Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, but no lawmaker would pass such a law, as they'd probably lose the female vote.
Yes, because we are all cheaters having babies with the men we are having affairs with and we don't want to get caught.
If it was mandatory - I would have no objection. I also have no objection to my DNA being on file because I've never done anything illegal and don't plan on doing anything illegal in the future. If you think that only women would object to this and that all men would be for it - you would be in a for a big surprise.
The thing is - it's a waste of money and nobody is going to foot the bill for something that people can do on their own dime.
Just wait until that DNA is used to deny you or your children insurance coverage for a genetic predisposition to disease. You don't have to doing something illegal or unethical for something like this to come back and bite you on the butt.
Just wait until that DNA is used to deny you or your children insurance coverage for a genetic predisposition to disease. You don't have to doing something illegal or unethical for something like this to come back and bite you on the butt.
I'm just saying that if it was mandatory, I wouldn't be fighting it in the hospital. A couple of men on here think that women would be fighting it tooth and nail because we are all having babies with men other than our husbands and don't want to be found out.
They will never have mandatory paternity testing because it just isn't realistic nor necessary.
I'm just saying that if it was mandatory, I wouldn't be fighting it in the hospital. A couple of men on here think that women would be fighting it tooth and nail because we are all having babies with men other than our husbands and don't want to be found out.
They will never have mandatory paternity testing because it just isn't realistic nor necessary.
I agree. I would not fight a test if asked by my husband (or whatever) but I would probably always be bothered knowing he felt he needed one, maybe even enough to end the relationship, IDK.
I think guys push for the mandatory test just because they don't want their wife (or whatever) to know of their doubt and risk losing their relationship, you know just in case they actually are the father.
I agree. I would not fight a test if asked by my husband (or whatever) but I would probably always be bothered knowing he felt he needed one, maybe even enough to end the relationship, IDK.
I think guys push for the mandatory test just because they don't want their wife (or whatever) to know of their doubt and risk losing their relationship, you know just in case they actually are the father.
If it was mandatory - I wouldn't fight it. If my husband asked for one - I'm not sure I would get over it. Luckily, we actually trust each other.
I think the guys pushing for the mandatory testing are actually not in relationships nor do they have children. I think they just look for things to get upset over with out actually experiencing anything.
Why would they waste so much money on somethig YOU as the people in doubt can pay for themselves?
It has nothing to do with the health of the child at the time of birth.
Your perosnal situations are not the hospitals concerns
Bold part: Tell that to the fact that a man cannot either demand a woman to pay him the money and interest rates because "the child needed that money" (ahem, I imagine that bank employees who transferred client's money to their own accounts wouldn't be able to use their children as a justification to avoid giving it back). Not to mention that a woman definitely knew that the guy either wan't or may not be the biological father and that he thought that he was, yet she kept her mouth shut. Hospitals need to cash out millions of dollars due to an error that occurs extremely rarely and it's solely about a human error without any hidden intention. I should also mention that the state and federal laws are written in such way to deliberately discriminate and put everyone in a problematic, inconvenient and very terrible situation and it's primarily done for mother's convenience to cuckold a naive guy who trusts her. This is NOT how a law should work, yet it does, deliberately.
Now the common sense and argument for paternity testing being routinely done at birth, at the expense of health insurance or taxpayers... Financial aspect: Court proceedings ordered over 400,000 children to get tested on an annual basis in last years. More than half of these cases involved mothers who tried to enforce weird way of "fatherhood" - which is basically to use state to force a man who never wanted to be a father into a slavery-alike payments. The court expenses amount to over 5 billions of dollars and if a woman initiates paternity testing it gets paid by taxpayers, if the man is biological father he needs to pay paternity test cost, if not, taxpayers will cover that as well. To test about 4,000,000 children, the number of children born on an annual basis, you'd need about 1,5 billions of dollars on an annual basis, even if costs would remain the same like now instead of getting lower due to tests becoming routinely done.
Medical aspect: do I really need to explain this? About 150,000 newborns are completely abandoned each year, mostly being sent to foster homes and some got tossed to a nearby fire station. This even excludes millions of children that are raised currently by fathers who don't know that they are cuckolded. Remember, there are about 70,000,000 children in USA. Do you think that this even makes sense in an age when government invests dozens of billions of dollars into the concept of family medicine? Just to make it clear, this concept is about making it possible to offer diagnosis faster and to avoid unnecessary mistakes and thus saving money for avoiding wrong treatment, it also helps medical staff and people to get treatments for their susceptible diseases or even diseases that are going to be triggered at certain age in their life later on. It's in everyone's best interest to make sure these individuals get tested.
Law enforcement aspect: I don't even need to start an argument about fingerprinting in today's era but let's just have an interlude about fingerprinting. Prior to fingerprinting you had to i.e. catch the thief in the act to have a solid proof. Early societies employed a different legal system indeed - "punish severely and punish less often". This system of dealing with things could never stop a well-trained offender and solid proofs were very slim. Most folks would either get caught in the act or there would be lots of "he said-she said". The latter relied on personal status and family/clanship influences and relationships. And then came fingerprinting. First they only took fingerprints of previously felons and thieves, then they started saving fingerprints of potential suspects, only to realize that such system works best by having a global information on every individual.
What does global DNA database have with fingerprinting? Well, imagine all the felons, rapists and murderers who either got away or have a long way before police finally catches them as suspects to take their DNA and compare it with the DNA samples that they find. This is why many felons, rapists and murderers can easily get away as long as they aren't caught, this is why potential suspects can walk into police station and be questioned and released only to assault/rape/murder another victim over the long course of time before they are finally "suspicious enough" to have their sample taken and compared.
This not only endangers other citizens, it also increases total costs drastically and it complicates the whole procedure.
Identification aspect: Having DNA taken at birth and having the data in a federal database will not only identify crime suspects faster, it will deal with elderly folks suffering from dementia when they get lost. You wouldn't believe that there are dozens of thousands of elderly folks who get lost on an annual basis, their families alert authorities and authorities spend lots of time to locate and identify them - since they usually carry no IDs either. There's another aspect - child kidnapping. It will be very hard if not impossible to kidnap a child and get away with it. You'd be surprised to find out just how many children are "lost" in the USA each day. A good number of children ran away from their home, another good deal of children is taken away at a young age. Child's biological parents and their DNA sample would be added so that police can check on such data by viewing a child's identification number.
Having DNA tests done upon birth will generally avoid numerous potential issues including cases where people find out about it and it usually results very badly for lots of people involved. Try to imagine a scenario where hospitals switched children and if the law never cared either.... oh yeah, I forgot, it's all about women's convenience, thus it results in multi-million dollar lawsuit because it wasn't something that was convenient for a woman in question, thus you need to punish the hospital over a human error and impose a completely different set of rules, but it's perfectly fine if you keep punishing the victim of a fraud once the paternity fraud is proven. The law is deliberately written in such manner where a woman defines who a father is - a sperm donor, a walking wallet, a weekend nanny, irrelevant factor, a loving spouse, etc, depending on her convenience. Thus it's perfectly understandable that the law also defines that biology matters only when it's convenient for a woman in question.
I may argue each of my claims but the post is long enough anyways, let someone try to start a topic and I'll elaborate it there.
When it comes to genetically-linked diseases, it is far better to test the child's DNA directly than to depend on the father's DNA. Furthermore, you're confusing two issues. A paternity test is completely separate from determining a child's vulnerability to a genetic condition. I have a genetically-linked condition, and although my paternity has been confirmed via DNA analysis, there is absolutely no sign of the disease in my father... or my mother, for that matter. Try again.
Last edited by randomparent; 03-11-2015 at 08:01 PM..
When it comes to genetically-linked diseases, it is far better to test the child's DNA directly than depend on the father's. Try again.
Moderator cut: against forum guidelines
family medicine is introduced not only and not even mainly because of genetic diseases that can be determined through DNA tests. In fact, only a limited number of diseases may be tracked through one's DNA.
Let's elaborate this even further.
When your doctor is familiar with your wider family tree, he or she may see patterns in susceptibility towards certain diseases. This is something that a DNA test cannot determine, especially not an advanced DNA check. It's just like he or she may see your disease history to see if you're getting flu each year, meaning that you have low immunity, or which kind of flu you usually get, etc.
To explain if further - there are a number of diseases that are quite common, yet most folks do not know that they have such diseases until they do a specific test. Various diabetes types are a good example. I highly doubt that you may observe each type of diabetes or when each/any of these types will/may occur through observing one's DNA. Observing one's family tree discovers a lot. Your father's parents may have a specific diabetes and it might be triggered at a specific age. This is just a simple example. Maintaining family medicine generally depends on your family history, especially in our decades and probably in the future few decades. DNA tests aren't so good to tell you such information with such accuracy, even family medicine is just a bit of a clue for a doctor to establish a potential diagnosis faster or to predict certain outcomes. He or she cannot be sure that i.e. you're going to have the same allergy like your mother had, based on your or your mother's DNA. I am talking about establishing a reliable "biological family tree", which is indeed compromised by the potential paternity fraud or the fact that doctors in U.S. also need to treat hundreds of thousands, even millions of living people raised in foster homes, many of whom have no data about any parent. USA has 300,000,000 people and the "family medicine" project is indeed expensive, time-consuming and large, but it has its use.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 03-11-2015 at 11:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
