"Social father". Today marks the very first time I've ever heard that term, and I consider myself well-read. Every day I learn something new.

Myself, I think the DNA truck is a remarkably good idea. I hope they succeed.

"As this (industry) evolves it will create... a social expectation that, despite a past relationship between a social father and a child, DNA is everything," said David Bishai, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health."

Uh, sorry sparky, ISN'T THAT ALREADY THE BASIC EXPECTATION?

oh, but that's old and passe, right?

From a family of adopted people, I might mention that when you have "social" parents, they go into it with the full knowledge that they are taking in children, and it is their own WILL that will make them parents.

But there is never a question as to who they are genetically related to... then it doesn't matter because it is the parents that are willing to make it all work that are important, and they know that there is no genetic thread, only a thread of love.

So why is this important, and why do their need to be genetic counseling?
Could it be that someone was fooling around and is a liar?

Sure, those kids are going to pay for what one of their parents did, and for that they will need counseling. That in itself is a sorrowful.
But there should be no sympathy for the person that made the choice to start this mess, and they are making arguments to excuse that action.

> "Social father". Today marks the very first
> time I've ever heard that term, and I consider
> myself well-read. Every day I learn
> something new.

Yes, yes, and yes. RG: threadwin outta the gate. There's nothing more noteworthy in this blog post than that hideous wording from a social sciences academic. That is a horrible, horrible locution. It almost sounds praise-worthy.

(We shouldn't surprised: Those people are the smug, wretched cheesemasters of our generation.)

Now what happens with the DNA that doesn't match the father's?

Is the record kept on file ad infinitum until there is a match to the kid? Can the half profile be used later to convict the father who commits a crime? Or his DNA is present at a McDonalds after a robbery or found in a dead hooker?

Do you really want the hospital where your kid is born doing a DNA profile and keeping it on record? How about if it is only kept in a secure database at the FBI?

Just asking....

Just a minor reminder: DNA testing only looks at a few characteristics, it is far from complete. If carried out perfectly, there is about a 1 in 7000 chance that DNA profiles from two different people will match.

What does this mean? It means that if the police have the profiles of about 5000 people on file, there is a 50% chance that your DNA profile matches one of them. If they have 30000 DNA profiles on file, there is a 99% chance that you match one of them.

What could be wrong with that? A little kid having their Dad tell them "You're not really my kid" and disappear, with no support for the child processing this news. Possibly because of a mistake in collecting, handling, or storing the samples.

What else? That DNA profile isn't disappearing. Which opens up a whole other can of worms.

And? It doesn't address the root cause of this issue, which is screwing around not using protection. We should expect and encourage better of people, and shame them when they act like this. Not drive busses with cool slogans around town, making them feel like this is nothing more than ordering a burger.

On the one hand, I'm all for mandatory DNA testing at birth, because, let's face it, there are a lot of women out there making my gender look bad.

That said, the privacy issues, etc. are pretty daunting, and I don't really have a good solution for that.

But like Amy says, the shame bus got put in the junkyard a long time ago.

A decent mechanic could ge the shame bus back up and running. It would require no longer financially rewarding those who have babies unwed. The problem is society doesn't want ot, they want the sleek new crossover of applause no matter what you chose to do.

Take away women's ability to lie and cuckhold their unsuspecting mates? Society as we know it will crumble, no doubt.

What could be wrong with that?

The super secret unspoken reason for what is wrong is it would expose how common paternity fraud is

Ever watch Maury Povich?(sp)??

Mom "Guy x has to be the father, he was the only one I was with."

Maury "Guy x is NOT the father"

Mom "Well I was also with his cousin y, his brother z, their father w, y's father v"

Maury " Guys v,w,y, & z, are NOT the father. But we can test more guys for you.

- - - - - -

Barring a drugged rape that wiped the memories entierly from her mind a woman, while not knowing exactly who the father is, does know the guys who might qualify.

Persoanlly I had a woman run this scam on me, said she was pregnant, condom broke, and I was the father and she didnt believe in abortion. Heard from one of her friends who had the hots for me that she was cheating on me.

I told the pregnant one that I had a vasectomy years ago and just used condoms for STD protections. I had a cousin with the same name as me and borrowed his medical records, that the circumcision scars convinced her. She broke down and admitted there were actually 3 other guys she was running around with.

Heard from her friend she decided to get an abortion after all, I guess the other guys werent having her either. Last I heard she was blaming me for the abortion. I think that was probably cause after I dumped her I slept with half her friends. I honestly cant say whether or not she was even pregnant

RoadGeek took the trophy for the first comment.

But if he had not, M4 would surely be a contender:

> The problem is society doesn't want ot, they
> want the sleek new crossover of applause no
> matter what you chose to do.

Exactly. This lust for baseless admiration is often worded as follows:

[1.] There's no good reason that two good men can't raise a child to be just as healthy and happy as can a loving heterosexual couple...

[2.] ...Because the most intimate, nurturing affection from a woman –the mother– means nothing special to a child.

(Haha!  Just kidding!   You never see 
anyone affirm clause #2.)

(I was jus' kiddin' around with that part...
GOTCHA though, right? Har!)

Which just goes to show you that the entire world and all of human society is based on the acquisition and/or anticipation of sex. We're all either trying to get a partner or maintain what we have.

While back, in a piece on DNA testing, one of the idiot-level radical 'feminists' wanted DNA testing at birth banned; her reason being that 'the woman being able to choose who to say is the father is an important weapon for women.' Translation: "We don't want guys to be able to find out we've been cheating on them, and we want to be able to load child support on who we choose, not who the biological father might be."

THAT'S what could be wrong with that.

. . . there should be easy access to the truth.

What could be wrong with that?"

Not one thing wrong with this, unless, tax dollars are being used. Then I say; hell no!

But, checking it out it seems like they do a lot of other testing besides just DNA so perhaps they are not relying on tax dollars - then I'm okay with it.

I was going to post one of my typical rants about post-modern, have-it-both-ways feminism, but Firehand already said it better.

While back, in a piece on DNA testing, one of the idiot-level radical 'feminists' wanted DNA testing at birth banned; her reason being that 'the woman being able to choose who to say is the father is an important weapon for women.' Translation: "We don't want guys to be able to find out we've been cheating on them, and we want to be able to load child support on who we choose, not who the biological father might be."

Posted by: Firehand at September 3, 2012 3:57 PM
_______________________

Was that this U.K. article, by any chance? (Thanks for putting "feminists" in quotes, BTW - I can only hope and pray that only fringe types like Gloria Allred might agree with McDonagh and not, say, Gloria Steinem. I certainly can't imagine Katha Pollitt supporting fraud like that.)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy.thtml

Who’s the daddy?
Melanie McDonagh
23 October 2010
"Paternity can now be verified by a simple test – but that doesn’t mean it should be"

(Last two paragraphs)

".............A.C. Grayling, the philosopher, has written with feeling on this question this week, in an article for the Evening Standard. Noting that 4 per cent of men are, all unknowing, raising children who are not genetically theirs, according to a report in the Journal of Epidemiology and Human Health, he ponders the impact a DNA paternity test can have: ‘The result can be shattering, leading to divorce, marital violence, mental health difficulties for all parties including the children.’ Well, yes. Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations, but at God knows what cost in misery, recrimination and guilt.

"Our generation sets a good deal of store by certain knowledge. And DNA tests have obvious advantages when it comes to identifying less happy elements of our heredity: congenital disease, for instance. But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. I’m not sure that many people are much happier for it."

(end)

Not one commentator agreed with her. She even said DNA testing was "anti-feminist."

Where's Wendy Kaminer when you need her?

I swear, feminists REALLY need to learn the importance of beating their opponents to the punch. In this case, that would mean saying loudly and clearly, ASAP: "Yes, it's horribly wrong and felonious when a woman robs an innocent man to support a child; she should have to pay back every cent just as she would have to if she robbed a bank; and the more that DNA tests are made easily available to men, the less misery we'll have in the future, since kids will be more likely to know their true fathers, women in general will be less likely to cheat and/or commit fraud, and taxpayers may well have fewer taxes to pay to support other people's children, since women may have to start getting child support from the real fathers - and/or using birth control more carefully."

I found the New York article (about the mobile DNA-gathering facility) at Robert Franklin's site "Fathers and Families" (with his commentary) BTW.