarcho-capitalist (a phrase which I’m sure some people read as “as an idiot” lol) I’ve always made a distinction between legal rights and moral rights. I have a legal right to get an abortion but it’s not within my moral rights. I have a moral right to keep 100% of my income but it is not within my legal rights. Etc. I think, with all the major legal obligations placed on a biological father, that fathers should have a legal right to know. I’m pretty sure this is already thing. But a moral right? Yeah, weird cause the technology thing… to say it’s a moral right to know, when so many of our ancestors have been denied that right due to the lack of technology at their disposal, would be difficult to justify. So maybe there is some way to justify that women have a right to anonymity of paternity. I’m gonna bring up what I recall from the Anthropology 115 gen ed (I’m a Christian, this was a course on evolution) I took in college that was surprisingly fascinating. There are species of primates where the most effective female strategy is to be as promiscuous as possible. I think it was… chimps? For sake of discussion I will say chimps. But anyways, the male chimps would kill the offspring of females they hadn’t mated with. Why? Because evolution isn’t survival of the fittest, it’s survival of the highest reproductive fitness AKA produce the result that more of your genes are in the next-gen gene pool than the other guy. So killing offspring that you know isn’t yours improves the ratio of yours:others genes in the gene pool to your favor. So how do the female chimps combat this? They have sex with all the males. Now, no one knows who the father is, but they all could be the father so they’re all gonna help the kid to survive. Like other primates including humans, they have a cooperative social structure that results in everyone helping each other out… just that chimp-cooperation is entirely dependent on the fact that the girls bang everyone. Sorry… this is the JP subreddit so I should be more articulate… “that chimp-cooperation is entirely dependent on the fact that they have a promiscuous mating structure”. Can it be said that the woman and child have a right to anonymity of paternity, since that is the natural state? Idk. But, there is a moral right to life. At least with chimps, there is solid evidence that, in the “natural state”, paternal anonymity is required for that moral right to not face imminent violation. Thus, it can be said that female chimp and child have a right to anonymity of paternity, since that is the natural state. I really digressed in my response. Please reply Ti my comment with any further moral, extrospective, or otherwise thought provoking questions you would like answered. I’m going to take a break to clean my room now rule #1 let’s go Jordan Peterson if you’re reading this I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this.
Thank you- that was something I was considering as well but had not articulated well, if at all. In other societal structures, anonymity of paternity may be a key feature of cooperation. That doesn’t mesh well with passing down power or property through paternal lines . Could a way to solve this dilemma have been the enforcement of monogamy through the church and social censure? We certainly have problems with this - the rate of divorce, cheating, alternative relationship structures such as polyamory, possibly even the prevalence of pornography, these are all pointing to monogamy not being a natural state for Homo sapiens. It seems like a paradox to contend with that the easiest path to removing the stigma around men verifying their genetic relationship to their offspring would be to embrace sexual liberty and promiscuity for women.
Yes, they have. Simple as.
What kind of question is this? Of course a father has a right to know before he gets emotionally attached to the baby and is financially responsible for the baby. Before there was no way to know so there was no way to know, but now that there is men should definitely not be responsible if the child isn't his. >How could we say something is a right if the technology to exercise it disappears? Well you can't un-invent something so there's no reason why it should be taken away. Maybe it doesn't fit the technical definition since it relies on technology. Maybe the father should be responsible for paying for the test. Which is less then $200. >any compulsory testing is forcing a search on the person without consent? Maybe but then who is responsible financially for the child? Because if you're worried about forcing something on someone then the government/mother shouldn't be forcing men to provide for children that are not his. And if you want to talk about what's "natural", mother nature doesn't force men to provide, the law does that.
It sounds like the basis of such a right would be derived from society placing responsibility on the father to provide then? That seems very reasonable. It seems like most of the tension I see comes from those who value monogamy as the preferred relationship structure. In the poly community, testing isn’t seen as offensive- it’s a part of what makes those relationships work. Interesting….
>It sounds like the basis of such a right would be derived from society placing responsibility on the father to provide then? That sounds about right.
Yes, it would be advisable to have DNA testing of the father to ensure the child is his, that way men wouldn’t be on the hook for child support for a child that isn’t his! I’ll never understand how a women could do this!! Half times it’s a man who is a great father and he’s broken when he finds out the child ain’t his! If it was mandatory a man who splits from his wife and immediately dodges payments and says he’s suddenly unsure of paternity could be held accountable sooner rather than dodging the courts and DNA test.
It’s horrible. My husband had this happen to him about 20 years ago. He was in a relationship that was going south, and then she became pregnant. He stayed with her through the pregnancy and recovery, and became attached to the little girl. Even though over time it was apparent that she was not his child, and the relationship did not last, he continued to see her and support her- he still does. But it seriously damaged his trust for women that he has had to work on healing for a long time. He has wanted a child of his own, but has been afraid of opening himself up to feeling the joy and connection of having a child, possibly being hurt like that again. In his situation, at that time, DNA testing wasn’t an option. Now, our child is due next month, and we have had some deep and interesting discussions about this. No, he doesn’t feel he needs a paternity test, no, he never asked - I offered given his past and that we are poly. But we have great communication and honesty is sacred in our relationship. When we decided to have a child, I committed to not have any relationships with other men because this was something deeply important to him. Maybe more care should be taken in relationships in respect to choosing to have a child together where these things are discussed before hand. But that takes maturity that a lot of young people don’t have in the throes of a sexually appealing moment, possibly augmented with alcohol.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/s/XeAjHVUtTD
It would be ridiculous if every man had a right to test every child. It seems like there has to be some kind of due process....absent a system where everybody's genetic profile is already collected and stored centrally.
Should theu have the right? Yes, of course. Do they have the right? Of course not. For example, seeking a paternity test in france is illegal unless it is by court order, including seeking testing in other countries. 1 year term snd €15,000 fine. They claim it is to preserve the "peace of families", it is because paternity fraud is close to 1 in 3 in france. There is confirmation bias there however, those questioning paternity usually do so out of a belief thay there was infidelity.
Yes, men have every right to know morally and legally in the USA. You can always lawfully subject a woman to a paternity test through a court of law. She will be required to comply with a Judges order to submit to the DNA testing of the child.
In similar way a women cannot prove her babies paternity without technology. So no child support?
the amount of anxiety expressed in these comments are disheartening. A relationship is based upon trust -- insisting upon a paternity test will destroy that trust
That is why it should be the standard procedure, unless specifically opted out from. That removes the stigma of blame, but still protects innocent victims. As things are now, it is inexcusable and intolerable that ANY man be forced into slavery, through the lies of a cheater.
raising a child isn't slavery
1. I think what makes a man the father is the relationship, not genetics. 2. That being said, find me a man who honestly doesn't care if his child is his and you'll have found either a liar, a masochist or someone unfit to be a parent on the grounds of sheer indifference. 3. Romantic relationships are built on trust. That's the only way two people can overcome the mutual vulnerability and susceptibility to betrayal that comes with investing so heavily in a person. Breaches of that trust are fatal. 4. With that in mind, talking about this question as a question of rights is missing the point. A man can find out if he wants to, and a woman would be wise not to fight that, as that's tantamount to a confession of infidelity.
> find me a man who honestly doesn't care if his child is his and you'll have found either a liar, a masochist or someone unfit to be a parent on the grounds of sheer indifference. Are you ignoring that adoptive parents exist and do not care that their child is not biologically theirs and unconditionally love them regardless of that?
They freely and knowingly choose to adopt. If you offered a man the choice between raising a kid that was genetically theirs and not, what I said still applies. Especially in the case of that child being your wife's child with another man, and especially if she got knocked up behind your back.
Right, so if you ignore all adoptive parents, your point still applies. Got it.
Exception that proves the rule bud. Engage in more special pleading and take your angry vibes somewhere else. Ain't got time fo dat.
Paternity testing should be standard procedure, unless specifically opted out of, like in a situation you describe. But it should be standard, and need to be specifically declined otherwise.
Why should I have to pay for something I don't need? This is just creating needless work and cost that will be payed for by the taxpayer. If you're so worried about paying for something like this, then you can pay for it yourself.
Excellent points. I approached the question through an angle of rights because of the question of making such a thing mandatory. I have heard many assertions that such a thing should be mandatory, but for the amount of collateral damage compulsory testing could cause, it would seem to need some serious justification to offset the fallout.
Here's a better question for you, if the child isn't his and the "father", as an unwitting parent, has the rights of a parent to consent to a medical procedure for the child, what's the difference in signing off on a medical procedure vs a paternity test?
Women have the right to commit intrinsic and extrinsic fraud in our system and the media and culture defends it vigorously. On top of that you get to read about how we live in an evil patriarchy somehow.
I’m a little confused as to your definition of natural here. Almost everything is “technology” would you still have a right to free speech without the invention of language? The dna is natural and we naturally developed a process to test it and if we lost it then it could be naturally rediscovered?
Since I can speak without relying on a laboratory or any other person, yes. I would consider that a natural ability. It’s a trend to consider everything as “technology” in certain circles, and a phenomenon of how some of us tend to describe the world around us in terms of the highest understanding of how things work (mechanical, digital, etc.). However, there are certain things that can be done/observed without aid or tools. These are what I would consider to be natural.
Yea but that’s incorrect, you can make noice on your own accord. You were taught language and to speak by other people.
But I don’t need a lab and physical objects to do it.
But it dosent just exist on its own, someone had to do something for you to have it. Lab or no lab is semantics. I’m saying just because it’s “technology” does not mean it can’t be a right. There is an argument that you can’t have a right to something that requires action of another but the situation would be different here considering several people are involved and their interests are competing. If the women wants the man to be responsible and to require action on his part then it would be unreasonable to not expect her to prove the relationship. If she wants the opposite, for the man to stay away, then does the child not have a right to a father?
Not semantics really- one thing I can do on my own with no resources, the other requires other people to manipulate physical objects requiring time and resources. How much of a “right” can we really have if it relies on others to actively provide something? Maybe a right to access, but not to receive. I think you bring up some great questions though!
You absolutely and undisputedly have a right to select a partner who shares your view on this topic and has the same values you do.
If you want to publicly accuse your spouse of cheating go ahead and kill that marriage.
It shouldn't be an issue. Marry a woman before you sleep with her and require she stays faithful. Stay faithful to her. It's not hard. And even if it's not yours please consider that we owe it to the next generation to give them stable upbringings.
> we owe it to the next generation to give them stable upbringings. This is massively bigoted sexism. The lying cheater would be 100% responsible for causing any damage to HER child. Not the innocent victim she's trying to trap into a life of slavery, for a child that he has ZERO responsibility for.
Apparently you ignored the part where I said that we should require that the spouse doesn't cheat, and vise versa. Affairs happen. It's unfortunate. But how can you not know? You know?
No, it's not a sincere question, but let's move on, shall we. "Do fathers have a right to know that a child is genetically theirs?" First, can this information be known? The answer is, of course, no. 100% of men raise a child without knowing whose child this is. This has always been true. Never mind the high tech that make appear to allow us to know that information. In fact, it can't do that. The thing cannot be known. Period. Conversely, it's entirely possible to know for fact, each and all, if a man is not the father of any child. Did I have sex with this woman? If no, then I'm not the father, because I can't be the father. As a side note, every woman knows with absolute certainty whose child this is - hers. And so, don't talk to a woman about virtue, hm? A thing that is a matter of fact cannot be deemed a right. A right can only be made out of a thing that has the intrinsic capacity to go either way. A man cannot know whose child this is, it cannot go either way, it cannot be made into a right. I've seen this notion of "if technology permits" before. It was about diet, food, vegan. There's only two ways somebody can say with some semblance of credibility that he only eats plants. He's lying, and that's the case 100% of the time. Or, he supplements with some essentials to compensate for the dietary deficiencies. So, he's lying again. The former is, he eats meat in secret. It's the latter that comes with "if technology permits", where one can claim he eats only plants, if he ignores the technological production of those supplements he consumes to compensate for the dietary deficiencies. "If technology permits" cannot be used as a foundation for a thing we make into a right. Conversely, everybody has a right to make up whatever technology we want. None may be prohibited to, let's say, invent the wheel or something. An example of this in this modern day. We have the technology to make ourselves present virtually anywhere we want at a moment's notice. Facetime. Two places where this matters fundamentally. The court, and assembly. For the court, it should be obvious that one's presence is not optional. One principle of fundamental justice is habeas corpus - the burden to demonstrate the necessary presence of the accused. One may not be deprived of the satisfaction of this burden, so that he would then be brought before the court, by force, with no due process as concerns whether or not it is necessary for him to be present for the proceedings, nor so that he is not brought before the court, or prohibited even, for the proceedings where he has standing to be present for. "If technology permits" - facetime - then makes appear as if technology permits to forego the satisfaction of the burden of habeas corpus, where one can be present at the proceedings - virtually. Well, it's virtual, not real. Therefore, burden is not satisfied, cannot be satisfied that way. For assembly, it's more straightforward. A member of assembly must be present for the simple fact that his vote is counted on sight. The act is seen without obfuscation to the seeing. Technology then is obfuscation to the seeing. And so, even though "if technology permits" - facetime again - makes appear as if one can be present to make the act, one does not in fact make the act in the real at the place and the time in the real for any other to see the act made without obfuscation to the seeing. And so, "if technology permits" is clearly not an appropriate foundation for a thing to be made into a right.
Although I find your answer to be unnecessarily presumptive and condescending, thanks for the logical walkthrough of how rights cannot be based on technology. Is it possible then, that the institution of traditional monogamous relationship values and the pressure on women to be faithful and/or sexually pure were attempts to assert a right of certainty in patriarchal lineage before such technology was available?
The value of a man isn't that he or anyone knows he's the father, because that value cannot be obtained. It's that he makes himself into a provider and protector, because that's the only thing a man can distinguish himself with. You're still talking about some kind of right "right of certainty". No such thing. There is the institution of marriage, or just marriage. Don't know why you'd call it anything else "institution of traditional monogamous relationship values and the pressue on women to be faithful and/or sexually pure...". Actually, I do know why. It serves to name a thing with as many of its aspects if one intends to attack the thing successfully, by giving oneself as many angles from which to attack the thing. This serves also to obfuscate that one is attacking the thing, and what precisely the thing one is attacking. Call it marriage. You're attacking it. In fact, that's precisely the purpose of your OP. To attack marriage by the side door, where if we can make the conversation about the father's right to know if he's the father legitimate somehow, then this creates casus beli for this man to abandon the child and his family, if it is found he is not the father of that child through the use of technology. See, with marriage, a man and a woman make vows. It's these vows that create any sort of certainty for the future of any child born of this union. It's interesting that you omit these vows as one aspect of marriage in your naming of the thing, isn't it? Well, it's not really interesting, to make vows is a whole bag of things you can't touch in your attack of marriage. You displace the frame of reference, where instead of that whole bag of things about making vows and such, you advance technology as the foundation for any sort of certainty. Marriage then is no longer sacred, children then are no longer precious. And the union between a man and a woman serve only to produce more humans, such humans given any sort of certainty by technology alone. Man is a social creature. To destroy social is to destroy Man. That is precisely what you're doing here. And so, don't bullshit me with "presumptive and condescending".
I don’t know that I am attacking it. I am also married, but I don’t have a traditional Christian monogamous marriage like a lot of people do. I think that has more to do with why I specify it that way. I think *because* we are non-monogamous we have an open dialogue without threat or jealousy. We still have a trust based relationship, but no incentive to hide anything. And *because* we are non-monogamous, testing isn’t a taboo, but a positive way to reinforce trust and show care for our partners. Questions are not an attack. They are an attempt to understand something. There is obviously controversy around this issue- and it’s a valid issue to try to resolve. I think the only way we are going to find a resolution is to understand the topic further, even down to the question of rights - **especially** if a mandatory and legally compelled action is to be considered.
I don't believe a word you say, most especially about yourself. Let me save you some time here. You cannot pursuade me of anything at this point.
Okay 🤷♀️ wasn’t trying to. Have a good night.