# Paternity Tests



## Shadow_Nirvana

As some of you would know, there have been studies done at hospitals that show that %5-30(varying for different locations) of the children didn't share the DNA of the father and the father has no knowledge of this.

Now, this isn't the norm in the country i live in. But as I'm planning on moving to USA in the future and hoping to have kids some day, this kinda freaks me out. I would probably get a paternity test for my kid(s).

But now that I see that even men who have been cheated on won't get this test done. So I'm wondering am I a paranoid ****? Am I just supposed to think "oh, it won't happen to me" even though it's been happening to a lot of clueless husbands? And reading the CWI boards and considering my own background story that has led me to this relentless studying of infidelity, isn't this wishful thinking(my wife would never do that etc.) what's put us people in trouble in the first place?

This has been bugging me for some time now.


----------



## Mavash.

I tend to think like a man so the thought of paternity tests did cross my mind when I had my 3 kids. My husband laughed at me saying he had no doubt they were his (meaning he knew I didn't cheat). I however was just debating this philosophically as to what if they weren't and he didn't know that?

In the end it didn't matter. All 3 have his RARE blood type. All 3 have the exact same hair color he had as a kid (there isn't a blonde in my family). Our son looks just like him when he was a kid. Our daughter was born with his personality - it's kinda freaky.

Yeah they are his kids. No test needed.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Mavash. said:


> I tend to think like a man so the thought of paternity tests did cross my mind when I had my 3 kids. My husband laughed at me saying he had no doubt they were his (meaning he knew I didn't cheat). I however was just debating this philosophically as to what if they weren't and he didn't know that?
> 
> In the end it didn't matter. All 3 have his RARE blood type. All 3 have the exact same hair color he had as a kid (there isn't a blonde in my family). Our son looks just like him when he was a kid. Our daughter was born with his personality - it's kinda freaky.
> 
> Yeah they are his kids. No test needed.


Wow, way to not answer my question :smthumbup:


----------



## Holland

I don't know if it wishful thinking of it is just normal not to be paranoid.

I can say that if my DH had of asked for a paternity test at the time I would have lost all respect and love for him. We certainly would not have had any more children. 
I think questioning someones honesty and love with no reason is a great way to undermine them and ruin a relationship. 

Then again I have never cheated or knowingly been cheated on so paternity issues have never crossed my mind. Honestly I would hate to be such an insecure person.


----------



## MegD

It does kind of undermine the relationship to ask if there should be no question. You're supposed to have 100% faith in the person you're married to. I can say I would have been offended if my husband asked as I have been completely faithful to him and ya, they're his.
If you really want to do this I'd tell the girls you start getting serious with long before children are an issue. If your future wife understands it has always been part of your paranoia to have your kid's paternity tested it might go over a little better...


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

MegD said:


> If your future wife understands it has always been part of your paranoia to have your kid's paternity tested it might go over a little better...


It hasn't always been my paranoia. But I now understand that I can get played. Extremely easily. I don't know maybe I'm just too effed up for a relationship anyways.


----------



## MattMatt

If you need DNA tests where exactly is your marriage?


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

MrAvg said:


> Based on the sighted study 5-30% of the marriages are not as good as the husband thought.


That is exactly what I'm thinking. I cannot be on the lookout for every single red flag. I mean, some are just a part of being different people and having different boundaries. And if as high as %80 of affairs go unnoticed. How is a person supposed to know if he isn't a clueless sap that's being played?


----------



## MattMatt

Oh, by the way, if you keep seeing red flags, do make sure you are not colourblind. 'cos if you are, every green flag would look red to you.


----------



## Thundarr

The problem is the lack of consequences when a child is determined not to be the father's bio child later on. I would have never dreamed of having my kids tested because I loved their mother. Seven years later and a couple of affairs, and a divorce and then I was thanking god that they looked and acted like me.

When it happens, it's fraud and should have legal consequences just like all other forms of fraud. Any woman letting a man raise a child who is not his should go to prison (if he didn't know and therefore didn't have a choice). No exception.

Test could be available since bloodwork is already there but I don't think anyone should be forced have the test actually done.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I recall this thread from awhile ago....some heated debating in those 44 pages.... 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/53902-mandatory-paternity-tests.html



> *Thundarr said*: *The problem is the lack of consequences when a child is determined not to be the father's bio child later on*. I would have never dreamed of having my kids tested because I loved their mother. Seven years later and a couple of affairs, and a divorce and then I was thanking god that they looked and acted like me.
> 
> *When it happens, it's fraud and should have legal consequences just like all other forms of fraud. Any woman letting a man raise a child who is not his should go to prison (if he didn't know and therefore didn't have a choice). No exception.*
> 
> Test could be available since bloodwork is already there but I don't think anyone should be forced have the test actually done


 I agree with every word... I think this is a horrific injustice to men, and Fathers. 

I remember watching a 20/20 or Dateline program years ago.... where this father learned that only 1 or 2 of his 4 kids (I forget details) was HIS- because one came down with a disease ... (otherwise he would have never known)...

When they divorced, he had to pay till they were 18 cause his name was on the birth certificates, the sperm donor lover & his wife was getting it on from time to time... Well isn't that so convenient. No consequences for either of them. 

I felt so outraged watching that, never forgot it.


----------



## mupostori

but with stories like these 
Husband tricked into believing wife's children were his own appears on This Morning as landmark court case awards him £25K for 'bereavement' | Mail Online


----------



## SimplyAmorous

mupostori said:


> but with stories like these
> Husband tricked into believing wife's children were his own appears on This Morning as landmark court case awards him £25K for 'bereavement' | Mail Online


I read that article, don't blame that man a bit.. he should have had the tests done 4 yrs earlier given her behavior...sneaking off, only offering "Nothing to do with you". When your married...there is just no excuse to hide anything. 

Wasn't justice enough....The interviewer asked ..."If the money didn't mean anything...why do it?"... I totally understand his answer... it's about "*justice*". Happy to see a case like that.

Liars deserve found out. It's a damn shame kids have to be caught in the cross fire... why we need to be careful how we live, our actions can take them down in the flames... I hope someday those children will be able to take a step back and see their Mother did this man very very wrong.


----------



## larry.gray

One of the things that came up in the massive thread Simply linked was that many states indeed have changed their laws about child support.

Several claimed that only 3 states still have presumed paternity without the ability to contest it. I was certain that number was WAY too low. It turns out that many states have reformed their laws in the last decade.

At least now a guy can't be forced to pay after he finds out he's not the father. Now we just need to get it prosecuted as fraud.


----------



## Holland

Thundarr said:


> The problem is the lack of consequences when a child is determined not to be the father's bio child later on. I would have never dreamed of having my kids tested because I loved their mother. Seven years later and a couple of affairs, and a divorce and then I was thanking god that they looked and acted like me.
> 
> When it happens, it's fraud and should have legal consequences just like all other forms of fraud. Any woman letting a man raise a child who is not his should go to prison (if he didn't know and therefore didn't have a choice). No exception.
> 
> Test could be available since bloodwork is already there but I don't think anyone should be forced have the test actually done.


I agree with all of this except the gaol thing. What point is there taking a mother away from the children involved. Odds are the man that thought he was dad will not stick around, the man that is the bio dad probably does not even know they exist. Who would look after the kids? And why punish them for the selfish act of their mum?


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

It should be mandatory at birth. Just a simple test performed at birth.

There is no guilt or stress placed on either spouse, as it is simply done without either asking.

There is no sane or rational reason to oppose mandatory paternity testing at birth IMO other than women wanting to keep the option of cuckolding their husbands should they so choose, like they have for the entire duration of our species until this point


----------



## larry.gray

Holland said:


> I agree with all of this except the gaol thing. What point is there taking a mother away from the children involved. Odds are the man that thought he was dad will not stick around, the man that is the bio dad probably does not even know they exist. Who would look after the kids? And why punish them for the selfish act of their mum?


So if I embezzle $100K from my employer, I shouldn't go to prison if I'm the only one around for my kid? That's exactly what a woman does, embezzles $100K or more from a man.

Innocent people get punished all the time when their loved ones commit a crime. The pain caused to loved ones or dependents not a pass for the guilty to get out of punishment.


----------



## larry.gray

The Cro-Magnon said:


> There is no sane or rational reason to oppose mandatory paternity testing at birth IMO other than women wanting to keep the option of cuckolding their husbands should they so choose,


You'll find very few men opposed to it but plenty of women will come out of the woodwork to oppose it. Methinks they doth protest too much and you're point is spot on.




> like they have for the entire duration of our species until this point


Even without mandatory testing that ability is going to end within a decade or two. DNA testing is becoming cheaper at a phenomenal rate. It will rapidly become commonplace for evaluating many health risks. The side effect will be a whole lot of people figuring out that the bio-dad isn't who many think it is.


----------



## Thundarr

The Cro-Magnon said:


> It should be mandatory at birth. Just a simple test performed at birth.
> 
> There is no guilt or stress placed on either spouse, as it is simply done without either asking.
> 
> There is no sane or rational reason to oppose mandatory paternity testing at birth IMO other than women wanting to keep the option of cuckolding their husbands should they so choose, like they have for the entire duration of our species until this point


Mandatory availability yes. Mandatory providing result; I don't think some guys want to know. Of course if father says he doesn't want to see results then maybe he's forfeits restitution of existing expense if he finds out later. My thought is that he assumes some responsibility when he chooses not to know the results.


----------



## Thundarr

larry.gray said:


> So if I embezzle $100K from my employer, I shouldn't go to prison if I'm the only one around for my kid? That's exactly what a woman does, embezzles $100K or more from a man.
> 
> Innocent people get punished all the time when their loved ones commit a crime. The pain caused to loved ones or dependents not a pass for the guilty to get out of punishment.


Agreed. Plus consequences reduce behaviors. Knowing that the children may suffer as a consequence would prevent the deception quite often. For that matter it would prevent irresponsible cheating (yea that sounds funny). What I mean is that getting pregnant while cheating would be more of a deterrent. *Not only for the woman but for the man she's messing with since he's the one getting pulled into court for child support.*


----------



## Holland

larry.gray said:


> You'll find very few men opposed to it but plenty of women will come out of the woodwork to oppose it. *Methinks they doth protest too much and you're point is spot on.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Even without mandatory testing that ability is going to end within a decade or two. DNA testing is becoming cheaper at a phenomenal rate. It will rapidly become commonplace for evaluating many health risks. The side effect will be a whole lot of people figuring out that the bio-dad isn't who many think it is.


I would protest because I am not a criminal and am an honourable person.
Would you like to be treated like a cheat just because you were able to give birth?

It is like saying all women are liars and cheats. 

Maybe we should put everyone in gaol that cheats on a spouse, men and women. 

I fully agree that lying about paternity is a horrific act and that financial restitution must be made. I cannot think how a man could ever get over the fact of raising a child as his own only to find it a lie, would cope. But I do not think that treating all women as potential liars is a realistic or healthy answer.


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

larry.gray said:


> So if I embezzle $100K from my employer, I shouldn't go to prison if I'm the only one around for my kid? That's exactly what a woman does, embezzles $100K or more from a man.


And more importantly, they rob that man of his LIFE.

Potentially 18 years or more, where he could have been with a women that actually loved him, raising a child that was his own flesh and blood. 

A woman who does this should be jailed, and made to pay back every cent, and then be made to compensate the man for wasting years of his life, years he can never get back.


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

Holland said:


> I would protest because I am not a criminal and am an honourable person.
> Would you like to be treated like a cheat just because you were able to give birth?
> 
> It is like saying all women are liars and cheats.
> 
> Maybe we should put everyone in gaol that cheats on a spouse, men and women.
> 
> I fully agree that lying about paternity is a horrific act and that financial restitution must be made. I cannot think how a man could ever get over the fact of raising a child as his own only to find it a lie, would cope. But I do not think that treating all women as potential liars is a realistic or healthy answer.


A female feeling "bad" about having to take the test vs a Man whose WHOLE LIFE is LITERALLY on the line?
But we should opt for not wanting to offend some females?
Real fair.

If performed mandatorily by the State, there can be no implied accusations of cheating on the woman, and they can't feel there are either. There can be no difficulty between the spouses, as neither even has to bring the subject up, it just happens automatically after birth, like innumerable other tests, etc.

The fact women would even argue mandatory paternity testing, given the statistics of its incidence, and the MASSIVE consequences for a Man, makes them look really, really bad...


----------



## Holland

The Cro-Magnon said:


> A female feeling "bad" about having to take the test vs a Man whose WHOLE LIFE is LITERALLY on the line?
> But we should opt for not wanting to offend some females?
> Real fair.
> 
> If performed mandatorily by the State, there can be no implied accusations of cheating on the woman, and they can't feel there are either. There can be no difficulty between the spouses, as neither even has to bring the subject up, it just happens automatically after birth, like innumerable other tests, etc.
> 
> *The fact women would even argue mandatory paternity testing, given the statistics of its incidence, and the MASSIVE consequences for a Man, makes them look really, really bad...*


To you but not to me. To me it makes them human. 

The flip side is that men that argue for mandatory paternity testing are paranoid.

We will not agree, I have no need for that. But I will never agree that treating people that are innocent as if they are automatically criminals on the basis of gender and ability to give birth is an acceptable thing to do in a civilised society.

Would men subject themselves to testing for fidelity if there was such a blood test? 
What about the women who's lives are destroyed when a husband cheats, they get divorced and she suffers the consequences of his actions without consent?
Should we put all these men in gaol?


----------



## Cosmos

Thundarr said:


> The problem is the lack of consequences when a child is determined not to be the father's bio child later on.
> 
> 
> When it happens, it's fraud and should have legal consequences just like all other forms of fraud.



:iagree:

A total lack of consequences for so much pain and destruction... And the suffering is not only that of the duped husbands, but the children, too.


----------



## NewM

Holland said:


> Would men subject themselves to testing for fidelity if there was such a blood test?
> What about the women who's lives are destroyed when a husband cheats, they get divorced and she suffers the consequences of his actions without consent?
> Should we put all these men in gaol?


Oh please what about men who's lives are destroyed when a wife cheats,they are divorced and he suffers the consequences of her actions without consent?

You make no sense,talking about things that have nothing to do with topic.How does your hypothetical fidelity blood test relate to this?IF there is such a test then *both* men and women would be taking it regardless of paternity test.

If men is unfaithful he can't get another woman's baby and pretend it is your and then hook you up for 18 years of child support or better yet get pregnant multiple times and take more then 50% of your income for child support for children that aren't yours.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Holland said:


> To you but not to me. To me it makes them human.
> 
> The flip side is that men that argue for mandatory paternity testing are paranoid.
> 
> We will not agree, I have no need for that. But I will never agree that treating people that are innocent as if they are automatically criminals on the basis of gender and ability to give birth is an acceptable thing to do in a civilised society.
> *So okay, we are overlooking major things like airline frisking, random police ID checks etc. So it's okay that we put people through checks because of their race and looks. Where does civilised society end? Does it end at "anything done against women"?
> And what's your suggestion then? What would you propose to overcome paternity fraud?*
> 
> Would men subject themselves to testing for fidelity if there was such a blood test?
> What about the women who's lives are destroyed when a husband cheats, they get divorced and she suffers the consequences of his actions without consent?
> Should we put all these men in gaol?
> 
> *You make it sound like women don't cheat and men's lives don't get destroyed in the process. I would subject myself to a blood test for fidelity. But what I cannot do is put some woman's baby in another woman's belly and try to pass it of as hers.*


----------



## Holland

> So okay, we are overlooking major things like airline frisking, random police ID checks etc. So it's okay that we put people through checks because of their race and looks. Where does civilised society end? Does it end at "anything done against women"?
> And what's your suggestion then? What would you propose to overcome paternity fraud?


No, where did I say anything like this. 

I do not believe people should be put through any invasive check based on colour, race, gender, religion etc. 

All passengers that fly are security screened, men, women and children.
And where I live the police can only check ID based on a valid suspicion of criminal activity.

As I said earlier I make no suggestions on how to overcome paternity fraud which is a terrible crime but discriminating against a whole gender is not the answer.

I can tell you that the ill feeling it would create would be extremely detrimental to society as a whole. A whole gender to be held under suspicion because the minority do wrong is insanity.


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

> but discriminating against a whole gender is not the answer.


Discriminate? Wat? It's not like women would be forced with cattle prods into some cold sterile room, beaten with truncheons for awhile, before being brutally stripped naked then subjected to some vile medical procedure to establish paternity.

It would be a simple test, one among a score or so, conducted post birth. No mention of it would even be made, unless the father WAS someone else.

A simple test could eliminate so much evil from the world, and at no cost to any woman except THOSE WHO WANT TO CUCKOLD THEIR HUSBANDS.



> I can tell you that the ill feeling it would create would be extremely detrimental to society as a whole. A whole gender to be held under suspicion because the minority do wrong is insanity.


No one would care, other than women that want to have the option of cuckolding their husband at their disposal.

Females again disappoint me.

They'd rather evil women have the freedom to cuckold men, and that Men be vulnerable to having their lives destroyed by this crime, rather than have their noses put out, not even by any direct accusation or implication toward them personally (for there would be none) but even a blind, mandatory insta-test performed on ALL, and singling out no one.

Women have total surety on whether their child is theirs, and Men do not. Mandatory Paternity testing will simply level out this imbalance. 

"But my feelings, oh what about my feelings"

Your feelings are subjective, a Man being CRUSHED, and his life taken from him are an OBJECTIVE consequence and reality of this crime, and if women collectively object to this elegantly simple solution to such a foul and evil problem, then they have exposed themselves and I am left struggling to find much reason to trust or respect them at all.


----------



## Holland

The Cro-Magnon said:


> Discriminate? Wat? It's not like women would be forced with cattle prods into some cold sterile room, beaten with truncheons for awhile, before being brutally stripped naked then subjected to some vile medical procedure to establish paternity.
> 
> Discrimination by the virtue of the fact that women are being upheld as cheaters based on the wrong doings of a few.
> 
> So it is OK to say all men are bastards because some are?
> All teenagers are delinquents because some are.
> 
> It would be a simple test, one among a score or so, conducted post birth. No mention of it would even be made, unless the father WAS someone else.
> 
> And I get to choose what tests are done in discussion with my husband on our child. No one makes that choice except me and him.
> 
> 
> A simple test could eliminate so much evil from the world, and at no cost to any woman except THOSE WHO WANT TO CUCKOLD THEIR HUSBANDS.
> 
> Wrong, at great cost to me and the majority of women that have not or will not do the wrong thing. The cost to me is that I would forever be held under doubt. Eventually when the testing becomes the norm it would be seen as the norm that women are to be held in contempt because they may possibly be cheaters regardless of the fact that it is a minority that this actually applies to.
> 
> No one would care, other than women that want to have the option of cuckolding their husband at their disposal.
> 
> Wrong, I and the millions of honest women that have no desire to cuckhold their DHs would care. Are you saying that the rights of innocent women are not worth consideration?
> 
> Females again disappoint me.
> 
> They'd rather evil women have the freedom to cuckold men, and that Men be vulnerable to having their lives destroyed by this crime, rather than have their noses put out, not even by any direct accusation or implication toward them personally (for there would be none) but even a blind, mandatory insta-test performed on ALL, and singling out no one.
> 
> Women have total surety on whether their child is theirs, and Men do not. Mandatory Paternity testing will simply level out this imbalance.
> 
> "But my feelings, oh what about my feelings"
> 
> Your feelings are subjective, a Man being CRUSHED, and his life taken from him are an OBJECTIVE consequence and reality of this crime, and if women collectively object to this elegantly simple solution to such a foul and evil problem, then they have exposed themselves and I am left struggling to find much reason to trust or respect them at all.


There is no crime that people are punished for pre emptively. If a crime is committed the perpetrator is then punished. 

This is of no relevance to me personally as I have had my children. I have never cheated even through many years of a sexless marriage. You may well be disappointed by women, is that coming from a personal grievance POV?


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Yeah, okay cool so I'm not insanely paranoid, it is a legitimate concern and there are others thinking the same way that as I am. You may argue that guys who think like this are paranoid and morbidly skeptic. I just think of myself as "not so naive" any more. 

My other question is to other guys who think paternity tests should be done. Did you test your own kids? If you didn't, why not? If you did, how did your wife respond? Did you do it secretly? Is there a way to do it secretly? Is it moral and ethical or even legal to do it secretly?


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Holland said:


> There is no crime that people are punished for pre emptively. If a crime is committed the perpetrator is then punished.
> 
> This is of no relevance to me personally as I have had my children. I have never cheated even through many years of a sexless marriage. You may well be disappointed by women, is that coming from a personal grievance POV?


Okay now, seriously how is testing punishing? Narcissistic much?


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

Holland said:


> There is no crime that people are punished for pre emptively. If a crime is committed the perpetrator is then punished.


Punished? 

A test that the FATHER is also involved in is punishment? 

Seriously?

I'll reiterate, since the salient point was ignored.

Women have absolute certainty that their child is theirs. A man does not. And a demonstrable percentage of women EXPLOIT that fact.

Mandatory testing will simply level out this indiscrepancy. 

And I cannot understand why decent women would not leap on board to deprive the evil members of their gender the freedom of movement to perpetrate this crime. They seem happy in almost enabling them to do so.

This topic is an absolute no brainer.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

The Cro-Magnon said:


> And I cannot understand why decent women would not leap on board to deprive the evil members of their gender the freedom of movement to perpetrate this crime. They seem happy in almost enabling them to do so.


I don't think anyone is actually happy. But most people are indifferent to other people's troubles. If it cannot bite them in the ass later on in life, they won't even acknowledge that it's a real trouble. That's why we have so few women actually thinking about father's rights and such.


----------



## Holland

The Cro-Magnon said:


> Punished?
> 
> A test that the FATHER is also involved in is punishment?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> I'll reiterate, since the salient point was ignored.
> 
> Women have absolute certainty that their child is theirs. A man does not. And a demonstrable percentage of women EXPLOIT that fact.
> 
> Mandatory testing will simply level out this indiscrepancy.
> 
> And I cannot understand why decent women would not leap on board to deprive the evil members of their gender the freedom of movement to perpetrate this crime. *They seem happy in almost enabling them to do so.*
> 
> This topic is an absolute no brainer.


And on this idiotic comment I will bid you farewell on this topic. Such a shame as it is an interesting topic and very important. But it seems you only want to discuss with those that agree and then accuse those that don't agree with you of being happy about paternity fraud. :scratchhead:

ETA to answer the pp. I say punished because even as an innocent person my integrity would always be under suspicion. I hold myself to high standards so to have to consent to a test to prove my innocence would feel like a life long punishment. My character would be under question even though I did not even have a thought of wrong doing.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

I don't like treating everybody like a felon either, but in a world of sociopaths and narcissists who would rather die than actually emphatize with another person and consider somebody else's feelings when they are doing something, this feels necessary. In a perfect world, what you say is true, but we don't live in a perfect world. And without another option, I believe that (mandatory) paternity tests seems to be the only option.

Again, my other question is to other guys who think paternity tests should be done. Did you test your own kids? If you didn't, why not? If you did, how did your wife respond? Did you do it secretly? Is there a way to do it secretly? Is it moral and ethical or even legal to do it secretly?


----------



## Thundarr

Holland said:


> I would protest because I am not a criminal and am an honourable person.
> Would you like to be treated like a cheat just because you were able to give birth?


If it were common practice it likely would feel like the normal thing that applied to everyone and not just who's thought to be cheaters.

Similar to a road check where every car is checked.


----------



## Cosmos

Thundarr said:


> If it were common practice it likely would feel like the normal thing that applied to everyone and not just who's thought to be cheaters.
> 
> Similar to a road check where every car is checked.


Personally, I would have absolutely nothing against it becoming _common practice_, even though I do kind of get where other posters who would be opposed to it are coming from.


----------



## larry.gray

The Cro-Magnon said:


> Discriminate? Wat? It's not like women would be forced with cattle prods into some cold sterile room, beaten with truncheons for awhile, before being brutally stripped naked then subjected to some vile medical procedure to establish paternity.
> 
> It would be a simple test, one among a score or so, conducted post birth.


She isn't treated to ANY type of test actually. They take a swab from the man and a swab from the baby.


----------



## Jasel

If I ever have kids they're all getting paternity tests. I wouldn't even tell the mother, it's not like I need her permission. You can buy DNA testing kits at drug stores these days and just mail in the samples. I've had plenty of friends do it.

Sorry but there are just too many women out there scamming men into raising children that aren't theirs. And when caught they face absolutely no consequences for what they've done and there's pretty much no sympathy for the "father". It's all about the child, and how the man should be on the hook for it. And he is pretty much on the hook as far as child support goes as long as his name is on that birth certificate no matter what DNA tests say.

It doesn't really surprise me that women in general seem to be against the idea of mandatory paternity tests while men tend to be for them. I can tell the issue makes ALOT of women out there nervous, and what does that tell you? I've seen some blatant hypocritical statements from some women when it comes to the issue of paternity tests.

Asking for a paternity test as far as they're concerned is an insult and shows you don't trust your wife (as if this website isn't full of people who trusted their spouse completely and didn't get screwed over anyway), but when these men find out 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road that their child is in fact NOT their child yet they've been supporting him/her, those same women who speak out against paternity tests will turn around and say "Oh. Well, he should have DNA tested him at birth."

The entire issue is beyond ridiculous. You can't be assured of paternity anymore than you can be assured that you're going to have a lifelong marriage with your partner. 

That "Well you should just trust her" mentality makes about as much sense to me as men not getting pre-nuptual agreements when they're married and then complaining when they get screwed over in divorce court and over child custody when the marriage flakes out.

There is nothing wrong with protecting yourself although I do have a problem with society trying to shame men into just blindly trusting the claims of a child's mother and then being on the hook for supporting/paying for the child regardless of the fruad comitted against him. Especially with the sheer amount of men out there raising kids unknowingly who aren't even theirs.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Jasel said* : It doesn't really surprise me that women in general seem to be against the idea of mandatory paternity tests while men tend to be for them. I can tell the issue makes ALOT of women out there nervous, and what does that tell you? I've seen some blatant hypocritical statements from some women when it comes to the issue of paternity tests.



My feelings resonate far more with the men, because I KNOW how utterly outraged I would be if this happened to me...we should all consider if those were our shoes, the shock, betrayal and horror of that to a man...

In this day & age with the praised "casual sex" attitudes.....I just don't feel one can be too careful... I also do not see these men as paranoid . Every Father should have the right for that % to be placed in his hands on the birth of every son or daughter..when his NAME is placed on a Birth certificate & recorded, nothing at all outrageous about this...

The fact some women do feel this way - men will just fight harder to make it mandatory to not piss these women off around the time of the births...and that would be a shame. So for now...just do it secretly -if any question at all / the smallest red flag. It's not cool to be naive -especially in regards to Love & parenthood. 

We have 5 sons, I'd want to hang a woman if she did this to one of my boys . I would think ...for other women....if this happened to one of her own sons....seeing 1st hand the ugly injustice played out in her own family, a betrayal unfathomable to many.... She'd quickly change her thinking. 

The most trusting of men - are the ones that get taken... this bothers me, I'd rather be called a paranoid SOB and piss her off - than be in the other man's shoes.


----------



## hookares

If you end up footing the bill for another guy's kids or even a lot of other guys' kids, in most cases you have no redress. The slimeball system in the USA assumes they are the husbands or, since they should be his, it's all on him to raise them even if he has the potential sperm donor living in the home he paid for, rolling around in what was once his bed on top of his cheating ex wife.
It will NEVER happen to me again, but I would suggest a "baby daddy" arranging a paternity test for any child he assumes is his.
As said before, it can be done on the sly and as long as you are willing to pay, nobody has to be the wiser.


----------



## Cosmos

SimplyAmorous said:


> My feelings resonate far more with the men, because I KNOW how utterly outraged I would be if this happened to me...we should all consider if those were our shoes, the shock, betrayal and horror of that to a man...
> 
> In this day & age with the praised "casual sex" attitudes.....I just don't feel one can be too careful... I also do not see these men as paranoid . Every Father should have the right for that % to be placed in his hands on the birth of every son or daughter..when his NAME is placed on a Birth certificate & recorded, nothing at all outrageous about this...
> 
> The fact some women do feel this way - men will just fight harder to make it mandatory to not piss these women off around the time of the births...and that would be a shame. So for now...just do it secretly -if any question at all / the smallest red flag. It's not cool to be naive -especially in regards to Love & parenthood.
> 
> We have 5 sons, I'd want to hang a woman if she did this to one of my boys . I would think ...for other women....if this happened to one of her own sons....seeing 1st hand the ugly injustice played out in her own family, a betrayal unfathomable to many.... She'd quickly change her thinking.
> 
> The most trusting of men - are the ones that get taken... this bothers me, I'd rather be called a paranoid SOB and piss her off - than be in the other man's shoes.



:iagree:


----------



## larry.gray

SimplyAmorous said:


> My feelings resonate far more with the men, because I KNOW how utterly outraged I would be if this happened to me...we should all consider if those were our shoes, the shock, betrayal and horror of that to a man...


That's just it SA, so few women are unwilling to look at it from the men's perspective. They can't picture in their mind to not KNOW that their kids are theirs and not some other woman's that they've been tricked into thinking is theirs.


----------



## Thundarr

I suspect having sons makes a lot women really think about this issue. Not only is a father potentially not the bio father but the grandparents may not be the bio grandparents as well.


----------



## sinnister

I understand the sentiments to want to go ahead with a mandatory testing program...but you have to realize the incredibly slippery slope that this establishes, especially as technology and medicine continue to advance.

You guys in the U.S....do you like having health insurance? I can see a world where this kind of well-meaning yet potentially reckless proposed law would have you without it.


----------



## Thundarr

sinnister said:


> I understand the sentiments to want to go ahead with a mandatory testing program...but you have to realize the incredibly slippery slope that this establishes, especially as technology and medicine continue to advance.
> 
> You guys in the U.S....do you like having health insurance? I can see a world where this kind of well-meaning yet potentially reckless proposed law would have you without it.


It doesn't seem very slippery unless the father is held at gunpoint and forced to look at the results. It's just using technology to assist where it wasn't available before.

The laws are creeping this direction already I think plus testing can be done if a guy really wants it now. What link are you seeing where health care isn't provided? I can't think of one.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

The Cro-Magnon said:


> And I cannot understand why decent women would not leap on board to deprive the evil members of their gender the freedom of movement to perpetrate this crime. They seem happy in almost enabling them to do so.


I don't see that it that way. I can certainly understand why such a test has a "guilty until proven innocent" air about it, particularly as some posters seek to lump all women into this.

There are evil women out there. But there is no law that I am aware of that prevents a man from having his child tested to determine parternity. Some much of this is about nothing.

I will also note that the 5-30% number is likely skewed by selection bias. Does not mean it does not happen, only that the 1 in 5 figure is quite likely not correct.


----------



## sinnister

Thundarr said:


> It doesn't seem very slippery unless the father is held at gunpoint and forced to look at the results. It's just using technology to assist where it wasn't available before.
> 
> The laws are creeping this direction already I think plus testing can be done if a guy really wants it now. What link are you seeing where health care isn't provided? I can't think of one.


I'm looking beyond paternity testing to the general testing of the new born baby. I can see screening for future ailments or diseases being a mandatory clause in health insurance contracts. I can see people getting dropped if a child has the potential to be sick in the future. Very sci-fi sounding I know...but not as far fetched as one would think considering the way Insurance companies treat people.

You'll have to forgive me, my mind works like this some times and just try to think ahead about how a relatively harmless step can burn me in the future.

This is somewhat of a different situation considering alot would have to happen in the way of laws, privacy, disclosure of medical records etc. But I just get a little worried when I read about "mandatory" testing of a medical nature.


----------



## sinnister

Tall Average Guy said:


> I don't see that it that way. I can certainly understand why such a test has a "guilty until proven innocent" air about it, particularly as some posters seek to lump all women into this.
> 
> There are evil women out there. But there is no law that I am aware of that prevents a man from having his child tested to determine parternity. Some much of this is about nothing.
> 
> I will also note that the 5-30% number is likely skewed by selection bias. Does not mean it does not happen, only that the 1 in 5 figure is quite likely not correct.


This is another good point. If for whatever reason a man suspects something, it relatively easy to get a cheek swab and get it tested.

And as for the men who never suspect a thing...it's evil what their wives have done. No way around that. Pure evil.


----------



## sandc

I fail to see how it is an invasion of anyone's privacy, nor a punishment to anyone to add one more very simple test to the battery of tests that most women go through during their pregnancies. 

If anything it evens the score. My wife had to get pricked and prodded through out her pregnancies. I never had to get poked or pricked once. I'd gladly get tested. It's only fair I get poked once right?


----------



## Thor

A child has the right to know truthfully who his/her father is. Getting a paternity test is as much about protecting the rights of the child as protecting the husband.

I think this topic is like pre-nups. It sounds very untrusting until you know someone who has been burned. Then you see it as simply a preventive measure. Like the fire extinguisher in the closet you hope to never need but you still have it.


----------



## Cosmos

Thor said:


> A child has the right to know truthfully who his/her father is. Getting a paternity test is as much about protecting the rights of the child as protecting the husband.
> 
> I think this topic is like pre-nups. It sounds very untrusting until you know someone who has been burned. Then you see it as simply a preventive measure. Like the fire extinguisher in the closet you hope to never need but you still have it.


It could even be a prerequisite when applying for a Birth Certificate - written proof that the details are correct.

If PT became mandatory, it wouldn't be viewed as a lack of trust or 'personal' because it would become routine.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Cosmos said:


> It could even be a prerequisite when applying for a Birth Certificate - written proof that the details are correct.
> 
> If PT became mandatory, it wouldn't be viewed as a lack of trust or 'personal' because it would become routine.


So in reading this, a question popped into my head and I have no idea about the answer. 

If a women walked into a court house carrying a new born baby and said that the baby was born at home, and she needed a birth certificate, could she get one naming her as the mother with nothing else? Or would she need a witness? If so, who would be considered an acceptable witness?


----------



## in my tree

Cosmos said:


> It could even be a prerequisite when applying for a Birth Certificate - written proof that the details are correct.
> 
> If PT became mandatory, it wouldn't be viewed as a lack of trust or 'personal' because it would become routine.


And until that proof comes back, the space under "FATHER" could remain blank. 

As for it becoming mandatory through the state? That will never happen. I don't know about you all, but where I live our state is broke! To pay for the tests and then to find out some guys are not the fathers and therefore have no financial obligations to the kid(s) could cost the state even more (i.e. welfare). If it was added onto the insurance company or patient's personal bill - that's the only way I could see it being "mandatory".


----------



## in my tree

Tall Average Guy said:


> So in reading this, a question popped into my head and I have no idea about the answer.
> 
> If a women walked into a court house carrying a new born baby and said that the baby was born at home, and she needed a birth certificate, could she get one naming her as the mother with nothing else? Or would she need a witness? If so, who would be considered an acceptable witness?


When I had my daughter they asked me to fill out the birth certificate and I could have done that. Hell, I could have put anyone down as the "FATHER". Of course he knew I put his name down and I had him sign the actual certificate when they came in with it.


----------



## Anubis

To the OP: Get a paternity test done, you don't have to tell the mother. Simply put, it is a very small price to pay for the piece of mind it will bring.

I researched this issue a bit when I went through my divorce. A I got wind of just how much my ex- gaslit me and cheated, I tested both of my kids. (Both are mine fortunately - and amazingly for the second - only had sex once in a 3 month window). The biggest thing it did for me was settling the issue in my mind. Until I got the results, I would have bouts of uncertainty and anxiety over the issue. Once I had the results -boom - I could spent my energies on other concerns.

I have a short temper for women who vigorously defend their right to deceive their partners and and the false arguments and indignation they use to unfairly obligate them for a lifetime.

Women's groups have been the biggest opponents of mandatory/automatic DNA testing of newborns (look up either Kentucky or Tennessee for an example of fighting a bill introduced in the state legislature). It would politically incorrect to mention what I believe should be done with those women's groups.

I just googled but wasn't able to find an article I came across describing an incident where in treating a child for some hereditary disease, doctors determined that the kid wasn't the dad's... but were prevented from telling him that it wasn't his by "privacy laws".. and knew they were propagating the deception but "oh well, what can we do." and they knew it could come up again with his other children. Combine this with the family court and related systems and you have one of the great ignored tragedies of our times.

Headway is being slowly made though. Texas recently updated its laws, an in exchange for longer alimony, there was a open window to challenge paternity fraud no matter how long ago (window ended last September), and I believe increased the age of the child that can be contested (used to be if the kid was 4 or older, it was not contestable, pay until 18 under threat of jail).


----------



## Cosmos

Tall Average Guy said:


> So in reading this, a question popped into my head and I have no idea about the answer.
> 
> If a women walked into a court house carrying a new born baby and said that the baby was born at home, and she needed a birth certificate, could she get one naming her as the mother with nothing else? Or would she need a witness? If so, who would be considered an acceptable witness?


Very few women give birth in isolation. There is usually a health care professional in attendance.

I really don't have all the answers to this problem (if any), but in the UK far too many young women are giving birth to children and don't have a clue who the father is. They simply put the name of the latest BF on the birth certificate and hope for the best...


----------



## Cosmos

in my tree said:


> And until that proof comes back, the space under "FATHER" could remain blank.
> 
> As for it becoming mandatory through the state? That will never happen. I don't know about you all, but where I live our state is broke! To pay for the tests and then to find out some guys are not the fathers and therefore have no financial obligations to the kid(s) could cost the state even more (i.e. welfare). If it was added onto the insurance company or patient's personal bill - that's the only way I could see it being "mandatory".


Yes, the practicalities of it could be very difficult indeed financially.


----------



## Thundarr

Cosmos said:


> Yes, the practicalities of it could be very difficult indeed financially.


I think civil rights starts this by saying men have the right to know but it will not be manatory. At some point though it gets very expensive to the state when dad isn't really dad and no one else is paying child support. Then the state will start encouraging mother to identify the bio father early on because of support needed. Maybe?


----------



## Cosmos

Thundarr said:


> I think civil rights starts this by saying men have the right to know but it will not be manatory. At some point though it gets very expensive to the state when dad isn't really dad and no one else is paying child support. Then the state will start encouraging mother to identify the bio father early on because of support needed. Maybe?


I can see a minefield of legalities re child support. Say the child isn't the H's, yet he decides to stay with his W. If there are other children involved, and she's a SAHM, he would, presumably, have to be given the right to demand child support from the bio father?

So complicated.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Thundarr said:


> I think civil rights starts this by saying men have the right to know but it will not be manatory. At some point though it gets very expensive to the state when dad isn't really dad and no one else is paying child support. Then the state will start encouraging mother to identify the bio father early on because of support needed. Maybe?


Men already have that right. I could have had my children tested. Again, I am aware of no law stopping me or any other man from running those tests.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Cosmos said:


> Very few women give birth in isolation. There is usually a health care professional in attendance.


Absolutely. I do understand this, but I suspect there are at least a few were that is not the case. In my scenario, what happens. Is the woman taken at her word, or is more needed?


----------



## CH

When my 2nd child was born she was pale white and had blondish/brown hair. Oh the look on the nurses faces when she came out. Even one nurse gave the "OOooooohhhhh" then turned her head away, lol.

Luckily my family has a recessive gene that causes some kids to be albino. My daughter didn't get the full effect but she caught enough of it.

I don't know how many times people say, Is the mother white?

My mom was born like that, 4 cousins also and my mom had 4 or 5 cousins who also had it. 2 of them were all white, no color at all.

It's a joke I use on my wife, so you cheated on me after my affair right....

I've seen the sidelong glances when we're out in public. Since my oldest and youngest look all Asian, and the middle looks 1/2 because of her coloring lol. Ohh, poor guy, she must have cheated on him, if they only knew it was the other way around.


----------



## Broken at 20

I never wanted to post this on this forum, but I feel like this needs to be done. And this is as good a thread as any. 

Now, on my dad's side of the family, I got my grand parents, both of which are now dead, and an uncle, who is also dead. 

My grandmother was having an affair on my grandfather, with his brother. And as this affair continued, because my uncle was slightly better off financially, a baby came into the picture. That baby was my aunt. And it was not my grandfather's. It was my great uncles. Who is, biologically, my grandfather, because he also fathered my father. 

Now, how did my grandfathber (by law) take this? Well, he became a drunk, lost himself in his work, and died from a stroke on the way to the hospital. My dad always told me he was a great man, a hard working man, and I should be proud to be related to him. After all, my cousin who was fathered by my grandfather (in law) was a great baseball player. Could've gone pro (if he had laid off the drugs). 

Now, how obvious was it that the kids were cuckolds?
Well, the two that were not cuckolds were tall but skinny, with black hair. 
The two that were cuckolds had blonde hair. When neither the wife nore the husband had blonde hair. And they were both overweight. 

And I am barely related to a large portion of that side of the family now. 

And now I know why I didn't get some of the genes that my dad always said my uncle (who would've been his half brother) got. My uncle was great at baseball and a fantastic athlete. My dad never was. My uncle was a great people person, and smooth talker. My dad...guess he had to learn it. 
My genetic history is literally ruined by this. I have no idea what half of my genetics are now, because the man I thought they came from, DIDN'T GIVE ME HIS GENES! Instead, I got his brothers! And whatever good/crap he had. 

And sometimes it helps me better understand my father for his situation that he finds himself in. And it saddens me to realize he is only repeating his past. 

And how does it make me feel? To know I am half cuckold. I am half bastard. 

It infuriates me. I consider don't even want to be related to that woman. I want to have her last name removed from her tomb stone. 

Which is why, I think every baby should be tested at birth. 

And any woman any says that mandatory paternity testing is wrong, is a SEXIST!
Why? 
Because the situation would never be reversed. In what situation could a man switch out the babies but still be the father? Maybe in 19th century France when everyone had a mistress, but even then, it is unlikely! 
If the situation was ever reversed, women and feminist would be up in arms, demanding equality, saying this is a crime against them. 
Yet when men do it, what happens? Women come out of the wood word and say "But I am honorable. Don't you trust me?" Or they presume it to mean that we don't trust them. Or some other crap like that. 
This is a crime against men. When 5%-30% of children are not fathered by the men that think they are the father! What the hell is wrong there! 

And because most woman can never experience the outrage and anger and seething hatred that comes from finding out, that you are a cuckold, they will never go for it. 

So there is no reason for a woman to be against paternity testing unless she has something to hide. It is just like your email and facebook accounts. Your spouse should have full and complete access to them. If you start to try and hide something, then the question becomes, why are you hiding it?


----------



## tom67

Broken at 20 said:


> I never wanted to post this on this forum, but I feel like this needs to be done. And this is as good a thread as any.
> 
> Now, on my dad's side of the family, I got my grand parents, both of which are now dead, and an uncle, who is also dead.
> 
> My grandmother was having an affair on my grandfather, with his brother. And as this affair continued, because my uncle was slightly better off financially, a baby came into the picture. That baby was my aunt. And it was not my grandfather's. It was my great uncles. Who is, biologically, my grandfather, because he also fathered my father.
> 
> Now, how did my grandfathber (by law) take this? Well, he became a drunk, lost himself in his work, and died from a stroke on the way to the hospital. My dad always told me he was a great man, a hard working man, and I should be proud to be related to him. After all, my cousin who was fathered by my grandfather (in law) was a great baseball player. Could've gone pro (if he had laid off the drugs).
> 
> Now, how obvious was it that the kids were cuckolds?
> Well, the two that were not cuckolds were tall but skinny, with black hair.
> The two that were cuckolds had blonde hair. When neither the wife nore the husband had blonde hair. And they were both overweight.
> 
> And I am barely related to a large portion of that side of the family now.
> 
> And now I know why I didn't get some of the genes that my dad always said my uncle (who would've been his half brother) got. My uncle was great at baseball and a fantastic athlete. My dad never was. My uncle was a great people person, and smooth talker. My dad...guess he had to learn it.
> My genetic history is literally ruined by this. I have no idea what half of my genetics are now, because the man I thought they came from, DIDN'T GIVE ME HIS GENES! Instead, I got his brothers! And whatever good/crap he had.
> 
> And sometimes it helps me better understand my father for his situation that he finds himself in. And it saddens me to realize he is only repeating his past.
> 
> And how does it make me feel? To know I am half cuckold. I am half bastard.
> 
> It infuriates me. I consider don't even want to be related to that woman. I want to have her last name removed from her tomb stone.
> 
> Which is why, I think every baby should be tested at birth.
> 
> And any woman any says that mandatory paternity testing is wrong, is a SEXIST!
> Why?
> Because the situation would never be reversed. In what situation could a man switch out the babies but still be the father? Maybe in 19th century France when everyone had a mistress, but even then, it is unlikely!
> If the situation was ever reversed, women and feminist would be up in arms, demanding equality, saying this is a crime against them.
> Yet when men do it, what happens? Women come out of the wood word and say "But I am honorable. Don't you trust me?" Or they presume it to mean that we don't trust them. Or some other crap like that.
> This is a crime against men. When 5%-30% of children are not fathered by the men that think they are the father! What the hell is wrong there!
> 
> And because most woman can never experience the outrage and anger and seething hatred that comes from finding out, that you are a cuckold, they will never go for it.
> 
> So there is no reason for a woman to be against paternity testing unless she has something to hide. It is just like your email and facebook accounts. Your spouse should have full and complete access to them. If you start to try and hide something, then the question becomes, why are you hiding it?


:iagree:


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Broken at 20 said:


> I never wanted to post this on this forum, but I feel like this needs to be done. And this is as good a thread as any.
> 
> Now, on my dad's side of the family, I got my grand parents, both of which are now dead, and an uncle, who is also dead.
> 
> My grandmother was having an affair on my grandfather, with his brother. And as this affair continued, because my uncle was slightly better off financially, a baby came into the picture. That baby was my aunt. And it was not my grandfather's. It was my great uncles. Who is, biologically, my grandfather, because he also fathered my father.
> 
> Now, how did my grandfathber (by law) take this? Well, he became a drunk, lost himself in his work, and died from a stroke on the way to the hospital. My dad always told me he was a great man, a hard working man, and I should be proud to be related to him. After all, my cousin who was fathered by my grandfather (in law) was a great baseball player. Could've gone pro (if he had laid off the drugs).
> 
> Now, how obvious was it that the kids were cuckolds?
> Well, the two that were not cuckolds were tall but skinny, with black hair.
> The two that were cuckolds had blonde hair. When neither the wife nore the husband had blonde hair. And they were both overweight.
> 
> And I am barely related to a large portion of that side of the family now.
> 
> And now I know why I didn't get some of the genes that my dad always said my uncle (who would've been his half brother) got. My uncle was great at baseball and a fantastic athlete. My dad never was. My uncle was a great people person, and smooth talker. My dad...guess he had to learn it.
> My genetic history is literally ruined by this. I have no idea what half of my genetics are now, because the man I thought they came from, DIDN'T GIVE ME HIS GENES! Instead, I got his brothers! And whatever good/crap he had.
> 
> And sometimes it helps me better understand my father for his situation that he finds himself in. And it saddens me to realize he is only repeating his past.
> 
> And how does it make me feel? To know I am half cuckold. I am half bastard.
> 
> It infuriates me. I consider don't even want to be related to that woman. I want to have her last name removed from her tomb stone.
> 
> Which is why, I think every baby should be tested at birth.
> 
> And any woman any says that mandatory paternity testing is wrong, is a SEXIST!
> Why?
> Because the situation would never be reversed. In what situation could a man switch out the babies but still be the father? Maybe in 19th century France when everyone had a mistress, but even then, it is unlikely!
> If the situation was ever reversed, women and feminist would be up in arms, demanding equality, saying this is a crime against them.
> Yet when men do it, what happens? Women come out of the wood word and say "But I am honorable. Don't you trust me?" Or they presume it to mean that we don't trust them. Or some other crap like that.
> This is a crime against men. When 5%-30% of children are not fathered by the men that think they are the father! What the hell is wrong there!
> 
> And because most woman can never experience the outrage and anger and seething hatred that comes from finding out, that you are a cuckold, they will never go for it.
> 
> So there is no reason for a woman to be against paternity testing unless she has something to hide. It is just like your email and facebook accounts. Your spouse should have full and complete access to them. If you start to try and hide something, then the question becomes, why are you hiding it?


I am sorry for the pain you are going through. I also agree that this is an issue that women, while they may understand it intellectually, never quite get emotionally.

That being said, there is nothing that legally prevents a man from getting DNA testing to confirm his child. That applies whether or not the woman is against it.


----------



## Saki

I'm not saying I'm for or against manitory testing at birth, but I am saying the test is remarkably easy to do yourself and only costs about 75 bucks a kid. It's not like a few years ago when you had to be a homicide investigator to get a DNA test done.

It's a worthwhile investment for anyone married to an American woman!


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Thanks for all the opinions, guys.

I do believe some women would take it as distrusting and somewhat(which I agree with you guys wholeheartedly that it's not)... So I plan on not telling my future wife. That does create some guilt, but what can you do sometimes, you know?

It's also good to find out that there are no legal ramifications for conducting a paternity test without your spouse's approval. I thought there was, apparently I was wrong.


----------



## hookares

Although it doesn't pertain to "all" women, there are some who will have to rely on some sort of mythical "afterlife" if they expect to ever earn a man's trust.


----------



## Thundarr

hookares said:


> Although it doesn't pertain to "all" women, there are some who will have to rely on some sort of mythical "afterlife" if they expect to ever earn a man's trust.


My hypothesis is that a untrustworthy woman (or man I suppose) can always find an idiot to trust them anyway. Can find a line of them actually.


----------



## Quantmflux

Well this is a topic that I hate being able to post on, but after lurking here for years I've finally registered to do just that.

This hits very close to home. Without going into the full details, I learned that the W had been having a very long term affair two years after our daughter was born and that it had continued really up until the revelation.

She insists that any physical contact had stopped when we were trying and that she would "never do that". I believe her but of course have doubts. Am I an idiot? Probably. Am I being naive? Probably. But at this point my daughter is my life and I really don't want to know. I also believe that my W loves our daughter more than anything as well so if nothing else, she would have come clean for the sake of our daughters medical history.

So I won't be getting any mail order CSI DNA kits anytime soon, but would I have liked for paternity to have been one of the 12,000 checks and tests (any of which could have been classified as "slippery slope", btw, before they were mandated) that were performed? You betcha.

I was raised in a very matriarchal environment and am hugely sensitive to women's POV on the vast majority of issues, but on this one I think most women will just never be able to relate.


----------



## Wiltshireman

I am as certian as any man can be that all the children of my marriage are mine. I love a trust my wife.

I have brought up my children (the oldest nearly 18) and I love them all.

If for whatever reason my marriage was to fail I would not request DNA tests, I would not want to know if they where not my, It would be worth any amount of Child support I might in therory be able to save would be worth damaging the relationship I have with each of them.

Having said that I would not have a problem with paternity testing at birth as this would at least give a cuckolded husband the chance to make an informed choice before investing his time and love into a child..


----------



## Saki

The previous two posters have both jumped to the conclusion that biological paternaty is a requirement of a loving relationship with your "kids".

It's not.

If you were their father for 18 years, than found out you weren't biological, do you think the relationship you've built over 18 years simply disappears like a fart in the wind??

No. The love is still there. 

You are just better informed about your wife. That relationship can up and disappear like a fart in the wind, and keeping a secret like this, never mind the screwing around in the first place, is a grade A reason for the relationship to do just that.

This attitude here:



Quantmflux said:


> She insists that any physical contact had stopped when we were trying and that she would "never do that". I believe her but of course have doubts. Am I an idiot? Probably. Am I being naive? Probably.


Is simply sickening to me. Your wife would "never do that"? She'd have a PA with a man, but not when you "were trying"? Because she's got more scrooples than that? She suddenly came back to her senses? Tell me, did she go back to the PA after you were done trying?

Speaking of cuckold....


----------



## Thor

Quantmflux said:


> She insists that any physical contact had stopped when we were trying and that she would "never do that". I believe her but of course have doubts. Am I an idiot? Probably. Am I being naive? Probably. But at this point my daughter is my life and I really don't want to know. I also believe that my W loves our daughter more than anything as well so if nothing else, she would have come clean for the sake of our daughters medical history.


Quant, welcome aboard.

I always had doubts about one of my daughters. The numbers just don't add up by a full month. Yes I could have mis-remembered when we had sex, but my gut has always been saying the dates do not align. Back 20 years ago there just weren't any affordable diy dna tests.

Yet my daughter is unmistakably related to her two siblings. Her appearance is "correct".

Absolutely she is mine emotionally. I don't feel differently about her than the other two kids.

So I fully understand how you feel.

I would recommend you do the dna test though. For you daughter's sake she has the right to know. In your case there is serious reason to believe she _might not_ be yours. 

Cheaters lie about everything. So don't for a moment believe your wife about not having sex with OM when you were trying to get pregnant. Perhaps she is telling the truth but you have solid data proving she lies about sex with other men.

If your marriage goes bad in a few years you'll be back revisiting this in your head every day. Do the test now while your child is too young to figure out what is going on.


----------



## Thundarr

Quantmflux and Wiltshireman, your posts highlight the importance of easy early detection. Some men would flat out say I trust her and I don't care to see any results. Those guys would make their choice at that time. At least common place opportunity to know would be an option.

Before the "anyone can buy a test already" crowd jumps in, 



Shadow_Nirvana said:


> It's also good to find out that there are no legal ramifications for conducting a paternity test without your spouse's approval. I thought there was, apparently I was wrong.


I certainly would have assumed this as well when I was young before having time to push away the PC aspect. Now that paternity is so easy to establish or deny, more fathers will be checking this when things head south and will be suing and winning court settlements. It's slow to move in that direction but it's sure to go there. Then it will be in everyone's best interest to establish paternity early and hold men accountable for the children they father. The wonderful side effect is women who become pregnant by OM will be exposed. Too bad that's not reason enough.


----------



## larry.gray

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Thanks for all the opinions, guys.
> 
> I do believe some women would take it as distrusting and somewhat(which I agree with you guys wholeheartedly that it's not)... So I plan on not telling my future wife. That does create some guilt, but what can you do sometimes, you know?
> 
> It's also good to find out that there are no legal ramifications for conducting a paternity test without your spouse's approval. I thought there was, apparently I was wrong.


I'm wondering why you thought there would be any legal ramifications? The mother doesn't provide anything in the test, just the child and the dad. If the child is purportedly the child of that dad, he's going to be the joint legal custodian.

That said, I think I'd do the testing on the sly since most woman would take it as a personal insult. I do get that.... I just wish most women could try and understand it from the guy's perspective.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

larry.gray said:


> That said, I think I'd do the testing on the sly since most woman would take it as a personal insult. I do get that.... I just wish most women could try and understand it from the guy's perspective.


I get why many don't. I have no reason to doubt that my wife has been faithful. Yet is it unreasonable for her to take a paternity test as a question about that? I don't think so.

So I agree that doing it in secret would be the way to go. Of course, I would suggest that if you feel you need to do that, you have some big problems already.


----------



## Thundarr

Tall Average Guy said:


> I would suggest that if you feel you need to do that, you have some big problems already.


Guys who've never thought about it or don't think they need to do this are the ones who are at risk. 

Larry, testing with only father and child is like 97-98% conclusive. With all three then it's certain (unless your twin knocked her up).


----------



## Quantmflux

Thor said:


> Quant, welcome aboard.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Cheaters lie about everything. So don't for a moment believe your wife about not having sex with OM when you were trying to get pregnant. Perhaps she is telling the truth but you have solid data proving she lies about sex with other men.
> 
> If your marriage goes bad in a few years you'll be back revisiting this in your head every day. Do the test now while your child is too young to figure out what is going on.


Hey thanks! Yep, I definitely know what you mean and I get it. It's something I'll have to think more about. This is another one of those areas where you can only do what feels right for you at the time and even that can change with circumstances over the long haul. I'll see how it goes.

@Saki...

I get where you're coming from but not sure what I can tell you honestly. We have a long history together (lifetime) and there are reasons I am choosing to believe her in this case.

I fully understand why, to a stranger, this might seem ridiculous (or sickening as you put it) and maybe it is, but it's an individual thing and each of us can only react to a situation we are put in. Not everyone can react the same way and there is rarely one universal "right" way.

In any event, my point in sharing was really along the lines of what Thundarr had said. If there were easy, early detection that didn't have an accusatory scarlet letter feel to it and was simply a normal part of post natal testing then none of this would even be a question. I completely support that but don't expect we'll ever see it.


----------



## Entropy3000

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> As some of you would know, there have been studies done at hospitals that show that %5-30(varying for different locations) of the children didn't share the DNA of the father and the father has no knowledge of this.
> 
> Now, this isn't the norm in the country i live in. But as I'm planning on moving to USA in the future and hoping to have kids some day, this kinda freaks me out. I would probably get a paternity test for my kid(s).
> 
> But now that I see that even men who have been cheated on won't get this test done. So I'm wondering am I a paranoid ****? Am I just supposed to think "oh, it won't happen to me" even though it's been happening to a lot of clueless husbands? And reading the CWI boards and considering my own background story that has led me to this relentless studying of infidelity, isn't this wishful thinking(my wife would never do that etc.) what's put us people in trouble in the first place?
> 
> This has been bugging me for some time now.


I think it should be automatic.

But it will not be because there is no incentive to do so. The government agencise will tell you that in the best interest of the child it does not matter.


----------



## Anonymous07

Tall Average Guy said:


> Of course, I would suggest that if you feel you need to do that, you have some big problems already.


:iagree: I think it's sad that a man would feel the need to have a paternity test done. If he can't trust his wife enough as to think that she is secretly tricking him into raising another man's child, then there are much bigger issues in the marriage. 

My husband and I are expecting our first this July and if I found out he wanted a paternity test, I would feel very hurt and insulted. I will be carrying his child for 9 months, dealing with the "wonderful" pregnancy symptoms, and then going through labor and delivery of our little boy. Men never have to experience that, so I don't think they ever understand how much we women go through. It's one thing to watch someone else go through it and something totally different to actually experience it. My husband has no reason to doubt my fidelity, so him asking for a paternity test would be uncalled for. I would not feel the same way about him if he did such a thing and would have to take a good, hard look at our relationship. 

If you can't trust your spouse, then you should not be together.


----------



## Quantmflux

Anonymous07 said:


> :iagree: I think it's sad that a man would feel the need to have a paternity test done. If he can't trust his wife enough as to think that she is secretly tricking him into raising another man's child, then there are much bigger issues in the marriage.
> 
> My husband and I are expecting our first this July and if I found out he wanted a paternity test, I would feel very hurt and insulted. I will be carrying his child for 9 months, dealing with the "wonderful" pregnancy symptoms, and then going through labor and delivery of our little boy. Men never have to experience that, so I don't think they ever understand how much we women go through. It's one thing to watch someone else go through it and something totally different to actually experience it. My husband has no reason to doubt my fidelity, so him asking for a paternity test would be uncalled for. I would not feel the same way about him if he did such a thing and would have to take a good, hard look at our relationship.
> 
> If you can't trust your spouse, then you should not be together.


Here's the problem... Everyone who has ever been betrayed truly believed in and trusted the person that betrayed them. No one really says "yeah, my spouse is a cheat I suspect, but I'll hang anyway and have kids"

That's the whole point honestly. Of the X% of guys raising someone else's kid, 100% of the women would say *exactly* what you said with total sincerity and 100% of the guys believed them.

That's why if it were simply part of how the natal unit does business, there would be nothing implied by it.

The OP is a guy who is afraid this *could* happen to him. And reality is that it might. Telling him "well find the right girl!" Is so unfair and blames the victim.

Women seem to think it is about confronting your innocent wife. It isn't. If it were there would be no one unknowingly raising someone else's kid. This is something you *always* find out after the fact, after supporting her through all she went through (while the other guy was off partying), bringing her to the hospital when the water breaks, holding her hand, waiting nervously to hear if she is ok and then feeling that miracle of the moment of birth. 

And then, 5 years on.... Whoops! Yah actually there was a sperm donor. Sorry honey! But thanks for never questioning my integrity!

No one would question their spouse on this until it is too late and no guy would go out of his way to have kids with a woman actively cheating. And no woman who has ever duped a guy like this *ever* admitted it (obviously, hence duped)

It's not about implicating innocent women, it's about protecting innocent guys. Not sure why that's so offensive to so many women. My wife would have produced a carbon copy of your post 7 years ago and yet she was in the midst of a PA. I believe the kid is mine, but as you can see most feel I am an idiot. Every woman who has done this would say exactly what you said as well. Protecting the feelings of the 70% of women who wouldn't do this and allowing the 30% who would to get away with perpetrating fraud seems hugely unfair.

Especially since, as you say, as a man if you dare question anything in the absence of massive evidence you look like a monster.

George, great link!


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Quantmflux said:


> Here's the problem... Everyone who has ever been betrayed truly believed in and trusted the person that betrayed them. No one really says "yeah, my spouse is a cheat I suspect, but I'll hang anyway and have kids"
> 
> That's the whole point honestly. Of the X% of guys raising someone else's kid, 100% of the women would say *exactly* what you said with total sincerity and 100% of the guys believed them.
> 
> That's why if it were simply part of how the natal unit does business, there would be nothing implied by it.
> 
> The OP is a guy who is afraid this *could* happen to him. And reality is that it might. Telling him "well find the right girl!" Is so unfair and blames the victim.
> 
> George, great link!


But let's not pretend that it is not also insulting to the women. It is telling them that you don't trust their word, and need to verify another way. That there may be legitimate reasons to do so does not make it any less of a statement that her word is not enough.

_Edit_ - Posted prior to the edit but my point still stands. It is in fact telling the woman that her word is not enough. To expect your wife to not take the personally is quit frankly delusional.


----------



## hookares

I trusted mine and ended up financing two kids she had by cheating with two other guys. Just finished paying off her daughter's college education and haven't heard from either of the kids in two years.
I think my situation is exceptional, but if there's an afterlife and I somehow end up marrying again, I'll find a way to get the tests run on the sly.


----------



## Quantmflux

Tall Average Guy said:


> But let's not pretend that it is not also insulting to the women. It is telling them that you don't trust their word, and need to verify another way. That there may be legitimate reasons to do so does not make it any less of a statement that her word is not enough.
> 
> _Edit_ - Posted prior to the edit but my point still stands. It is in fact telling the woman that her word is not enough. To expect your wife to not take the personally is quit frankly delusional.


Totally agree, but I think that is why we (who agree its a good idea) feel it should simply be part of the system.

To tell you the truth, it is in societies best interest honestly. Otherwise each case is going to clog the courts, and likely end up hitting the tax payer wallet. And for what? It would take two seconds and no one would have to accuse anyone. The STATE would basically be saying "sorry, but the greater good requires testing... Deal with it" just like some states require blood tests before marriage to screen for genetic incompatibility

@hookares... That's horrible man. I can only hope that your kids some day wake up and realize what you did for them. Sometimes kids go through a selfish phase even under the best circumstances and stop respecting their parents the way they should. Do you try to reach out to them and get rebuffed?


----------



## Anonymous07

Quantmflux said:


> Here's the problem... Everyone who has ever been betrayed truly believed in and trusted the person that betrayed them. No one really says "yeah, my spouse is a cheat I suspect, but I'll hang anyway and have kids"
> 
> That's the whole point honestly. Of the X% of guys raising someone else's kid, 100% of the women would say *exactly* what you said with total sincerity and 100% of the guys believed them.
> 
> That's why if it were simply part of how the natal unit does business, there would be nothing implied by it.
> 
> The OP is a guy who is afraid this *could* happen to him. And reality is that it might. Telling him "well find the right girl!" Is so unfair and blames the victim.
> 
> Women seem to think it is about confronting your innocent wife. It isn't. If it were there would be no one unknowingly raising someone else's kid. This is something you *always* find out after the fact, after supporting her through all she went through (while the other guy was off partying), bringing her to the hospital when the water breaks, holding her hand, waiting nervously to hear if she is ok and then feeling that miracle of the moment of birth.
> 
> And then, 5 years on.... Whoops! Yah actually there was a sperm donor. Sorry honey! But thanks for never questioning my integrity!
> 
> No one would question their spouse on this until it is too late and no guy would go out of his way to have kids with a woman actively cheating. And no woman who has ever duped a guy like this *ever* admitted it (obviously, hence duped)
> 
> It's not about implicating innocent women, it's about protecting innocent guys. Not sure why that's so offensive to so many women. My wife would have produced a carbon copy of your post 7 years ago and yet she was in the midst of a PA. I believe the kid is mine, but as you can see most feel I am an idiot. Every woman who has done this would say exactly what you said as well. Protecting the feelings of the 70% of women who wouldn't do this and allowing the 30% who would to get away with perpetrating fraud seems hugely unfair.
> 
> Especially since, as you say, as a man if you dare question anything in the absence of massive evidence you look like a monster.
> 
> George, great link!


So it's better to go with the woman is "guilty until proven innocent"? Her word is not enough and you have to have a paternity test to prove it. She is looked at as a fraud/cheater until it is proven that she has been faithful. That's sad. Marriage should be built on trust among other things, not questioning someone constantly because one got burned before. That is not her fault another woman was a loser. Don't punish one woman because another one screwed up. 

I'd rather see a consequence be put in place for the minority of women who cheat and trick men into raising another man's child(which is horrible) rather than looking at all women as cheaters and horrible people until they can prove their fidelity. Would that not make more sense?


----------



## Quantmflux

Anonymous07 said:


> So it's better to go with the woman is "guilty until proven innocent"? Her word is not enough and you have to have a paternity test to prove it. She is looked at as a fraud/cheater until it is proven that she has been faithful. That's sad. Marriage should be built on trust among other things, not questioning someone constantly because one got burned before. That is not her fault another woman was a loser. Don't punish one woman because another one screwed up.
> 
> I'd rather see a consequence be put in place for the minority of women who cheat and trick men into raising another man's child(which is horrible) rather than looking at all women as cheaters and horrible people until they can prove their fidelity. Would that not make more sense?



I guess the disconnect is I don't see it as an accusation. I see the state as a clinical entity that delivers hard messages impersonally. In china they try to regulate population (doesnt necessarily work, but besides the point for this discussion). Here in the states all sorts of screenings and checks and vaccinations are either forced on you or strongly suggested. At any point along the way an argument can be made for slippery slope, or hurt feelings.

I just don't feel that the state validating paternity as a manner of course, esp since the state may some day be involved in remediating child support disputes, is some sort of scarlet letter.

It's not punish the innocent, in my eyes, because its not a punishment of any kind in my opinion. It's actually protecting society both economically and morally. The statistic is absurdly high and once it is "too late" it is "too late"

One thing Saki said that I do agree with (even as he called me a sickening cuckold) is that being a father isn't only about biology. So by the time the kid is 4, 5, 6 or 15 years old, the state really can't "fix" anything anyway. I mean if they said now "yep! Not your kid. You're off the hook for child support from now on!" What would I do? Walk out on my kid? Stop supporting her? Bring the other jackass into the picture *now*? I wouldn't. Some might. Either way that's really really ugly.

Knowing this in the first 10 minutes allows this ugly type of thing to be hashed out before more damage (irreversible damage) is done.


----------



## Anonymous07

Quantmflux said:


> I guess the disconnect is I don't see it as an accusation. I see the state as a clinical entity that delivers hard messages impersonally. In china they try to regulate population (doesnt necessarily work, but besides the point for this discussion). Here in the states all sorts of screenings and checks and vaccinations are either forced on you or strongly suggested. At any point along the way an argument can be made for slippery slope, or hurt feelings.
> 
> I just don't feel that the state validating paternity as a manner of course, esp since the state may some day be involved in remediating child support disputes, is some sort of scarlet letter.
> 
> It's not punish the innocent, in my eyes, because its not a punishment of any kind in my opinion. It's actually protecting society both economically and morally. The statistic is absurdly high and once it is "too late" it is "too late"
> 
> One thing Saki said that I do agree with (even as he called me a sickening cuckold) is that being a father isn't only about biology. So by the time the kid is 4, 5, 6 or 15 years old, the state really can't "fix" anything anyway. I mean if they said now "yep! Not your kid. You're off the hook for child support from now on!" What would I do? Walk out on my kid? Stop supporting her? Bring the other jackass into the picture *now*? I wouldn't. Some might. Either way that's really really ugly.
> 
> Knowing this in the first 10 minutes allows this ugly type of thing to be hashed out before more damage (irreversible damage) is done.


All of the testing done for pregnant women is optional, not mandatory. My husband and I make the decisions together as for whether or not we want to go through with genetic testing, with certain ultrasounds, blood tests, and so on. They don't force it on us and my OB never pushes us in one way or another. My husband and I actually turned down the genetic testing, as I'm young and the results wouldn't change anything for us anyways, other than putting on more stress for us during the pregnancy. It was not worth it to us. If we had been forced to go through with it, I would be upset because it is not necessary. 

Other screenings and checks(DUI check points, security screenings, etc.) that occur happen equally to men and women. It doesn't make one look guilty over the other. A mandatory paternity test would point at all women as the "guilty" party, while the man is always presumed "innocent".


----------



## Thundarr

How is not just plan old transparency which many men and women on TAM subscribe to me included. How many women check out a facebook page or text messages of SO and think it's not a huge deal. I haven't snooped around but I could easily check text and stuff if I wanted to because me and my wife both think transparency is good for marriage. She could log on to my TAM account if she wants to see the many posts I've made. It's not that much different unless someone makes it that way by being offended. If a guy wants to check then it makes sense to do it quietly and I get that.


----------



## Quantmflux

Anonymous07 said:


> All of the testing done for pregnant women is optional, not mandatory. My husband and I make the decisions together as for whether or not we want to go through with genetic testing, with certain ultrasounds, blood tests, and so on. They don't force it on us and my OB never pushes us in one way or another. My husband and I actually turned down the genetic testing, as I'm young and the results wouldn't change anything for us anyways, other than putting on more stress for us during the pregnancy. It was not worth it to us. If we had been forced to go through with it, I would be upset because it is not necessary.
> 
> Other screenings and checks(DUI check points, security screenings, etc.) that occur happen equally to men and women. It doesn't make one look guilty over the other. A mandatory paternity test would point at all women as the "guilty" party, while the man is always presumed "innocent".


I do hear what you're saying. And I know what you mean that certain tests are optional. Others just happen though. Blood type for example. Blood type simply happens and in extreme cases can actually invalidate paternity.

I'll have to just respectfully agree to disagree. Mainly because I don't see it as "guilty" or "innocent". 

In my opinion paternity is every bit as important as blood type to the actual child (what if the biological father is at massive risk for diabetes?) and if there *is* a paternity disparity it absolutely *will* effect that child at the very least.

By the way, security screenings are absolutely not random. I travel a ton for work and get pulled over *all the time* for "extra screening" because of my physical appearance. My blonde, blue eyed, female team member has *never* been pulled aside for "extra screening"

Similarly I have black friends who will tell you that "driving while black" is a genuine offense in NJ  Let me tell you... while there is some joking in that, they really arent kidding. Profiling is a simple reality of how a society polices itself.

And to be clear I dont see the above examples as *remotely* the same because in the paternity case I feel it is a health and welfare issue first. It's not like adultery is a crime or that the *state* would be making any moral judgement or prescribe any sort of recourse if such testing did in fact become available as an "opt out"


----------



## Thundarr

Anonymous07 said:


> So it's better to go with the woman is "guilty until proven innocent"? Her word is not enough and you have to have a paternity test to prove it. She is looked at as a fraud/cheater until it is proven that she has been faithful. That's sad. Marriage should be built on trust among other things, not questioning someone constantly because one got burned before. That is not her fault another woman was a loser. Don't punish one woman because another one screwed up.
> 
> *I'd rather see a consequence be put in place for the minority of women who cheat and trick men into raising another man's child(which is horrible) rather than looking at all women as cheaters and horrible people until they can prove their fidelity. Would that not make more sense?*


Your last statement I agree with 100% though. If only so much damage was not done early on.

Every time we buy something at a store there are cameras for that very reason. The pain in the butt plastic wrapping is there for all of us including we who would never steal. Items behind lock or glass are there for everyone even though we wouldn't steal anything. 

The more something is valued and more ease of theft or deception, the more critical the need for protective measure. Rug sweeping a mistake (or not), yet hanging on to a good provider is a strong innate motivator.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Quantmflux said:


> I guess the disconnect is I don't see it as an accusation. I see the state as a clinical entity that delivers hard messages impersonally. In china they try to regulate population (doesnt necessarily work, but besides the point for this discussion). Here in the states all sorts of screenings and checks and vaccinations are either forced on you or strongly suggested. At any point along the way an argument can be made for slippery slope, or hurt feelings.


I will go back to my question for which I don't have an answer. If a women walks into the court house to get a birth certificate, saying that she gave birth on her own, what else is needed? Granted this is likely a rare case (trapped in a house during a storm?), but is her word good enough, or would the state require more?

I ask because if her word is not enough, then it does call into question why the state would not want more regarding the father.

That being said, to hide behind it being merely clinical ignores the underlying accusation that is there. It is still there, even if you believe it is outweighed by the other benefits.


----------



## Quantmflux

Tall Average Guy said:


> I will go back to my question for which I don't have an answer. If a women walks into the court house to get a birth certificate, saying that she gave birth on her own, what else is needed? Granted this is likely a rare case (trapped in a house during a storm?), but is her word good enough, or would the state require more?
> 
> I ask because if her word is not enough, then it does call into question why the state would not want more regarding the father.
> 
> That being said, to hide behind it being merely clinical ignores the underlying accusation that is there. It is still there, even if you believe it is outweighed by the other benefits.


Oh! Sorry I think I missed that. It's state by state and the woman can name whoever she wants. Some states will require that the guy be dragged along and sign it:

How to Establish Paternity | Nolo.com

Some important quotes from that (IMO):

" In many states, as a result of political pressure to reduce the number of mothers on welfare by ensuring that there is someone else with an obligation to support the child, hospital personnel will make every effort to get the father to sign the acknowledgment."

"in many states, the father’s signature on the forms acts as a substitute for a court order, officially establishing his parental relationship with the child. "

"Legal disputes over paternity commonly concern a father's responsibiity for paying child support. A father’s refusal to sign a paternity statement will not get him off the hook for paying child support. If a father doesn’t voluntarily sign a paternity statement, the state will go to court to establish that he is the father and collect child support."

SO at the state level, it is all about the money (as it should be IMO). And they *will* step in and absolutely settle the matter, feelings be damned, if the guy says "Im not signin that!"

This link is important too:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/living-together-book/chapter7-5.html


----------



## Saki

I can understand why some women would view it (it = mandatory paternity testing at birth, in the hospital) as some sort of accusation, and I can understand why that is offensive.

All the more reason to do it behind their back after you bring the kid home :smthumbup:


----------



## Acorn

Anonymous07 said:


> A mandatory paternity test would point at all women as the "guilty" party, while the man is always presumed "innocent".


Wouldn't this imply that the current climate without paternity testing essentially casts the man as "guilty" and the woman as "innocent"?

How do you resolve this?


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

After doing too much reading about deception, infidelity etc, I don't know if anyone's word is worth anything any more.


----------



## Quantmflux

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> After doing too much reading about deception, infidelity etc, I don't know if anyone's word is worth anything any more.



Read less my friend... Not being facetious. In all honesty at the end of the day it really is a roll of the dice. You take a person at face value and hope they dont abuse the trust. The only other alternative honestly is to remain disconnected emotionally (that *is* an option by the way, I would never tell someone they'd be "crazy" to chose to do that)

You can't let over analyzing risk prevent you from living life though (take it from an older guy who falls prey to this himself  )

For example...

If you go walking on the beach *can* you stub your toe on a piece of wood and end up with flesh eating bacteria? Yep. Does that mean you avoid the beach? No. But maybe you throw on a pair of "beach shoes" 

In the end you have to trust your own instincts, go with what feels right, and hope that fate smiles on you.

If you get burned, you pick yourself up, try to learn from your mistake(s), and move forward. Thats all anyone can do if they choose to "dive in".


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Quantmflux said:


> Oh! Sorry I think I missed that. It's state by state and the woman can name whoever she wants.


I phrased my question poorly, so will try again. In that circumstance (where the woman gave birth and came to the court house without any witnesses), would the state put the *woman's* name on the birth certificate, or would more proof be needed? That is, would a witness or other evidence be necessary to "prove" that the child was hers?


----------



## Broken at 20

Saki said:


> The previous two posters have both jumped to the conclusion that biological paternaty is a requirement of a loving relationship with your "kids".
> 
> It's not.
> 
> If you were their father for 18 years, than found out you weren't biological, do you think the relationship you've built over 18 years simply disappears like a fart in the wind??
> 
> No. The love is still there.
> 
> You are just better informed about your wife. That relationship can up and disappear like a fart in the wind, and keeping a secret like this, never mind the screwing around in the first place, is a grade A reason for the relationship to do just that.


Incorrect. 

You feel that it takes more than DNA to be a father. I got a few graves I want you to tell that too...

Also, these men have a right to know they adopted children, and did not FATHER them. BIG DIFFERENCE THERE!

Adoption means taking care of a child in need. 
Fathering means being biologically related to the child. 

And you are assuming that all men treat fathering and forced adoption as the same thing. 
I personally don't.


----------



## Quantmflux

Tall Average Guy said:


> I phrased my question poorly, so will try again. In that circumstance (where the woman gave birth and came to the court house without any witnesses), would the state put the *woman's* name on the birth certificate, or would more proof be needed? That is, would a witness or other evidence be necessary to "prove" that the child was hers?


Ah! My bad actually, I should have read more clearly. Again, state by state and *very* complex. Here is CA:

Unassisted Home Birth in California - How to Obtain a Birth Certificate when Your Baby is Born at Home - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Note there is also this little bit:

"You may need to provide the results of the Newborn Screening Test.

The Newborn Screening Test is required by law for all babies born in California. It screens your baby for 75 disorders that could cause death or disability in your child if left untreated. "


See that was part of my point. There is a test that is *not* optional that *must* be performed. It's funny how many things CA requires even when the *mothers* maternity is in question and yet dont mandate DNA! Its a tough privacy issue is my guess, given the newness of DNA and the fear many have over how it can be misused.


----------



## Zig

If and when I have kids, I will quietly perform a DNA test on them as soon as I get the chance. Basically, as soon as I'm alone with the baby while mom is out, I"ll do a mail-in test (or two to be sure, lol) and use a friend or relative's address for mailing.

My good friend had a vasectomy at 25 (never wanted kids) and has had two women since then claim that he has fathered their children (he's kind of a player so he doesn't tell women he's had a vasectomy).

When he told them that he was sterile, well, I can't even describe the look on their faces when they realize that they've just ruined their lives.


----------



## hookares

Zig, your friend managed to pick two winners who obviously had their sights set on a free ride. 
I support the idea of having a paternity test run, but I'm fairly certain that it could be arranged without the knowledge of interested parties.
After my split, I had several people insist that I must have been at fault in some way for my ex to have cheated on me the entire time we were married. The very fact that people would suggest it is enough reason for me to know that you don't always get to look at what's inside another person.


----------



## larry.gray

Thundarr said:


> Larry, testing with only father and child is like 97-98% conclusive. With all three then it's certain (unless your twin knocked her up).


Wow, I don't know that.


----------



## larry.gray

Anonymous07 said:


> Other screenings and checks(DUI check points, security screenings, etc.) that occur happen equally to men and women. It doesn't make one look guilty over the other. A mandatory paternity test would point at all women as the "guilty" party, while the man is always presumed "innocent".


Well some _other_ man isn't "innocent" and the test will trap him when the mother is going to have to explain where the seamen came from.


----------



## Anubis

Quantmflux said:


> Ah! My bad actually, I should have read more clearly. Again, state by state and *very* complex. Here is CA:
> 
> Unassisted Home Birth in California - How to Obtain a Birth Certificate when Your Baby is Born at Home - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
> 
> Note there is also this little bit:
> 
> "You may need to provide the results of the Newborn Screening Test.
> 
> The Newborn Screening Test is required by law for all babies born in California. It screens your baby for 75 disorders that could cause death or disability in your child if left untreated. "
> 
> 
> See that was part of my point. There is a test that is *not* optional that *must* be performed. It's funny how many things CA requires even when the *mothers* maternity is in question and yet dont mandate DNA! Its a tough privacy issue is my guess, given the newness of DNA and the fear many have over how it can be misused.


Quantum,
You'll find that various womens groups have very actively and aggressively fought against DNA testing being part of that mandatory suite of newborn test. 

Californian has historically been one of the easiest states to commit paternity fraud in when it comes to seeking welfare or the like. Women could name some arbitrary guy as the father to the agency, and if he does not respond with an involved procedure (often requiring an attorney) within 30 days, as far as the state is concerned the deal is done and he's the father, with the mother's word all that's needed with no appeal possible. (I think it got a little better with some minor reforms). Just like that, a man could be blindsided and on the hook for 2 decades of support.

An interesting read: 
Victims of Paternity Fraud

This is an issue I don't ever expect men and women to see eye to eye on. To the women who would be offended or insulted by their husbands checking up on their children's paternity all I have to say is this: Multiple large scale studies/surveys of paternity taken over the last century have consistently shown double digit percentages (10-30%) of children whose fathers were not the persons who believed they were, i.e. unknowing and deceived as opposed to adoptive. Why do you, as women, always blame the men and not your ( &@*&y )sisters who knowingly deceive them, commitment them to a lifetime of obligation and deny them their own biological offspring? Unless cornered, all I ever hear from the gals is crickets.


----------



## Soifon

I'm a woman and I completely get this. I have two children and I had the privilege of growing them and therefore know without a doubt they are MINE. I have tried to imagine being a father and just standing by while the woman goes through pregnancy and birth and seeing the child for the first time. How odd that must be because it's kind of an invisible expectation that this little human being is part of the man, it didn't come from him. Aside from a DNA test how does anyone know for an absolute fact that little human being is a part of you? Woman know because we are tied to that little human being for months and experience it coming into this world. Men just are kind of the bystanders in a way. I think them requesting a DNA test is understandable. Not even on a cheating standpoint but just as a confirmation that yes you created this human being along with the mother.


----------



## Soifon

Saki said:


> Oh snap!!!
> 
> The reason you are hearing crickets is because you are using logic based on facts to converse with women. he he


I'm not arguing his point because I agree. There are a lot of manipulative, trashy women out there that do this and they disgust me.


----------



## Anonymous07

Acorn said:


> Wouldn't this imply that the current climate without paternity testing essentially casts the man as "guilty" and the woman as "innocent"?
> 
> How do you resolve this?


No, the assumption now would be that the man and woman are the biological parents of the child, as it should be. There shouldn't be a doubt that the baby is the biological offspring of the father. No one is seen as "guilty" or "innocent" right now. They are just the parents. When you add in paternity testing to make sure the man is the parent, then it casts the woman as a fraud("guilty"). 

People already have the option of doing paternity tests, like most other testing that can be done for pregnancy and right after birth. All of the tests are optional. Making it mandatory would point the finger at all women as the "guilty" party when only a small percentage of evil women dupe men into raising another man's child. I've only had sex with one man in my entire life. I waited for my husband and I would find it very insulting if he thought I would do such a thing as to cheat on him and try to say that the pregnancy was from him when it was not. I have given him to no reason to ever think I would cheat and never have, so for him to ask for a paternity test would be him accusing me of cheating.


----------



## Thundarr

Soifon said:


> I'm a woman and I completely get this. I have two children and I had the privilege of growing them and therefore know without a doubt they are MINE. I have tried to imagine being a father and just standing by while the woman goes through pregnancy and birth and seeing the child for the first time. How odd that must be because it's kind of an invisible expectation that this little human being is part of the man, it didn't come from him. Aside from a DNA test how does anyone know for an absolute fact that little human being is a part of you? Woman know because we are tied to that little human being for months and experience it coming into this world. Men just are kind of the bystanders in a way. I think them requesting a DNA test is understandable. Not even on a cheating standpoint but just as a confirmation that yes you created this human being along with the mother.


If roles were reversed that I would see things like you do Soifon. The first pat-test thread I was part of a while back dumbfounded me that others don't feel the same. On that thread I understood the arguments being made as to why it's such a terrible thing but they seemed like petty and indifferent grievances when compared to the reasons for pat-test.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Anonymous07 said:


> No, the assumption now would be that the man and woman are the biological parents of the child, as it should be. There shouldn't be a doubt that the baby is the biological offspring of the father. No one is seen as "guilty" or "innocent" right now. They are just the parents. When you add in paternity testing to make sure the man is the parent, then it casts the woman as a fraud("guilty").
> 
> People already have the option of doing paternity tests, like most other testing that can be done for pregnancy and right after birth. All of the tests are optional. Making it mandatory would point the finger at all women as the "guilty" party when only a small percentage of evil women dupe men into raising another man's child. I've only had sex with one man in my entire life. I waited for my husband and I would find it very insulting if he thought I would do such a thing as to cheat on him and try to say that the pregnancy was from him when it was not. I have given him to no reason to ever think I would cheat and never have, so for him to ask for a paternity test would be him accusing me of cheating.


Yeah but the problem is this: Every cheater there is swears that they have never cheated, until hard proof is given to them. Women who commit paternity fraud, will say these same sentences, too. Where's the distinction? I don't believe that there are good girls who don't do stuff like these and slvts who do.


----------



## Anonymous07

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Yeah but the problem is this: Every cheater there is swears that they have never cheated, until hard proof is given to them. Women who commit paternity fraud, will say these same sentences, too. Where's the distinction? I don't believe that there are good girls who don't do stuff like these and slvts who do.


Ya, but you come from a very jaded background as you have been burned before and I think it's sad that you have absolutely no trust in any woman. I was cheated on by my ex boyfriend, but I completely trust my husband. I have no reason to mistrust him and the same goes for him in regards to me. I will say again that there is only a small percentage of evil women who would do such a thing and I don't find it to be okay to put all women into that same category. Why "punish" everyone for a small percentage of bad people?


----------



## Thundarr

Anonymous07 said:


> No, the assumption now would be that the man and woman are the biological parents of the child, as it should be. There shouldn't be a doubt that the baby is the biological offspring of the father. No one is seen as "guilty" or "innocent" right now. They are just the parents. When you add in paternity testing to make sure the man is the parent, then it casts the woman as a fraud("guilty").
> 
> People already have the option of doing paternity tests, like most other testing that can be done for pregnancy and right after birth. All of the tests are optional. Making it mandatory would point the finger at all women as the "guilty" party when only a small percentage of evil women dupe men into raising another man's child. I've only had sex with one man in my entire life. I waited for my husband and I would find it very insulting if he thought I would do such a thing as to cheat on him and try to say that the pregnancy was from him when it was not. I have given him to no reason to ever think I would cheat and never have, so for him to ask for a paternity test would be him accusing me of cheating.


Congrats by the way Anonymous07. I hope your pregancy goes well. 

I think there is a middle ground here. Manatory is a problem. Many (maybe even most) men would not want to know pat-test results and no one should be force to see the results however they should have the opportunity. For me the best scenario is that it's treated like other responsibilities assumed. Either proof via DNA or an opportunity to see results before his name is even allowed on the birth certificate. It should be a private and anonymous decision. Many men would choose not to see. Once the father signs the form then he's the legal provider.

In regards to your other argument though, the real fact (and not assumption) is that no father knows a child is his and it's that simple. There's a clear need for protection. Using your logic, there would be no need for precautions of other things either. After all if paternity tests were always possitive then none of this would be necessary to begin with. Required acknowledgement of parental responsibility (with biological information at hand) is not that much to ask for and it wouldn't cast anyone as guilty any more than stores keeping merchandise behind the counter casts me as a thief or ("guilty").


----------



## Thor

Anonymous07 said:


> No, the assumption now would be that the man and woman are the biological parents of the child, as it should be. There shouldn't be a doubt that the baby is the biological offspring of the father. No one is seen as "guilty" or "innocent" right now. They are just the parents. When you add in paternity testing to make sure the man is the parent, then it casts the woman as a fraud("guilty").


I would be ok with this if the legal system allowed serious consequences for paternity fraud. The mother would have to pay back child support to the man for his years falsely supporting the child. She would have to pay back spousal support (presuming he would have left her had he found out she was pregnant by another man). The real father if identified would be automatically on the hook for child support.

As it is, though, the presumed father is in a lose, lose, lose, lose position. The bio father has zero responsibility if he wants to skate. Or the bio father is deprived his child if he wanted to be involved but was lied to and never knew.

I don't think a test casts a "guilty" cloud over women. They do HIV tests when blood is donated yet there is no outcry that we are being called guilty of trying to spread AIDS. STI tests were required to get a marriage license yet nobody was feeling they were being called guilty of promiscuity or (illegal) premarital sex.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Anonymous07 said:


> Ya, but you come from a very jaded background as you have been burned before and I think it's sad that you have absolutely no trust in any woman. I was cheated on by my ex boyfriend, but I completely trust my husband. I have no reason to mistrust him and the same goes for him in regards to me. I will say again that there is only a small percentage of evil women who would do such a thing and I don't find it to be okay to put all women into that same category. Why "punish" everyone for a small percentage of bad people?


I don't know if I'm that bad. But sure, I learned the hard way that some level of distrust is needed in every relationship, be it friendship, LTRs, marriages. Because everybody has vices and faults(even me), and it's just so very easy to succumb into temptation.


----------



## Thundarr

You guys on both sides of this are overlooking that when time passes the damage is done. Make the guilty pay is fine for the mother but what about the child and father who have bonded. After raising and bonding with a child for years many men aren't going to drop them like a rock. They will however be bitter at the mother. How will that kid grow up with dad hating mom because "you're not mine" or dad hating mom and the kid has no idea why.

The best solution is early detection no ifs, ands, or buts. I'd love to see consequences as well when discovered later but by that time you have many men who are afraid of what the results will turn up so we're back to square one.


----------



## NewM

> MONTREAL - A father has been ordered to pay child support to his ex-wife despite results of DNA testing that found three of the four children he helped raise are not biologically his, a Quebec Superior Court ruled.
> 
> The man learned the shocking news after he demanded DNA testing when he and his wife of 16 years separated in April 2010.
> 
> “Since I learned that I am a broken man,” the father told QMI Agency.
> 
> His daughters are aged 12, 14, and 16, and his son is nine. DNA testing revealed the son is his only biological child.
> 
> To make matters worse, his ex-wife told him his three daughters were all fathered by different men, he said.
> 
> The man said he was aware his wife cheated on him several times, but was floored when he discovered the results.
> 
> “I was naive ... I never thought I could not be the father of my children,” he said.


Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules | Canada | News | Ottawa Sun


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

And look regular cheating may be forgiveable to some degree(I mean forgiving and moving on, not reconciling). I'm not being forced to have sex with another man, a woman's body is her own and there are lots of women out there who would be compatible for me. So I won't pine over anybody. But there is only one me, and if I'm going to spend he rest of my life giving a kid emotional and financial priority, I need to know that kid is mine, apart from the word of someone else.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

NewM said:


> Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules | Canada | News | Ottawa Sun


Ummm, why was the guy ordered to pay child support for the kids that aren't his? I don't get it. I don't get this logic. What kind a judicial system rubs salt in the wound like this? Is this supposed to be modern, new age?


----------



## NewM

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Ummm, why was the guy ordered to pay child support for the kids that aren't his? I don't get it. I don't get this logic. What kind a judicial system rubs salt in the wound like this? Is this supposed to be modern, new age?


Because that is how it is,if you don't check your kids DNA and child is not yours you are on the hook for child support until they are 18 years old.Its not just issue of men wanting to know child is theirs its also being on the hook after they find out issue.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Ummm, why was the guy ordered to pay child support for the kids that aren't his? I don't get it. I don't get this logic. What kind a judicial system rubs salt in the wound like this? Is this supposed to be modern, new age?


Child support is calculated based on the best interests of the child. In this case, those three kids don't know any other father. He raised them and all four of them thought he was their father. So to cut off support would be cruel to them. 

I am not saying that should out weigh the father's rights or feelings, only noting what the courst typically look at.


----------



## Anubis

NewM said:


> Because that is how it is,if you don't check your kids DNA and child is not yours you are on the hook for child support until they are 18 years old.Its not just issue of men wanting to know child is theirs its also being on the hook after they find out issue.


That's not quite right. Depending on where he is, he could be on the hook until the children are 25/26, and that includes paying for college with almost zero recourse to even know the child's grades or major (thank you Massachusetts). 25 years? 1/2ish to 1/3rd (or a little less) a lifetime. More than half a person's working lifetime.


----------



## Anubis

Tall Average Guy said:


> Child support is calculated based on the best interests of the child. In this case, those three kids don't know any other father. He raised them and all four of them thought he was their father. So to cut off support would be cruel to them.
> 
> I am not saying that should out weigh the father's rights or feelings, only noting what the courst typically look at.



Actually it's 'The best interests of the child and the _*STATE*_'. First and foremost the State wants to make sure that someone else pays, and 'for the children' gets the press as justification. Justice at the individual level isn't even on the same page.


----------



## Hope1964

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Ummm, why was the guy ordered to pay child support for the kids that aren't his? I don't get it. I don't get this logic. What kind a judicial system rubs salt in the wound like this? Is this supposed to be modern, new age?


In Canada, child support is based on plugging numbers into a formula. I don't know how it works and I collect child support (theoretically anyway - I never actually GET any of it)

The whole child support system is really really badly flawed. I am not sure I agree that poor guy should have to pay support. What a horrible thing that woman did - I hope the karma bus hits her and knocks her into next century.

My ex used to joke about having our middle son tested. The other two look almost EXACTLY like him, but middle son looks like me and my side of the family. I just laughed at him. Since he was the one stepping out, not me.


----------



## Broken at 20

I still fail to see why this should even be argued. 

Do married women keep their phones and emails password protected so their husband has no way to see them?
I know of two examples:
1. A cheating wife. 
2. My mom after she started to talking to lawyers. She didn't want my dad to get an idea of her legal strategy. 

So unless you fit that situation, I fail to see why it is an issue. Have any women in here ever snooped through their husband's phone or email? At any time during their relationship? For any reason?

So what gives a woman the right to hide a child's DNA? What are you needing to hide from your husband?


Also, let's be honest here:
Why is parternity fraud so easy to commit?
Feminist support it and no one will attack them, and the state has no interest in declaring it a crime. 
If we started mandating it, those 10-30% of women would now have no way to raise their child. Feminist groups would ***** at the state for letting these women and children starve, despite having made a grave mistake. And any elected official who makes it so a duped 'father' doesn't have to pay would be commiting political suicide. 
So it is much easier, to just destroy the men than the single mothers. If any cuckolded men fight back you got the feminist on your side. Plus the current method keeps the state from having to pay out welfare to all the cheating mothers and children, and not enough men have the balls to paternity test their children.


----------



## Thor

Broken at 20 said:


> Have any women in here ever snooped through their husband's phone or email? At any time during their relationship? For any reason?
> 
> So what gives a woman the right to hide a child's DNA? What are you needing to hide from your husband?


Nicely put.


----------



## glycerine

The statistics don't lie, and regardless of how much you trust your partner you should still take certain measures to protect yourself. The financial and emotional consequences are just far too great to simply turn a blind eye. Even a seemingly good wife can have an affair and get pregnant by another man. My philosophy is to either make child paternity testing a condition of your prenup, or test your children discreetly right after they are born. Due to the male-biased laws in many states, you may still be on the hook for child support even if you can prove DNA. However, some states give you a window of time starting from when the child is born to prove paternity and absolve you from paying unjustly. It's worth it just for the peace of mind alone!!!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Just joined this thread.
Just wanted to mention that in our country, child support is calculated as a percentage of what the man earns.
The more you earn , the greater the cost. Other factors are included, number of kids and so forth.

However , paternity fraud is RAMPANT .
I know guys who have been sent to jail for non payment of child support. They refused to pay because they doubted the kid was theirs.
Paternity tests are rare and very expensive down here, so the man is at the mercy of the woman to be honest.

I knew this guy who was a manager on a cruise ship. He worked away from home about 8 or 9 months every year. His wife was very promiscuous . She got pregnant for the neighbor a young man , and when she found out it was too late to abort. She jumped a plane ,flew to one of the cruise destination under some pretext to meet her husband.
Had sex with him , returned home and kept quiet until he came back and " surprised " him.
Up to this day he still thinks the kid is his.
Nobody has told him otherwise.


----------



## Broken at 20

Caribbean Man said:


> I knew this guy who was a manager on a cruise ship. He worked away from home about 8 or 9 months every year. His wife was very promiscuous . She got pregnant for the neighbor a young man , and when she found out it was too late to abort. She jumped a plane ,flew to one of the cruise destination under some pretext to meet her husband.
> Had sex with him , returned home and kept quiet until he came back and " surprised " him.
> Up to this day he still thinks the kid is his.
> Nobody has told him otherwise.


So I assume this man is not a friend of yours?
Is it safe to assume that you believe it is better that this man have his genes erased from the genetic pool and be replaced by this other man's genes?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Broken at 20 said:


> So I assume this man is not a friend of yours?
> Is it safe to assume that you believe it is better that this man have his genes erased from the genetic pool and be replaced by this other man's genes?


You are correct. I don't know him like that, I know his wife.
So basically he accepts that it his child and its no business of mine.
I did the necessary, I stopped my wife from hanging out with his wife.


----------



## JCD

The Cro-Magnon said:


> It should be mandatory at birth. Just a simple test performed at birth.
> 
> There is no guilt or stress placed on either spouse, as it is simply done without either asking.
> 
> There is no sane or rational reason to oppose mandatory paternity testing at birth IMO other than women wanting to keep the option of cuckolding their husbands should they so choose, like they have for the entire duration of our species until this point


I agree with this. Something like that would make a woman...very thoughtful...and certainly a lot more careful about how she uses 'her body'. It would certainly take some of the glow off of an affair to have to keep track of your cycles.


----------



## JCD

Tall Average Guy said:


> So in reading this, a question popped into my head and I have no idea about the answer.
> 
> If a women walked into a court house carrying a new born baby and said that the baby was born at home, and she needed a birth certificate, could she get one naming her as the mother with nothing else? Or would she need a witness? If so, who would be considered an acceptable witness?





in my tree said:


> And until that proof comes back, the space under "FATHER" could remain blank.


It would be an interesting experiment to make the test available but optional...except that until paternity is proven, the name of the father remains legally blank.

So...mom has a kid. She, because she hates being treated like a felon, refuses the test (let's give her the benefit of the doubt). Hubby if he's smart won't press the issue. He'll pay the bills, raise the kid...but the birth certificate remains blank in the father column. It is UP TO THE PARENTS to establish that.

Now...if down the road they determine he is NOT the father...well...now the woman is stuck without child support from that father.

But the state won't do it because it costs them money.


----------



## JCD

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am sorry for the pain you are going through. I also agree that this is an issue that women, while they may understand it intellectually, never quite get emotionally.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing that legally prevents a man from getting DNA testing to confirm his child. That applies whether or not the woman is against it.


This is a bit incorrect. Women should know EXACTLY how it feels.

Why? If I date a girl and knock her up, she's on the hook for 18 years of raising 'someone else's kid' (mine). Yes, it's technically hers as well, but she never planned for or wanted it. It's either abortion or mandatory paying for someone else's kid.

A lot of women get that. Some...get it but don't like being labelled a wh0re automatically. 

As a Libertarian, I'd be against mandatory testing...but as a dad, I'd be all for the doctors ASKING the parents if they wanted to do it...and allow the wife to explain why it isn't a good idea...


----------



## JCD

The only close analogy I can think of is -Ahem- the abortion controversy.

Hear me out! If abortion is made illegal, a woman is forced to carry and raise something she very much does not want. She feels it is a HUGE intrusion on her life. Her Freedom to Choose.

So...health issues aside...what is the difference between a dad being saddled with a child who is not of his own genetics? In many states, he is on the hook to provide and care for a cuckoo egg...and he never had the choice in the matter of 'risking' the consequences of that behavior (unless you count trusting his wife as 'risk')


Now...I get it. Many women have enough trouble getting dads to engage or not run away from their responsibilities as dads...and any man who, upon discovery that his children are not his own and walks away isn't the man she married (which gently glosses over the fact that this woman is NOT the woman he wanted to marry PERIOD)
***

There is also a bit of a male/female dichotomy here on this issue.

The women understand! They are sympathetic. They feel our pain! And I believe all this.

But...what is happening to fix it?

Men aren't interested in sympathy...they want things made right.

And the potential besmirchment against their dignity as women is too high a price to pay for 5-30% of men to spend their lives force to have a child...I mean RAISE a child.


----------



## Anubis

@JDC - I have to disagree with you in part of what you said. An awful lot of women AREN'T sympathetic to men and male victims of paternity fraud at all. 

I find your analogy above isn't that good (_'If I date a girl and knock her up, she's on the hook for 18 years of raising 'someone else's kid'_) First off, you make it sound like it's much less hers than yours ('_technically hers_') when almost all women are not going to experience it that way. Nearly every woman sees any child they give birth to as much more hers than anyone else's, including the bio father and husband. If they don't want the kid/the pregnancy, then they have both abortion and adoption as options available to them, with minimal to zero input from the father on the decision... even if they are married.

On the other hand, I really do like the idea you put forth that until paternity is proven, the name of the father remains legally blank.  That would switch the balance of power, but I guarantee you it lots of men would be under extreme pressure from the women to just sign it. The only way to make it stick would be no discretionary exception to the 'paternity must be proven before it's filled in' aspect.

The web is full of stories of paternity fraud.. if read for any amount of time, it'll make you sick. Here is a story that is especially bothering to me: 

... And as the staff at Hospital for Sick Children are learning, keeping secrets can backfire. In one case, a father who tested negative for a gene that his sick child had inherited wrongly believes himself to be both a carrier of a genetic disorder and the child's natural father...

It's a good read actually... it's something I'll make sure my son reads when he gets older. Here's another choice quote:

_A British survey conducted between 1988 and 1996 by Robin Baker, a former professor at the University of Manchester, confirmed the 10-per-cent figure. That seems high to skeptics such as Dalhousie University geneticist Paul Neumann, although even he admitted that "my colleague, who's a woman, tells me women have no trouble believing it. . . . It's the men who can't."
_
I could post tons of related links, but I don't think that'd do much for this audience.


----------



## JCD

I think that WOMEN are sympathetic and it does them a disservice to say otherwise.(and every woman here has been AT LEAST sympathetic...even though a few resist any...you know...fixes)

I know WOMENS GROUPS are not. That is because they are fighting a very hard fight against deadbeat dads of any kind...including men who SHOULD be deadbeat dads...morally  So philosophically, while the members might pooh pooh and roll their eyes about how bad the *unintended consequences* of the legislation as is for men, they are foursquare against giving men any more ammunition to use against their members (chicks).

I am not particularly sympathetic to the 'well, just being a woman makes you a cheater' because as a man, just having a penis makes me a potential rapist and child abuser. It sometimes seems to feel that way, and women aren't particularly sympathetic to THAT issue...so why should I be sympathetic to theirs when science shows that a woman is much more likely to be a cheat than I am a pedophile.

Cause let's face it...all those intrusive background checks for teachers, scout leaders etc isn't to check out the WOMEN...it's the men...

I think the abortion analogy is closer than the first. If the state wants to be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term for 9 months (she can then give it away), this is a moral atrocity. 

If the state wants to force me to raise a child to grad school...that's a darned shame...

I'd be on women's side more if they were more on mine.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Yes, deadbeat dads are the one of the easiest targets there is. There is a truth to the saying: "When men can't pay child support, they go to jail. When women can't pay it, they get welfare."

Society's view of the women as "pure,innocent" and men as "evil,tainted" hopefully will change. But when I even see men who have been betrayed by their wives, refusing to take paternity tests, I get a bit concerned as to when will this full assumption of innocence will end.


----------



## JCD

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Yes, deadbeat dads are the one of the easiest targets there is. There is a truth to the saying: "When men can't pay child support, they go to jail. When women can't pay it, they get welfare."
> 
> Society's view of the women as "pure,innocent" and men as "evil,tainted" hopefully will change. But when I even see men who have been betrayed by their wives, refusing to take paternity tests, I get a bit concerned as to when will this full assumption of innocence will end.


No...well...yes...and no. Is that clear? 

It isn't so much the 'woman good, man bad' thing...though there is a culturally signifcant strain of that in Western culture (just listen to some of the college girls during rape pervention Crusades...and I use the capital appropriately...though Inquisition might be better)

It is more the view: women vulnerable, men less so. A woman with a kid has a huge chunk of her time already spoken for AND is less able to work. A guy can get more hours. A woman still has a hungry mouth to feed. 

And a man in jail has all his basic needs met: Shelter, clothing, food...sex... So it's welfare...of sorts...

Wasn't it a O Henry tale which has the bum looking to get put in jail for the winter where he'd be fed and warm? So he tries and tries to go to jail, but keeps failing...until he resolves to change his life...and then he's nabbed. But that is unrelated to this.

The State doesn't care about adult men and women except as caregivers to the kids: dad as a wallet and mom as a cheap babysitter. Heck, the teenagers in my town make more then welfare probably hands out on an hourly basis.

Edited to add: 

UGH! I just had a horrid thought. Imagine the nation offering free paternity tests...and having a sudden spike of divorce and single momdom of 5%!

That doesn't sound like a lot but it would be a societal disaster!


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

JCD said:


> UGH! I just had a horrid thought. Imagine the nation offering free paternity tests...and having a sudden spike of divorce and single momdom of 5%!
> 
> That doesn't sound like a lot but it would be a societal disaster!


But doesn't improvement come after crisises?


----------



## Thundarr

JCD said:


> UGH! I just had a horrid thought. Imagine the nation offering free paternity tests...and having a sudden spike of divorce and single momdom of 5%!
> 
> That doesn't sound like a lot but it would be a societal disaster!


So it jumps from around 50% rate to 55% ohhhhh hold on to your pants. It's gonna be a rough ride folks. 

Really though half of the split ups would just be expediting the inevitable. And there's some who would come clean early and there guy would stay. From what we know about insecurity and fear, probably a whole bunch would stay and feel like it was their fault anyway.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> So it jumps from around 50% rate to 55% ohhhhh hold on to your pants. It's gonna be a rough ride folks.


There are 60.3 million married couples in America. Five percent of them is 3 MILLION couples. Three MILLION broken homes with the effects on the kids.

Let's say that only one percent of them has enough of a screw loose do do something awful. Thirty THOUSAND people dead! That's five times the dead of both Iraq and Afganistan!

Let's say only a quarter of that number will need any kind of public assistance. That's 700 THOUSAND people suddenly joining the welfare rolls. That's an increase of one sixth!

And worst of all...that's MILLIONS of dollars funnelled into the pockets of attorneys!

So...yeah, it's an opportunity. When the Mongols killed everyone between China and Turkey, that created an opportunity for the Silk Road to become wide open. Let's not pretend there isn't a cost.

And recall...I choose the LOWEST number...


----------



## Thundarr

JCD. I think you're accessment isn't taking into account that devastation and betrayal would also be reduced. My wife was just watching something on OWN (don't judge me ) a couple of days ago about a man who found out who his father really was a years after the man had died. His guitar teacher who took him under his wing was actually his biological dad but he never knew and he had a lot of hatred toward his mother and the man for doing that to him and to the man he thought was his father.

Really though how often is doing what's right easy? I think many more men and children are being betrayed now. It's debatable.


----------



## in my tree

"Son, she said..
have I got a little story for you...
what you thought was your father was nothing more than a..
while you were sitting home alone at age 13 -
your real daddy was dying.
sorry you didn't see him, but I'm glad we talked"

true and very painful story


----------

