HuffPo writer opposes mandatory paternity testing (huffingtonpost.com)

{MensRights}

35 ups - 12 downs = 23 votes

33 comments submitted at 03:05:42 on Apr 29, 2012 by Bobsutan

  • [-]
  • Ma99ie
  • 15 Points
  • 05:10:11, 29 April

I love how a guy being tricked by a lying sack of garbage is just glossed over, as if the infidelity, plus the lack of choice for the defrauded guy, is just glossed over.

  • [-]
  • nlakes
  • 10 Points
  • 11:53:47, 29 April

I also like how some people take the argument "but, the children".

If a father decides to up and leave a child behind, even if they have a history, the focus is put incorrectly on the father "how could he do this, what of love for an innocent child?".

These "but, the children" people overlook that it was the mother who decided to run the deception. She is to blame for the abandoned child, not the father - I dare anyone to say otherwise. As it was her initial lie that created the whole scenario which the man has every right to walk away from (and be reimbursed plus interest for).

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 3 Points
  • 17:48:28, 29 April

What about the real father who was deprived of his kids because some chick wanted to choose who to use his children to defraud? Everybody loses when this irresponsible behavior is encouraged. If it can't be made illegal, we should take the trivial steps we can to make it rare.

  • [-]
  • nlakes
  • 1 Points
  • 22:55:02, 29 April

Him as well. Another victim of her deception.

>If it can't be made illegal, we should take the trivial steps we can to make it rare.

I think this is a valid point. If duped men cannot get their money back, cannot step away from this lie of a family the deceptive woman made; at the very least, we should give men assurance that they're raising their own kids and not someone elses.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 11 Points
  • 11:54:22, 29 April

> First, let's talk about women.

Fuck no. This is about paternity testing. Let's talk about the men first.

  • [-]
  • JockeVXO
  • 9 Points
  • 12:18:10, 29 April

Let's just give out random children to women who give birth. It doesn't matter if the child's hers or not. If it isn't, she should just "man up" and deal with it! EQUALITY!!!

  • [-]
  • SpeakToTheSky
  • 3 Points
  • 13:58:41, 29 April

my thoughts exactly. Just shuffle the babies like a deck of cards, and hand 'em out.

  • [-]
  • Strange_Dragons
  • 5 Points
  • 15:03:12, 29 April

ON WOMEN

> However, assuming that you can't trust any New Jersey mom to be honest about (or worse, to know!) who fathered her child seems like a giant step backwards, not to mention insulting. In my experience, paternity issues affect a minority of families, not the majority.

If paternity testing became standard, then it wouldn't even be a question - especially if, as she says, that "paternity issues affect a minority of families." Let's protect that minority of fathers, and if it's done as a standard practice then the father (if he's concerned) doesn't have to make things awkward by initiating the test, which could / would be seen as a serious breach of trust.

> But what if a woman did cheat on her spouse around the time she became pregnant... and he doesn't know it? Is it now the state's responsibility to let men know their wives have been unfaithful?

Yes, of course - if it's also the within the state's power to enforce alimony, etc. etc. upon the legal father in divorce cases.

> What about surrogate mothers or women who use donor eggs to become pregnant? Who is the "real" mother in these cases?

What does that have to do with protecting fathers, which is what the bill is designed to do? HuffPo author, please don't obscure the issue.

> And taking this bill to a potential extreme, what about women who become pregnant as the result of a sexual assault? If she chooses to have and raise the child as her own, she should not be reminded of the assault at the time of the birth, when it should arguably be one of the most joyous moments of her life. Does the government really intend to require that the rapist's name be identified as Dad on the birth certificate?

That's an extreme example, and one that will probably only occur in a very limited number of cases - I can't imagine a potential mother, who was raped, to not wonder about the biological father of her child. But, if the situation does arise in which a raped woman does carry the pregnancy to term without worrying / wondering / testing paternity, then ... the paternity testing data doesn't have to be given to her at the time of the birth, but afterwards; if this bill can make an actual rapist pay for his child, (assuming the rapist to actually be one), that's a good thing, and I'm sure there can be some legal work to make the expectant husband to be the father on the birth certificate while still having the ~~biological father~~ rapist still pay.

ON MEN

> it's a psychological fact that men do bond with their children, sometimes even before they are born ... Even when they have suspicions that Mom isn't being absolutely honest, many men won't insist on a paternity test for one simple reason: because they want to be Dads ... And contrary to what the bill's sponsor may believe, men raising children fathered by someone else often do not feel any differently about the child once they learn that child isn't their genetic offspring

That's a pretty large claim, author. Any citations? Scientific studies? Even polls or surveys? Because all the provides is the story of one unnamed man who, after a "bitter custody battle" found out that the child wasn't even his and was fine with it. That's OK for him, but that doesn't provide any reasoning to assume that every man would feel the same way, or even most; there especially is no reason to deny every man in this situation the legal right to seek recourse from the biological father, which this bill would provide.

> What about men who donated their sperm for this child to be born, but not much else? The bill takes the position that if your DNA is part of this child's genetic composition, you are a father, and thus financially responsible for that child. Where does this leave sperm donors?

Unless the mother went behind her husband's back to get sperm from a donor, sperm donation decisions would be decided by both parents, and would be a fix for paternal infertility. And, according to the HuffPo author, the legislation "would allow a man who erroneously thought he was the dad to seek reimbursement or sue the "real father" for support and other expenses he incurred raising the child." This is providing the OPTION for fathers who DIDN'T know about sperm donation to punish the sperm-donating father, or at least the company that provided the sperm ... hopefully, in this instance, the company. Which would force the companies to forbid married women from going behind her husband's back in this issue. (As a caveat: I really have no idea how the sperm donation process works)

> where does that leave non-biologically based fathers -- and more importantly, where does it leave their children? What does this bill mean for adoptive fathers and gay fathers?

Good question; I don't know. The bill, from the actual information provided by the HuffPo author, seems to say nothing about adoptive fathers and gay fathers. So ... while it is certainly relevant and important to think of those groups, I am unable to think of what this bill does mean for them.

> What about fathers (and mothers) who don't want testing done for any number of reasons, including religion or inability to make payment for the mandatory lab test?

  1. This should be the father's decision, just as abortion is at it's core the mother's decision.
  2. If the father wants to refuse the test, that should be fine and permitted by the law. If the father refuses the test because the mother is refusing the test ... well, more power to him. I guess. Seems suspicious.

> As for the non-biological father, he gets the dubious pleasure of knowing he's been cheated twice over -- cheated financially out of money he paid to raise a child for whom he's not responsible, and cheated emotionally of his status as a loving father

That's an interesting point! And due consideration for him should be written into the law. And I'd leave it to brighter minds than mine to proscribe what to do here.

TL;DR: Female HuffPo author raises many questions, only a couple of which are real concerns. IMO, the law is a good idea and establishes the basis for protecting the legal father. I like it.

  • [-]
  • a_weed_wizard
  • 4 Points
  • 11:46:04, 29 April

a woman with feminist leanings against paternity testing? why i am shocked. doubly shocked that the common non-arguments and false equivalencies like "oh b-b-but adoption!" and "oh a man can love a child that isn't his!" are trotted out as well

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 3 Points
  • 12:06:46, 29 April

What idiotic twaddle.

>As for the non-biological father, he gets the dubious pleasure of knowing he's been cheated twice over -- cheated financially out of money he paid to raise a child for whom he's not responsible, and cheated emotionally of his status as a loving father.

Because being an ignorant chump is so much better.

>As for the child, I can't imagine that it's anything but painful to learn that "Dad" isn't your father -- especially once you're old enough to realize that Mom may have been hiding his "real" identity.

The point of paternity testing at birth is to avoid such a situation.

>And Mom herself? She gets to have her character called into question because she either didn't know or didn't say who her baby-daddy was. Basically, this law would be a lose-lose-lose-lose proposition for everyone involved.

A woman who didn't know or didn't say who the father was but let her husband assume he was richly deserves to have her character called into question.

  • [-]
  • FigNinja
  • 3 Points
  • 06:30:10, 29 April

Anyone know if the author is actually correct about sperm donors being on the hook for support or is it just fear mongering?

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 2 Points
  • 15:20:46, 29 April

Earlier she say "Men "claiming" to be the father would be tested", to me that suggests that only the man who thinks he's the father would get tested, meaning sperm donors could remain anonymous. Her own article makes it seem like she's fear mongering, but I'd have to look at the actual legislature to know for sure.

  • [-]
  • AnnArchist
  • 2 Points
  • 18:24:17, 29 April

There is zero reason to oppose mandatory paternity testing.

None. Its low cost, even lower if part of every birth.

It prevents fraud on a massive scale.

It spreads the truth.

Whats the downside?

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • 1 Points
  • 22:13:50, 29 April

mandatory testing would raise already high birthing costs, and i don't like gov't telling me what i have to do.

  • [-]
  • AnnArchist
  • 1 Points
  • 23:24:10, 29 April

If its part of the insurance policy, its included in the bill.

Well worth it for the piece of mind it provides the father and would prevent paternity fraud, a crime that isn't on the books.

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • 1 Points
  • 00:37:02, 30 April

Id love for insurance companies to voluntarily cover it, but if govt mandates it than costs will be passed on to the consumer.

  • [-]
  • AnnArchist
  • 1 Points
  • 00:49:19, 30 April

it'd be a whole 15-20 bucks for the test if it were done for each birth in the US

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • 1 Points
  • 01:10:33, 30 April

i can't speak to what the costs would be in all honesty. the private services in my area i checked with said it would be a little over $100 to have paternity checked. i have a hard time thinking it'd be a 1/5th of that if everyone had to do it.

what i can say is that that kind of thinking is exactly what has led to our current situation where life seems to cost so much but no one can agree on why. it's because every single mandated thing is not a whole lot, but added together it's all resulted in exhorbant costs for everyone.

  • [-]
  • AnnArchist
  • 1 Points
  • 01:16:53, 30 April

Marginal costs would reduce it significantly.

Being a victim of paternity fraud costs its victims 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars per year for at least 18 years.

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • 1 Points
  • 01:55:29, 30 April

marginal costs would reduce paternity fraud? agreed. i was referring to the costs on the taxpayers or insurance customers.

believe me, i'm all for paternity testing. but i'm prepared to cover the costs myself. i'm not comfortable adding another thing into the gov't-mandated bin. i'd much rather see an awareness campaign happen wherein people were made aware how often paternity fraud occurs, and where the stigma against a man wanting to confirm his paternity is lessened.

  • [-]
  • AnnArchist
  • 1 Points
  • 03:06:07, 2 May

no, the marginal costs would reduce the price of the test, thus reducing the cost to insurance companies.

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • 1 Points
  • 03:13:43, 2 May

...say what?

would you elaborate on your thinking?

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • 2 Points
  • 03:27:21, 29 April

my only issue here is gov't mandating something. i don't like it in any case.

would it be difficult to make this a mandatory requirement with an opt out clause? that only men can fulfill? that would basically remove the actual mandatory element for those who don't want it (could be no one, could be everyone) while providing the father with the power to decide if paternity is confirmed or not.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 8 Points
  • 04:16:14, 29 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • 4 Points
  • 04:20:30, 29 April

Good caveat. I didn't think of that.

  • [-]
  • FascistOrigami
  • 1 Points
  • 05:21:02, 29 April

I think it would be sufficient to mandate paternity testing only when paternity is contested in cases of child support. That seems to be the most just and least awkward way of protecting men from paternity fraud.

  • [-]
  • Patrick5555
  • 3 Points
  • 14:00:33, 29 April

It so women cant say, "if you loved me you wouldnt ask for a test"

  • [-]
  • Bobsutan
  • 2 Points
  • 05:34:42, 29 April

It's only mandatory if the purported father (or the mother) wants the man to be legally identified as the father on the birth certificate, which is how it should be IMO. Could work for custody claims by a father being squeezed out of his kid's life, or by the mother to get child support by the biological dad.

  • [-]
  • meninist
  • 1 Points
  • 10:13:57, 29 April

48 states already mandate genetically screening babies for diseases/disorders. Paternity shouldn't be any different.

  • [-]
  • hardwarequestions
  • -1 Points
  • 10:36:11, 29 April

My response to that is I'd like those mandates to be rolled back.

Govt enforced mandates are bad. Plain and simple. This particular suggestion tests my commitment to that, sure, but I know its still a bad thing. itd be a much better legislative proposal if the suggested alterations were made.

  • [-]
  • airodynamic1000
  • 1 Points
  • 15:56:12, 29 April

Regardless of whether or not the father cares if the child is biologically his it is medically important to know who the real father is.

  • [-]
  • captainnomarriageblo
  • 1 Points
  • 16:19:23, 29 April

The last thing women want is personal responsibility for their decisions.