HuffPo writer opposes mandatory paternity testing

Ma99ie · 2012-04-29T05:10:11+00:00

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.

2012-04-29T11:54:22+00:00

First, let's talk about women.

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

JockeVXO · 2012-04-29T12:18:10+00:00

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!!!

Strange_Dragons · 2012-04-29T15:03:12+00:00

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?

This should be the father's decision, just as abortion is at it's core the mother's decision.
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 · 2012-04-29T11:46:04+00:00

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

2012-04-29T12:06:46+00:00

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 · 2012-04-29T06:30:10+00:00

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

AnnArchist · 2012-04-29T18:24:17+00:00

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 · 2012-04-29T03:27:21+00:00

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.

airodynamic1000 · 2012-04-29T15:56:12+00:00

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 · 2012-04-29T16:19:23+00:00

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

Title	HuffPo writer opposes mandatory paternity testing
Author	Bobsutan
Upvotes	25
Comments	34
Date	April 29, 2012 3:05 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/sxonz/huffpo_writer_opposes_mandatory_paternity_testing/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/huffpo-writer-opposes-mandatory-paternity-testing.1022966 https://theredarchive.com/post/1022966

Comments