Mandatory paternity testing

[Thermodolia]

Not really. Rape, by its original definition, requires a penis, hence the notion that women can only be potential sexual assaulters, at most. Likewise, women know the baby's hers, because they felt the baby emerge from their own womb. Men have no way of knowing this.

<insert lecture here>

I’ll do it for ya Gallo.

Fuck that noise. Rape doesn’t require a dick, rape is when someone forces another person to have sex against their will. Women can be rapists just as much as men can be.

And now on to the topic I really don’t care about paternity testing. I’d take care of the kid like it was my own flesh and blood no matter what

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Only if they do it Maury Povich style.

[Attempted Socialism]

You're talking like women decide who to claim is the father because they think they can get some men to... what? Pay extra? Bribe them to remain silent? Originally you were talking about child support. Is US child support based on income?

I think his arguement is that if women can afford providing for the child vary the payment based off that. If the individual can make plenty of money on her own, the male shouldnt have to pay as much, but if the individual has difficulty the pay for the male should be more.

That would make no sense in context, so... It's as plausible a reading as their other arguments.

Making a coherent and valid argument would be a nice help, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think you probably out to calm down and take a nice slow read before posting. Things get heated and misread all the time.

I think you probably ought to spell-check. As for a response to Nova Cyberia, I would understand their argument better if they were making a coherent one. Them turning to petty insinuations (Crayons) and ignoring arguments is why I won't hold my breath.

And here you're presuming that all women are inherently untrustworthy and should automatically be suspected of infidelity or fraud (And sloppy of me to forget that option before). It's libellous based solely on gender, and inherently demean their reputation, which is discriminatory towards women. I.e. it's a transgression against the rights of women. That was your original question. Your oft-repeated misogynistic "arguments" aside (Whether you wish to phrase it as just an outcome of your philosophy or not), discrimination normally not legal.

His argument has been firmly, "lets play it safe and find out," nothings distrusting in a attitude like that.

Wrong on both counts. Their argument hasn't been "let's play it safe", rather, "all women are inherently suspicious and all babies ought be subjected to a test regardless of context", with the built-in premise that you can never trust women to tell the truth about who they're having sex with. Second, as is quite clear, their argument is necessarily distrusting of all women (And discriminatory, as I explained).

You mean the mandatory slut-shaming and distrust based on her gender for no viable reason at all?

Firstly, no one is owed anyone's trust. It's a privilege, not a right.

Mandatory slut-shaming and discrimination is neither privilege nor right.

Secondly, there is no real male equivalent of feeling the baby emerge from one's womb, so the phrase "based on her gender" would more accurately be described as "based on the real-world implications of the very definition of biological sex."

So... still discriminatory?

Thirdly... wouldn't mandatory paternity testing, if anything, yield the comparative advantage to sluts who are honest about being sluts, over the ones who aren't? Wouldn't that be the opposite of slut-shaming?

No. You're slut-shaming all women as you presume the need to test all women, regardless of circumstance, for their honesty or fidelity. Built into your proposal is the assumption that all women will cheat, have a baby and them blame someone else to leech them of their money.

You're proposing a policy change on the basis that all women are automatically suspected of infidelity, and you can't see how that's a transgression?

Is having locks on your doors an automatic accusation against everyone else of attempted burglary, or a reasonable precaution?

Come back to me when you have a comparison within the realms of sanity.

In my country, that insinuation would be libellous (And the discrimination based on gender makes it a rights violation).

But there is no male equivalent ANYWAY. How does the word "discrimination" even apply to something that by definition cannot be gender-neutral?

Is this a red herring or a legitimate question because you don't know what the words mean and what the legal implications are?

[Galloism]

I think people are against it because it perhaps assumes by default that all women are thots.

Having a kid is too damm expensive as it is, why do things to raise the cost for no good reason.

Compared to the cost of having a child, a paternity test is damn near free. It's somewhere around $150.

[Caracasus]

Seems like a bit of a waste of time to be honest. Commercial DNA tests are already a thing. Just get one of those if you're that worried.

[Heloin]

Seems like a bit of a waste of time to be honest. Commercial DNA tests are already a thing. Just get one of those if you're that worried.

Or go on that TV show.

[Caracasus]

Seems like a bit of a waste of time to be honest. Commercial DNA tests are already a thing. Just get one of those if you're that worried.

Or go on that TV show.

Yeah then you get it for free and as a bonus they put you up for the night in a hotel and ply you with free booze so you're really hungover and angry with each other when they read out the results.

[Galloism]

RE: the OP, I don't know about making it mandatory. There's solid medical reasons to do so based on the rights of the child to medical information, but there's privacy concerns as well regarding the sexual history of the mother. So we have to decide which is more important in this instance - the rights of the child to medical history, or the rights of the mother to privacy in sexual history. It's a hard question.

However, given how this issue disproportionately impacts the poor, and how fathers who are wrongfully attributed paternity and poor are so much more likely to wind up homeless or in jail as a result of the onerous false responsibilities placed on them, I do think we should make them subsidized and effectively free for the low income.

We could do that for very little cost.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

This wouldn't be a problem if we created a national DNA database, with a person's DNA entered into the database from a drawn blood sample from the moment of birth. Not only would issues like paternity and child support obligations be determined automatically, but it would allow us to solve many violent crimes through a simpler and streamlined process.

Seems sensible enough to me. I'm sold. Granted, I've already been in support of such a measure. As an added bonus, think of the benefits to genetic research when we have a sample size on the scale of an entire country! Think of the potential breakthroughs that can be made, breakthroughs that will enable us to improve the public's health and well-being!

Or go on that TV show.

Yeah then you get it for free and as a bonus they put you up for the night in a hotel and ply you with free booze so you're really hungover and angry with each other when they read out the results.

Shows like Maury are (generally speaking) rather sleazy and exploitative, akin somewhat to a modern-day freak show. To use some slang: that shit's thoroughly wack.

[Galloism]

This wouldn't be a problem if we created a national DNA database, with a person's DNA entered into the database from a drawn blood sample from the moment of birth. Not only would issues like paternity and child support obligations be determined automatically, but it would allow us to solve many violent crimes through a simpler and streamlined process.

Seems sensible enough to me. I'm sold. Granted, I've already been in support of such a measure. As an added bonus, think of the benefits to genetic research when we have a sample size on the scale of an entire country! Think of the potential breakthroughs that can be made, breakthroughs that will enable us to improve the public's health and well-being!

1984 was not an instruction manual.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Seems sensible enough to me. I'm sold. Granted, I've already been in support of such a measure. As an added bonus, think of the benefits to genetic research when we have a sample size on the scale of an entire country! Think of the potential breakthroughs that can be made, breakthroughs that will enable us to improve the public's health and well-being!

1984 was not an instruction manual.

Please forgive me, but I beg your pardon?

[Ostroeuropa]

RE: the OP, I don't know about making it mandatory. There's solid medical reasons to do so based on the rights of the child to medical information, but there's privacy concerns as well regarding the sexual history of the mother. So we have to decide which is more important in this instance - the rights of the child to medical history, or the rights of the mother to privacy in sexual history. It's a hard question.

However, given how this issue disproportionately impacts the poor, and how fathers who are wrongfully attributed paternity and poor are so much more likely to wind up homeless or in jail as a result of the onerous false responsibilities placed on them, I do think we should make them subsidized and effectively free for the low income.

We could do that for very little cost.

The mothers sexual history is not a privacy concern in this context, as all that is being determined is the relation of the child, not her sexual history.

That her sexual history can be inferred in some circumstances is neither here nor there. Proof of paternity will not catch all cheaters after all, so it is not about exposing women who are cheating on their husbands. That information is incidental.

As for mandatory, I think a good system would be to mandatorially take the husband aside away from the mother to prevent coercion and control, and to offer the husband in private this option in full confidence and for free.

However this wouldn't be sufficient to prevent all cases of reproductive abuse.

[Galloism]

1984 was not an instruction manual.

Please forgive me, but I beg your pardon?

I didn't stutter.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Please forgive me, but I beg your pardon?

I didn't stutter.

It isn't the content of the message. "1984 was not an instruction manual" is a clear and concise statement, that being a moral injunction against the totalitarian abuse of power; it's a statement that I agree with. However, it seems out of context within the discussion, namely the costs and benefits of the establishment of a nation-wide DNA database. Is there an implication within your statement that I'm missing? "Whoosh" so to speak?

[Galloism]

RE: the OP, I don't know about making it mandatory. There's solid medical reasons to do so based on the rights of the child to medical information, but there's privacy concerns as well regarding the sexual history of the mother. So we have to decide which is more important in this instance - the rights of the child to medical history, or the rights of the mother to privacy in sexual history. It's a hard question.

However, given how this issue disproportionately impacts the poor, and how fathers who are wrongfully attributed paternity and poor are so much more likely to wind up homeless or in jail as a result of the onerous false responsibilities placed on them, I do think we should make them subsidized and effectively free for the low income.

We could do that for very little cost.

The mothers sexual history is not a privacy concern in this context, as all that is being determined is the relation of the child, not her sexual history.

That her sexual history can be inferred in some circumstances is neither here nor there. Proof of paternity will not catch all cheaters after all, so it is not about exposing women who are cheating on their husbands. That information is incidental.

As for mandatory, I think a good system would be to mandatorially take the husband aside away from the mother to prevent coercion and control, and to offer the husband in private this option in full confidence and for free.

However this wouldn't be sufficient to prevent all cases of reproductive abuse.

There is an issue there regarding women who are committing domestic violence and, as you say, reproductive abuse if part of that violence - however, the typical form that takes is raping the man while passed out or unable to defend himself and then having HIS child, so he becomes shackled to her, effectively, and any attempt by him to resist the abuse will see said abuse transferred onto the child.

Having another man's child would not effectively shackle them unless she could also abuse him into not contesting it. This is possible I guess, but as far as I've seen, not the typical case, so I wouldn't take this as a "prevention" of reproductive abuse, at least not in any sort of effective fashion.

[Galloism]

I didn't stutter.

It isn't the content of the message. "1984 was not an instruction manual" is a clear and concise statement, that being a moral injunction against the totalitarian abuse of power; it's a statement that I agree with. However, it seems out of context within the discussion, namely the costs and benefits of the establishment of a nation-wide DNA database. Is there an implication within your statement that I'm missing? "Whoosh" so to speak?

A national DNA database is a major big brother thing and will without a doubt be used in the commission of totalitarian abuses of power.

It's sort of like saying "if we monitored all phone calls and emails, it would help us fight crime!" It's too much power to give the state, and WILL be used for totalitarian abuses of power.

Hell, they have far too much information and power already.

[Thepeopl]

Please forgive me, but I beg your pardon?

I didn't stutter.

1984 is a book by George Orwell, go read, we'll wait for you.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I didn't stutter.

1984 is a book by George Orwell, go read, we'll wait for you.

No, I've read 1984; I was particularly fond of the explanation of Newspeak in the back of the book.

[The Emerald Legion]

I believe the point trying to be made is that when a person is suspicious something has happened but isn't sure...

They either A.) Have to broach the subject, potentially destroying the relationship over nothing.

Or B.) Be quiet about it and sit on their doubts.

If it became a mandatory thing for everyone, those instances where a guy has his doubts wouldn't stand out because it's just a thing that happens.

Honestly we should just build cloning vats.

[Ostroeuropa]

The mothers sexual history is not a privacy concern in this context, as all that is being determined is the relation of the child, not her sexual history.

That her sexual history can be inferred in some circumstances is neither here nor there. Proof of paternity will not catch all cheaters after all, so it is not about exposing women who are cheating on their husbands. That information is incidental.

As for mandatory, I think a good system would be to mandatorially take the husband aside away from the mother to prevent coercion and control, and to offer the husband in private this option in full confidence and for free.

However this wouldn't be sufficient to prevent all cases of reproductive abuse.

There is an issue there regarding women who are committing domestic violence and, as you say, reproductive abuse if part of that violence - however, the typical form that takes is raping the man while passed out or unable to defend himself and then having HIS child, so he becomes shackled to her, effectively, and any attempt by him to resist the abuse will see said abuse transferred onto the child.

Having another man's child would not effectively shackle them unless she could also abuse him into not contesting it. This is possible I guess, but as far as I've seen, not the typical case, so I wouldn't take this as a "prevention" of reproductive abuse, at least not in any sort of effective fashion.

If you trick a man into raising a child that isn't his, that either always constitutes abuse by virtue of the act itself, or usually constitutes reproductive abuse in that it will inevitably involve gaslighting most men for a sustained period if they have any suspicions.

I'd argue it also counts as a mental-health prevention thing, given the risks discovery later on down the line has, and so on.

[Thepeopl]

If a child/ parent needs a transplant/ transfusion and the other wants to be donor, hospitals will always check for compatibility. Because a child can be rhesus positive while the parent is rhesus negative. And for various other reasons.
So medical dossier is not a good reason for mandatory DNA database. And the possibilities for misuse are endless.

I try to communicate with my SO. I have 4 kids and I know they are all mine. Yes we had a threesome, and we all enjoyed it. But we also discovered that this was not really our thing.

We enjoy looking at other people and discuss how attractive they are. We try to fulfill eachothers fantasies. We allow each other to have intercourse with others, as long as we both know upfront and can discuss it. We do practice safe sex.

If you do not trust your partner, something is wrong. So walk away. If there is a child involved, go to court and ask for a paternity check.
Without trust, you have nothing.

[Galloism]

If a child/ parent needs a transplant/ transfusion and the other wants to be donor, hospitals will always check for compatibility. Because a child can be rhesus positive while the parent is rhesus negative. And for various other reasons.
So medical dossier is not a good reason for mandatory DNA database.

There's a lot more reasons for a child to know his family history than organ transplants or blood transfusions. There's risks of various kinds of cancer, mental disorders, degenerative conditions, blood disorders, etc etc etc.

And the possibilities for misuse are endless.

Can you explain the possibilities for misuse?

[Galloism]

There is an issue there regarding women who are committing domestic violence and, as you say, reproductive abuse if part of that violence - however, the typical form that takes is raping the man while passed out or unable to defend himself and then having HIS child, so he becomes shackled to her, effectively, and any attempt by him to resist the abuse will see said abuse transferred onto the child.

Having another man's child would not effectively shackle them unless she could also abuse him into not contesting it. This is possible I guess, but as far as I've seen, not the typical case, so I wouldn't take this as a "prevention" of reproductive abuse, at least not in any sort of effective fashion.

If you trick a man into raising a child that isn't his, that either always constitutes abuse by virtue of the act itself, or usually constitutes reproductive abuse in that it will inevitably involve gaslighting most men for a sustained period if they have any suspicions.

Arguably true.

I'd argue it also counts as a mental-health prevention thing, given the risks discovery later on down the line has, and so on.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable mental health prevention thing. Mandatory marriage counseling before getting marriage would probably have some mental health prevention things down the road, but it would be an intrusion all the same.

[Thepeopl]

If a child/ parent needs a transplant/ transfusion and the other wants to be donor, hospitals will always check for compatibility. Because a child can be rhesus positive while the parent is rhesus negative. And for various other reasons.
So medical dossier is not a good reason for mandatory DNA database.

There's a lot more reasons for a child to know his family history than organ transplants or blood transfusions. There's risks of various kinds of cancer, mental disorders, degenerative conditions, blood disorders, etc etc etc.

Why? You can't really prevent most of those afflictions other than live healthy and maintain a social safety net.

And the possibilities for misuse are endless.

Can you explain the possibilities for misuse

Hacking the system and changing the data so a person allergic to antibiotics will receive antibiotics, health insurance companies deciding not to give you health insurance, hacking the system to trick a person into fatherhood .

[Nova Cyberia]

No... it doesn't.

I'm not talking about the cost changing. I'm talking about having less money to spend.

You're talking like women decide who to claim is the father because they think they can get some men to... what? Pay extra? Bribe them to remain silent? Originally you were talking about child support. Is US child support based on income?

I'm introducing you to the very strange concept that some people have more money than others.

Do I need to start using crayons to get you to understand the fairly simple words I'm saying?

Making a coherent and valid argument would be a nice help, but I'm not holding my breath.

Or perhaps you could actually read what I'm saying instead of inserting your lack of understanding into it.

Yes, I did. You're whining about me apparently assuming all women are untrustworthy.

So I'll reiterate again my fairly simple philosophy of "Trust, but verify."

And here you're presuming that all women are inherently untrustworthy and should automatically be suspected of infidelity or fraud (And sloppy of me to forget that option before). It's libellous based solely on gender, and inherently demean their reputation, which is discriminatory towards women. I.e. it's a transgression against the rights of women. That was your original question. Your oft-repeated misogynistic "arguments" aside (Whether you wish to phrase it as just an outcome of your philosophy or not), discrimination normally not legal.

Uh-huh. So explain to me how "Trust, but verify" presumes that are women are libelous? See, this is you doing that thing again where your interject your own lack of understanding into the argument. I'm not saying all women are liars. I just prefer it that men don't end up with children that aren't theirs.