Paternity tests should be mandatory at birth, problem solved.

Darren Jamieson, founder of pressure group CSA Hell: "...the mistrust generated by asking for these tests could do irreparable damage."

I think Darren Jamieson has the cart before the whorse. Asking for the test isn't a cause of mistrutst, it's the result of mistrust that's already been generated by something else.

Dr. David Jones: "It is irresponsible to leave these decisions to the free market and not think about the consequences for children and families."

The Director of the Roman Catholic Anscombe Bioethics Centre has become so pathologically PC that it never even occurs to him that it's not merely irresponsible, it's flat out evil, for a woman to steal a man's life away, or possibly two men's lives, by lying about who the father of her children is. And it's very likely damaging to her children to lie to them about who their father is.

Darren Jamieson: "It seems very wrong to me that you can walk into Boots and buy something that can split up a family unit"

"...Dr David Jones... believes companies should not be able to profit from revelations which could tear families apart, and leave children without a father figure."

How can those two guys say so much wrong in so few words? They can't bear to even consider that families can be torn apart and children left without a father figure by a woman perpetrating such horrendous betrayal and fraud against her own husband and children.

I bet they don't think private detectives shouldn't be able to profit from women who suspect their husbands are cheating on them... Or that a man who commits fraud shouldn't be investigated because it could result in him going to prison, tear his family apart and leave his wife's children without a father figure.

it's flat out evil, for a woman to steal a man's life away, or possibly two men's lives, by lying about who the father of her children is. And it's very likely damaging to her children to lie to them about who their father is.

Exactly. And this company is profiting by filling a need.

How the free market works.

Whether you like that need-filling or not.

"That's bad news for the couple and for the child; whatever the result is, the mistrust generated by asking for these tests could do irreparable damage."

Who says the wife even has to know the husband's doing this?

I find it an interesting mindset that cuckolding your husband is perfectly acceptable, and the only problem is if he discovers it. As Ken R notes, the real problem occurred before the DNA test happened.

A more likely underlying reason is the husband who discovers he isn't the father won't be on the hook for child support, or will sue to get out of it.

That's why the article has all these tear-jerking stories, without mentioning the elephant in the room, how the child was conceived in the first place.

Another interesting hypocrisy; they claim to be trying to preserve the bonds of the family, and yet, there is an entire legal industry dedicated to divorce & "making the man pay". Would the DNA tests blow this up? Is that why they are trying to shut this down?

It seems very wrong to me that you can walk into Boots and buy something that can split up a family unit

You mean like, say, a condom?

the morning after pill?

tobacco products? alcohol? whither dost thou draweth the line, sir?

I think I've seen paternity tests here in the states at either Walgreens or CVS. And I agree that they should be readily available... but this:
"Paternity tests should be mandatory at birth, problem solved," is crap. That you choose to sleep with women of questionable character is not a reason for the government to DNA samples from my children. That is, of course, the consequence what Reaper proposes. I don't even allow my (fully vaccinated) children to be included in vaccination databases maintained by the government.

Needless to say, the hypocrisy on display is breathtaking here. Since when do PM feminists not go out of their way to mock the concept of "family values"? Since when do they not argue that the very concept of fatherhood (real fatherhood, where the father is actually present in the child's life) is outdated and harmful? It's a prime example of have-it-both-ways feminism.

When I read the article, I saw something about the concerns of those who object that actually was not included in what I read. I think their problem is that they question the accuracy of the tests and that an inaccurate result could needlessly cause the disruption of a family. If I see a test like this for $50 on a drugstore shelf that says something like "As Seen on TV," I'd be apt to think I could take the test, get a negative result and then dump my family without any intervention from a medical professional.

Well, Wendy Kaminer has spoken against paternity fraud, for one. Aside from Gloria Allred, unfortunately, I can't think of any truly famous feminist who has spoken in FAVOR of paternity fraud.

Could you please give me at least two examples of famous feminists calling fatherhood "outdated and harmful"?

I HAVE heard liberals say that it's wrong and unfair for society to look down on families that aren't nuclear (or heterosexual) families for one good reason or another, but that's hardly the same thing!

(However, I will say that women who choose to become single mothers even before they get pregnant are not doing anyone any favors; aside from the effects of fatherlessness in children's lives, the mothers are simply perpetuating the stereotype that child-rearing should be primarily women's work, plus, they're encouraging the idea that men should not have to support their own children if they don't want to. At the same time, I'm not about to complain about single women who ADOPT children, given that there will probably always be many suffering foster children who never get adopted, sadly.)

To Cousin Dave:

Is "PM feminists" your way of saying "feminists born before 1960," hint hint? I can't figure out anything else.

To Fayd: Well put.

To ahw:

In Dec. 2009, Pankaj (normally a pretty strong supporter of men's rights, IIRC) said:

"These are the direct consequences of mandatory DNA testing - see if you like it:

1. Cost of independent DNA testing will rise.

2. DNA reports WILL be falsified - either on purpose or due to the sheer incompetence of the testers - thus eliminating any doubts a man holds and thus reduce the chance he would actually check for himself.

3. When a father overcomes his false faith in govt issued DNA report, pays the elevated cost of DNA testing - and finds out that the govt issued DNA report was wrong- now he still has to go to court and fight a long drawn out battle over the DNA report. And as you might know - govt is very willing to accept failure and incompetence on its system. cough..CSEA.. cough.. TSA.. cough .. CPS..

4. And given that the govt has shown its willingness to use DNA as a basis for determine obligations of CS (child support)... yeah things will work perfectly, right?

"Delusional.. that is what this idea is. I would say be careful what you are wishing for - you might get it."

Agreed. Paternity tests should be OTC, just like HIV tests and most forms of birth control.

OTC paternity tests would actually protect women.

"Delusional.. that is what this idea is. I would say be careful what you are wishing for - you might get it."
Posted by: lenona at May 19, 2015 9:01 AM

A DNA testing system doesn't have to be perfect to be better than no testing at all Lenona.

Next time you find a lump in your breast, just ignore it based on the good math that 95 percent of these suspicious lumps are benign..... And therefore nothing to worry about, and also the fact that the labs makes mistakes, and there are both false positives, and false negatives in the testing process.

Are you convinced now? Didn't think so. Because the movie of the week told you Breast cancer detection is perfect, and necessary. Right?

I recall Amy posting previously that actual paternity fraud is somewhere between 1-4%, way less than the perceived 10% plus that many believe it to be.

Paternity tests should be available to any and all who want to use them. Making them mandatory seems like using a missile to swat a mosquito.

To Isab:

1. Just so you understand, I was quoting Pankaj. That's why I used quotation marks - if not as thoroughly as I should have.

2. You didn't address the issue of MANDATORY testing and whether it's really better than simply pressuring men to CHOOSE to get tested early on. BTW, one doesn't always need an expensive DNA test - if the man is definitely NOT the father, simply comparing blood types will reveal that about 1/4 of the time, I think. (However, if the man IS the father, comparing blood types proves nothing.)

3. As I implied, even hardcore MRAs are not necessarily in favor of mandatory testing, for the reasons Pankaj gave. (It was at Glenn Sacks' website.)

Fayd makes an excellent point: the reliability of these tests will be less than 100%. Possibly a lot less.

The solution, I think, would be to treat these like tests for AIDS or other serious illnesses:

- The testing should be slightly biased in the direction of a bad result (presumably that means "no match"). This should nearly eliminate the chance of error in the other direction.

- The package should prominently state that a "no match" result is not definite, and must be confirmed by a more accurate test.

Obviously, the more accurate test has to exist, be affordable, and be very accurate indeed.

"Is 'PM feminists' your way of saying "feminists born before 1960," hint hint? "

Kind of the opposite... postmodern, aka third-wave feminism. Mostly younger women. This is where feminism, philosophically, went off the rails.

"if the man is definitely NOT the father, simply comparing blood types will reveal that about 1/4 of the time, I think. (However, if the man IS the father, comparing blood types proves nothing.)"

Neither of these statements are true. You need to read up on blood type inheritability.

And if you don't agree with someone, why exactly are you quoting them?

I think there may be some confusion between the words mandatory and standard practice.

When I have heard people talk about DNA tests being mandatory, generally when you open up the conversation further what the speaker really means is more along the lines of standard practice.

I think it is fair to assert that most people who say they are in favor of mandatory DNA testing are actually in favor of DNA testing being standard procedure that you need to choose to opt out of.

What proponents of this system are trying to avoid are the trust issues/arguments associated with a prospective father asking for DNA testing to be performed while in the delivery room with a woman who just gave birth.

That isn't really the best time for them to go down that road as an out of the ordinary request. If on the other hand it was standard practice, the couple could easily request that such tests not be performed.

A fair point Artemis. A standard opt-out system for parental testing removes most of the issues.

Heck, allowing evidence of non-parentage in court for child support would be huge. Most areas have very strict time limits and if you were snookered for too long it is 'in the child's interest' to keep you paying. One heck of a whopper if I ever heard one.

Patrick, your idea of doing it behind the moms (wives) back is just...stunning. If my hubby did that (or asked for a test, period) I'd divorce him right along with the test results. Why? Because asking for a test (or doing one on the sly) is flat-out saying "I think you had sex with another man, and I think this kid is his, and I think you're the kind of woman that would lie about it". And that right there is a relationship ender. If you truly think that of the mom, your relationship is over whether or NOT the kid is yours. So just end it, THEN ask for a test.

And people who want to give the federal government the right to take your childs (and your) DNA....wow. I can't even fathom the stupidity in trusting government with that. Just don't fucking have kids, if you're that fucking paranoid all women will fuck around on you. Get snipped now and do the world a favor.

"What proponents of this system are trying to avoid are the trust issues/arguments associated with a prospective father asking for DNA testing to be performed while in the delivery room with a woman who just gave birth."

So when he says he doesn't want to opt out, its the same issue. The ability to opt out solves nothing. It shouldn't be done. Few men are truly that fucking paranoid and distrustful of their wives. You're wanting to mandate an invasive violation of privacy, for the few men so pussified they can't TELL their wives they distrust them, they need the big bad daddy gov't to do it for them. Nope. Those few men need to grow a pair, not involve the rest of the country.

"It seems very wrong to me that you can walk into Boots and buy something that can split up a family unit."

So, would he prefer that only the wealthy have this option?

As it is can't those who have money ask their doctor to run a test (paying cash) and no one be the wiser?

I think that it is great that the free market is now making this something the less well-off can now afford.

As for the test making it something that will split up the family that is nonsense. Families will be split up with or without the test. Such a test is simply making the truth more affordable.

Neither of these statements are true. You need to read up on blood type inheritability.
______________________________

Er, explain, please? Everything I've ever heard implies that what I said was true. Here's a chart that may help:

http://www.dna-testing-adviser.com/Blood-Types.html
______________________________

And if you don't agree with someone, why exactly are you quoting them?

Posted by: Isab at May 19, 2015 12:52 PM
_________________________________

I never said I didn't. I just don't like it when people don't name their sources correctly.

That chart doesn't list the percentages of the various blood types in the population.

A very high percentage of the population. Is either A or O and the RH factor is often carried as a recessive trait.

Because of this your *one in four* assumption is way off. There is only about a five percent chance of excluding someone as the father of a child based on blood type,

The other problem is, people are not routinely blood typed anymore. My son finally learned his when he joined the military.

I think you would find In a questionable paternity situation, blood type will tell you almost nothing, and you may have to have everyone blood typed to find out almost nothing about their paternity.

In addition, hospitals never take anyone's word for what their type is, because there are several different divisions within each group, a simple A,O, AB, B negative or positive is insufficient information for doing a transfusion.

A DNA test is cheaper, easier and more certain.

Right now,there are at least thirty five different blood groups recognized, in the world population. Most of them are quite rare.

One of my interests is genetic anthropology, and yes, I have taken some college courses in the field.

The info on that website you cited, are just waving their magic wands. It is clear that they don't really understand much of either the science or the statistics behind blood typing.

Momof4,

Just to be clear are your for or against this product being offered over the counter?

Not judging or even disagreeing but looking for clarity.

So just end it, THEN ask for a test

Right, ask for the test after the results wont matter to the court.

Great strategy

The problem I see is that in the cases I am aware of (very few) the man didn't suspect anything until years later -- usually when it is brought up in a nasty fight or divorce. The one exception was a white couple had a very dark skinned baby - well, for a fair skinned couple.

So from that aspect it really seems like it needs to be mandatory but I don't have any idea of to solve the issue with the government getting the DNA of everyone.

I don't think it's nevessarily a bad idea to sell these tests OTC. I just worry about the accuracy of them and how clearly they are labeled that the results should be confirmed with another lab as well. Because my in-laws were so terrible about my first pregnancy (DH and I weren't married yet but together for 5 years and it was planned), I offered to pay for a DNA test to confirm he was the father. DH seemed confused and hurt that I might have considered he'd doubt being the father. It wasn't that I thought he questioned it, it was that his father kept openly questioning it, his mother said I was trying to trap him, and they (plus other relatives) kept saying our son looked nothing like DH. We never got a test done because DH said he had no doubts that he was the father and he didn't care if his family thought otherwise. I sometimes wonder if he had a test done anyway and didn't tell me, because FIL abruptly stopped all the comments when DS was 3 months old, and so did the other relatives.

It seems odd to me that they don't widely disclose or test blood types since I was told all my kids' blood types at birth. Three of my kids are A+ and one is O+. I'm A- and DH is O+. Maybe I just had mine tested because I'm Rh-negative and need Rhogam if my kids are positive.

M4, here's a situation where a test could be very helpful for a man. Let's say I'm divorcing my wife. We've been separated for a while, but the divorce is taking time becuase of assets and kids and custody and legal stuff.

Now all of a sudden she turns up pregnant. I know the kid can't be mine becuase we aren't sleeping together and we haven't had any kind of sexual contact in months. Still, she claims the kid is mine. And since we aren't divorced yet, I will be presumed by law to be the father. A test like the one being marketed is my only hope of salvation; I can collect and submit it surreptitiously. If it shows that I'm probably not the father, then I have a chance of convincing the court to order a more accurate test, which will show conclusively that I am not the father. This might or might not help me avoid paying support for this child, but at least I have a chance. Without the test I have no chance.

All this said, the test won't help in the most egregious cases of paternity fraud -- the cases where a woman names as the father a man that she's never had sex with, or never even met. Because the accused man won't have access to the child and won't even be aware of the child's existence until he gets served with the papers.

I've no opinion either way on a company selling it. I don't think it's governments job to forbid it. I'd never be with a man who wanted it.

I find it unfathomable that there are people in this world who could raise a kid for years and then, when the relationship with the mom goes south, demand a DNA test in the hopes of...what? That this kid you've raised and loved for years can suddenly be cut out of your life? Would you not love them?? I don't get it. I could never love and raise a kid and then just walk out on them (yeah, I'm not a guy, but say the hospital had switched my baby at birth. I love this kid I've raised, mine or no!!) heck, if hubby had an affair and had a kid, I'd probably fight for us to get custody and raise and love THAT kid as my own.

Another alternative to mandatory testing would be for the birth certificate application to have a check box for the mother stating that she did not have sex with any other men for the last nine months other than the man signing. Have perjury attached to it just like a court document which it would be in case of a divorce in the future.

That chart doesn't list the percentages of the various blood types in the population.

A very high percentage of the population. Is either A or O and the RH factor is often carried as a recessive trait.

Because of this your *one in four* assumption is way off. There is only about a five percent chance of excluding someone as the father of a child based on blood type,
_____________________________________

Ok. If that's true, it explains why we never seem to hear, nowadays, of men proving their non-paternity with old-fashioned blood tests.

But I still don't get why you said this statement wasn't true: "However, if the man IS the father, comparing blood types proves nothing." I.e., when the man is the father and wants to prove it, comparing blood types can only tell him "maybe" not "yes" or "no."

Thanks for the clarification Momof4. And welcome to the legal system.

For many men it isn't about abandoning a child but instead about having control of the support. A very large percentage of child support is actually alimony, since it is not spent on the child. And some feminists are even embracing this by asking that child support not end when the child reaches their majority.

In the end the real problem is our family law and courts. They are quite broken and sexist. And while the level of paternity fraud is quite low (around 3-4%) the number of false paternities these test find is quite high (over 90%). So in effect these are just proving something everyone already knew.

momof4 says:

"I find it unfathomable that there are people in this world who could raise a kid for years and then, when the relationship with the mom goes south, demand a DNA test in the hopes of...what?"

I thought that most of this discussion was focused around tests near birth.

How would raising a child for years be a component of the equation if the evaluation is performed before any raising/nurturing occurred?

"yeah, I'm not a guy, but say the hospital had switched my baby at birth. I love this kid I've raised, mine or no!!"

Sure... but you honestly cannot see how it would be psychologically beneficial to walk out of the hospital with genetic confidence that the baby you took home is the one you gave birth to?

When you gave birth to your children did you even bother with any of the current safe guards to help ensure that you were talking home your own biological child?

Or did you just tell the hospital that you didn't care so long as an any newborn was sent home with you?

What I find so interesting about these discussions is that is is primarily new mothers who freak out and blow a gasket if the hospital had a mix-up... they then sue for immense psychological damages.

At the same time some mothers don't seem to be able to empathize with new fathers who desire the same sort of safeguards for them.

The easiest way to ensure that the hospital didn't mix-up the children at birth is to genetically test the children when they get home.

It doesn't have to be a trust issue about the relationship unless you make it one. The father has a vested interest in making sure that you brought home the correct new born from the hospital. If he checks out then you can also be sure that you brought home the baby you gave birth to.

The earlier these issues get addressed the faster things can be set right in the case of a hospital mix-up.

So, my baby has almond-shaped eyes. This was freaking me out, as we are not asian. A few people have commented on her eyes.

First, I was worried she might have down's syndrome, but when I brought it up to the pediatrician he basically thought I was crazy. She's hitting all her developmental milestones.

Now, I haven't slept with anyone else BUT she was conceived using IUI in a fertility clinic... so I started wondering what if they mixed up the vials, what if the vial wasn't washed properly, etc?

I brought this up to my husband and asked if we should get a test. He also clearly thought I was insane, but humored me a bit and said, "What would the point of that be? What possible good could come out of it? What if it turned out there was a mix-up? Wouldn't it be better not to know? All it would do would make us unhappy, it wouldn't change anything else."

I'm very grateful for his attitude, I gotta say.

She's looking a bit less asian. My first looked asian in the beginning, but only for a month or two, this one's seven months now... I dunno, I'll see what happens with time. I hope it's not some chromosonal thing.

"But I still don't get why you said this statement wasn't true: "However, if the man IS the father, comparing blood types proves nothing." I.e., when the man is the father and wants to prove it, comparing blood types can only tell him "maybe" not "yes" or "no."

Posted by: lenona at May 20, 2015 12:04 PM

Because it is statistically meaningless. Far more often wrong than right. 50 percent of the time the baby will carry the mothers blood type. And in 80-90 percent of the rest of the cases the presumptive father won't have a rare enough type to exclude anyone .

NicoleK,

Thank you for sharing your story.

I don't have an issue with people who prescribe to the "ignorance is bliss" philosophy for themselves. It is their life and they know what they need to be able to sleep at night... even if what helps them sleep at night is to remain unaware of certain things.

What I do have an issue with is when people who do live by the "ignorance is bliss" mantra look down their nose at people who would prefer to gather information upon which they can make life decisions (please note that you haven't done this, I am just speaking in general).

I believe that genetic testing is bound to become more and more common as people understand all of the good that can come out of it, right now the good seems a little too abstract for most people.

An example of what I am talking about, there are now tests everyone can pay for that will help identify risk factors for various types of dementia in old age. If someone were to wish to remain ignorant of those risk factors that is fine, but I can definitely understand the reasons why others might be interested in gathering this information about themselves.

NicoleK,

I wanted to make one further but more concrete point to demonstrate what I was talking about in my previous post with regard to the questions your husband asked:

"What would the point of that be? What possible good could come out of it? What if it turned out there was a mix-up? Wouldn't it be better not to know? All it would do would make us unhappy, it wouldn't change anything else."

Let me play devils advocate here for a moment and let's assume that all of those fears were correct and there was a mix-up at the fertility clinic... what good could possible come out of it?

Well for one, when we are medically treated, one of the most powerful tools a physician has at their disposal is family history with regard to predisposition for certain types of diseases.

If a child is not genetically related to the parents, but they believe that they are, they will be relating irrelevant information to their doctors for the rest of their lives.

Some women for example start getting breast exams early due to a family history of breast cancer. Some people get rectal exams early due to a family history of colon-rectal issues.

If a child is genetically unrelated to their parents, the family history of medical issues is irrelevant so far as their health is concerned.

That is the good that can come out of knowing ones actual biological lineage.

All the love and nurturing in the universe cannot undo a genetic lineage of heart disease.

Knowing these things about oneself can have important and positive consequences for a child in terms of decisions they make throughout life.

But that good needs to be balanced with the harm Artemis. Having a parent reject a child because they now know they are not genetically related is a significant harm with a significant likelihood of happening.

In the end you are right that giving people the choice is the best solution. They know themselves best. And despite all the horrible decisions people make a bureaucrat who has never met them will make even worse decisions for them.

Ben,

I do not dispute that the good needs to be balanced with the harm. I believe that this is true for pretty much anything. All decisions in life are about weighing pros and cons and then trying to make the best choice.

As I said, I was simply playing devils advocate and demonstrating that there is good that can come from running these tests.

Please remember that this is the question I was addressing:

"What possible good could come out of it?"

The presumption there is that only bad can come of knowing... but that isn't true. There is good that can come from knowing.

The decision isn't as simple as high risk low reward as it was originally made out to be.

For me, I want all the information I can get so I can make wise decisions according to the facts. Others prefer to not know things like if they are at high risk for cardiovascular disease... that is up to them.

It would be incorrect however to suggest that knowing ones biological lineage has a history of heart attacks and high cholesterol can't be beneficial or useful.

Artemis,

I understand and agree. I was just expanding the thought.