# Mandatory paternity tests



## costa200

I need opinions from you ladies. I stumbled across this idea when looking for some stats on bone marrow transplants where paternity must be established. The writer is a woman.



> *Should paternity tests be mandatory at birth?*
> 
> 
> By Jenna Myers Karvunidis, February 24, 2012 at 9:46 am
> 
> Every newborn in the United States is pricked on the heel at birth to test for Phenylketonuria. Do you even know what Phenylketonuria is? Probably not because, although it's a serious condition causing albinism and mental retardation, it only affects 1 in 15,000 American babies. Now guess how many people cheat on their spouse. One in five. Wouldn't it make sense to do a mandatory paternity test at birth if you're already poking and prodding for everything else?
> 
> Dear Abby answered a letter from a pregnant reader whose husband had had a vasectomy. The husband didn't believe the miracle baby was his and the couple parted ways. Situations like this could easily be solved if hospitals made paternity testing as routine as screening for obscure diseases. One may argue such a test doesn't medically affect the patient, but I think it should be a security measure just like ankle bracelets and identification codes.
> 
> Think how many problems this would solve! If a couple breaks up after the child is born, the father can't run from his responsibility. If the mother strayed, she can't put the wrong man on the hook. If the child ever needs bone marrow from the father, it could save a lot of time and pain down the road if the issue is cleared early.
> 
> I suppose problems that might arise would be disharmony in otherwise happy families. There's always home birth! I'd hate to think that dishonest mothers would be forced into home births just to avoid paternity tests, but considering the impact of paternity fraud I'm inclined to roll the dice. If a man learns a child is not his after paying child support, he does not gets refund. Besides, doesn't a child have the right to know who his or her father is?
> 
> I know my kids are mine. They came out of my body and I immediately memorized their faces as they were slapped with ID bracelets. But if we lived in another universe where, say, babies hatched out of pods, I can't say that I would decline a maternity test if it were offered. Maybe the whole thing can be phrased as mandatory "parent" testing to cover women who show up at hospitals with stolen babies.
> 
> I'm sure hospitals wouldn't mind turning an extra bucks anyway. See? Everybody wins.


What do you ladies think about this? Do you think it is a good idea? Would you oppose this, would you reject the test if it was offered to you and your husband/BF? If so, please explain why. I'm trying to understand why this apparently has never come into effect in no country in the world.


----------



## Trenton

I think the idea is that if the man doesn't really want to know then it keeps the choice in his court. Relationships are more complicated than a disease you test for.

On the other hand, it wouldn't bother me one bit if it became the norm and men were rooting for it. I think a man has the right to know if he fathered the child and with modern science, doing it as a normal test, would take the stigma away from a man who might want to know but doesn't want to make his wife feel like he doesn't trust her.


----------



## costa200

> would take the stigma away from a man who might want to know but doesn't want to make his wife feel like he doesn't trust her.


Yes, i guess that's where the mandatory part of it comes in. And it seems to be important, child support issues aside.


----------



## diwali123

I think one of the cruelest things a woman can do is convince her h to care for kids who aren't his and then divorce and refuse to let him see them. It just is so abusive and so wrong to him and the kids. And then women who don't tell a man she had his child until the kid is like five and then expect back child support. Same thing. 
I highly doubt that this would ever fly, the Right would never allow it. 
I think laws should change so that if a man takes care of a child and then finds out it isn't his he should still get visitation. And if a woman doesn't tell a man until later she doesn't get child support. And if a man pays child support for a child who isn't his, she has to pay him back.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim

They should be mandatory or optional at the mans option if he is listed on the birth certificate as the father. The mother should get no say; her maternity is already assured.


----------



## that_girl

Both of my children came out looking EXACTLY like their fathers. 

That was paternity test by nature. They still look EXACTLY like their dad. Hard to deny.

But this is an insult to many faithful women. I know i would be upset if my husband wanted a test at birth. I'm not a slvt, I don't cheat.

The guy should have the option though, if he suspects it.


----------



## Mavash.

Some men truly don't want to know so I think it should be optional and DISCREET. The man should have the right to the test if his name is on the birth certificate without the mother even knowing.


----------



## Mavash.

that_girl said:


> Both of my children came out looking EXACTLY like their fathers.


All 3 of mine have his rare blood type. B+ (only 10% of the population has it). I'm O+.


----------



## that_girl

It was laughable when my oldest came out looking JUST like her dad...then it happened again with my youngest. My genes are just weak. haha.


----------



## Mavash.

that_girl said:


> It was laughable when my oldest came out looking JUST like her dad...then it happened again with my youngest. My genes are just weak. haha.


I don't think our kids look like either of us. There are traits like hair and eye color but that's about it. I just don't see the resemblence. I'm watching a kid today who is the exact replica of her mom. My neighbors daughter looks just like her dad. My niece also looks like her dad.

I almost feel cheated. LOL


----------



## Cosmos

I've come across too many cases where a man has reared a child as his own, only to learn much later down the road that it isn't, to put up any objection to such mandatory testing.

I know a woman who, naturally, gained the sympathy and support of her entire family when her H had an affair. She divorced him and he was banished from the only family he'd known for well over 30 years. His ex didn't look quite so squeaky clean, however, when it was later discovered, by chance, that their eldest son wasn't his...


----------



## anonim

that_girl said:


> Both of my children came out looking EXACTLY like their fathers.
> 
> That was paternity test by nature. They still look EXACTLY like their dad. Hard to deny.
> 
> But this is an insult to many faithful women (_and a threat to many unfaithful ones_). I know i would be upset if my husband wanted a test at birth. I'm not a slvt, I don't cheat.
> 
> The guy should have the option though, if he suspects it.


Thing is a cheater would say the same exact thing plus a few colorful insults to shame the man out of asking a vaild question, so how is a man to know?

Also children dont really look like their adult parents until they themselves are adults. most resemblances that people point out are subjective.




Mavash. said:


> Some men truly don't want to know so I think it should be optional and DISCREET. The man should have the right to the test if his name is on the birth certificate without the mother even knowing.


I have yet to meet a man who is unconcerned or doesnt want to know whether his children are really his or not. Would it not matter to you if you went home from the hospital with the wrong baby? I might make a poll on it.

Edit; made a poll on it http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/53907-paternity-testing-birth.html

i agree about the testing being discreet and the mother not knowing though.




Cosmos said:


> I know a woman who, naturally, gained the sympathy and support of her entire family when her H had an affair. She divorced him and he was banished from the only family he'd known for well over 30 years. His ex didn't look quite so squeaky clean, however, when it was discovered by chance that their eldest son wasn't his...


Might I hear this story?


----------



## that_girl

anonim said:


> Thing is a cheater would say the same exact thing plus a few colorful insults to shame the man out of asking a vaild question, so how is a man to know?
> 
> Also children dont really look like their adult parents until they themselves are adults. most resemblances that people point out are subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to meet a man who is unconcerned or doesnt want to know whether his children are really his or not. Would it not matter to you if you went home from the hospital with the wrong baby? I might make a poll on it.
> 
> i agree about the testing being discreet and the mother not knowing though.


You are so not right :rofl:

My ex was AMAZED at how identical our daughter was to his baby pictures. Even his mother commented on the similarities. 

My husband laughed when our daughter came out with his lips, his dark skin, his hair. ...Both of my daughters were dead ringers for their dads. My ex told my husband, "Don't worry, they come out looking like us, but get much better looking in time!"

So, maybe YOUR children didn't look like you until they were grown, but my daughters have their dad's face. All I see when I look at my oldest is my ex (but she's prettier) and my baby....omg...people ask if she's mine (as a joke)  

And i'm not a slvt. Or a cheater. I got pregnant because he didn't care that I ovulated that day (I had told him I had ovulated) and he came in me--- twice. So, if he was to ask for a test, I would have just looked at him.


----------



## Cosmos

anonim said:


> Originally Posted by Cosmos View Post
> I know a woman who, naturally, gained the sympathy and support of her entire family when her H had an affair. She divorced him and he was banished from the only family he'd known for well over 30 years. His ex didn't look quite so squeaky clean, however, when it was discovered by chance that their eldest son wasn't his...
> 
> 
> 
> Might I hear this story?
Click to expand...

Her family still took her side, including the couple's grown-up children. Her ex was no saint, but I found it pretty harsh that the family kicked him to the kerb and didn't change their stance even in light of her own deceit.


----------



## anonim

that_girl said:


> You are so not right :rofl:
> 
> My ex was AMAZED at how identical our daughter was to his baby pictures. Even his mother commented on the similarities.
> 
> My husband laughed when our daughter came out with his lips, his dark skin, his hair. ...Both of my daughters were dead ringers for their dads. My ex told my husband, "Don't worry, they come out looking like us, but get much better looking in time!"
> 
> So, maybe YOUR children didn't look like you until they were grown, but my daughters have their dad's face. All I see when I look at my oldest is my ex (but she's prettier) and my baby....omg...people ask if she's mine (as a joke)
> 
> And i'm not a slvt. Or a cheater. I got pregnant because he didn't care that I ovulated that day (I had told him I had ovulated) and he came in me--- twice. So, if he was to ask for a test, I would have just looked at him.


My children are still young so it remains to be seen whether they will look like me at different stages in their growth.

And I am in no way shape or form inferring that you are a slvt, or a cheater, my point is that someone that would be impregnated with another mans child and try to pass it as their spouses would say the same thing as you would. except they would be trying to assure their spouse that it is their baby, when in fact it wouldnt be.


----------



## anonim

Cosmos said:


> Her family still took her side, including the couple's grown-up children. Her ex was no saint, but I found it pretty harsh that the family kicked him to the kerb and didn't change their stance even in light of her own deceit.


that just reinforces my belief that paternity test should be mandatory. sick sh1t.


----------



## that_girl

I wish I could post pics of it here. I wish they looked more like me. lol.

If he really had wanted a test, I'd let it happen, then laugh when it came back 99% true. We could have a Maury moment.  IN YO FACE!  

If you are that suspicious of your children's paternity, maybe you're with the wrong woman (the universal you). Even with my first, when we were not even in a committed relationship and I was pregnant, he never questioned it and he could have--- he suggested abortion, why not question paternity?


----------



## that_girl

anonim said:


> that just reinforces my belief that paternity test should be mandatory. sick sh1t.


That's just one story. And perhaps he ignored HUGE RED FLAGS that suggested she was less than faithful.


----------



## pidge70

I don't look like my mother or my father. My God, who the Hell are my "real" parents!....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

anonim said:


> that just reinforces my belief that paternity test should be mandatory. sick sh1t.


:iagree: If it became routine, it wouldn't appear offensive.


----------



## Mavash.

If my husband had wanted a test I'd like to think I'd rise above and be okay with it. Truthfully I probably would have been offended. Believe it or not we had this discussion when I was pregnant. Just in a theoretical sense.

But like that girl said there is no denying they are his. My son has hair just like his, same blood type, same head shape, same smile, etc. You can lay pictures of them at the same age side by side and THEN you see the obvious resemblence. My girls actually thought the pictures of my husband as a kid was their brother.

My girls look like my mother in law and they have the same white blonde hair my husband used to have when he was a kid.


----------



## Cosmos

that_girl said:


> That's just one story. And perhaps he ignored HUGE RED FLAGS that suggested she was less than faithful.


The red flags would have been when she broke off their engagement without giving him any reason. She later told her family that she'd broken off the engagement because she was pregnant and didn't want it to appear as though he'd 'had to' marry her. After the birth of the child, he came to visit 'his' son and they got married. She cheated on him when they were engaged... The guy never had a clue.


----------



## anonim

that_girl said:


> I wish I could post pics of it here. I wish they looked more like me. lol.
> 
> If he really had wanted a test, I'd let it happen, then laugh when it came back 99% true. We could have a Maury moment.  IN YO FACE!
> 
> If you are that suspicious of your children's paternity, maybe you're with the wrong woman (the universal you). Even with my first, when we were not even in a committed relationship and I was pregnant, he never questioned it and he could have--- he suggested abortion, why not question paternity?


Suspicion doesnt make an honest person a cheater, but lack of suspicion doesnt make a cheater honest either. And there is no such thing as a 'right woman' or a 'right man', only circumstances, and human feelings.



that_girl said:


> That's just one story. And perhaps he ignored HUGE RED FLAGS that suggested she was less than faithful.


Maybe, but thats just speculation. We all have to learn what red flags are before we can act on them. This guy learned 30 + years too late apparently.


----------



## anonim

pidge70 said:


> I don't look like my mother or my father. My God, who the Hell are my "real" parents!....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


lol


----------



## that_girl

I look like both of my parents. I have my dad's funky eyebrows.

I think the paternity test should be offered but not mandatory. Some people dont' want to know. That's their choice.


----------



## sisters359

The people who parent the child are its parents, not the sperm or egg donor.

Honestly, if you think about this from an historical/evolutionary perspective, men have never really known if the children were theirs. An ancient African king explained this around the 13th century, and his culture practiced matrilineal inheritance--because the only guarantee was that the child belonged to the mother whose body s/he came out of. 

Cultures that emphasize patriarchy will do whatever it takes to enforce control over female sexuality. This leads to all sorts of abuses of women. Think "burqa" in the parts of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban--the most extreme example that most Americans know. But in the interest of controlling access to their women, many cultures have created legal and moral codes that are an abomination to the Western mind. 

Matrilineal does not mean matriarchal. In other words, inheritance through the mother's line does not mean female rule. Instead, property moves through the female line and men's property descends to their nephews and neices (if the society is more patriarchal, only nephews will inherit, but that turns out to be a fairly rare occurrence). Typically, certain types of property tend to descend in particular ways--sheep to women, other types of property to the men, for example, among the Lakota nation (again, historically speaking). 

In such societies, people also usually practice serial monogamy--staying together a year or two, then moving on to new partners. Such groups may be matrilocal (couples living in the woman's mother's home) or patrilocal. Men have relationships with their children, but are "legally" responsible for their neices and nephews.

As 21st century Americans, we have such a narrow view of what is possible. We try to argue that our social organization is based in biology, but there is really no evidence to support that argument. Our brains are incredibly malleable and we can accept a wide variety of social constructions, believing them to be based in what is "natural." 

Mandatory paternity testing would certainly help catch "cheaters," but would also then contribute further to the decline of society as we know it. I don't know if that is a good or bad thing; I can envision equally successful social organizations but obviously could not predict if that is what would emerge to replace the "nuclear family" of the modern world. And if you are not an historian, you might be interested to know that the nuclear family emerged slowly, beginning as far back as about the 11th century. It has not been the predominant social organization of civilization for most of history. 

Anyway, interesting question.


----------



## anonim

that_girl said:


> I look like both of my parents. I have my dad's funky eyebrows.
> 
> I think the paternity test should be offered but not mandatory. Some people dont' want to know. That's their choice.


some people dont want to know if they are the father of the child their SO is giving birth to? I doubt that highly.

If you mean some people dont want to ask or that they trust their SO enough that they dont need to ask, i can agree.




sisters359 said:


> The people who parent the child are its parents, not the sperm or egg donor.
> 
> correct, but I dont think this was the OP's point.
> 
> 
> Mandatory paternity testing would certainly help catch "cheaters," but would also then contribute further to the decline of society as we know it. I don't know if that is a good or bad thing;
> 
> Anyway, interesting question.


How would mandatory pat. testing contribute to the downfall of society? would it suppress womens sexuality?


----------



## that_girl

Omg. Pick my words apart 

Some people TRUST that the child is theirs from the moment the test says "pregnant" or "+".

Perhaps some men would even be offended as if the doctor didn't think the child was theirs, etc. 

And I don't think the mother should be kept out of the loop when it comes to testing the child. Whatever I do to my children, I pass by the father first. I'd never get the child poked or prodded without my husband's consent as well.


----------



## Tikii

I don't agree with it, because of my personal situation. When I have a child, I know it will be mine and my husbands, and my husband knows that as well. We don't need anyone to tell us this child is ours, and even if there was a doubt do to rape, or resolved infidelity, we wouldn't want to know if the child wasn't his. He would raise the child as his own, because the DNA isn't what makes the man a father. 

My father was a dead beat, abusive, manipulative man-*****, who didn't have the right to be in my life. My mom made the decision at my time of birth, tht she didn't want him to be a part of my life. If the testing were to be mandatory, it would also automatically put the father's name on the birth certifiate and give him rights that he was too much of a dead beat to fight for. If he would have been on my birth certificate, I am sure that my life would have been effected is a very negative way. The only thing that was effected was that my mom did not get child support, which she was fine with to keep him out of my life.


----------



## hookares

that_girl said:


> Omg. Pick my words apart
> 
> Some people TRUST that the child is theirs from the moment the test says "pregnant" or "+".
> 
> Perhaps some men would even be offended as if the doctor didn't think the child was theirs, etc.
> 
> And I don't think the mother should be kept out of the loop when it comes to testing the child. Whatever I do to my children, I pass by the father first. I'd never get the child poked or prodded without my husband's consent as well.


Don't wish to ruffle any hen's feathers, but a DNA test isn't the only way to determine who fathered a child or children.
My wife had two children she purported to be mine and the way I discovered the truth was when it was determined that neither child had the same blood type and neither had the same blood type as my ex nor me. They were fathered by two different men, neither of whom my ex has the knowledge of what their names are. She was pulling some pretty long trains while we were together and had plenty of time to do it since she was giving me hardly any attention when I wasn't at work.
Those of you who think it's a cakewalk to raise other men's children as your own when you think they are yours really don't have a clue.


----------



## anonim

Thats what im talking about.

I'd be suspicious of any woman that objected to fathers getting paternity tests for their children.

also, if it were men that gave birth to their children i'd be suspicious of them if they objected to mothers having a maternity test of that child


----------



## Tikii

hookares said:


> I discovered the truth was when it was determined that neither child had the same blood type and neither had the same blood type as my ex nor me.


A child can have a blood type different from both of their parents. If both parents have type A, the child could still have O, or if the parents are A and B, the child could be AB or O etc. It isn't as simple as having the same or different blood types.


----------



## anonim

i suspect hookeres knows this though


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> I'd be suspicious of any woman that objected to fathers getting paternity tests for their children.


Why? Why would I need to have a paternity test, when I know who the father of my child is, without a doubt? If my husband were to question whether or not a child is his, or requested a paternity test, I would leave. He wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the child was his, because I would raise the child as my own. I would see it as a sign of guilt and a complete lack of trust, and would not force him to raise his child.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> i suspect hookeres knows this though


I'm sure he was as well, however, perhaps not everyone else who reads this will. I would hate to see someone get suspicious and cause problems in their marriage because their child has different blood types, and begins to doubt because of a statement that was misunderstood.


----------



## Juicer

Well, I know two males that went through this. 

I had a good friend back in high school. I remember one day, he came to school, saying his parents were up late last night, fighting. I tried asking him about it, but he didn't go into it. I come to find out through the grape-vine, that his mom had cheated on his father, told his father that the baby (him) wasn't his, and the dad just filed and left. Never said anything to the family, or sent any money. And who can blame him?
Sadly, I haven't seen my friend in years. His mother couldn't support him (she was a stay-at-home mom), and he had to move. I think he joined the army, and disowned his mother. I remember how angry he was. He hates his mother, and doesn't know his father, and the father he thought was his isn't. 

So this testing doesn't just affect the father. It affects the child. Because a man he had come to know as his father for 16 years, suddenly after one night, is no longer "Daddy," but a stranger.

Another guy I knew in college, moved out to California. I found him on facebook, and I saw he became quite the player. 
Well, 3 years later, he gets hit with 3 years of child support plus interest from this woman. He was surprised, and went to court about it. Come to find out, this women never made any attempt to find him, and it never had to proved that he was served the papers so he knew he was the daddy. So she had the papers to tell him that he was a daddy sent to the bar he met her at. Never sent to his home address. Interestingly, I found out the only lawsuit that they don't have to prove they served you papers in California is for child support.
Well, he did a paternity test, and come to find out, IT AIN'T HIS! But guess what! He still has to PAY! Because he didn't do it in the time limit (one year after birth, until that kid hits 18) and California doesn't care. So he is paying child support, on a kid, that is not his, for some women that he hasn't seen in years to parent a kid. And he has no idea on how she spends that money. It could be spent on food and clothing for the kid, or beer and designer clothes for mommy. 

So who thinks that is right?


----------



## that_girl

I am not a hen, thanks, hook.

I WAS raised by a man who wasn't my father....but I considered him my daddy 

My bio father was a deadbeat drug addict who came back into my life while he was dying of cancer in my late 20s. 

I wouldn't tell my husband NOT to have a paternity test, but i would be hurt if he did. It's basically saying he doesn't believe I've been faithful to him.


----------



## costa200

Tikii said:


> Why? Why would I need to have a paternity test, when I know who the father of my child is, without a doubt? If my husband were to question whether or not a child is his, or requested a paternity test, I would leave. He wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the child was his, because I would raise the child as my own. I would see it as a sign of guilt and a complete lack of trust, and would not force him to raise his child.


I think this post explains the "mandatory" thing. Fathers already have to option to move and do the testing. The thing is if it is mandatory all children to get tested by default men don't have to get a woman going berserk in their face about "trust". 

Personally, screw trust. Every sucker out there who got conned into bonding and supporting a child that wasn't his had "trust". 



> Another guy I knew in college, moved out to California. I found him on facebook, and I saw he became quite the player.
> Well, 3 years later, he gets hit with 3 years of child support plus interest from this woman. He was surprised, and went to court about it. Come to find out, this women never made any attempt to find him, and it never had to proved that he was served the papers so he knew he was the daddy. So she had the papers to tell him that he was a daddy sent to the bar he met her at. Never sent to his home address. Interestingly, I found out the only lawsuit that they don't have to prove they served you papers in California is for child support.
> Well, he did a paternity test, and come to find out, IT AIN'T HIS! But guess what! He still has to PAY! Because he didn't do it in the time limit (one year after birth, until that kid hits 18) and California doesn't care. So he is paying child support, on a kid, that is not his, for some women that he hasn't seen in years to parent a kid. And he has no idea on how she spends that money. It could be spent on food and clothing for the kid, or beer and designer clothes for mommy.


Damn, that's sick... I would leave the country!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I'll never forget a Dateline program I saw many years ago, it was about a man who married this woman...they had 4 kids in 13 yrs....got a divorce... then learned yrs later only 1 of those children was HIS .... Story here - Dad Blood - Reason.com ..... He would have never learned if one of them ddin't fall sick....a blood test followed, questions raised, then the paternity tests. 

She was off & on again cheating with another Sperm Doner while he was working.....Then he was denied access to any of them when he shared this information - while he was dishing out 1/3 of his income....... 

The sheer injustice of this SICKENED me. The outright betrayal and lies of that mother, and she got NOTHING. WHY WHY WHY - I was so angry watching that. And this other man....her lover... he got off scott free- cause this man's name was on the Birth certificates!! 

Article said >>>


> Such men are victims of a gap between law and technology. The law basically presumes, as in ancient Rome, that a woman's husband is the father of any child born during the marriage. While a court may rule in favor of the cuckolded husband, what legal precedent exists is not on his side. Rulings in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and California have also held that if the husband acknowledged the children as his for the duration of the marriage, he cannot deny paternity afterward.


It is always about ...what is in the best interest of the Children... 

Personally, this is how I feel >>>


> surely a good portion of *the blame *for such tragic situations rests with mothers who cheat and lie. The men who fight back don't necessarily believe, as some critics claim, that biology alone makes you a father; often, they are reacting to being deceived and used.


 When I watched that show, My heart was for the Deceived Father, I had zero regard for his Ex wife whining about "what about my children?" ....she disgusted me, no accoutability at all... she caused that ...Let her pay him back !!

Every man should have the right to the test. In this day & age with so much cheating, casual sex the norm... almost seems crazy to me...for some men to not be asking for this Test.. 


Men need to be very very careful of the character of the women they engage sexually with....like Juicers example below... 



> Another guy I knew in college, moved out to California. I found him on facebook, and I saw he became quite the player.
> 
> Well, 3 years later, he gets hit with 3 years of child support plus interest from this woman. He was surprised, and went to court about it. Come to find out, this women never made any attempt to find him, and it never had to proved that he was served the papers so he knew he was the daddy. So she had the papers to tell him that he was a daddy sent to the bar he met her at. Never sent to his home address. Interestingly, I found out the only lawsuit that they don't have to prove they served you papers in California is for child support.
> 
> *Well, he did a paternity test, and come to find out, IT AIN'T HIS! But guess what! He still has to PAY! Because he didn't do it in the time limit (one year after birth, until that kid hits 18) and California doesn't care.* So he is paying child support, on a kid, that is not his, for some women that he hasn't seen in years to parent a kid. And he has no idea on how she spends that money. It could be spent on food and clothing for the kid, or beer and designer clothes for mommy.


 The Player got bit in the ass on that one. Really, men should be more careful who they stick it in...see what can [email protected]#$%^&

Still ain't right though!! Terrible injustice in my opinion.


----------



## Juicer

The big difference here between mothers and fathers:

A father can not, (unless he is extremely lucky, and has a lot of resources) trick a woman into raising a child that is 100% his, and 0% hers. 

A woman can, (and apparently it seems that some do) trick a man into raising a child that is not his. 

Also, to anyone who says parenthood is about who raises the children:
Let your wife try to cuckold you, and see if you can raise that child, or let your man go out, have an affair, and bring home a baby in 9 months. See if you can still love that child. 

For women that feel testing means an issue of trust:
You know that the child is 100% yours, because it came out of your body. 
A man has only your word to go on. And since we know various statistics, like I guess now 20% of kids aren raised by men aren't biologically the dad, and since 50% of women cheat, would you be willing to take those odds?
Because I know I sure wouldn't.


----------



## Tikii

costa200 said:


> I think this post explains the "mandatory" thing. Fathers already have to option to move and do the testing. The thing is if it is mandatory all children to get tested by default men don't have to get a woman going berserk in their face about "trust".
> 
> Personally, screw trust. Every sucker out there who got conned into bonding and supporting a child that wasn't his had "trust".


That's the thing, I understand that. That doesn't mean however that I feel like I should have to pay for a DNA test, because the government wants one. Why it is any of their concern, or the concern of anyone not involved in creating the child is beyond me. If a man feels that testing is necessary(or any women or that matter) they can request it and go ahead with it. I would find it degrading and a complete invasion of my and my family's privacy for something so insignificant to me, to become mandatory. 

That sucks for them, and they had the option of demanding a paternity test, but they didn't. That doesn't give the government the right to step in and invade the privacy of families.


----------



## that_girl

I'm just happy I'm done having children.  This thread makes me even happier.


----------



## that_girl

Tikii said:


> That's the thing, I understand that. That doesn't mean however that I feel like I should have to pay for a DNA test, because the government wants one. Why it is any of their concern, or the concern of anyone not involved in creating the child is beyond me. If a man feels that testing is necessary(or any women or that matter) they can request it and go ahead with it. I would find it degrading and a complete invasion of my and my family's privacy for something so insignificant to me, to become mandatory.
> 
> That sucks for them, and they had the option of demanding a paternity test, but they didn't. That doesn't give the government the right to step in and invade the privacy of families.


That's true. What if the man already knew it wasn't his kid? Why post it around? Just make the tests available. Not mandatory. What does the government care anyway? NOTHING will be mandatory without the government benefiting in some way anyway.


----------



## Tikii

Juicer said:


> Also, to anyone who says parenthood is about who raises the children:
> Let your wife try to cuckold you, and see if you can raise that child, or let your man go out, have an affair, and bring home a baby in 9 months. See if you can still love that child.


My mother did. My half brother was a part of our family while I was a baby(our mothers stopped talking when my dad ran off in an effort to keep him from finding us. The theory was if he found one, atleast he hadn't found both). My mother would take care of him, and treat him as her own child, knowing full and well that he was still sleeping with his mother behind her back. Same with my brother's mom. They didn't blame us because our father was a dead beat *******.


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> Why? Why would I need to have a paternity test, when I know who the father of my child is, without a doubt? Because _he _needs to know as well If my husband were to question whether or not a child is his, or requested a paternity test, I would leave. He wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the child was his, because I would raise the child as my own. I would see it as a sign of guilt and a complete lack of trust, and would not force him to raise his child.


Why...There are some people in society who have no qualms about deceiving their SO about who is/isn't the father of a child, and those people go to extreme lengths to keep secrets of this nature.

I'll give you an example. If, upon asking my wife for a paternity test for my children, my wife threatened to leave me and take the kids and I'd never see them again, that would sound far more like she had something to hide, rather than that she was offended.

Wouldnt you rather your H knew from the bottom of his heart that those were his children, than to doubt inside and not be able to bring it up to you for fear of you leaving and taking the kids, never to be seen again?

* * * *



Tikii said:


> That's the thing, I understand that. That doesn't mean however that I feel like I should have to pay for a DNA test, because the government wants one. Fair enough, what about the test being optional at the fathers request? Why it is any of their concern, or the concern of anyone not involved in creating the child is beyond me. what about the concern of someone raising/providing for the child? If a man feels that testing is necessary(or any women or that matter) they can request it and go ahead with it. I think the point was if the option for fathers (or mothers even) be mandatory, not so much the test itself I would find it degrading and a complete invasion of my and my family's privacy for something so insignificant to me, to become mandatory. however degraded you felt, I'll bet its not as degrading as finding out your SO cheated on you 18 and 3/4 years ago and you've been raising his child.
> 
> That sucks for them, and they had the option of demanding a paternity test, but they didn't. That doesn't give the government the right to step in and invade the privacy of families.





Tikii said:


> My mother did. My half brother was a part of our family while I was a baby(our mothers stopped talking when my dad ran off in an effort to keep him from finding us. The theory was if he found one, atleast he hadn't found both). My mother would take care of him, and treat him as her own child, knowing full and well that he was still sleeping with his mother behind her back. Same with my brother's mom. They didn't blame us because our father was a dead beat *******.


Kudos to your mom. not everyone is capable of rising to this, though i will point out that your mom wasnt deceived into believing your brother was her own biological son.


----------



## Lyris

I don't believe in mandatory testing of newborns at all. I'm in Australia, the heel prick test is certainly not mandatory, although nearly everyone does it. Both my girls were tested, but we refused a lot of other routine tests and procedures we felt were unnecessary or harmful. I certainly knew exactly what the heel prick test was for, not only PKU, but other genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis. 

I'm not interested in more governmental intervention in what happens to my children.

And I would be totally offended if my husband wanted a paternity test. It's laughable to think about, actually. 

On the resemblance front, my older daughter looked just like me at birth. My younger one looked just like my husband. One each. I have known lots of babies who look startlingly like their fathers at birth and I've even read it's an evolutionary advantage, as it bonds the father to the baby from the start.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> Why...There are some people in society who have no qualms about deceiving their SO about who is/isn't the father of a child, and those people go to extreme lengths to keep secrets of this nature.
> 
> I'll give you an example. If, upon asking my wife for a paternity test for my children, my wife threatened to leave me and take the kids and I'd never see them again, that would sound far more like she had something to hide, rather than that she was offended.
> 
> Wouldnt you rather your H knew from the bottom of his heart that those were his children, than to doubt inside and not be able to bring it up to you for fear of you leaving and taking the kids, never to be seen again?


If he feels like there is a reason to have the testing, he can request it, there is no reason to make it mandatory. In our case, my husband already knows that any child I give birth to in our marriage is his child, because he trusts me. While I am aware that this isn't the case in all marriages, it is in ours. That's what makes a mandatory test worthless and an invasion of our privacy. 
Yes, there are people in society who have no qualms about decieving, but that doesn't mean that those of us who are faithful, should have to have our children tested because other's don't remain faithful. Like I said, if a father or mother wants the test done, great for them, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

I would absolutely leave and not allow my husband access to my children(at that point they would be only my children) due to a complete lack of trust and what I would feel being a guilty conscience of his own. It would have nothing to do with hiding anything, because there would be nothing to hide. I wouldn't consent to a paternity test unless demanded by the courts. If he has any doubts in my faithfulness, he wouldn't be someone I would trust being with for the rest of my life.

No, because my husband should know from the bottom of his heart that these children are his children, without me having to prove it. If he has a doubt that they are his children(when we have them), he is welcome to pick up an leave, because the marriage would be over.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> Fair enough, what about the test being optional at the fathers request?
> 
> what about the concern of someone raising/providing for the child?
> 
> however degraded you felt, I'll bet its not as degrading as finding out your SO cheated on you 18 and 3/4 years ago and you've been raising his child.


If a father wants a paternity test, that's fine, he can have one. If it were me, I would want it to go through the courts, on record so that it was on file for the divorce.

That's up to them personally to get a test if they have those kinds of concerns. That doesn't warrant mandatory invasion of a family's privacy.

I disagree. Why? Because to me, being accused of being unfaithful to my husband would be the most disgusting and degrading thing a person can accuse me of. I would rather unknowningly raise the child of another person than have mandatory invasion of privacy.


----------



## anonim

trust does not equal truth.

I guess that I wouldn't be able to trust someone that would deny me knowing for 99.99% surety, just as they do, that I am the father.

I can see the point that asking a woman for a paternity test could be construed as insulting, depending on your perspective.

But this has to be balanced with the statistics that a lot of people cheat, and that somewhere between 5-20% of children born are raised by men who believe that they are the fathers of those children when in fact they arent.

This is by far a bigger insult than saying, I would like to have a paternity test, just to be sure.

Those men trusted their women too.

My step son had a child with his then gf. a while after he broke up with her, he found out she had been cheating on him while he was at work, with a guy that had similar physical characteristics to him. Her bulldog DA tried to take him to court for child support and he requests a DNA test. She withdraws child support requests. 
funny eh?


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> trust does not equal truth.


For us it does. If you don't believe what is being told to you is truth, you don't have trust. "Trust does not equal truth". Maybe not for you, which is why you have the right to request the testing if you want it. You and anyone else not trusting their partners doesn't warrant invasion of my or any one else's privacy.


----------



## Juicer

Tikii said:


> For us it does. If you don't believe what is being told to you is truth, you don't have trust. "Trust does not equal truth". Maybe not for you, which is why you have the right to request the testing if you want it. *You and anyone else not trusting their partners doesn't warrant invasion of my or any one else's privacy*.


Actually, it does. 
If I am having to pay for a child, I have every right to make sure that child is mine.


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> For us it does. If you don't believe what is being told to you is truth, you don't have trust. "Trust does not equal truth". Maybe not for you, which is why you have the right to request the testing if you want it. You and anyone else not trusting their partners doesn't warrant invasion of my or any one else's privacy.


thats like saying 2+2 = 5 for _you._

Truth is an absolute. 2+2= 4 always.

And I dont believe in absolute trust. thats called being a sucker.

I dont think that anyone other than you or your H would have a right for a paternity test for your child, but I do think your H has a right to one _and for the results,_ even if you dont like it, even if you would leave him over it. same goes for anyone else that puts their name on a birth certificate.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> thats like saying 2+2 = 5 for you


No, that's just a response, to make a response.


----------



## that_girl

5-20% of children being raised by the "wrong" father means that 80-95% are NOT.

So...why should it be mandatory?

Available? Yes. Mandatory? hell no.

Just as any medical treatment is not MANDATORY. That just gets weird.


----------



## Tikii

Juicer said:


> Actually, it does.
> If I am having to pay for a child, I have every right to make sure that child is mine.


Absolutely YOU have every right to make sure that child is yours, but that doesn't warrant making it mandatory. If YOU want to be 100% sure that child is yours because you don't trust your SO, doesn't warrant invading my privacy.

What this sounds like is a way for men to question their wife without the wife realizing it.


----------



## that_girl

If it comes down to the fact that you do not trust that the child is yours, then why are you with your wife?

I can see if it was a gf/bf or a ONS or a booty call who said she got knocked up. Fine. The test should be done and that should be done BEFORE she can collect moneys. 

But within a marriage, and my husband wanted a paternity test, I'd laugh. If you can't trust that I won't eff around on you, then why are we married?

But thankfully, I know I'm an honest woman.


----------



## anonim

that_girl said:


> 5-20% of children being raised by the "wrong" father means that 80-95% are NOT.
> 
> So...why should it be mandatory?
> 
> Available? Yes. Mandatory? hell no.
> 
> Just as any medical treatment is not MANDATORY. That just gets weird.


you misunderstand, I mean that the option to have one should be mandatory for at least the father.




that_girl said:


> 5-20% of children being raised by the "wrong" father means that 80-95% are NOT.


So when are you likely to be 5-20%?



that_girl said:


> If it comes down to the fact that you do not trust that the child is yours, then why are you with your wife?
> 
> I can see if it was a gf/bf or a ONS or a booty call who said she got knocked up. Fine. The test should be done and that should be done BEFORE she can collect moneys.
> 
> But within a marriage, and my husband wanted a paternity test, I'd laugh. If you can't trust that I won't eff around on you, then why are we married? given the correct circumstances and conditions anyone is capable of cheating.
> 
> But thankfully, I know I'm an honest woman.


And there are those who aren't. and you cant tell the difference by looking at them. and by the time you can tell the difference, its way too late.




Tikii said:


> What this sounds like is a way for men to question their wife without the wife realizing it.


why would someone with nothing to hide object to a man wanting a paternity test?

look at is this way. You have a baby at a hospital. this hospital has had incidences for mixing up babies and sending parents home with the wrong baby. is it wrong to ensure that yo uhave the right baby before you leave?


----------



## that_girl

The option? Sure. That's great.

But on an intimate level with my husband, someone that I was and have always been faithful to...if he was to have requested one at her birth, I would have been deflated and seen his level of faith in me. It would have ruined our relationship.


----------



## Tikii

Mandatory and optional are FAR from being the same thing


----------



## that_girl

Wow. I'm glad I don't feel the way you feel about relationships, Anon. I know some can suck, but to be on guard and so suspicious all the time. Wow. glad it's not me!


----------



## that_girl

The argument "If you have nothing to hide, why make a fuss", is lame.

But I guess if you're suspicious and constantly thinking your SO is effing around, it makes sense.

If this is about money, I can take care of my kids ON MY OWN. I did it before...I could do it again. It's not about money.

I'm done with the topic. Have fun!


----------



## FirstYearDown

that_girl said:


> Both of my children came out looking EXACTLY like their fathers.
> 
> That was paternity test by nature. They still look EXACTLY like their dad. Hard to deny.
> 
> But this is an insult to many faithful women. I know i would be upset if my husband wanted a test at birth. I'm not a slvt, I don't cheat.
> 
> The guy should have the option though, if he suspects it.


I once read that most babies look like their fathers; it is an evolutionary trick to keep the father around. 
I look exactly like my father. There is no way he could deny it.


----------



## Tikii

I don't think that any testing should be done on a child without the parents consent. That includes paternity testing. It's not about seeing the results or not seeing them. If no one is going to look at them, why bother doing them?


----------



## Tikii

FirstYearDown said:


> I once read that most babies look like their fathers; it is an evolutionary trick to keep the father around.
> I look exactly like my father. There is no way he could deny it.


I look nothing like my father, THANK GOD. I look just like my mom, but funny enough I look like my older sister, who is biologically my fathers.


----------



## anonim

FirstYearDown said:


> I once read that most babies look like their fathers; it is an evolutionary trick to keep the father around.
> I look exactly like my father. There is no way he could deny it.


that's a funny thing, to me, babies look like babies. like a different species of humans almost!


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> I don't think that any testing should be done on a child without the parents consent. That includes paternity testing. It's not about seeing the results or not seeing them. If no one is going to look at them, why bother doing them?


both parents or either?


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> both parents or either?


Both if the father is not on the birth certificate, one if he is. If he isn't on the birth certificate(by his own doing due to doubt), I don't think he has the right to make medical decisions for the child without going through the court. If the mother didn't put him on the birth certificate, it may either be because of her doubt of paternity or because the father doubted paternity, which would again require legal intervention.


----------



## Juicer

So Tikii, just to make sure I understand you because I think I may have misunderstood your post earlier:

If the father/husband, who is on the birth certificate, is questioning whether or not the child is his, even though the mother says it is his, should have the right to get the child tested? Even IF the mother feels like he, the father (before testing) is invading her privacy by looking into it?

But if the man is NOT on the birth certificate, he is NOT allowed to test the child.


----------



## FirstYearDown

anonim said:


> trust does not equal truth.
> 
> I guess that I wouldn't be able to trust someone that would deny me knowing for 99.99% surety, just as they do, that I am the father.
> 
> I can see the point that asking a woman for a paternity test could be construed as insulting, depending on your perspective.
> 
> But this has to be balanced with the statistics that a lot of people cheat, and that somewhere between 5-20% of children born are raised by men who believe that they are the fathers of those children when in fact they arent.
> 
> This is by far a bigger insult than saying, I would like to have a paternity test, just to be sure.
> 
> Those men trusted their women too.
> 
> My step son had a child with his then gf. a while after he broke up with her, he found out she had been cheating on him while he was at work, with a guy that had similar physical characteristics to him. Her bulldog DA tried to take him to court for child support and he requests a DNA test. She withdraws child support requests.
> funny eh?


Even with the statistics you mentioned, it is far more likely that most men raise children which are biologically theirs; 80-95%!


----------



## Tikii

Juicer said:


> So Tikii, just to make sure I understand you because I think I may have misunderstood your post earlier:
> 
> If the father/husband, who is on the birth certificate, is questioning whether or not the child is his, even though the mother says it is his, should have the right to get the child tested? Even IF the mother feels like he, the father (before testing) is invading her privacy by looking into it?
> 
> But if the man is NOT on the birth certificate, he is NOT allowed to test the child.


A man ALWAYS has the right to request a paternity test. If he is on the birth certificate he is the legal father and has right to authorize medical testing and treatment. If he is not on the birth certificate he has no legal rights or obligations to the child, and would need to go through the courts to get a paternity test(if the mother doesn't agree to get one). 

The father has the right to request a paternity test, that's not what I am referring to about invading privacy. What is invading privacy is the government making paternity testing mandatory for all babies, regardless of whether or not the parents want it. It isn't the government's buisness whether or not a child is the father's or not if he isn't concerned. Not to mention, he may be already aware, and not care.


----------



## costa200

Tikii said:


> A man ALWAYS has the right to request a paternity test.


I thought you just said you would end the relationship over it. Can you not see the problem there. Imagine a guy that has no reason to suspect foul play. He will not dream of asking for a DNA test because his woman would get all bothered by it. The mandatory part is to defuse this situation. If it is mandatory, then he will not be blamed and it's just a little non evasive test with saliva. 





> The father has the right to request a paternity test, that's not what I am referring to about invading privacy. What is invading privacy is the government making paternity testing mandatory for all babies, regardless of whether or not the parents want it. It isn't the government's buisness whether or not a child is the father's or not if he isn't concerned.


But it's the government business to enforce child support even when it can be proved that he is not the father? Because that's what is happening. I honestly don't see what the big problem for women is. Unless the woman is a cheating slag that is. 

But thinking about it for a minute, the way technology of DNA analysis has progressed these last 20 years within a few decades the tests will be so simple as to be sold in your average drug store, like pregnancy tests. 

Then a would be dad can just go to the supermarket buy one and know within hours for sure. The government doesn't even need to get into this. 

Scary as it may be for women, the time is near that all men will be able to do it dirt easy like this. And mark my words, it will rare the guy that doesn't do it. 

Women claiming their husbands know the kids are his are not inside their head. Of course he will say he has no doubts. Because if he confessed he did you would crucify him.


----------



## hookares

Tikii said:


> A child can have a blood type different from both of their parents. If both parents have type A, the child could still have O, or if the parents are A and B, the child could be AB or O etc. It isn't as simple as having the same or different blood types.


Trust me. I'm O- and neither kid was mine and weren't the same as my wife. DNA tests agreed with my conclusions as well.
I was really hoping that one or both were mine but it wasn't to be.


----------



## Tikii

costa200 said:


> I thought you just said you would end the relationship over it. Can you not see the problem there. Imagine a guy that has no reason to suspect foul play. He will not dream of asking for a DNA test because his woman would get all bothered by it. The mandatory part is to defuse this situation. If it is mandatory, then he will not be blamed and it's just a little non evasive test with saliva.
> 
> But it's the government business to enforce child support even when it can be proved that he is not the father? Because that's what is happening. I honestly don't see what the big problem for women is. Unless the woman is a cheating slag that is.
> 
> But thinking about it for a minute, the way technology of DNA analysis has progressed these last 20 years within a few decades the tests will be so simple as to be sold in your average drug store, like pregnancy tests.
> 
> Then a would be dad can just go to the supermarket buy one and know within hours for sure. The government doesn't even need to get into this.
> 
> Scary as it may be for women, the time is near that all men will be able to do it dirt easy like this. And mark my words, it will rare the guy that doesn't do it.
> 
> Women claiming their husbands know the kids are his are not inside their head. Of course he will say he has no doubts. Because if he confessed he did you would crucify him.


Yes, I would leave my husband if he questioned my faithfulness, but that doesn't mean that he or any man doesn't have the right to get a paternity test. What I would do personally doesn't have anything to do with a man's rights. I don't see it as a problem at all.

The man should have the balls to request the DNA test if he truly believes there is a possibility that the child isn't his. He will then have to deal with what that brings. If a man is confident that the child possibly isn't his, it's up to him to say something. Whether or not the test is invasive physically doesn't change that it is an invasion of privacy for those of us who do not sleep around.

Yes, it is the government's business to enforce child support. When it comes to child support, they can go ahead and do tests and either parent's request because the relationship would likely be over, and I'm sure most guys want to know the kid is theirs prior to paying for them after the relationship is gone. 

I am far from a cheating "slag" and I have a problem with invasions of my privacy because others cannot do this for themselves. It would be unconstitutional, so it's not really something that's going to happen anyway.

I disagree, my husband KNOWS that any children that are produced within our relationship will be his. He knows this because he knows me well enough to know that I will remain faithful to him, and we are going to have to go through fertility treatments to concieve a child. Just because some people aren't confident, doesn't mean that no one is.


----------



## Tikii

hookares said:


> Trust me. I'm O- and neither kid was mine and weren't the same as my wife. DNA tests agreed with my conclusions as well.
> I was really hoping that one or both were mine but it wasn't to be.


That isn't really a definitive test, like the DNA test is. I have a different blood type than both of my parents.


----------



## hookares

Tiki, I was "sure" the kids were mine until one grew up looking like his Uncle Bob and the other ended up looking like Aunt Francie, neither of whom I had ever met. It would have been nice to have discovered the first child's parentage since I wouldn't have been around two years later for the second.


----------



## hookares

Tikii said:


> That isn't really a definitive test, like the DNA test is. I have a different blood type than both of my parents.


Well, uhhhh, OK?


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> I'm sure most guys want to know the kid is theirs prior to paying for them _*Before *_the relationship is gone.


FTFY.

We dont like sunk costs anymore than you do.


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> Both if the father is not on the birth certificate, one if he is. If he isn't on the birth certificate(by his own doing due to doubt), I don't think he has the right to make medical decisions for the child without going through the court. If the mother didn't put him on the birth certificate, it may either be because of her doubt of paternity or because the father doubted paternity, which would again require legal intervention.


this is a trap. if your name is on that certificate youre on the hook for the baby.


----------



## Tikii

How is it a trap? I'd you are on the certificate and a paternity test provesotherwise, you are off the hook. 

Just because a small percentage of men aren't the father, doesn't warrant mandatory testing. If my husband doubts paternity, I have a right to know that as much as he had the right to ask for a test.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim

paternity tests dont always get you off the hook once its proven you are not the biological father, if your name is on the birth cert.

some posts and some links in this thread will attest to that.




Tikii said:


> How is it a trap? I'd you are on the certificate and a paternity test provesotherwise, you are off the hook.
> 
> Just because a small percentage of men aren't the father, doesn't warrant mandatory testing. If my husband doubts paternity, I have a right to know that as much as he had the right to ask for a test.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


5%-20% is not 'a small percentage' considering the investment that will be put into those children, the time, the money, the energy and emotion.

You take your peace of mind for granted. you will never know what it is to wonder if there is a chance that your kids are not actually yours. because its humanly possible it might not be.


----------



## Tikii

That depends on the state then, because here it does.

If the father had doubt, he shouldn't sign the certificate and go through the court or ask the mother for a paternity test.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## costa200

> Yes, I would leave my husband if he questioned my faithfulness, but that doesn't mean that he or any man doesn't have the right to get a paternity test. What I would do personally doesn't have anything to do with a man's rights.


Can't you see the issue here? You aren't an only case. Almost every woman i know of would feel offended if a guy went and asked for a DNA test. That's the MAIN issue. Imagine a guy that has no reason to believe you cheated, your husband. 

He would never ask for a test right? Now what if you were a cheater. A good one that doesn't get caught. You would get pregnant with the OM and then your husband, not wanting to offend you, and properly so, would not ask for a DNA test. Yet, the kid ain't his and he will be supporting the kid for decades. 

This scenario happens! Do you think your thing about "trust" is worth more than decades of dedication? If the test is done you lose nothing (unless you cheated). Your husband also loses nothing. He actually wins peace of mind.

The only women who can get hurt by this are cheaters. Can't say i pity them much.



> I am far from a cheating "slag" and I have a problem with invasions of my privacy


Your privacy? Do you know how these tests are done? The technician could care less about the result, he will just do it, write down the result and that's that. Do you think someone actually cares about who is biodad of case 2345234532?




> I disagree, my husband KNOWS that any children that are produced within our relationship will be his. He knows this because he knows me well enough to know that I will remain faithful to him, and we are going to have to go through fertility treatments to concieve a child. Just because some people aren't confident, doesn't mean that no one is.


You really shouldn't speak for your husband like that. Men can never be sure. And if they think they are it is irrelevant, since most guys who get stuck raising kids that aren't theirs were also sure. 

Let's face it, you say you're faithful and all that. Great, your hubby is lucky. The problem being that basically *all cheating women say that*. 

How family courts are working these days a woman can hook up a guy by simply deceiving him. She cheats, lies deceives and the one who gets punished is the guy who trusted...

If your husband has a high degree of trust in you, then he is lucky to have you and not one of those others.


----------



## anonim

costa200 said:


> Can't you see the issue here? You aren't an only case. Almost every woman i know of would feel offended if a guy went and asked for a DNA test.
> I think the issue is more to do with _why _they would feel offended. and its because they want to be _seen _as faithful, regardless of the reality.
> 
> This scenario happens! Do you think your thing about "trust" is worth more than decades of dedication? If the test is done you lose nothing (unless you cheated, or unless you havent decided not to cheat.). Your husband also loses nothing. He actually wins peace of mind.Further more he will trust you more, and be bonded to you more, because his trust has been rewarded.


----------



## Tikii

You aren't understanding how it is an invasion of privacy. I'm tired and honestly cannot be bothered to continue this because it is unconstitutional to make paternity testing mandatory. If someone wants to know, they can get a test.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tikii

Also to add, just because a test comes back that a man is the father doesn't mean she doesn't cheat, simply that the husbands sperm was the one that caught.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> You aren't understanding how it is an invasion of privacy. I'm tired and honestly cannot be bothered to continue this because it is unconstitutional to make paternity testing mandatory. If someone wants to know, they can get a test.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


an invasion of privacy is where information is taken and given to those that have no right to that info. no information is being given that wasnt already available. whoever needs to know already knows you are the mother and that H is the father.


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> Also to add, just because a test comes back that a man is the father doesn't mean she doesn't cheat, simply that the husbands sperm was the one that caught.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


v true. but worse than the cheating would be making an innocent pay the price for cheating.


----------



## that_girl

LOL :banghead:

Seriously.

I asked my husband when he got home if he ever questioned our daughter's paternity.

His face---  "What? hahaha...should I?"

:rofl: Stop banging your head Tikii.


----------



## anonim

what would you do if he seriously wanted one?

would you refuse, or let him have one?


----------



## costa200

> You aren't understanding how it is an invasion of privacy. I'm tired and honestly cannot be bothered to continue this because it is unconstitutional to make paternity testing mandatory.


I'm not american. What you say "unconstitutional" doesn't apply to the rest of the world. 



> Also to add, just because a test comes back that a man is the father doesn't mean she doesn't cheat, simply that the husbands sperm was the one that caught.


But this isn't done to catch cheaters. That's a possible collateral effect. This is about stopping men from being robbed of their resources and lives in favor of the offspring of cheaters and men of questionable morals.


----------



## Blanca

I'd disagree with mandatory paternity tests because the tests are not that accurate. It could help people but it could also create a lot of unneeded drama. I would leave the testing for those who are suspicious.


----------



## anony2

My pride means less to me than my husband's peace of mind. If he had any questions at all I would tell him to go for it. I think it should be mandatory, my only drawback would be mistakes being made at the labs/testing.


----------



## costa200

The level of accuracy of the tests is so high that you can really relax about that. If there is a mistake the test can be done again. that really isn't an issue. 

A standard test with 15 loci will be 99,999% accurate. That's 1 in 100,000. The possibility of two tests being both wrong is so small you have a better chance of getting killed by an asteroid tomorrow.


----------



## Blanca

costa200 said:


> The level of accuracy of the tests is so high that you can really relax about that. If there is a mistake the test can be done again. that really isn't an issue.
> 
> A standard test with 15 loci will be 99,999% accurate. That's 1 in 100,000. The possibility of two tests being both wrong is so small you have a better chance of getting killed by an asteroid tomorrow.


I work in a lab that does paternity testing; trust me, it's not that accurate. It's not just the machines, and theories are nice, but you have to factor in human error. If you add up all the errors it's pretty significant. Just yesterday I had a tube with DNA in it and I had no idea which person it came from. My supervisor told me to just leave it and we'd assume it came from person xyz. So ya, if you factor in that millions of people would be getting the tests done then there's a lot of mistakes. It would cause many people unnecessary issues.


----------



## Shaggy

Absolutely should be mandatory - every man should be proof in hand that the kids he is going to be paying for and raising are his.

honestly, I think there should be prison time for woman who try to pass off one man's kid as anther's - I can't think of a worse fraud.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Tikii said:


> Whether or not the test is invasive physically doesn't change that it is an invasion of privacy for those of us who do not sleep around.


This kinda talk really cracks me up , you know why, I sit here day after day reading countless threads about how it is not important to disclose how many sex partners one has before they marry, sometimes it is even best to outright LIE, and many agree with this! Feeling it is pointless, who cares ! The past is the past.... BURY it. Well guess what... the past sometimes - speaks character. 

Not everyone is as TRUTHFUL as they should be. Even the majority feel little "white lies" are just fine, even encouraged to not hurt anothers feelings. I wouldn't even agree with that. 

Not saying you aren't faithful Tikii.... don't misundersand me here .... but even someone like myself....who made her BF wait over 6 long yrs for intercourse (some might see him as the dumbest man alive).... even I wouldn't be offended if he wanted the test. The ONLY thing that would bother me is if we had to pay for it out of our pocket...could be costly. 

Believe me....if any man knew a Kid was HIS, It was MY husband as he had trouble even getting it IN ...I got pregnant BEFORE he even penetrated me ! (Crazy story we have)...... A test was surely NOT necessary in our case....but yet I would never look upon this as an "*invasion of privacy*".....whose privacy... is this advertised in the newspaper or something ?? I'm not getting it .. Isn't it just between you, the father and the new born.. 

Funny how other faithfuls don't see this as an invasion... .my only point here. I would NEVER see this desire as betrayal of the man for wanting this information....that is rediculous.... .

IN some of these cases, these man may have been hurt in the past badly by a GF or EX wife who might have CHEATED, lied behind his back, Trust may not come so easy, he refuses to get BURNED again, or he knows someone who did, & their wife was a hell of an actress.... so some are doubley cautious the next time around... makes all the sense in the world to me.... I wouldn't see this desire as a blight on the relationship, I would want to give my man that 100% assurance. 

I feel....every Father deserves that "peice of paper" in his hand , if he wants, proving he is the Biological at every turn that this "new life" created came from his swimmer, and not anothers. 

The only qualm I personally have.... the COST of this, insurance premiums going up, I mean, it ISN'T necessary in the far majority of cases---obviously -those statistics of 80-95% ....but for those in that < 15%.... Oh the heartache....

If a man does not know his LOVER, GF, wife to be the most honest, forthcoming woman who is Integrity incarnate... I just can understand any man desiring this.... and IF some of us women were in their shoes....I bet we'd be playing a different fiddle on this issue. 

All these men who got JACKED, you believe they were all stupid....Really? They TRUSTED too. LOve can be so blind....as they say. 



> *Shaggy said*: honestly, I think there should be prison time for woman who try to pass off one man's kid as anther's - I can't think of a worse fraud.


 I feel the same ! :iagree:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> I'm not american. What you say "unconstitutional" doesn't apply to the rest of the world.


You cited an article about the standard practices in the United States of drawing blood from a newborn to test for a certain disease. If the Constitution shouldn't factor in to this, then you should have picked an article written about say European practices. The Constitution has everything to do with this, regardless if it matters to you.

Whose going to pay for all this "mandated" testing?


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You cited an article about the standard practices in the United States of drawing blood from a newborn to test for a certain disease. If the Constitution shouldn't factor in to this, then you should have picked an article written about say European practices. The Constitution has everything to do with this, regardless if it matters to you.
> 
> Whose going to pay for all this "mandated" testing?


not true. people post here from all countries. the american Constitution only applies to this topic for americans.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> not true. people post here from all countries. the american Constitution only applies to this topic for americans.


I understand that. You missed my point. It was that he cited an article quoting AMERICAN practices and asked us what we thought about it. When the legality of it all was brought up, he then says it doesn't apply. Yes it does given that the article was specific to the U.S. Now had he cited a French article or a German one and somebody brought up the Constitution, then he would have a leg to stand on. 

I posed a question: Let's say for whatever reason this was legal in the U.S., who pays for these tests on every child born?


----------



## EleGirl

diwali123 said:


> I think one of the cruelest things a woman can do is convince her h to care for kids who aren't his and then divorce and refuse to let him see them. It just is so abusive and so wrong to him and the kids.


In the USA the husband is presumed to be the father of a child born to his wife. It would take a lot of money and extremely good lawyers for a woman to do what you suggest her. The courts are not likely to switch fathers in the middle of a child’s life. It’s not in the best interest of the child to do this. 

It’s even difficult for the husband to get his own name off of the birth certificate of a child who he later finds out is not his child. 


diwali123 said:


> And then women who don't tell a man she had his child until the kid is like five and then expect back child support. Same thing.


I have not heard of any cases of a man being ordered by a court to pay back child support for a child that he did not know was his child. Are you aware of any such cases? Do you have links to them if so?

Usually back payments can only be collected if there was a court order for the child support to be paid. And court orders are usually not for future payments, not back payments in cases like this.


diwali123 said:


> I highly doubt that this would ever fly, the Right would never allow it.


The right would never allow for paternity testing of every child? Why do you think republicans would not allow it any more than democrats would not allow it? 


diwali123 said:


> I think laws should change so that if a man takes care of a child and then finds out it isn't his he should still get visitation.


This is the way the law works right now if the man is on the child’s birth certificate or the form taking responsibility for the child has been signed by the man.


diwali123 said:


> And if a woman doesn't tell a man until later she doesn't get child support. And if a man pays child support for a child who isn't his, she has to pay him back.


It’s about the child, not the adults. Say a man goes 10 years raising a child then finds out that the child is not his, what kind of man would walk out on this child? It’s his child. I can see him having the legal right to sue the mother and the sperm donor for putting him in this position financially…. But to encourage him to walk out on a child… that poor child. And what if the bio dad had no idea that he had a child all these years?

In a case where everyone is suing everyone about who did or did not pay child support, etc., the child will find out. Can you imagine the devastation to the child when they find out that all the adults are trying to disown him/her and push him/her off on everyone else. What a rotten deal for a child.
None of my children are my biological children. It makes no difference. They are my children. I would never do this to a child who thought of me as their parent.

This is one reason that testing at birth is a good idea. If it’s important to a man he should do DNA tests when the baby is born. After 6 months to a year, if he has not challenged the paternity of a child born to his wife, it’s his child legally and he’s accepted responsibility. Once he’s accepted responsibility it’s for life because the baby is a human, not a commodity that people own.


----------



## EleGirl

Mavash. said:


> I don't think our kids look like either of us. There are traits like hair and eye color but that's about it. I just don't see the resemblence. I'm watching a kid today who is the exact replica of her mom. My neighbors daughter looks just like her dad. My niece also looks like her dad.
> 
> I almost feel cheated. LOL


We adopted my 23 year old son when he was 10 days old. He has the same hair, eye and skin color as I do. He thinks just like me.. people are shocked when they find out he's adopted.

The main mis-match is that I'm 5'3" and he's 6'3". But then there are some very tall people in my extended family so he fits in with his height as well.


----------



## larry.gray

Tikii said:


> I disagree, my husband KNOWS that any children that are produced within our relationship will be his. He knows this because he knows me well enough to know that I will remain faithful to him, and we are going to have to go through fertility treatments to concieve a child. Just because some people aren't confident, doesn't mean that no one is.


Many of those men who were tricked into raising a child that wasn't theirs "knew" their wife was faithful until they found out that she wasn't.

You're a good example why guys should do the paternity test on the sly if they have even the slightest doubt.


----------



## larry.gray

Tikii said:


> I would absolutely leave and not allow my husband access to my children(at that point they would be only my children) due to a complete lack of trust and what I would feel being a guilty conscience of his own.


You're not even being rational here.

If they are his as you claim, how exactly do you intend to deny him access? Disappear with them? Risk arrest for custodial interference when a judge sides with him for denying court ordered visitation?


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I understand that. You missed my point. It was that he cited an article quoting AMERICAN practices and asked us what we thought about it. When the legality of it all was brought up, he then says it doesn't apply. Yes it does given that the article was specific to the U.S. Now had he cited a French article or a German one and somebody brought up the Constitution, then he would have a leg to stand on.
> 
> I posed a question: Let's say for whatever reason this was legal in the U.S., who pays for these tests on every child born?


the father if they are his, otherwise the mother.


----------



## larry.gray

Tikii said:


> Also to add, just because a test comes back that a man is the father doesn't mean she doesn't cheat, simply that the husbands sperm was the one that caught.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As a woman, you can't comprehend the difference. To a guy it's huge. A massive, giant difference.


----------



## somethingelse

Home births are beautiful by the way : )


----------



## larry.gray

somethingelse said:


> Home births are beautiful by the way : )


2 of my 3 would have died in a home birth.


----------



## EleGirl

Tikii said:


> I don't think that any testing should be done on a child without the parents consent. That includes paternity testing. It's not about seeing the results or not seeing them. If no one is going to look at them, why bother doing them?



The test can be done with blood collected from the umbilical cord at birth. There is no reason to ‘bleed’ the baby.


----------



## EleGirl

larry.gray said:


> 2 of my 3 would have died in a home birth.


My twins died in a hospital birth. I would have died with them if it had been a home birth.

In the old days 25% of women died from child birth.


----------



## anonim

EleGirl said:


> diwali123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... And if a man pays child support for a child who isn't his, she has to pay him back.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> 
> 
> It’s about the child, not the adults.
> 
> Says you.
> 
> Say a man goes 10 years raising a child then finds out that the child is not his, what kind of man would walk out on this child?
> 
> Any man who does not want to look betrayal in the face everyday.
> 
> It’s his child. No, it's the sperm donors child. The husband just got suckered into raising it for him._ By The Mother._ Let _her _do the Heavy lifting.
> I can see him having the legal right to sue the mother and the sperm donor for putting him in this position financially…. But to encourage him to walk out on a child… that poor child.
> ...That poor husband... he could have been raising children that were _his_, with a woman that is _honest_, and not have to have his heart and ability to trust and love shattered.
> 
> I understand the point you're trying to make but not every man would be able to stay in that situation and its not for you or for me to suggest that there would be something wrong with the man for wanting to walk away, because as much as its not the kids fault, its not the husbands fault either and your putting the responsibility for that mess on him when its not his mess.
> 
> 
> And what if the bio dad had no idea that he had a child all these years?
> 
> In a case where everyone is suing everyone about who did or did not pay child support, etc., the child will find out. Can you imagine the devastation to the child when they find out that all the adults are trying to disown him/her and push him/her off on everyone else. What a rotten deal for a child.
> None of my children are my biological children. It makes no difference. They are my children. I would never do this to a child who thought of me as their parent. Heres the important part that you're convieniently neglecting to mention, *you had prior knowledge.*
> 
> This is one reason that testing at birth is a good idea. If it’s important to a man he should do DNA tests when the baby is born. After 6 months to a year, if he has not challenged the paternity of a child born to his wife, it’s his child legally and he’s accepted responsibility. Once he’s accepted responsibility it’s for life because the baby is a human, not a commodity that people own.
Click to expand...

what if he learned of his spouses infidelity after that 6 month period? 

It seems you want everyone to pay the price but the people who created this scenario, the cheating wife and the bio father.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Okay, so let's assume that all married women cheat/lie and pawn off babies as their husbands. A mandated test would show if he is the father and thus ensure that the man's resources are not being used to raise a child that isn't his. Cool. 

We also need to assume that all married men cheat/lie as they often have affairs, and many lead to the OW getting pregnant. Most of the time the wives have no idea, so her resources are being used to support a child that isn't biologically hers. We would need to mandate that all married men have their DNA taken from them to ensure that no child is being supported by the unknowing wife.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Okay, so let's assume that all married women cheat/lie and pawn off babies as their husbands. A mandated test would show if he is the father and thus ensure that the man's resources are not being used to raise a child that isn't his. Cool.
> 
> No one is assuming all married women cheat/lie pawn off babies. but some do and its common enough to warrant a solution.
> 
> 
> We also need to assume that all married men cheat/lie as they often have affairs, and many lead to the OW getting pregnant. Most of the time the wives have no idea, so her resources are being used to support a child that isn't biologically hers.
> 
> *Her resources? Explain how this is so?*
> 
> We would need to mandate that all married men have their DNA taken from them to ensure that no child is being supported by the unknowing wife.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> the father if they are his, otherwise the mother.


Let me make sure I understand you here. So my husband should be forced to pay hundreds of dollars for a test, regardless if he questions the paternity of his sons because some paranoid people forced him to? 

I have a better idea. Instead of forcing your fears on him, why don't you and others insist on a paternity test after each birth of your own children and let my husband be. If HE asked me for a paternity test, I would have no problem with it. I have a huge problem however with somebody else telling me/him that we need to be financially responsible for a test we never asked for, nor wanted.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Let me make sure I understand you here. So my husband should be forced to pay hundreds of dollars for a test, regardless if he questions the paternity of his sons because some paranoid people forced him to?
> 
> I have a better idea. Instead of forcing your fears on him, why don't you and others insist on a paternity test after each birth of your own children and let my husband be. If HE asked me for a paternity test, I would have no problem with it. I have a huge problem however with somebody else telling me/him that we need to be financially responsible for a test we never asked for, nor wanted.


5%-20% of paranoid people found out they werent really paranoid.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

By way of forced testing of all babies as to the paternity of a child, you are assuming that all women cheat/lie and are dishonest about the paternity of children.

As to her resources, marital assets are community property. If my husband were to father a child with another woman, he would be using half of my money to support the child. I should have a right to know that my money is being used to pay for a child that isn't mine. Isn't this exactly why many here want a mandate? To ensure that financial resources aren't being used to support a child that isn't theirs? Why should women be left out of the equation? We have just as much right to know if our marital assets are being spent on other children. To ensure that doesn't happen, all married men would need to have their DNA tested and stored in a central database so that it could be run against the DNA of any newborn child.


----------



## anony2

Therealbrighteyes said:


> By way of forced testing of all babies as to the paternity of a child, you are assuming that all women cheat/lie and are dishonest about the paternity of children.
> 
> As to her resources, marital assets are community property. If my husband were to father a child with another woman, he would be using half of my money to support the child. I should have a right to know that my money is being used to pay for a child that isn't mine. Isn't this exactly why many here want a mandate? To ensure that financial resources aren't being used to support a child that isn't theirs? Why should women be left out of the equation? We have just as much right to know if our marital assets are being spent on other children. To ensure that doesn't happen, all married men would need to have their DNA tested and stored in a central database so that it could be run against the DNA of any newborn child.


Wouldn't you know if your husband was paying child support to another woman?


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> By way of forced testing of all babies as to the paternity of a child, you are assuming that all women cheat/lie and are dishonest about the paternity of children. Not at all. But the ones who are force their husbands and children into disproportionate hardship aqt little to no cost to her or the OM.
> 
> As to her resources, marital assets are community property. yes. If my husband were to father a child with another woman, he would be using half of my money to support the child. correct. I should have a right to know that my money is being used to pay for a child that isn't mine. affirmative. Isn't this exactly why many here want a mandate? To ensure that financial resources aren't being used to support a child that isn't theirs? Why should women be left out of the equation? We have just as much right to know if our marital assets are being spent on other children. To ensure that doesn't happen, all married men would need to have their DNA tested and stored in a central database so that it could be run against the DNA of any newborn child.


 I can get behind that, your reasons are absolutely valid.


----------



## somethingelse

I'm sorry to hear that you lost your twins EleGirl...I can't imagine the pain that would come from that..

I am very passionate about home birth so here's what I have learned and know

Home Birth and Out-of-Hospital Birth: Is it Safe?

Also..documentary on Business of Being Born sheds some light on some misconceptions

Hospitals are very good for high risk pregnancies and emergency situations (if legitimate). and there are tragedies for both home birth, and hospital birth regardless.

However, to plan a pregnancy based around fear of the unknown can be somewhat disheartening and not a good way to start a baby's life either. 

over 50% of women have c-sections in the US now.. almost half are planned, not emergency. The rest ....? 

OBGYNs only came into the birthing picture maybe 150 years ago. Mostly in reasoning to make more money in their business. Not for the wellbeing of the mother and child. Which is what they have claimed. Their talk of sterile environment, well being of mother and child, and home birth is dangerous was what fueled women's fear of natural birth, let alone home birth. It was in their monetary interest to take on the birthing field. Which they call "delivery" now. A very profitable business. 

OBGYNs make over 10,000 per one birth..and other gain comes from the medications they use: such as oxytocin, pitocin (which stimulate contractions) causing the mother to have overly extreme pain (due to the contractions)...which leads to the mother to wanting an epidural (which slows down contractions)..and...back to the oxytocin they go...until the baby becomes distressed with the drugs and the changes..and so the Doc rushes the mother into emergency C-section.. 

It's big bucks.. and this system is used for all women who do not have a secure plan for natural birth or close enough to it. That is not a personal relationship between OBGYN and mother. 

Midwives do it because it's what they love. They are specialized in the birthing field ONLY. It's a very personal thing. They also only charge 4500 for prenatal care and the birth. However, a lot of provinces (in Canada) have government funding for it now.

Another Tid bit...OBGYNs are actually specialized in surgery, not birthing...they do not actually know how a real birth plays out..maybe some do, but it's a rare thing for them.

While I was in nursing school..I got my anatomy and physiology teacher (who used to be a surgeon) to admit to me that doctors love when a woman goes into C-section..because the Doc gets quick money without the work or time. I already knew it, but he admitted it. He already knew that I knew.

Hospitals use a system based on fear for monetary gain. and have little to no experience with the birthing process..

With midwives, you get a very personal birth, very detailed prenatal care. They are equipped and have years and years of experience just with mother's and babies. They carry oxygen tanks, all the drugs that are used for births in hospitals..drugs for clotting blood..and are trained on what to do if a woman needs to go to the hospital in an emergency situation. It's all very strategic. and what I love about midwives, is they promote natural birth, and home birth. But leave all decisions to the mother. 

Another point : you can have a hospital birth with a midwife also if home birth is not your thing

What I love the very most...is the empowerment a woman feels after having her baby (or babies) naturally, and at home (makes it so much more intimate) That's why I said that home birth is beautiful.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes:

You can try to come up with all sorts of counter examples, but the reality is that women can't be tricked into raising a child they thought was theirs but really isn't. Any convoluted example you try to come up with isn't the same. You're grasping at absurd straws here.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anony2 said:


> Wouldn't you know if your husband was paying child support to another woman?


Well I would but many do not. CS is often garnished from a paycheck. With auto deposit (heck my husband doesn't even get a pay stub), a man could easily get away with neglecting to mention a raise, claim that health insurance went up or that the company cut salaries of the employees. Also, many married men pay OW under the table sort of speak. In other words, don't file for CS under the law and ruin my life, in return I will pay you more to keep this quiet. Also, how many wives trust their husbands with the finances? Lots. So yes, plenty could get away with this.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> Therealbrighteyes:
> 
> You can try to come up with all sorts of counter examples, but the reality is that women can't be tricked into raising a child they thought was theirs but really isn't. Any convoluted example you try to come up with isn't the same. You're grasping at absurd straws here.


I didn't say raise anywhere in what I wrote. I said PAY. That was the topic at hand, was it not? That a man would be financially paying for a child that was not his. I am saying it happens to wives as well. If you don't believe me, then (if your stomach can handle it) go over to any OW boards where they openly talk about having 4, 5, 6 year olds with their married men and the wives are none the wiser. Guess what? The wife is PAYING to raise a child that is not hers. It is exactly as what has been discussed here. No straw grasping whatsoever.


----------



## anony2

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Well I would but many do not. CS is often garnished from a paycheck. With auto deposit (heck my husband doesn't even get a pay stub), a man could easily get away with neglecting to mention a raise, claim that health insurance went up or that the company cut salaries of the employees. Also, many married men pay OW under the table sort of speak. In other words, don't file for CS under the law and ruin my life, in return I will pay you more to keep this quiet. Also, how many wives trust their husbands with the finances? Lots. So yes, plenty could get away with this.


If the CS is being paid for by the man, then the wife is not paying for the child, the man is.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I didn't say raise anywhere in what I wrote. I said PAY. That was the topic at hand, was it not? That a man would be financially paying for a child that was not his. I am saying it happens to wives as well. If you don't believe me, then (if your stomach can handle it) go over to any OW boards where they openly talk about having 4, 5, 6 year olds with their married men and the wives are none the wiser. Guess what? The wife is PAYING to raise a child that is not hers. It is exactly as what has been discussed here. No straw grasping whatsoever.


One small but important difference. if the wife finds out and walks away, shes not on the hook for his children.
She is not tricked into have an emotional connection with those children under the false assumption that they are her children. I believe this was the point of the topic, and hence the paternity testing.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anony2 said:


> If the CS is being paid for by the man, then the wife is not paying for the child, the man is.


Is income not considered community property? It is. As an example, let's say I take $1000 out of my paycheck to give to somebody else without my husband's knowledge or consent, it is according to the law using marital assets and half of that $1k is assumed to be his. The same principle applies if a man secretly pays for a child that his wife is not aware of. 

Okay, just to be clear. I have no issue whatsoever with paternity testing. If a man wants to have his children tested, that is his right and I support that. I think if this is as wide spread as many here seem to suggest, then a insist on paternity testing with each child. I don't however think that it should be forced and the expense foisted upon somebody who never asked for the test in the first place.


----------



## Lyris

anony2 said:


> If the CS is being paid for by the man, then the wife is not paying for the child, the man is.



Do you not understand about communal property? My husbands money is my money and vice versa.

I have no philosophical objection to paternity testing. I have huge objections to governmental mandates which further impinge on my parental autonomy, especially those which are not directed towards the well being of my children.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> One small but important difference. if the wife finds out and walks away, shes not on the hook for his children.
> She is not tricked into have an emotional connection with those children under the false assumption that they are her children. I believe this was the point of the topic, and hence the paternity testing.


I was talking from a purely financial standpoint, not the emotional. That's a whole other tragedy. My point is/was that if testing is mandatory to ensure financial resources aren't being spent on non-biological children, then it needs to be expanded. It would just get ridiculous though. I cannot even imagine any of this. 

Paternity testing should be a choice and not a mandate. Any man who wants to get his children tested is free to do so. Nobody however has the right to tell my husband he has to test his sons however. Again, if he wanted it, I would have no problem with it. I would have a huge problem with somebody else telling me I had to.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Mandatory paternity tests would firstly waste millions of dollars.

Secondly most men do not want paternity tests, because they are not all paranoid.

Thirdly stats show that around 25% of men who are all ready suspicious that they are not in fact the father, are not. That leaves a staggering 75% of men who are still the biological fathers, despite suspicions. And around 3.7% of men raising children who are not biologically theirs overall. If those 3.7% have suspicions then they should ask for a test. Simple.

If we are going to go crazy with testing why not test all adults and children? Then we can include men in this kind of automatic persecution. They can then be suspect fathers, to children they may have not claimed. Then be made to pay child support for all the children they may not even know about or have been ignoring.

Or we could leave it up to individuals to decide if they want paternity tests based on actual facts, not blanket mistrust of the human race.


----------



## costa200

Blanca said:


> I work in a lab that does paternity testing; trust me, it's not that accurate. It's not just the machines, and theories are nice, but you have to factor in human error. If you add up all the errors it's pretty significant. Just yesterday I had a tube with DNA in it and I had no idea which person it came from. My supervisor told me to just leave it and we'd assume it came from person xyz. So ya, if you factor in that millions of people would be getting the tests done then there's a lot of mistakes. It would cause many people unnecessary issues.


Any human error that eventually happens just implies a second test. And your supervisor is a douche...



> Therealbrighteyes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cited an article about the standard practices in the United States of drawing blood from a newborn to test for a certain disease. If the Constitution shouldn't factor in to this, then you should have picked an article written about say European practices. The Constitution has everything to do with this, regardless if it matters to you.
> 
> Whose going to pay for all this "mandated" testing?
Click to expand...

The drawing of blood to test is standard practice in Europe too. And we are talking about, like i said in the opening post why haven't this been done anywhere i the world. So, yes, the US constitution is only relevant to the US. And some americans love to throw around the word unconstitutional like it has the magical power of removing what they don't like. Well, guess what, the constitution is only relevant until a large enough group of people decide it should be changed or it doesn't really says what people say it does.

The real cost of the test itself is at the moment 125$, in your currency, more or less. Can you find men that think this is bad investment? Furthermore, this cost, with the volume of testing rising would drop dramatically. 



> It’s about the child, not the adults. Say a man goes 10 years raising a child then finds out that the child is not his, what kind of man would walk out on this child?


A guy who has an idea on what reproductive success is would. In a second. You're being slightly judgmental of a guy who has been duped into working 10 years for a kid that isn't his don't you think?



> None of my children are my biological children. It makes no difference. They are my children. I would never do this to a child who thought of me as their parent.


You were not fooled into it. It's totally different. 



> Okay, so let's assume that all married women cheat/lie and pawn off babies as their husbands. A mandated test would show if he is the father and thus ensure that the man's resources are not being used to raise a child that isn't his. Cool.
> 
> We also need to assume that all married men cheat/lie as they often have affairs, and many lead to the OW getting pregnant. Most of the time the wives have no idea, so her resources are being used to support a child that isn't biologically hers. We would need to mandate that all married men have their DNA taken from them to ensure that no child is being supported by the unknowing wife.


First, we are not assuming all of women do this. We are assuming some do. We just don't know in which category each woman belongs to. 

Second, if a married man does that and his wife gets to know about it due to the testing, then it's his resources being drained, not his. This lowers his desirability and it is very likely that his wife drops him anyway. 

Unless you're saying that the wife is better off ignoring that she has a cheating bastard as a husband i don't see a down side for her. She can walk on him, common property or not. She takes him to the cleaners and it's him, not her that gets nailed with child support. 

This is all superior morally to fooling a guy for decades while the biodad gets to eat cake.



> I have a better idea. Instead of forcing your fears on him, why don't you and others insist on a paternity test after each birth of your own children and let my husband be. If HE asked me for a paternity test, I would have no problem with it.


I'll call bulsh*t on that one. Basically every woman on earth would feel hurt if she hadn't cheated and the husband asked for a test. Even women who would accept it without much problem would be somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that he had to ask. 



> Mandatory paternity tests would firstly waste millions of dollars.
> 
> Secondly most men do not want paternity tests,


You're wrong. If i had a method of making a reliable "do it yourself" test that was cheap and easy enough to sell at a supermarket i would quickly become on of the wealthiest men in the planet. Do not mistake what men say they want or don't want when backed into a corner in the presence of women, specially their partner, and what they really want. 

Every man has doubts. Everyone... At least until they actually find that the kid is his spitting image. And even then there are some who still doubt. 



> If those 3.7% have suspicions then they should ask for a test. Simple.


 


> they are not all paranoid.


Then, not being paranoid, in your words, they are not asking for a test are they? Part of those will be duped. They will refrain from getting the test because they don't want to offend their wife.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Costa, I suggest if men feel like you they shouldn't get married.

Should all women be suspicious that their husband has fathered other children?

My goodness I hope not.

If you cannot at least strive for a healthy honest relationship, then don't get married period.


----------



## costa200

*LittleDeer* said:


> Costa, I suggest if men feel like you they shouldn't get married.
> 
> Should all women be suspicious that their husband has fathered other children?
> 
> My goodness I hope not.
> 
> If you cannot at least strive for a healthy honest relationship, then don't get married period.


Don't worry about that. I have other reasons not to sign that piece of paper. None of which relate to honesty and trust.

I'm just an forthcoming brutally honest guy. And that may surprise and horrify women sometimes. Mainly the sort of women who easily buy into male lies.


----------



## Cosmos

I thought the question was about mandatory paternity testing, not selective testing? I can quite see how the latter could cause outrage amongst faithful loving wives, whereas mandatory (which is the question I responded to) testing would simply come to be an accepted practice.


----------



## costa200

Cosmos said:


> I thought the question was about mandatory paternity testing, not selective testing? I can quite see how the latter could cause outrage amongst faithful loving wives, whereas mandatory (which is the question I responded to) testing would simply come to be an accepted practice.


And that's the question really... But apparently some ladies don't like the idea and still see it as a personal insult. I'm trying to figure out why!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> And that's the question really... But apparently some ladies don't like the idea and still see it as a personal insult. I'm trying to figure out why!



You don't know why some women got upset? You are assuming that all women are cheaters and therefore we must force paternity tests on all children. You are basing this all because of a small percentage yet broadly applying it to all. ,You scoffed however at the idea that we should also assume all men are cheaters and have them take a DNA test to ensure no biological children are out there not being financially supported. 

If you want to test your kids, by all means do, as nobody is stopping you. Pay your $120 and have at it. Everybody is free to take this test so this is a non-issue and creating a law for what is already readily available is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## chillymorn

seems like most women are aginst it....why?


because the real truth of how adultrus wome are would be out.and they wouldn"t want that they want to keep saying men are the pigs but I think there are just as many pigish women out there.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Nice thread Costa!
I haven't read all the replies,but this is my take.

The amount of men I know [ including my brother in law ] who were raising children that thought were theirs but was not.
Its scandalous.

Like another poster put it, it is the most deceitful thing a wayward woman could do to her significant other.

whilst I hear the arguments of funding etc, 
Having these test mandatory could only hurt the guilty and protect the innocent.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

somethingelse said:


> Home births are beautiful by the way : )





larry.gray said:


> 2 of my 3 would have died in a home birth.





EleGirl said:


> My twins died in a hospital birth. I would have died with them if it had been a home birth.
> 
> In the old days 25% of women died from child birth.


A chance I might not have lived to see #1... Labor was not working for me after 48 hrs, 24 in the hospital.... Loved, praised & happily  through every C-section.....what a blessing to Mothers, I Thank God I live today! 

Not sure how having a baby at home has any bearing on paternity though.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Blanca said:


> I work in a lab that does paternity testing; trust me, it's not that accurate. It's not just the machines, and theories are nice, but you have to factor in human error. If you add up all the errors it's pretty significant. Just yesterday I had a tube with DNA in it and I had no idea which person it came from. My supervisor told me to just leave it and we'd assume it came from person xyz. So ya, if you factor in that millions of people would be getting the tests done then there's a lot of mistakes. It would cause many people unnecessary issues.





costa200 said:


> The level of accuracy of the tests is so high that you can really relax about that. If there is a mistake the test can be done again. that really isn't an issue.
> 
> A standard test with 15 loci will be 99,999% accurate. That's 1 in 100,000. The possibility of two tests being both wrong is so small you have a better chance of getting killed by an asteroid tomorrow.


The accuracy of paternity test results depends on how many loci (or points) are tested on the DNA segments of the alleged father and child; the higher the number of loci, the greater the accuracy that can be obtained.

To get the best results from your paternity test you should choose a laboratory that tests at least 13-16 loci and that excludes fathers who show a difference in two or more DNA patterns on the loci (this is the AABB standard that is used in accredited DNA testing labs).

In conclusion, although paternity test results can never be 100% accurate you should look for at least 99% accuracy and preferably closer to 99.99%. Accuracy is obtained through testing a larger number of loci and good DNA testing labs usually test about 16.


Parental testing - Wikipedia

The Accuracy of DNA Testing

How accurate is paternity testing - Truth About Deception

2 different Test methods >>>



> *Polymerase Chain Reaction*
> 
> A PCR test is the fastest of the two, only requiring between three and nine days for results. This method necessitates a very small amount of material for testing and, therefore, is often collected from a cotton swab to the inside of the cheek. The disadvantage of a PCR test is that it examines DNA at locations with less variable sizes. Because of this, less information is garnered from the process regarding paternity than with an RFLP.
> 
> *Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism*
> 
> An RFLP requires a greater sample to be tested and, therefore, is commonly done by extracting a vial of blood. It is the more reliable of the two tests, though results take a bit longer to return. Although the RFLP can ascertain paternity at a significantly higher probability, either method executed correctly should bring forth accurate results. Any of the two tests can actually be performed well with a specimen from the mouth or blood.
> 
> How Accurate Are Paternity Tests? | LIVESTRONG.COM


----------



## SimplyAmorous

costa200 said:


> The real cost of the test itself is at the moment 125$, in your currency, more or less. Can you find men that think this is bad investment? Furthermore, this cost, with the volume of testing rising would drop dramatically.



If bought at the Drug store...


> Total cost is about $150, including the price of the kit and a $119 laboratory processing fee. For another $200, users can purchase validated tests that meet legal requirements for determining paternity.
> Who's your daddy? Answer's at the drugstore



This site below says the cost can range from $400 to $2,000! 

More facts here: Paternity Testing : American Pregnancy Association


----------



## anony2

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I didn't say raise anywhere in what I wrote. I said PAY. That was the topic at hand, was it not? That a man would be financially paying for a child that was not his. I am saying it happens to wives as well. If you don't believe me, then (if your stomach can handle it) go over to any OW boards where they openly talk about having 4, 5, 6 year olds with their married men and the wives are none the wiser. Guess what? *The wife is PAYING to raise a child that is not hers.* It is exactly as what has been discussed here. No straw grasping whatsoever.





Therealbrighteyes said:


> *Is income not considered community property?* It is. As an example, let's say I take $1000 out of my paycheck to give to somebody else without my husband's knowledge or consent, it is according to the law using marital assets and half of that $1k is assumed to be his. The same principle applies if a man secretly pays for a child that his wife is not aware of.
> 
> Okay, just to be clear. I have no issue whatsoever with paternity testing. If a man wants to have his children tested, that is his right and I support that. I think if this is as wide spread as many here seem to suggest, then a insist on paternity testing with each child. I don't however think that it should be forced and the expense foisted upon somebody who never asked for the test in the first place.





Lyris said:


> *Do you not understand about communal property? * My husbands money is my money and vice versa.
> 
> I have no philosophical objection to paternity testing. I have huge objections to governmental mandates which further impinge on my parental autonomy, especially those which are not directed towards the well being of my children.


Communal property does not equal wife's money. 

My husband earns his paycheck, although it is considered communal and used communally (for the bills and food) he still EARNED the money, therefore, it would not be considered MY money. 

If he was working for his paycheck and paying money out of it for his child, it would not be taking MY money to do so, because I did not earn that money to begin with.


----------



## Shaggy

I watched a show recently about a woman who was getting welfare in Florida I think, and part of it was that the state required her to have a DNA test on her and her kids to prove they were hers in order to get benefits.

So it appears it is constitutional to require it.

I think it is a good idea for it to be mandated. It can be done in the bucket of other mandatory tests that are done already.


----------



## anonim

*LittleDeer* said:


> Mandatory paternity tests would firstly waste millions of dollars.
> 
> it would only be a waste for YOU, since you already know that baby is yours and its not important to you that men know for 99.99% that they are in fact the father. The men would think it a worthy investment.
> 
> 
> Secondly most men do not want paternity tests, because they are not all paranoid.
> 
> Really? what have the men that have came to post on this thread had to say about that? remember when I posted that 5%-20% of paranoid people found out they weren't really paranoid? That means that some people that trusted their SO might have been served by a little paranoia. Don't call men names for desiring to know that they are in fact the father of the children they will be raising. That's just a put down to discourage men from insisting on paternity tests.
> 
> Thirdly stats show that around 25% of men who are all ready suspicious that they are not in fact the father, are not. That leaves a staggering 75% of men who are still the biological fathers, despite suspicions. And around 3.7% of men raising children who are not biologically theirs overall. If those 3.7% have suspicions then they should ask for a test. Simple.
> 
> Why are you leaving out men who arent suspicious? There are a lot more of them than there are suspicious men - why? because most suspicious men would not make a baby with that kind of woman. Quit trimming your numbers.
> 
> 
> If we are going to go crazy with testing why not test all adults and children? Then we can include men in this kind of automatic persecution. They can then be suspect fathers, to children they may have not claimed. Then be made to pay child support for all the children they may not even know about or have been ignoring.
> 
> Its not 'going crazy with testing' that's minimizing talk, designed once again to discourage men from insisting on paternity testing. I already agreed with therealbrighteyes idea of men being DNA tested to prevent such circumstances happening.
> 
> 
> Or we could leave it up to individuals to decide if they want paternity tests based on actual facts, not blanket mistrust of the human race.





*LittleDeer* said:


> Costa, I suggest if men feel like you they shouldn't get married.
> 
> Should all women be suspicious that their husband has fathered other children?
> 
> No but it doesn't hurt him to check. Unless he's lying.
> 
> My goodness I hope not.
> 
> If you cannot at least strive for a healthy honest relationship, then don't get married period.
> *removes your blinkers*
> Striving for an honest and healthy relationship does not prevent people from lying and deceiving you.


----------



## ScaredandUnsure

If my ex husband wanted a paternity test on our kids, more power too him, have fun with that. As long as he was the one paying for it.


----------



## anonim

costa200 said:


> And that's the question really... But apparently some ladies don't like the idea and still see it as a personal insult. I'm trying to figure out why!


i think i know the answer already...


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You don't know why some women got upset? Yes. I think I do. You arent gonna like my answer though.
> 
> You are assuming that all women are cheaters and therefore we must force paternity tests on all children. Not all women or men are cheaters, but it would be nice to catch the ones who are, before you are duped into spending the rest of your life raising someone else's children.
> 
> You are basing this all because of a small percentage yet broadly applying it to all. ,You scoffed however at the idea that we should also assume all men are cheaters and have them take a DNA test to ensure no biological children are out there not being financially supported.
> 
> a small percentage applied to all? you will eat these words.
> 
> One in Eight (1/8) is a small percentage as well right? well 1/8 happens to be the odds of a woman developing invasive breast cancer over the course of her life. Why get mammograms if its only a small chance you will get breast cancer? why spend money on advertising, education and making women aware of breast cancer and teaching you all to check for lumps and discolorations? MY health insurance premiums would be lower if money wasn't wasted on stuff that doesn't even affect me.
> 
> Thats real D0uchbaggery of me to say crap like that huh? Well thats the arguement you are making.
> 
> And for the record, I will happily fork over higher premiums to make sure that women are educated about the horror that is breast cancer and so that they know to get mammograms regularly.
> 
> Why? Because my sisters are women. My mother is a woman. my wife is a woman. And my daughter will be a woman.
> 
> Your nephew, your son or your grandson might be the one raising OM's kid one day, remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to test your kids, by all means do, as nobody is stopping you. Pay your $120 and have at it. Everybody is free to take this test so this is a non-issue and creating a law for what is already readily available is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Tikii

Shaggy said:


> I watched a show recently about a woman who was getting welfare in Florida I think, and part of it was that the state required her to have a DNA test on her and her kids to prove they were hers in order to get benefits.
> 
> So it appears it is constitutional to require it.
> 
> I think it is a good idea for it to be mandated. It can be done in the bucket of other mandatory tests that are done already.


That is a completely different situation. That women was collecting government funds. If she didn't want to do a paternity test, all she would have to do would be to out of taking the tests would be to stop accepted welfare. 

Requiring it of people who are collecting benefits, is benefiting the government, where as testing those who are taking no assitance is not benefiting the government in any way.

There are VERY few mandatory tests. Most are routine, but that doesn't make them mandatory.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> i think i know the answer already...


What is that reason then? I can guarantee it is because you think that any women who thinks it shouldn't be mandatory is a cheater, which is FAR from the case.


----------



## Tikii

chillymorn said:


> seems like most women are aginst it....why?
> 
> 
> because the real truth of how adultrus wome are would be out.and they wouldn"t want that they want to keep saying men are the pigs but I think there are just as many pigish women out there.


I am completely against it. That doesn't mean I am a cheater. I think it is ridiculous to make such blanket statement. Yes, there are women who are unfaithful to their husbands but that doesn't warrant invasion of privacy for everyone who isn't cheating and an enormous amount of money wasted.


----------



## costa200

Damn tikii... Are you always this defensive? Nobody accused you of nothing, lighten up. We are just discussing hypothetical situations!


----------



## Blanca

SimplyAmorous said:


> In conclusion, although paternity test results can never be 100% accurate you should look for at least 99% accuracy and preferably closer to 99.99%. Accuracy is obtained through testing a larger number of loci and good DNA testing labs usually test about 16


That's a nice theory and i'm sure wikipedia has a nice excerpt on the subject; however, it doesn't account for the reality of these tests nor human error. I run PCRs (Q-PCR, mPCR), sanger and pyro sequencing as well as other tests and wiki, or any other article, could never cover the details and all the places for human error. Those things don't get written in text books or wiki articles because it's not part of the "science". It's just assumed that the technicians who run these tests are robots and never make mistakes. I don't know what the error rate is, who does, and it's probably not that high, maybe 5%, but 5% of a couple billion people is significant and unnecessary drama. 

As soon as sequencing methods are improved it would not surprise me at all to find out that they've been doing it all wrong. The way they do the sequencing is to break up the DNA fragments (which are produced during PCR) into millions of single nucleotide signals (sanger sequencing). Every person theoretically has distinct repeats in the non-coding regions of their DNA (maybe two nucleotides long) which are amplified during PCR. Fluorescent tags anneal to every signal nucleotide in those fragments and then the signals are collected in another machine which measures how fast the fragmented DNA travels through a medium. The nucleotide signals are registered one by one and the machine puts together an algorithm of how it all fits together in the end. It's not like the machine is literally reading the strand of DNA; it's assembling billions of individual signals and putting it together. Whether your DNA matches the childs depends on only those two nucleotide repeats. But sometimes those repeats mutate because the enzyme doesn't synthesize them correctly; it's random and not predictable. The theory rests on the idea that your child's repeats have not mutated. That's the theory and even in the theory you can see how many mistakes can be made. But the reality is that you have primers with certain sequences that are supposed to be unique to only the sequence you are interested in; but there are billions of base pairs and primers do not always anneal specifically. What I'm saying is the primers will amplify unspecific pieces of DNA and the florescent of those pieces will also be picked up and read. If they're the same length it would give a false negative. The specificity of the primer annealing is dependent on how well the machine was calibrated - and that's the technicians job. So we're back to human error. 

Anyway, I know I've kind of rambled but I think this stuff is really interesting. They are coming out with new and improved sequencing methods. I think restriction fragment length polymorphism is kind of outdated. No one really does that. 
It's not that I don't think it's useful, because I do, but i think too many people put too much faith in something they don't even understand. I would hope that people would take their results with a grain of salt. It all boils back down to the trust you have in your partner anyway. Science can only help you so much but it can never replace improving the hearts and minds of society in general. That's the only thing that will ever truly protect us from hardship.


----------



## 827Aug

Shaggy said:


> I watched a show recently about a woman who was getting welfare in Florida I think, and part of it was that the state required her to have a DNA test on her and her kids to prove they were hers in order to get benefits.


The State of Florida has this DNA testing done to track down fathers of these children. Once they do, the state goes for child support. I've personally seen several interesting cases. They are going to know the mother from the birth certificates.


----------



## Tikii

EleGirl said:


> The test can be done with blood collected from the umbilical cord at birth. There is no reason to ‘bleed’ the baby.


That isn't the point.


SimplyAmorous said:


> This kinda talk really cracks me up , you know why, I sit here day after day reading countless threads about how it is not important to disclose how many sex partners one has before they marry, sometimes it is even best to outright LIE, and many agree with this! Feeling it is pointless, who cares ! The past is the past.... BURY it. Well guess what... the past sometimes - speaks character.
> 
> Not everyone is as TRUTHFUL as they should be. Even the majority feel little "white lies" are just fine, even encouraged to not hurt anothers feelings. I wouldn't even agree with that.
> 
> Not saying you aren't faithful Tikii.... don't misundersand me here .... but even someone like myself....who made her BF wait over 6 long yrs for intercourse (some might see him as the dumbest man alive).... even I wouldn't be offended if he wanted the test. The ONLY thing that would bother me is if we had to pay for it out of our pocket...could be costly.
> 
> Believe me....if any man knew a Kid was HIS, It was MY husband as he had trouble even getting it IN ...I got pregnant BEFORE he even penetrated me ! (Crazy story we have)...... A test was surely NOT necessary in our case....but yet I would never look upon this as an "*invasion of privacy*".....whose privacy... is this advertised in the newspaper or something ?? I'm not getting it .. Isn't it just between you, the father and the new born..
> 
> Funny how other faithfuls don't see this as an invasion... .my only point here. I would NEVER see this desire as betrayal of the man for wanting this information....that is rediculous.... .
> 
> IN some of these cases, these man may have been hurt in the past badly by a GF or EX wife who might have CHEATED, lied behind his back, Trust may not come so easy, he refuses to get BURNED again, or he knows someone who did, & their wife was a hell of an actress.... so some are doubley cautious the next time around... makes all the sense in the world to me.... I wouldn't see this desire as a blight on the relationship, I would want to give my man that 100% assurance.
> 
> I feel....every Father deserves that "peice of paper" in his hand , if he wants, proving he is the Biological at every turn that this "new life" created came from his swimmer, and not anothers.
> 
> The only qualm I personally have.... the COST of this, insurance premiums going up, I mean, it ISN'T necessary in the far majority of cases---obviously -those statistics of 80-95% ....but for those in that < 15%.... Oh the heartache....
> 
> If a man does not know his LOVER, GF, wife to be the most honest, forthcoming woman who is Integrity incarnate... I just can understand any man desiring this.... and IF some of us women were in their shoes....I bet we'd be playing a different fiddle on this issue.


It is an invasion of privacy for the government to push into our lives more than they already have. If it is just between the parents and the child, there is no reason for the government to get involved and make it mandatory. If a man wants a test, he can request one. 

I do absolutely believe you think I am unfaithful based on your statements. I have been with two men in my life, and both inside loving relationships. My husband has no doubt that our children will be his, and a test would confirm that, but that doesn't warrant everyone having to have the test. That would cost an unreasonable amount to have everyone tested, and could easily be solved by simply having each individual with doubt requesting the tests themselves.

If my husband cannot trust me to the point of believing that our children are his, I wouldn't want to be in the marriage regardless of what has happened in his past. If I haven't been able to show him that I truly am commited, and faithful, it's a lost cause and I deserve better than that.

Absolutely, a man deserves the assurance, if he wants it. That doesn't mean that all men need/want that assurance. That's why it should be up to the individual situation and not mandatory for everyone. It isn't that difficult to simply say, I want a paternity test. I shouldn't be burdened because others have doubt.

If I were a man, I would still be against, it, as my husband is. If I were a man, and felt that a paternity test was necessary, I would simply ask for one. I wouldn't feel it necessary to have it be mandatory.



larry.gray said:


> As a woman, you can't comprehend the difference. To a guy it's huge. A massive, giant difference.


My husband disagrees.


----------



## anonim

827Aug said:


> The State of Florida has this DNA testing done to track down fathers of these children. Once they do, the state goes for child support. I've personally seen several interesting cases. They are going to know the mother from the birth certificates.


tell us about the interesting cases if you can, I'd be interested to hear about them.


----------



## Tikii

Trenton said:


> Sure, some guys don't doubt but that's a ridiculous reason to not make the test easily attainable and standard practice.


Easily attainable, absolutely, standard practice, no. If a man wants the test, he can get one.


----------



## Tikii

costa200 said:


> Damn tikii... Are you always this defensive? Nobody accused you of nothing, lighten up. We are just discussing hypothetical situations!


I am discussing a hypothetical situation, and getting accused my PM of being a cheating *****. 

I think it's ridiculous to assume a women is cheating because she doesn't agree with mandatory paternity testing.


----------



## anony2

As a woman, I can only compare the devastation for a father to find out that the child that he is raising, is not his, to finding out one of my children were switched at birth with someone else's. 

As a mother, I have had something very similar happen to my son, my son is still without knowledge if his "son" is his or not because he signed some uncontested paternity form at the hospital and now he cannot have a DNA test done, even though his ex-gf admittedly cheated on him. NOW, I have no clue if my oldest and only grandchild is even mine or not. I have not seen him for 3 years. 

My son raised this baby since birth, the mother was handicapped so my son had to do the vast majority of the child care. Come to find out, the mother was only handicapped when it came to work, but she had no problem going to the tanning bed where she met one of her ex'es and was sleeping with him while my son was at work and the baby was being taken care of by her mom.


----------



## FirstYearDown

Trenton said:


> I'm really surprised by the outrage of ladies here.
> 
> Why would you not want your husband to feel secure?
> Why would it be a personal insult if he wanted to feel completely secure?
> I am really shocked that someone would consider leaving their husband if they questioned their faithfulness. Talk about no room for being human in a relationship.
> 
> I think having the test would bring about closer bonding between husband and kids in many cases.
> 
> Sure, some guys don't doubt but that's a ridiculous reason to not make the test easily attainable and standard practice.
> 
> Life is about choices. You can absolutely be trustworthy one day and then run into circumstances that have you untrustworthy the next.


So being excessively suspicious is "being human in a relationship"? :scratchhead: If there is no trust, there can be no love.

When someone has been faithful, having their faithfulness questioned and needing verification is a slap in the face. That is why some of the women would be offended; because they know that they would never cheat or become pregnant for another man while they were married. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## hookares

anony2 said:


> As a woman, I can only compare the devastation for a father to find out that the child that he is raising, is not his, to finding out one of my children were switched at birth with someone else's.
> 
> As a mother, I have had something very similar happen to my son, my son is still without knowledge if his "son" is his or not because he signed some uncontested paternity form at the hospital and now he cannot have a DNA test done, even though his ex-gf admittedly cheated on him. NOW, I have no clue if my oldest and only grandchild is even mine or not. I have not seen him for 3 years.
> 
> My son raised this baby since birth, the mother was handicapped so my son had to do the vast majority of the child care. Come to find out, the mother was only handicapped when it came to work, but she had no problem going to the tanning bed where she met one of her ex'es and was sleeping with him while my son was at work and the baby was being taken care of by her mom.


There are plenty of ways for your son to get a DNA test should he wish to
have it. He may have to go to court in order to get unsupervised visitation then it's just a matter of getting a sample.
If the child isn't his and subterfuge or deceit was used in order to get him to sign the papers, the court may reverse the ruling and leave his ex to determine just which of the many fellow "tanners" fathered the child.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> I'm really surprised by the outrage of ladies here.
> 
> Why would you not want your husband to feel secure?
> Why would it be a personal insult if he wanted to feel completely secure?
> I am really shocked that someone would consider leaving their husband if they questioned their faithfulness. Talk about no room for being human in a relationship.
> 
> I think having the test would bring about closer bonding between husband and kids in many cases.
> 
> Sure, some guys don't doubt but that's a ridiculous reason to not make the test easily attainable and standard practice.
> 
> Li*fe is about choices. You can absolutely be trustworthy one day and then run into circumstances that have you untrustworthy the next.*


Very well articulated.


----------



## tacoma

FirstYearDown said:


> So being excessively suspicious is "being human in a relationship"? :: If there is no trust, there can be no love.
> 
> When someone has been faithful, having their faithfulness questioned and needing verification is a slap in the face. That is why some of the women would be offended; because they know that they would never cheat or become pregnant for another man while they were married. I hope that makes sense.


This is why every new father should just get the DNA test done without his wife knowing about it at all.

Avoid her ego.

I also get a kick out of everyone saying their kid is theirs because "he/she looks just like the father".

My wife's last two boyfriends before we got together could have been my brothers.
If either were walking down the street with my daughter onlookers would think he was her father due to the resemblance.

Everyone has a "type"


----------



## Acorn

Why not just make the DNA testing part of the routine tests, but not mandatory? Have an opt out option if both parents agree to opt out.

I seem to remember that when my wife gave birth, the doctors were very interested in hearing about certain things as far as my medical history so they could rule out or consider hereditary medical issues that might exist with the baby. These questions don't help the child at all if the guy being asked is not really the dad. Seems like it is in the best interest of the child to have this information (or why would they ask), and that would trump any child support or gender war issue playing out over the issue.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> This is why every new father should just get the DNA test done without his wife knowing about it at all.
> 
> Avoid her ego.
> 
> I also get a kick out of everyone saying their kid is theirs because "he/she looks just like the father".
> 
> *My wife's last two boyfriends before we got together could have been my brothers.
> If either were walking down the street with my daughter onlookers would think he was her father due to the resemblance.*
> 
> Everyone has a "type"


My brother in law who works on an oil rig about 100 miles offshore , and was hardly ever home ,swore that the child was his. Nobody could have convinced him until he saw his wife and the OM together in a very
" compromising position."


----------



## FirstYearDown

Trenton said:


> Who said anything about excessive or even suspicious?
> 
> I disagree that we can't love without trust. I would agree with...we can't be in a healthy, loving relationship without trust.
> 
> But trust is earned and if your husband, for whatever reason (perhaps he grew up with an unfaithful mother? was cheated on in previous relationship? fill in blank with other reason for insecurity), would be able to rid himself of insecurity and feel more connected to you and your family, why not make allowances for this? Does it really make him less lovable? -Or- does it make the person leaving because the husband is questioning paternity (for whatever reason) selfish and caught up in how they see themselves?
> 
> I think when you know yourself and feel secure within yourself, you are less concerned when others question you because you have no problem being tested, questioned or working to build trust in a relationship. You are less selfish and more willing to work through **** together to get to where you want to go as a couple and more likely to make it for the long haul.


Emotionally healthy people would not want anything less than a healthy loving relationship, hence the reason I feel that true love cannot be without trust. 

Why should we make allowances for someone who chooses to let their past ruin their relationships? If someone has severe difficulty trusting when their partner has been trustworthy, he/she needs to work that out with a therapist, instead of taking it out on an innocent spouse. I grew up with unfaithful men all around me. I don't feel that my husband should have to prove himself because of this, if he has been faithful and there is no evidence that he is cheating. 

Not wanting to be questioned or tested has nothing to do with being insecure or selfish. It is about feeling like our word and actions are enough to inspire trust. I don't know anyone who would be okay with constantly being questioned or not trusted when they are not doing anything wrong. 

Since life is about choices, situations cannot "make" us behave in an untrustworthy manner. We CHOOSE let them them do so. 

Trenton, I don't think that we will ever have the same opinion on this issue and that is fine. I'm glad that we were able to offer each other a different take on what trust entails. :smthumbup:


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> SimplyAmorous said:
> 
> 
> 
> This kinda talk really cracks me up , you know why, I sit here day after day reading countless threads about how it is not important to disclose how many sex partners one has before they marry, sometimes it is even best to outright LIE, and many agree with this! Feeling it is pointless, who cares ! The past is the past.... BURY it. Well guess what... the past sometimes - speaks character.
> 
> Not everyone is as TRUTHFUL as they should be. Even the majority feel little "white lies" are just fine, even encouraged to not hurt anothers feelings. I wouldn't even agree with that.
> 
> Not saying you aren't faithful Tikii.... don't misundersand me here .... but even someone like myself....who made her BF wait over 6 long yrs for intercourse (some might see him as the dumbest man alive).... even I wouldn't be offended if he wanted the test. The ONLY thing that would bother me is if we had to pay for it out of our pocket...could be costly.
> 
> Believe me....if any man knew a Kid was HIS, It was MY husband as he had trouble even getting it IN ...I got pregnant BEFORE he even penetrated me ! (Crazy story we have)...... A test was surely NOT necessary in our case....but yet I would never look upon this as an "*invasion of privacy*".....whose privacy... is this advertised in the newspaper or something ?? I'm not getting it .. Isn't it just between you, the father and the new born..
> 
> Funny how other faithfuls don't see this as an invasion... .my only point here. I would NEVER see this desire as betrayal of the man for wanting this information....that is rediculous.... .
> 
> IN some of these cases, these man may have been hurt in the past badly by a GF or EX wife who might have CHEATED, lied behind his back, Trust may not come so easy, he refuses to get BURNED again, or he knows someone who did, & their wife was a hell of an actress.... so some are doubley cautious the next time around... makes all the sense in the world to me.... I wouldn't see this desire as a blight on the relationship, I would want to give my man that 100% assurance.
> 
> I feel....every Father deserves that "peice of paper" in his hand , if he wants, proving he is the Biological at every turn that this "new life" created came from his swimmer, and not anothers.
> 
> The only qualm I personally have.... the COST of this, insurance premiums going up, I mean, it ISN'T necessary in the far majority of cases---obviously -those statistics of 80-95% ....but for those in that < 15%.... Oh the heartache....
> 
> If a man does not know his LOVER, GF, wife to be the most honest, forthcoming woman who is Integrity incarnate... I just can understand any man desiring this.... and IF some of us women were in their shoes....I bet we'd be playing a different fiddle on this issue.
> 
> All these men who got JACKED, you believe they were all stupid....Really? They TRUSTED too. LOve can be so blind....as they say.
> 
> I feel the same ! :iagree:
> 
> 
> 
> ...snip
> I do absolutely believe you think I am unfaithful based on your statements.
Click to expand...

lets read a few of _YOUR _statements

1.


Tikii said:


> If my husband were to question whether or not a child is his, or requested a paternity test, I would leave. He wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the child was his, because I would raise the child as my own.


2.


Tikii said:


> When I have a child, I know it will be mine and my husbands, and my husband knows that as well. We don't need anyone to tell us this child is ours, and even if there was a doubt do to rape, or resolved infidelity, we wouldn't want to know if the child wasn't his. He would raise the child as his own, because the DNA isn't what makes the man a father.


3.


Tikii said:


> In our case, my husband already knows that any child I give birth to in our marriage is his child, because he trusts me. While I am aware that this isn't the case in all marriages, it is in ours.


4.


Tikii said:


> I would absolutely leave and not allow my husband access to my children(at that point they would be only my children) due to a complete lack of trust and what I would feel being a guilty conscience of his own. It would have nothing to do with hiding anything, because there would be nothing to hide. I wouldn't consent to a paternity test unless demanded by the courts. If he has any doubts in my faithfulness, he wouldn't be someone I would trust being with for the rest of my life.


5.


Tikii said:


> No, because my husband should know from the bottom of his heart that these children are his children, without me having to prove it. If he has a doubt that they are his children(when we have them), he is welcome to pick up an leave, because the marriage would be over.


1. You do not have an open dialogue with your H. You willfully cause there to be things he cant talk with you about. Red Flag.

2. 'resolved infidelity' is candy coating for 'I screwed around and got pregnant' and you have NO IDEA whether your husband could or would want to stay around for that. You might think you do, but you dont. If you want to know why, then ask and ill explain.

3. "any child I give birth to in our marriage is his child, because he trusts me." RED FLAG. 

4. So let me get this straight; Your husband comes to you and asks for a paternity test for your children. You say No, leave him, taking the kids with you.
You then refuse to let him see them, refuse any paternity testing unless demanded by the court.

That's the behavior of someone that's hiding something big.
*R E D F L A G* .

5. A DNA test would make your husband able to believe those kids are his from the bottom of his heart. It would also reaffirm that he was right in trusting you.
What you are doing is asserting control over your H, by forcing your H in what he can talk about with you and by what he can think and believe and how you want him to see you. I'm not saying that you are a cheater, I'm not saying that you aren't a cheater, but this *is *the behavior of a cheater. If you doubt me take a look around doccool.

This is a RED FLAG.

That is why I do absolutely believe you are unfaithful based on your statements.

I didn't send you any pm's though


----------



## anonim

hookares said:


> There are plenty of ways for your son to get a DNA test should he wish to
> have it. He may have to go to court in order to get unsupervised visitation then it's just a matter of getting a sample.
> If the child isn't his and subterfuge or deceit was used in order to get him to sign the papers, the court may reverse the ruling and leave his ex to determine just which of the many fellow "tanners" fathered the child.


sadly, many courts do not do this and make the man pay support for the child even though he isnt the father.


----------



## anonim

Acorn said:


> Why not just make the DNA testing part of the routine tests, but not mandatory? Have an opt out option if both parents agree to opt out.


Because certain people would threaten their partners into withdrawing their consent.


----------



## FirstYearDown

anonim said:


> sadly, many courts do not do this and make the man pay support for the child even though he isnt the father.


I don't agree with this at all; yet another way that men get shafted by family law.  Why on earth should a man raise a child that was found not to be his? Find the man who is really the father and make HIM pay support!


----------



## larry.gray

EleGirl said:


> It’s about the child, not the adults. Say a man goes 10 years raising a child then finds out that the child is not his, what kind of man would walk out on this child? It’s his child. I can see him having the legal right to sue the mother and the sperm donor for putting him in this position financially…. But to encourage him to walk out on a child… that poor child. And what if the bio dad had no idea that he had a child all these years?


I'll keep repeating "you don't get it because it can't happen to you" many times, because you just don't get it.

What kind of man? Nearly every one out there. I would be gone, no second doubts. I don't give a crap about the legal system, I would disappear to be never found.


----------



## somethingelse

I think that if a woman has no doubt in her mind that her H is the biological father of her children, she would have no problem letting him do a paternity test whether he's just overreacting or not.

My H has asked me to do a paternity test many many times. Every time, I just say "yes, if you want one...waste of money though, but if it will make you feel better, go for it" It's very simple to just say ok. That's if you know your kids are his....


----------



## anonim

FirstYearDown said:


> I don't agree with this at all; yet another way that men get shafted by family law.  Why on earth should a man raise a child that was found not to be his? Find the man who is really the father and make HIM pay support!


I have a few theories on why.

its easier to make someone pay thats already working. 
the cheater doesnt want to, or is pressured not to, reveal the name of the father.
the real father may be dead or incarcerated.
the real father might be unknowable.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You don't know why some women got upset? You are assuming that all women are cheaters and therefore we must force paternity tests on all children. You are basing this all because of a small percentage yet broadly applying it to all. ,You scoffed however at the idea that we should also assume all men are cheaters and have them take a DNA test to ensure no biological children are out there not being financially supported.


I scoff because it's silly. The financial part is a part of it, but far from all. A woman is never forced into thinking a child that isn't hers is hers.


----------



## somethingelse

The point is here, no man should be made to pay child support under the false pretences that the child is his. 

It's unfair, unjust, and just plain cruel.


----------



## larry.gray

SimplyAmorous said:


> Not sure how having a baby at home has any bearing on paternity though.


If it became mandatory at the hospital, then one way for a woman to avoid it would be to have a home birth.

Of course it could just become mandatory for filing the birth certificate. No tax deduction, no government goodies and all that if you don't do the test. Just argue that it is in the best interest of the government to make sure that the legal document is accurate.


----------



## anonim

larry.gray said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s about the child, not the adults. Say a man goes 10 years raising a child then finds out that the child is not his, what kind of man would walk out on this child? It’s his child. I can see him having the legal right to sue the mother and the sperm donor for putting him in this position financially…. But to encourage him to walk out on a child… that poor child. And what if the bio dad had no idea that he had a child all these years?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep repeating "you don't get it because it can't happen to you" many times, because you just don't get it.
> 
> What kind of man? Nearly every one out there. I would be gone, no second doubts. I don't give a crap about the legal system, I would disappear to be never found.
Click to expand...

Ele, when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant from that rape and wants to have an abortion, is it just say 'its about the child, not about the adults?' and deny her that abortion and force her to carry it to term and give birth because somebody that's not even involved, decides you should have the baby?

I dont think it is. If you think someone should pay for that child so strongly, I recommend that YOU volunteer your time and money and let the non-dad off the hook.


----------



## larry.gray

costa200 said:


> Damn tikii... Are you always this defensive? Nobody accused you of nothing, lighten up. We are just discussing hypothetical situations!


She's not even rational, given how she avoided my post pointing out her illogical statement.

This apparently hits VERY close to home. Why?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anony2 said:


> Communal property does not equal wife's money.
> 
> My husband earns his paycheck, although it is considered communal and used communally (for the bills and food) he still EARNED the money, therefore, it would not be considered MY money.
> 
> If he was working for his paycheck and paying money out of it for his child, it would not be taking MY money to do so, because I did not earn that money to begin with.


You really don't understand community property. ALL money coming in (paycheck,401k, pension) is considered the property of both, regardless of whose name is on the document.


----------



## larry.gray

Blanca said:


> That's a nice theory and i'm sure wikipedia has a nice excerpt on the subject; however, it doesn't account for the reality of these tests nor human error. I run PCRs (Q-PCR, mPCR), sanger and pyro sequencing as well as other tests and wiki, or any other article, could never cover the details and all the places for human error. Those things don't get written in text books or wiki articles because it's not part of the "science". It's just assumed that the technicians who run these tests are robots and never make mistakes. I don't know what the error rate is, who does, and it's probably not that high, maybe 5%, but 5% of a couple billion people is significant and unnecessary drama.



That's where I think defense attorneys should be making hay. The public has been convinced at the phenomenal odds against mistakes, but that is because a jury is only told about the statistics of a mismatch if everything went according to theory. I suspect if you got an expert witness who's actually been in a lab, you could make a fool of them by pointing out that their quoted numbers ignore human error and other possible failures. Once their states chances of error drop by "I don't know" amounts the test seem much less convincing.


----------



## Thundarr

I'm not sure I understand why this question is for women. It's like asking a man to answer a question about how if feels to be pregnant.

Yes, the discreet option should be there for any father to choose to look at or not. How can something that catches cheats and liers and holds biological fathers accountable be a bad thing?

I question the motives of any woman who thinks this is wrong.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Anom, 

You are comparing mammograms to this? As I have said and apparently my point is missed, a cancer screening is available to all who wants it, same as a paternity test. Nobody however is forcing a woman to get a mammogram which is what you propose regarding a paternity test.

Men want a test, get the test. Nobody is stopping you. Telling me and my husband that we have to get a test and pay for it against our will is outrageous. Take care of your own business and stay out of mine. We don't need more government, we need less.


----------



## larry.gray

larry.gray said:


> As a woman, you can't comprehend the difference. To a guy it's huge. A massive, giant difference.





Tikii said:


> My husband disagrees.


Your husband is smart. You've just told us that you'd divorce him and deny him access to your children if he even suggested getting tests. Of course he's going to tell you what you want to hear.


----------



## somethingelse

It all boils down to the lies that the W has conjured and followed through with by not telling her H that he is possibly not the father.

The truth comes out one way or another, one time or another...I'd say, the longer the lies go on, the worse it is for the father who has looked after another man's baby. Because he has made that bond with the child. 

Women who allow the H to think he is the biological father so that they can be married to him and have the support from him is a selfish act. It is wrong.


----------



## Thundarr

Tikii said:


> Why? Why would I need to have a paternity test, when I know who the father of my child is, without a doubt? If my husband were to question whether or not a child is his, or requested a paternity test, I would leave. He wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the child was his, because I would raise the child as my own. I would see it as a sign of guilt and a complete lack of trust, and would not force him to raise his child.


The innocent sometimes are inconvenienced by the guilty. Like when we pay more for merchandise because of people who shoplift.

Now if we have a test that can tell us who lies and cheats and who does not then it would not be a question. Also if some women did not have men raising other people's children then this would not be a question either.


----------



## FirstYearDown

Trenton said:


> It's true we will have to agree to disagree and that is totally acceptable.
> 
> I might not be the epitome of emotionally healthy and so of course I am projecting a little but I can tell you that it has been my experience that no one, ever, that I have met is emotionally healthy all the time.


It's brave of you to admit that you are projecting; shows awareness and humility. While I agree that nobody can be emotionally healthy all the time (myself included) we can make a consistent pattern of emotional health a goal. 

Having an abusive childhood led to me being a damaged person who once made self destructive choices. I decided to seek help so that I would no longer sabotage my own life. I will never be perfectly healed, but I can be aware of when I am allowing my past to ruin my future.


----------



## hookares

anonim said:


> sadly, many courts do not do this and make the man pay support for the child even though he isnt the father.


Don't have to pay if they can't find the cuckold. Any guy who would stay to feed some other tubesteak's kid is nuts.
Of course if he doesn't know, then he's just stupid. (me)


----------



## larry.gray

I don't think it will be long until the testing starts becoming commonplace at some point in life. At the moment I'm debating doing some genetic testing because of my mother's cancer. The extension is that I may decide to test my kids. Trusting my wife isn't the motive, but as part of this I'm going to find out just that. 

I'd be in the category of a guy that really trusts my wife, I think it is a very remote possibility that she did something like this. But a guy never knows for sure until testing, does he?


----------



## Thundarr

Realistically if the option were available I think there are many men who would not look at the result just out of respect for their wife or significant other. Out of those there would be plenty who should have looked.

No one want's to believe someone would do this to them but it happens pretty often.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

BTW, these home tests already exist and have for 2 years. Walmart sells them for under $28 so you too can get peace of mind. It can be done without the knowledge of the woman. No need to infringe upon my rights or my husband's in the process. 


http://www.walmart.com/ip/Identigene-DNA-Paternity-Test-Collection-Kit/10740658


Case closed.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> BTW, these home tests already exist and have for 2 years. For $29.99 you too can get peace of mind. No need to infringe upon my rights in the process.
> 
> Case closed.


so you're complaining about government paternity testing over $29.99???

compared to the cost of a hospital child birth this is nothing. what is your real issue?...



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Anom,
> 
> You are comparing mammograms to this?


yes. Its relevant. 



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Men want a test, get the test. Nobody is stopping you.


Tell that to Mr Tikii.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> BTW, these home tests already exist and have for 2 years. Walmart sells them for under $28 so you too can get peace of mind. It can be done without the knowledge of the woman. No need to infringe upon my rights or my husband's in the process.
> 
> 
> Identigene DNA Paternity Test Kit - Walmart.com
> 
> 
> Case closed.


Case closed how? I'm starting to think it is in society's best interest to make sure that a legal document, the birth certificate, is accurate.

What you are arguing is that we should accept 5% or more of the birth certificates are fraudulent because it would hurt a few feelings?


----------



## larry.gray

Trenton said:


> Much like the abortion debate really.


Yep. Good point.

A if a woman can't be forced to raise a child she doesn't want, then a guy should get the same pass. He's got some time frame, say 6 weeks, to opt out of becoming a parent.

Now I'll cut off your counter argument: 

If you say "if a guy doesn't want to be a dad, keep it in his pants."

Then I'll respond: "Why doesn't that apply to a woman too? If she doesn't want to be a mom, keep her legs crossed. If you support abortion on demand but won't give a guy the same ability to shed all responsibility because he finds the child incontinent, you're guilty of a glaring double standard. It's either because your either you think so little of women that they can't handle being held to the same standard you hold men to, or you just hate men and don't care for them being forced to do something that women aren't."


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> so you're complaining about government paternity testing over $29.99???
> 
> compared to the cost of a hospital child birth this is nothing. what is your real issue?...
> 
> 
> 
> yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to Mr Tikii.


I was and always have been saying that the GOVERNMENT doesn't need to cram a test down my husband's throat because some people question the paternity of their children. The hospital test (more expensive) is already available to any who want it and a home test as well. Why should my husband be forced to pay for a test he didn't ask for? I am not sure what part of that you do not understand.

So you want a mandate that all people have their children tested when you could just cough up $28 and get your own peace of mind? 

I have no idea who Mr. Tikii is. I do however know who Mr. The Real Bright Eyes is and he thinks this entire discussion is ridiculous. In his own words, test your own kids and leave mine the [email protected] alone.


----------



## larry.gray

Based on the responses here, I'd like to be able to take Mr Tikii aside and suggest he do a test on the sly.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> Case closed how? I'm starting to think it is in society's best interest to make sure that a legal document, the birth certificate, is accurate.
> 
> What you are arguing is that we should accept 5% or more of the birth certificates are fraudulent because it would hurt a few feelings?


I would ask anybody here to point to where I said we should accept anything. I have maintained all along that a hospital test exists for anybody who wants it. It is well within your right to have a test done on your (or assumed) children either right after their birth or 14 years later. I have also said and have always said on here that you do not have the right to force me to test my own children because of your own suspicions.


----------



## Tikii

larry.gray said:


> Based on the responses here, I'd like to be able to take Mr Tikii aside and suggest he do a test on the sly.


 Oh yes, because I disagree with government control, violation of privacy and costs of testing I must be a cheating *****. If a man wants a paternity test, he can request it, that's no reason for the rest of us to be forced into it. My husband could ask for a test if he wants one. He will find out that our future children were his and then he would lose his family.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> Tell that to Mr Tikii.


 My husband is free to get a test when he have children, he has that right. Just as I have the right to be with someone who trusts me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I was and always have been saying that the GOVERNMENT doesn't need to cram a test down my husband's throat because some people question the paternity of their children. The hospital test (more expensive) is already available to any who want it and a home test as well. Why should my husband be forced to pay for a test he didn't ask for? I am not sure what part of that you do not understand.
> 
> So you want a mandate that all people have their children tested when you could just cough up $28 and get your own peace of mind?
> 
> I have no idea who Mr. Tikii is. I do however know who Mr. The Real Bright Eyes is and he thinks this entire discussion is ridiculous. In his own words, test your own kids and leave mine the [email protected] alone.


Your opinion is duly noted.

Mine is that there should be mandatory DNA/paternity testing to ensure that the parents on a child's birth certificate are its actual parents.

My reason is that some people will manipulate, force or deceive other people to accept the responsibility of being a parent to children they are not actually parent to. Making the testing mandatory will eliminate this.

Mr Tikii would be Tikii's husband. If you re-read this thread from page one to here you will see Tikii's posts infer that she would take abusive and possibly illegal actions in order to stop her husband from testing their children. This is the exact behavior that needs to be eliminated in my opinion.

Now Mr therealbrighteyes might think this discussion is ridiculous and is thereby welcome not to be involved in it, but if it ever turned out that the children he thought were his turned out not to be, he might well be singing a different tune.


----------



## Tikii

larry.gray said:


> Your husband is smart. You've just told us that you'd divorce him and deny him access to your children if he even suggested getting tests. Of course he's going to tell you what you want to hear.


I have not told him I would leave, nice ASSumption.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tikii

I never said he couldn't test our children, simply that I would have him go through the courts to get it so it is on record for the divorce. Any man has the right to get a patently test, dealing with what it brings is on them. Having the test court ordered is far from illegal.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma

Tikii said:


> Oh yes, because I disagree with government control, violation of privacy and costs of testing I must be a cheating *****. If a man wants a paternity test, he can request it, that's no reason for the rest of us to be forced into it. My husband could ask for a test if he wants one. He will find out that our future children were his and then he would lose his family.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Which is why he should do it on the sly as suggested.


----------



## tacoma

Tikii said:


> I never said he couldn't test our children, simply that I would have him go through the courts to get it so it is on record for the divorce. Any man has the right to get a patently test, dealing with what it brings is on them. Having the test court ordered is far from illegal.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


He doesn't need to go through the courts.
All he needs is $28 and a Walmart.

You don't even need to know.


----------



## Tikii

Ano, if i was unfaithful, this would be the places I would talk about it. I have been with two men in my life, both inside loving relationships. Just because I would take an accusation of unfaithfulness as admission of a guilty conscience doesn't mean I would cheat. I'm better than that and deserve to be treated better than that. Having the testing mandated wouldn't effect our lives as it would show the child to be his, but that doesn't mean I am ok with such ridiculous measures to go after women. Where is the equality in that men could easily have other children? Would the father be notified, or his wife be notified if he shows to be the father if another child?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tikii

Ok, and he can do that, it doesn't warrant government mandated testing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

*Why is anybody still here?!?! * *Given that this is such an epidemic, I thought there would be a mad dash to Walmart right now with 30 bucks in tow. I was looking forward to the opening bell tomorrow. I didn't buy those shares for nothing!! Get on it boys!!! I wanna be rich. *:whip:


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> Ano, if i was unfaithful, this would be the places I would talk about it. If you were smart, you wouldnt talk about it at all. I have been with two men in my life, both inside loving relationships. Just because I would take an accusation of unfaithfulness as admission of a guilty conscience doesn't mean I would cheat. I'm better than that and deserve to be treated better than that. Having the testing mandated wouldn't effect our lives as it would show the child to be his, but that doesn't mean I am ok with such ridiculous measures to go after women. Where is the equality in that men could easily have other children? Would the father be notified, or his wife be notified if he shows to be the father if another child?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree with the idea and support that a wife should know if her H has other children also, I have no bias in this.

My point is that a man cannot know that a child is his for 100% sure as a woman can. the closest he can get is to have a paternity test.

If paternity was mandated and you did have a child with your H, would you leave him because he had a paternity test done on his behalf by the govt?


----------



## larry.gray

Tikii said:


> I have not told him I would leave, nice ASSumption.


As irrational as you're being here, it is clear this is a huge hot button for you. Husbands aren't as clueless as women want to think they are. By now he knows this is one for you.

You initially came off as a mother, and now you're posting about future children. How old are you? I suspect you're quite young and still filled with idealism. Try 20 years later when many around you have suffered from infidelity. Too many of my relatives and friends who I'd NEVER have suspected to have to deal with this have. My idealism has been tarnished by seeing the lying and cheating. At times I wonder if some of the kids of friends and relatives are really theirs. If he can take not knowing, I'm not going to interject myself... but I still wonder.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> *Why is anybody still here?!?! * *Given that this is such an epidemic, I thought there would be a mad dash to Walmart right now with 30 bucks in tow. I was looking forward to the opening bell tomorrow. I didn't buy those shares for nothing!! Get on it boys!!! I wanna be rich. *:whip:


How do you know that most of the guys in the argument haven't already done that?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> How do you know that most of the guys in the argument haven't already done that?


Fantastic! So it's a win/win for everybody then. I financially benefit from this ludicrous discussion, my husband's rights weren't trampled on and the men here get the peace of mind they are looking for. :woohoo:


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Fantastic! So it's a win/win for everybody then. I financially benefit from this ludicrous discussion, my husband's rights weren't trampled on and the men here get the peace of mind they are looking for. :woohoo:


kinda makes you wonder what everyone was complaining about doesnt it?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> kinda makes you wonder what everyone was complaining about doesnt it?


Oh absolutely. Since it's so readily available to anybody who wants it, we don't need to waste resources and valuable time creating a law that infringes upon the rights of millions, when all a guy has to do is drive a few miles and fork over 30 large. Pretty simple to me. I guess the noted absence of the most vocal rights tramplers is a good thing. Hopefully they are all on aisle 9 right now. ray:


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Oh absolutely. Since it's so readily available to anybody who wants it, we don't need to waste resources and valuable time creating a law that infringes upon the rights of millions, when all a guy has to do is drive a few miles and fork over 30 large. Pretty simple to me. I guess the noted absence of the most vocal rights tramplers is a good thing. Hopefully they are all on aisle 9 right now. ray:


Oh dont get me wrong, I still think it should be mandatory, but as long as were just talking about it i can agree to disagree.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> Oh dont get me wrong, I still think it should be mandatory, but as long as were just talking about it i can agree to disagree.


I know you think it should be mandatory. Why use $30 of your own money when you can waste millions of everybody elses and piss on the Constitution all at the same time.


----------



## Created2Write

I think it's pretty unfair for a man to lose his children just because he asks for a paternity test. My husband was my first, and is my only, sexual partner. And he knows I would never, ever cheat. But if he wanted a paternity test, I wouldn't see that as him not trusting me. And, since I have nothing to hide, I would be happy to oblige him. And I wouldn't be mad, nor would I be insulted.


----------



## that_girl

Lots of projecting in here! :lol:

And not everyone has a "type" . My last bf before my latino husband was Japanese. Before him, my bf was Indian. Before that was a blond/white guy. 

Do what is good for YOU and let others do what is good for THEM. Just because opinions differ doesn't mean anything about the other person. YOUR experiences aren't anyone else's experiences. Geebus.


----------



## that_girl

And if it's mandatory, that means the state would have to pay. Screw that. We have other things to waste money on.


----------



## Created2Write

I don't think it should be mandatory. My parents never had a paternity test for either me or my brother, and neither of them wanted to. If, however, one or both parties wants it I definitely think they should be able to get one.


----------



## that_girl

My dad was my dad and didn't pay child support at all.  

So...whatever. 

 Maybe he wasn't my dad at all!! We never had a paternity test!! Maybe my mom was sleeping around! Nevermind that I look just like him and my aunt. He's dead though. My stepdad raised me. And paid for me. No blood relation.


----------



## anonim

So how do you think they should prevent fathers being tricked into raising children that arent theirs?


----------



## Acorn

The more I think about this thread, the more I think that mandatory DNA tests are silly. It is the assumptions made in the absence of these tests that are what most people are at odds about.

Make a mom have to prove paternity through a DNA test before receiving any benefit from the father post-relationship and I don't think men would be so up in arms about mandatory testing any more.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> So how do you think they should prevent fathers being tricked into raising children that arent theirs?


Get a paternity test! If you are worried, go get one. Nobody is stopping you. Telling everybody else that they HAVE to is what the issue is.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Created2Write said:


> I think it's pretty unfair for a man to lose his children just because he asks for a paternity test. My husband was my first, and is my only, sexual partner. And he knows I would never, ever cheat. But if he wanted a paternity test, I wouldn't see that as him not trusting me. And, since I have nothing to hide, I would be happy to oblige him. And I wouldn't be mad, nor would I be insulted.


I too would happily agree to a paternity test if my husband asked me. If however he didn't and some of the guys here had there way to force my husband/children to be tested, we'd have a problem.....a very big one.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> So how do you think they should prevent fathers being tricked into raising children that arent theirs?


Fathers should ask for paternity tests, maybe?


----------



## Created2Write

If a couple truly doesn't want a paternity test, I think it's wrong for them to be forced to get one. If the man wants the test, then the test should be done. I don't think both parents need to agree before the test is taken. But if they don't want it done, why force it on them?


----------



## Tikii

Yes, I spoke as a mother because when I have children I will be a mother. I am the mother to an angel, and know how hurt I would be if my husband questioned me. I may be young, but that doesn't mean I will be unfaithful in the future. I have seen many friends suffer from infidelity, that doesn't change my feeling. No matter how much time passes, it still isn't going to warrant my feeling that paternity testing be mandatory. If a man wants one, he can get one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim

Acorn said:


> Make a mom have to prove paternity through a DNA test before receiving any benefit from the father post-relationship and I don't think men would be so up in arms about mandatory testing any more.


This is a very good idea as far as preventing parents from fraudulently obtaining child support, but it doesnt prevent a wife from lying to her husband about the paternity of her child.



anonim said:


> So how do you think they should prevent fathers being tricked into raising children that arent theirs?
> 
> 
> 
> Therealbrighteyes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a paternity test! If you are worried, go get one. Nobody is stopping you. Telling everybody else that they HAVE to is what the issue is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Created2Write said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers should ask for paternity tests, maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

what would you suggest to men who share the situation of Tikiis husband, that stand to lose their children and marriage if they seek a paternity test?




Tikii said:


> Yes, I spoke as a mother because when I have children I will be a mother. I am the mother to an angel, and know how hurt I would be if my husband questioned me. I may be young, but that doesn't mean I will be unfaithful in the future. I have seen many friends suffer from infidelity, that doesn't change my feeling. No matter how much time passes, it still isn't going to warrant my feeling that paternity testing be mandatory. If a man wants one, he can get one.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Then ask your friends if they intended to be unfaithful before it happened to them. ask the ones who were cheated on if they knew they were being cheated on before their SO was caught.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> Then ask your friends if they intended to be unfaithful before it happened to them. ask the ones who were cheated on if they knew they were being cheated on before their SO was caught.


Every one of them, had a history of cheating prior to marriage. Their SO were aware of that history as well. Cheating is a choice, not something beyond our control. I happen to have control over myself, my emotions and my actions, and can guarantee with every bit of my being that I would not cheat on my husband.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> what would you suggest to men who share the situation of Tikiis husband, that stand to lose their children and marriage if they seek a paternity test?


He wouldn't lose his children unless he chose to. He would be able to seek a paternity test through the court, and the court would establish that the children were in fact his, and would allow for a custody arrangement. 

The marriage would already be gone if he felt the need to request a test. There would be no trust, and no trust would be no love. No love would be no marriage.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Tikii said*: I do absolutely believe you think I am unfaithful based on your statements.


For the record... I do not think this because we have a difference of opinion. I was just trying to explain ....from one faithful wife to another, that our view of "privacy" is very different. 



> If my husband cannot trust me to the point of believing that our children are his, I wouldn't want to be in the marriage regardless of what has happened in his past. If I haven't been able to show him that I truly am commited, and faithful, it's a lost cause and I deserve better than that.
> 
> Absolutely, a man deserves the assurance, if he wants it.


 You realize it sounds you are speaking out of 2 sides of your mouth with these comments. Just at the near suggestion.... you will leave him saying you deserve better.... then in the next breath you believe a man DESERVES assurance. Then you say your husband "agrees" with you... I think many of us are imagining his fate if he didn't ! 

One of your posts seems to suggest you have no children yet? Confused. 

What I am REALLY THINKING here is this......It's the *attitude* behind your opinion......it is very "in your face" - "black & white" ....unforgiving of another's thoughts, suggestions, feelings- a trying to understand something from their viewpoint. 

What I am seeing here .....is a woman who RULES the ROOST, your way or the highway....I am imagining a Man who treads lightly with his wife, walks on egg shells and keeps his mouth shut to not offend. Transparency is generally stifled in such a relationship because we EXPECT near perfection from a partner, which causes them to STUFF how they are really feeling .... knowing if they dare speak it ....in the dog house they will go!









I do not view TRUST the way you do either.... I would imagine you would also argue that your husband shouldn't be able to check your cell phone , your email ...after all --you are faithful & true, there is no need. When there is TRUST, it is built of course... there is a willingness to bare & share it all -- there is no hesitation , there is no threats, even to wayward thoughts, even mistakes, we work with each other, we hear each other out. We have different opinions but don't threaten to leave. We may even miss it sometimes. 

Let me give you an example... If I found myself SINGLE...and lets say I met a nice guy who I was interested in...we get closer & we're ready to share our bodies with each other. MANY women would be insulted & dump him if he suggested getting tested for STDs (for us both)... I wouldn't ! ..... I would invite that..... In fact, I would even THINK HIGHER of him for taking such precautions to protect himself and ME....

Whereas I could see many women reacting like this.... "That is freaking RUDE...you don't trust me...screw you & slam the door in his face".... That would not be my attitude at all... If I knew I was clean, why the hell not get the test ?.....so we can move on with the sweet stuff ...... and I would also feel he is more exclusive with his own body .... All a plus plus in my book! 

My mind can not comprehend the bulking...none of this insults me. 


I love Trenton's posts here....


> I'm really surprised by the outrage of ladies here.
> 
> Why would you not want your husband to feel secure?
> Why would it be a personal insult if he wanted to feel completely secure?
> I am really shocked that someone would consider leaving their husband if they questioned their faithfulness. Talk about no room for being human in a relationship.


and....


> But trust is earned and if your husband, for whatever reason (perhaps he grew up with an unfaithful mother? was cheated on in previous relationship? fill in blank with other reason for insecurity), would be able to rid himself of insecurity and feel more connected to you and your family, why not make allowances for this? Does it really make him less lovable? -Or- does it make the person leaving because the husband is questioning paternity (for whatever reason) selfish and caught up in how they see themselves?
> 
> I think when you know yourself and feel secure within yourself, you are less concerned when others question you because you have no problem being tested, questioned or working to build trust in a relationship. You are less selfish and more willing to work through **** together to get to where you want to go as a couple and more likely to make it for the long haul.





> *Anonim said *: 4. So let me get this straight; Your husband comes to you and asks for a paternity test for your children. You say No, leave him, taking the kids with you.
> You then refuse to let him see them, refuse any paternity testing unless demanded by the court.
> 
> That's the behavior of someone that's hiding something big.
> *R E D F L A G* .
> 
> 5. A DNA test would make your husband able to believe those kids are his from the bottom of his heart. It would also reaffirm that he was right in trusting you.
> What you are doing is asserting control over your H, by forcing your H in what he can talk about with you and by what he can think and believe and how you want him to see you. I'm not saying that you are a cheater, I'm not saying that you aren't a cheater, but this is the behavior of a cheater. If you doubt me take a look around doccool.
> 
> This is a RED FLAG.


 I don't personally know what Doc Cool is but I know one thing, I LOVE Anonim's arguments! They so resonate with my own feelings on this issue....Not sure why I feel so strongly...it is the *injustice* of these things....I can't stomach it....

We have 5 sons, I care deeply that they will not find themselves in such a fate someday. I always talk to my boys about not dealing with any girl/woman who trys to brow beat them into submission -even with TRUST....not allowing for a full dialog & differences of opinion to come forth so they can talk about such things...without her throwing their hands up in the air & threatening to leave. Never are "secrets" Ok either...being forthcoming in all things... the good, the bad, the ugly... after all, we are all human.

A woman who made a horrendous mistake, slept with another man & got pregnant & came home & owed up to this IMMEDIATELY --NOT pinning another man's child on an innocent man...I would have more respect for her -- than one who acted FLAWLESS, pounding her chest how she is so trustworthy, and deserves the Treatment of a Princess...with an attitude that can never be reasoned with. Some things in life are just too difficult. Some of us really are HUMAN, and we are capable of screwing up...sometimes BADLY ....but to be HONEST at every turn... what a RARE RARE find. 



> *Somethingelse said*: I think that if a woman has no doubt in her mind that her H is the biological father of her children, she would have no problem letting him do a paternity test whether he's just overreacting or not.


 :iagree: Some of us over-react sometimes....as if us women don't have our [email protected]#$%^&* I feel we can allow our men some!! 

I ,too, feel the Government spends too much $$, I hate to see anything FORCED upon us... I appreciate CHOICE.... I also know my husband would not care to spend $$ on this....nor should the government have to ....

Here is the beef with ME....

Because this ISN'T mandatory...this means MEN WILL CONTINUE to fall through these cracks- dishing out thousands for anothers ejaculation over the span of 18 yrs - because love is blind & they trusted TOO easily....

..I say...the LAWS NEED CHANGED TO PROTECT THESE "on paper" Fathers....this is all the Goverment recognizes and this needs challenged.... The LIARS need some consequences....let them make restitution. 

I say at any point within the marriage -not just the 1st 6 months or whatever it is. Many an actress can be a Princess in that amount of time....reeling in a hapless man who is smitten...trying to not offend the Tikii's by opting to get the test so he'll be left before he can hold the baby in his arms.... 

Then find it is too late....once they are locked in for the next 18 yrs...their paycheck tied to another's







donation.


----------



## anonim

:iagree: I wish i could like that twice!




Tikii said:


> Every one of them, had a history of cheating prior to marriage. Their SO were aware of that history as well. Cheating is a choice, not something beyond our control. I happen to have control over myself, my emotions and my actions, and can guarantee with every bit of my being that I would not cheat on my husband.


so why do you choose to be friends with them?


----------



## Tikii

That's hilarious to me. I FAR from rule the roost, and my husband does not walk on egg shells. We say whatever is on our minds to the other, and deal with what it brings. I wouldn't be in a relationship that wasn't full on honest.

Saying a man deserves assurance, doesn't mean that it doesn't come with consequences. He can have that assurance, but it doesn't mean that Iam going to ignore the doubt that brought on the need for assurance.

Again, I think it is hilarious that because someone expects and deserves trust and opposes government mandated testing they must be cheating. If my husband feels the need to question me, the relationship is over.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> so why do you choose to be friends with them?


So you are implying that people who have been unfaithful in the past don't deserve friends? I'm not in a relationship with them, I don't care what they do in their past, or in the current relationships. It doesn't effect me, and it isn't my business, just as it isn't the government's business to mandate paternity testing.


----------



## Tikii

I just spoke with my husband regarding this, and he shares my feeling. He now knows how I feel on the subject, and he agrees that if he got to the point of needing a test for assurance, the marriage would be over any way.


----------



## Acorn

Tikii said:


> If my husband feels the need to question me, the relationship is over.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Tikii said:


> If my husband feels the need to question me, the relationship is over.


I say .... WOW ...that is quite the statement ..... indulge us.... what else can he NOT question you on...so you are ready to jump ship ??

You must realize how this is sounding to us reading your replies....surely it is not just me???? If my husband talked to ME like that, I would find his *attitude* more insulting than any TEST he could possibly throw at me.


----------



## Tikii

SimplyAmorous said:


> I say .... WOW ...that is quite the statement ..... indulge us.... what else can he NOT question you on...so you are ready to jump ship ??
> 
> You must realize how this is sounding to us reading your replies....surely it is not just me???? If my husband talked to ME like that, I would find his *attitude* more insulting than any TEST he could possibly throw at me.


My faithfulness is the only thing that is unforgivable to question. This is what this thread is about, I didn't feel that it was necessary to state that if he questions my faithfulness. If he has to question that, we don't have a relationship worth keeping. If he feels like he has to question that, he doesn't trust me, without trust, we have nothing.

I really honestly don't care how it sounds to anyone who is not involved in my relationship. I have an amazing relationship with my husband, with no reason for my faithfulness to be questioned.


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> If my husband feels the need to question me, the relationship is over.


If you feel the need to end a marriage because your husband feels a need to question you, you never had a relationship to begin with.


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> Every one of them, had a history of cheating prior to marriage.


So everyone of your friends cheat, but you expect anyone reading this to believe that you will never cheat on your H even though you will dump him and take the kids away if he so much as says he would like a paternity test?


----------



## costa200

Therealbrighteyes said:


> BTW, these home tests already exist and have for 2 years. Walmart sells them for under $28 so you too can get peace of mind. It can be done without the knowledge of the woman. No need to infringe upon my rights or my husband's in the process.
> 
> 
> Identigene DNA Paternity Test Kit - Walmart.com
> 
> 
> Case closed.


Except what you posted here is not a real test. it's a kit to harvest genetic material at home and then send it to be tested in a real lab. Leaving lots of possibilities of discovery by the wife. 

Plus you pay that for the kit but then you have to pay for the real test (something like 100$).

They must be raking up the cash on that stuff though... Now imagine if i could invent some on the spot test. Being a billionaire, so close yet so far...


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> The marriage would already be gone if he felt the need to request a test. There would be no trust, and no trust would be no love. No love would be no marriage.


Your marriage is already gone. how can you consider your self married to something that has no free will? You might as well be married to a car or a tree.

I sincerely hope that any man in this circumstance finds his gonads and gets out before he is mired with children of undisclosed lineage.


----------



## that_girl

Now this is getting personal.

SHE IS ALLOWED HER OPINION. Geebus.


----------



## anonim

Trenton said:


> Who knew this would be such a loaded topic?


I had my suspicions.


----------



## that_girl

My husband said, throughout a conversation about this thread, "If I got a girl pregnant that I was just dating, or she said she was pregnant, I would want a test. But you and I, although rather quickly, got pregnant, I knew that night that I impregnated you. You told me you ovulated, and I .....I didn't care  ...haha...so yea. You told me you were pregnant, and I didn't even question it. I didn't even want to see the pregnancy test, remember? You forced me to look at it...did you think I wouldn't believe you?"

Well, I didn't want him to think i was lying about being pregnant or something. Some chicks are crazy like that and I wanted him to see I was really pregnant! But if I had any question of whose it was, I would have said so. I had a rule not to sleep with anyone in the same cycle as someone else...and for Hubs, it had been 3 months since I had slept with anyone because he captivated me when I met him...and we dated 3 months later.

But to get all up in someone's face about her opinion about this is absurd. You will not convince her that it's not offensive for her husband to question her fidelity. Let it go. If you want to demand tests on your children, fine, but her opinion is hers. Like I said before, not everyone has YOUR experiences. Not everyone thinks about things YOUR way.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I just looked at a few of Tikii's threads, her & her husband is struggling with conceiving - she has a thread on Infertility...that caught my eye.... (I had over 6 years with Secondary Infertility, many tests, a trial of clomid, then a Laparoscopy)... THIS, the raw emotions.... may play some role in the outrage over questioning paternity. 

For whatever it is worth, I had my moments of being an emotional BASKETCASE when I couldn't conceive, and that was even with 1 son already with us. If I could go back in time, I would have changed some things about how I was with my husband. 

This likely is playing a role, I assume. Not an easy time for her , as I would know, having a taste of that experience.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> So everyone of your friends cheat, but you expect anyone reading this to believe that you will never cheat on your H even though you will dump him and take the kids away if he so much as says he would like a paternity test?


LMFAO, no where did I say all my friends cheat. A very small percentage did/ do.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## that_girl

However, on a lighter note, if I was to become pregnant NOW...well, I would DEMAND a paternity test because I'd be curious too since H was snipped 3 years ago. lol.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> Your marriage is already gone. how can you consider your self married to something that has no free will? You might as well be married to a car or a tree.
> 
> I sincerely hope that any man in this circumstance finds his gonads and gets out before he is mired with children of undisclosed lineage.


 So because I have an opinion different from yourself, my marriage doesn't exist. I thought this kind of behavior ended in middle school. My
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> Except what you posted here is not a real test. it's a kit to harvest genetic material at home and then send it to be tested in a real lab. Leaving lots of possibilities of discovery by the wife.
> 
> Plus you pay that for the kit but then you have to pay for the real test (something like 100$).
> 
> They must be raking up the cash on that stuff though... Now imagine if i could invent some on the spot test. Being a billionaire, so close yet so far...


I am a fool. I just had a lightbulb moment as to what the real issue is here. :slap:
Because many men don't want to ask for a test, they want the government to do the dirty work for them while they hide behind the apron. So really, it's a lack of communication issue that gets resolved by bulldozing over my husbands civil liberties and those of millions of others instead talking with your partner. 
You seem to want to find every angle to force this issue. Now it's financial despite the test costing exactly the same as the one you mentioned. Apparently money is an issue for those who want the test but who gives a damn about the millions of men who don't and have to pay anyways. This entire topic is insane.


----------



## anonim

@that girl;

I can explain it to you; I cant understand it for you.
Men are sometimes duped into raising children that arent theirs.
We view this problem as equivalent to the abortion control issue.

Tikii has made a great contribution to this thread; She has demonstrated the reason why men would want to have paternity tests mandatory. This is a very important thing to do, because that role must be examined from all angles and positions in order to find a good solution, and that role would not be 'real' without someone being in it. So ty tikii. 

No one here is going to make her or you or therealbrighteyes or anyone else paternity test your children. This is a forum for debate and discussion. 

Saying 'I think dna tests should be mandatory' is in no way ,shape, or form, a demand for you to have one on your child. It's an opinion. You might not like it, and it may invoke strong feelings in you, but I'm entitled to it, and as a testament to the right to my opinion, I should, and will, speak my opinion.

Everyone thinks differently and has different experiences.
Dont seek to convince anyone to change their opinion, just say what you see and if someone can take that and use it for the better, good for them.

BTW, dont you think its funny how no one wants to suggest a solution for men in the similar position of tikii's H?


----------



## that_girl

What?

I just saw you saying her marriage was already dead, etc, etc because she wouldn't tolerate her husband asking for a test.

I feel you are very condescending towards me. I don't appreciate it. 

I understand it perfectly.

But, if something is MANDATORY, then how the heck do I have the option? You mean mandatory to be given the option? That's already available, but you have to pay. Better to pay 200 now than pay for 18 years, no? If it's worth it to the men, they'll pay. To do it behind the mother's back is...sneaky and I don't like sneaky.

Yea, you are more than welcome to your opinion. No one said you weren't. It's all over this thread. We get it. But it was getting too personal towards Tikii, that's all.

What position is Tikii's husband in? That his wife wouldn't want him to get a test or the marriage would be done? I don't know. Not my problem, not my marriage.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I read stats the other day that approx 5% of people in relationships are cheating at any one time. 
And over the course of a life time approx 55-60% of men cheat in a relationship and around 45-50% of women. 
However only 20-30% of people cheat within their marriages. 

The odds of men raising children that don't belong to them are low. 
I think any man who wants this done is either suspicious or has been cheated on in his marriage or is a cheater so is suspicious of everything. 

If my husband had asked for a DNA test I would have left him. That's got to be the most insulting thing and would have been completely unjustifiable. 
This thread actually makes me feel very sorry for people who are so bitter.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim

that_girl said:


> What?
> 
> I just saw you saying her marriage was already dead, etc, etc because she wouldn't tolerate her husband asking for a test.If a man is _forbidden _from asking his wife to paternity test their children, he has _at least_ a severely diminished relationship and is letting another person decide how and what he can communicate about. That is relationship death. maybe not the last nail in the coffin, but death nonetheless.
> 
> I feel you are very condescending towards me. I don't appreciate it. I apologize if come across as condescending. But I feel its condescending to ignore, or act as though it is not a problem that men are often deceived into raising children that are not theirs. And then being made to pay child support for them by law. Or being treated, by women, as not being 'real men' if they choose not to stay and continue acting as the 'dad'. Or acting as though his situation is any less significant and personally devastating as the childs.
> 
> I understand it perfectly.
> 
> But, if something is MANDATORY, then how the heck do I have the option?
> 
> You don't. That's the definition of mandatory. But in society, when injustice is done its detrimental to its citizens to stand back and let it happen and watch. Even if it doesn't affect you. This time. Because it might next time. Or maybe someone else you care about. How would you feel about your sons being deceived in such a manner, because it is humanly possible. The benefit _to society_ outweighs the cost.
> 
> You mean mandatory to be given the option? That's already available, but you have to pay. Better to pay 200 now than pay for 18 years, no? If it's worth it to the men, they'll pay. To do it behind the mother's back is...sneaky and I don't like sneaky. sneakier than say, cheating on a husband and making him raise the OMs baby without his knowledge? No. its not sneaky at all. There is no negative consequence to the mother unless the tested child is not the fathers.
> 
> Yea, you are more than welcome to your opinion. No one said you weren't. It's all over this thread. We get it. But it was getting too personal towards Tikii, that's all.
> 
> What position is Tikii's husband in? That his wife wouldn't want him to get a test or the marriage would be done? I don't know. * Not my problem, not my marriage.*That's a very selfish view.





*LittleDeer* said:


> I read stats the other day that approx 5% of people in relationships are cheating at any one time.
> And over the course of a life time approx 55-60% of men cheat in a relationship and around 45-50% of women.
> However only 20-30% of people cheat within their marriages.
> Where did you see these stats? the math seems more than a little off to me.
> 
> The odds of men raising children that don't belong to them are low. how low is low?1%? 25%? 1/8 seems low too.
> 
> I think any man who wants this done is either suspicious or has been cheated on in his marriage or is a cheater so is suspicious of everything.
> That might actually be true to a degree.
> I'd be more interested in the men who never thought they would need a paternity test done but did, and in the women who got caught trying to pass off children to the wrong fathers.
> 
> If my husband had asked for a DNA test I would have left him. That's got to be the most insulting thing and would have been completely unjustifiable.
> 
> The fact that you would leave your H for asking for a dna test might be justification for asking for one.
> 
> This thread actually makes me feel very sorry for people who are so bitter.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

"But in society, when injustice is done its detrimental to its citizens to stand back and let it happen and watch. Even if it doesn't affect you. This time. Because it might next time". 

Let's drag everybody from their homes and force them to undergo psychological testing to root out schizophrenics because a guy shot up a theatre in Aurora and a Congresswoman in Arizona. Let's round up all Muslims because a few attacked the World Trade Centers. Instead of recognizing that only a few percent are evil, let's assume everybody is and force them accordingly. The benefit to society outweighs the cost, right?


----------



## anony2

Therealbrighteyes said:


> "But in society, when injustice is done its detrimental to its citizens to stand back and let it happen and watch. Even if it doesn't affect you. This time. Because it might next time".
> 
> *Let's drag everybody from their homes* and force them to undergo psychological testing to root out schizophrenics because a guy shot up a theatre in Aurora and a Congresswoman in Arizona.* Let's round up all Muslims* because a few attacked the World Trade Centers. Let's create laws based on the small percent who do evil and force it on the majority. The benefit to society outweighs the cost, right?


Slippery slope fallacy. 

Who exactly gets hurt if the children are tested for paternity?


----------



## anonim

anony2 said:


> Slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> Who exactly gets hurt if the children are tested for paternity?


cheaters.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anony2 said:


> Slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> Who exactly gets hurt if the children are tested for paternity?


It isn't a slippery slope fallacy at all. A very small percentage of the population is lying about the paternity of their children while the vast majority are not. Instead of telling the minority to go get a test done, you want to ram rod the majority to have no say in the matter. That is no different than if we were to create laws such as I mentioned about the small percentage of mentally ill or Muslims that live in this country. 

Nobody gets hurt if children are being tested for paternity and it is requested. Forcing someone to undergo a test that they don't want, nor asked for however pretty much lights the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on fire in one fell swoop.


----------



## anony2

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It isn't a slippery slope fallacy at all. A very small percentage of the population is lying about the paternity of their children while the vast majority are not. Instead of telling the minority to go get a test done, you want to ram rod the majority to have no say in the matter. That is no different than if we were to create laws such as I mentioned about the small percentage of mentally ill or Muslims that live in this country.



Yes it is because the topic has nothing to do with Muslims or schizophrenics and not all of the people that NEED the paternity test know that they NEED the test done. 

"Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). (mandatory paternity testing)
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. (Gathering up all Muslims and Schizophrenics)

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another."

Fallacy: Slippery Slope



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Nobody gets hurt if children are being tested for paternity and it is requested. Forcing someone to undergo a test that they don't want, nor asked for however pretty much lights the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on fire in one fell swoop.


Let me flip this for you. 

Say a woman came up to you and said: Your husband fathered my child. 
Your husband says: I didn't touch the woman.


Should a paternity test be done before he is forced to pay child support?

If so, why? Why doesn't the court just take his/her word as gospel?

By forcing men pay for child/children that isn't his, the Constitution/Bill of Rights is already on fire.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It isn't a slippery slope fallacy at all. Yes it is. rounding up muslims has nothing to do with mandatory DNA testing.A very small percentage of the population is lying about the paternity of their children while the vast majority are not. its unknown how many men raise OM's children, estimates vary.Instead of telling the minority to go get a test done, you want to ram rod the majority to have no say in the matter. That is no different than if we were to create laws such as I mentioned about the small percentage of mentally ill or Muslims that live in this country. uh. mouth swab vs. being taken from your home and put in a cell? thats as different as night and day. keep spinning it sister.
> 
> Nobody gets hurt if children are being tested for paternity (well that depends on the results now doesnt it?) and it is requested. Forcing someone to undergo a test that they don't want, nor asked for however pretty much lights the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on fire in one fell swoop.


How do you feel about the federal law being changed to recognize dna testing at any time of a childs life and if the child is found not to be the fathers, not only is the father not liable to pay child support for that child or alimoney if he chooses to divorce, but the mother ordered to pay him back child support that has been paid or damages and serve jail time if he presses charges?

That would would be a fair counter again mandatory dna testing.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Anonim, so because I'd be horrified at my husband basicilly telling me he thought I was a cheater and leave him because of his mistrust, he would have been justified in asking for a test?

If someone has cheated or behaves in an untrustworthy manner, I can understand a man or woman being suspicious of a spouse under such circumstances. However no one has been suspicious of my cheating because I've never done it.

Would you stay with a woman who basically insisted you were cheating without merit and who acted paranoid enough to want to test you? 

I would like to think that if you think you need paternity testing you most definitely need marital counseling. Because that's about the most unhealthy type of Marraige you can have.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anony2 said:


> Yes it is because the topic has nothing to do with Muslims or schizophrenics and not all of the people that NEED the paternity test know that they NEED the test done.
> 
> "Description of Slippery Slope
> 
> The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
> 
> Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). (mandatory paternity testing)
> Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. (Gathering up all Muslims and Schizophrenics)
> 
> This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another."
> 
> Fallacy: Slippery Slope
> 
> 
> 
> Let me flip this for you.
> 
> Say a woman came up to you and said: Your husband fathered my child.
> Your husband says: I didn't touch the woman.
> 
> 
> Should a paternity test be done before he is forced to pay child support?
> 
> If so, why? Why doesn't the court just take his/her word as gospel?
> 
> By forcing men pay for child/children that isn't his, the Constitution/Bill of Rights is already on fire.


I don't need a dictionary definition of a word, thank you very much. I speak English very well and understand equally. Perhaps you missed what the other guy wrote of: "But in society, when injustice is done its detrimental to its citizens to stand back and let it happen and watch. Even if it doesn't affect you. This time. Because it might next time". By that very statement he is saying that we as a society must stop things from happening, regardless if it matters to you. Citing a few that are deceptive as a reason to assume everybody is is no different than the examples I gave. 

If somebody claimed my husband was the father of their child, absolutely I would/he would want a paternity test. What that has to do with telling my husband he has to undergo a test now on the children he has escapes me. Any man is free to get a test to ensure paternity. Why wouldn't he before paying child support! I still maintain that ANY man is free RIGHT NOW to get a test done. There is no need to stomp on anybody elses rights to get the peace of mind you want. 

At this point I think I am done discussing this. You have your opinion and I have mine.


----------



## larry.gray

Created2Write said:


> If a couple truly doesn't want a paternity test, I think it's wrong for them to be forced to get one. If the man wants the test, then the test should be done. I don't think both parents need to agree before the test is taken. But if they don't want it done, why force it on them?


It would be one thing if both didn't want it. But there are a whole lot of guys who would get peace of mind from one but would never want to admit it to their wife.


----------



## anony2

*LittleDeer* said:


> Anonim, so because I'd be horrified at my husband basicilly telling me he thought I was a cheater and leave him because of his mistrust, he would have been justified in asking for a test?
> 
> If someone has cheated or behaves in an untrustworthy manner, I can understand a man or woman being suspicious of a spouse under such circumstances. However no one has been suspicious of my cheating because I've never done it.
> 
> Would you stay with a woman who basically insisted you were cheating without merit and who acted paranoid enough to want to test you?
> 
> I would like to think that if you think you need paternity testing you most definitely need marital counseling. Because that's about the most unhealthy type of Marraige you can have.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sadly though Little Deer, many people do not know that their SO has cheated until after the fact, sometimes, a long time after the fact as in the case of my son's situation. 

How would you feel if you found out one of your children were not yours biologically and the hospital sent you home another couples child 10-15 years after you had been raising your child? 

That is what I imagine it would be like for a man to find out that the child he has been raising as his own would feel except more betrayal involved because the wife knew that she had cheated and it could have been someone else's child besides her husband's.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> How do you feel about the federal law being changed to recognize dna testing at any time of a childs life and if the child is found not to be the fathers, not only is the father not liable to pay child support for that child or alimoney if he chooses to divorce, but the mother ordered to pay him back child support that has been paid or damages and serve jail time if he presses charges?
> 
> That would would be a fair counter again mandatory dna testing.


I would be 100% for that. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to vote for a law such as that. A person who knowingly deceives and in essence steals from another deserves all they get. 

What I continue to maintain however is that for me, this is a civil rights issue. My husband feels the same way. If he wants a DNA test, let's roll. I would have no issue with it. Both of us would have a huge issue with the government mandating that he get the test and he had no say in the matter, nor would our kids. It's pretty revolting to think where this might go. There is no need for this law in the first place. The tests are not illegal and are readily available for all who seek it.


----------



## anony2

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't need a dictionary definition of a word, thank you very much. I speak English very well and understand equally. Perhaps you missed what the other guy wrote of: "But in society, when injustice is done its detrimental to its citizens to stand back and let it happen and watch. Even if it doesn't affect you. This time. Because it might next time". By that very statement he is saying that we as a society must stop things from happening, regardless if it matters to you. Citing a few that are deceptive as a reason to assume everybody is is no different than the examples I gave.


Yes, we do have to stop things whether they effect you or not. This is why we have jail cells filled with prisoners. Telling a man that he is the father of a child that he is not the father of is fraud. 



Therealbrighteyes said:


> If somebody claimed my husband was the father of their child, absolutely I would/he would want a paternity test. What that has to do with telling my husband he has to undergo a test now on the children he has escapes me. Any man is free to get a test to ensure paternity. Why wouldn't he before paying child support! I still maintain that ANY man is free RIGHT NOW to get a test done. There is no need to stomp on anybody elses rights to get the peace of mind you want.
> 
> At this point I think I am done discussing this. You have your opinion and I have mine.


You are claiming your husband is the father of your child. So why should the court trust YOUR words and not the OW words?

The reason that there is a need to get the tests done is because many men could be paying for/raising children that are not their biological children and might not know that. 

Don't they deserve to know?


----------



## larry.gray

SimplyAmorous said:


> We have 5 sons, I care deeply that they will not find themselves in such a fate someday. I always talk to my boys about not dealing with any girl/woman who trys to brow beat them into submission -even with TRUST....not allowing for a full dialog & differences of opinion to come forth so they can talk about such things...without her throwing their hands up in the air & threatening to leave. Never are "secrets" Ok either...being forthcoming in all things... the good, the bad, the ugly... after all, we are all human.


Yet again, I find SA has made a profound post. I was thinking while I was out having fun with my son today: Many of these women will understand once they have sons of child bearing age.

My mother was raised by a very misogynistic father. My dad was to a degree the same way. In response my mother went too far with misandry, having a really anti-men chip on her shoulder. She backed off to a degree when I pointed out that what she advocated was for her own sons, who had been raised to treat women as equals, were suffering now for the anti-male injustices of society.

Women have been liberated from the 1950's standards placed on them. Men haven't been.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> Yet again, I find SA has made a profound post. I was thinking while I was out having fun with my son today: Many of these women will understand once they have sons of child bearing age.
> 
> My mother was raised by a very misogynistic father. My dad was to a degree the same way. In response my mother went too far with misandry, having a really anti-men chip on her shoulder. She backed off to a degree when I pointed out that what she advocated was for her own sons, who had been raised to treat women as equals, were suffering now for the anti-male injustices of society.
> 
> Women have been liberated from the 1950's standards placed on them. Men haven't been.


I have a son who is soon to be 20 and soon to be 15 and I stand by everything I wrote. They have the legal right to get a paternity test on any child they father. The law however does not have the right to force my sons to take a test if they do not want one. Men have been liberated. Nobody is preventing them from having this test, nobody.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anony2 said:


> Yes, we do have to stop things whether they effect you or not. This is why we have jail cells filled with prisoners. Telling a man that he is the father of a child that he is not the father of is fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> You are claiming your husband is the father of your child. So why should the court trust YOUR words and not the OW words?
> 
> The reason that there is a need to get the tests done is because many men could be paying for/raising children that are not their biological children and might not know that.
> 
> Don't they deserve to know?


I will say this again. I am not against any paternity test. If a guy wants to test his children or his presumed children then more power to him. I have no problem with that whatsoever. The government does not have the right however to force this test on those who don't ask for it, nor want it. That is the ONLY issue I have with all this.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> ... Let me flip this for you.
> 
> Say a woman came up to you and said: Your husband fathered my child.
> Your husband says: I didn't touch the woman.
> 
> 
> Should a paternity test be done before he is forced to pay child support?
> 
> If so, why? Why doesn't the court just take his/her word as gospel?
> 
> By forcing men pay for child/children that isn't his, the Constitution/Bill of Rights is already on fire.


:smthumbup: There is no moral argument against this. The reason paternity will continue to be hidden is that it's easier to just let some poor sucker raise someone's kid. No chase for child support needed. Of course there is no accountability for a monster who does something like this.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> :smthumbup: There is no moral argument against this. The reason paternity will continue to be hidden is that it's easier to just let some poor sucker raise someone's kid. No chase for child support needed. Of course there is no accountability for a monster who does something like this.


Christ on a cracker. Paternity isn't hidden if a man wants to take a DNA test. Get your test and don't force your fears on my life. 

Another thing I thought about last night, imagine if this WAS legal. All the DNA tests of both the infant/child and the presumed fathers would be government run and stored in a central database. What exactly do you think health insurance companies would do with that information? Think about that long and hard and then get back to me about how groovy it would be for the country to mandate this because 5% of the population insisted on it.


----------



## Thundarr

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What exactly do you think health insurance companies would do with that information? Think about that long and hard and then get back to me about how groovy it would be for the country to mandate this because 5% of the population insisted on it.


Sounds like a conspiracy. I don't know, what do they do now? Why would they have access to this in the first place and how would this give them some special insight.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> I never questioned my paternity because it seemed completely impossible to me that my wife would cheat. Fortunately my kids look and act very much like me and my family because my wife (ex now) was the cheating type. Most guys would never imagine their wife cheated and then they support and raise another man's child without ever having a choice about it.
> 
> 
> No this is about holding the proper people accountable for their actions just like 1000 other examples of the same thing. Our laws are built around this concept of protecting the innocent and sometimes protecting them from their selves.


In this case, you are punishing the innocent by forcing them to undergo a test that invades their privacy to quell the fears of a small percentage. You are opening them up to being labeled "pre-existing" by health insurance companies who will most certainly take advantage of this "law" should it ever come to pass. So this is a better solution than oh say, taking a damn test on your own regardless if she is the "cheating type"?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> Sounds like a conspiracy. I don't know, what do they do now? Why would they have access to this in the first place and how would this give them some special insight.


Surely you are joking.


----------



## Thundarr

Therealbrighteyes said:


> In this case, you are punishing the innocent by forcing them to undergo a test that invades their privacy to quell the fears of a small percentage. You are opening them up to being labeled "pre-existing" by health insurance companies who will most certainly take advantage of this "law" should it ever come to pass. So this is a better solution than oh say, taking a damn test on your own regardless if she is the "cheating type"?


- Yes it's an annoyance sometimes when we protect the innocent. And no running a standard test which they probably already have the blood for does not make you some victim. 

- Insurance company has no right to this information so they don't get it. Why is that a question? "What if" thinking is not how I chose to debate. 

- No need to curse. I'm starting to question your motives. ( well I don't understand the anger anyway).


----------



## costa200

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I am a fool. I just had a lightbulb moment as to what the real issue is here. :slap:
> Because many men don't want to ask for a test, they want the government to do the dirty work for them while they hide behind the apron. So really, it's a lack of communication issue that gets resolved by bulldozing over my husbands civil liberties and those of millions of others instead talking with your partner.
> You seem to want to find every angle to force this issue. Now it's financial despite the test costing exactly the same as the one you mentioned. Apparently money is an issue for those who want the test but who gives a damn about the millions of men who don't and have to pay anyways. This entire topic is insane.


Talking to your partner? When half the women in here disagreeing with this just said that they would leave the relationship over it? What kind of talking do you want done?

But you're not seeing the main point. Most guys who need the test don't know they do. Those are the ones who get suckered into it. A guy who has no reasons to suspect will not ask for the test. He has no reason to distrust his wife and will not want to offend her by asking it to be done.

Isn't that understandable?

I only mentioned the price of things because that test is a rip-off. Guys think they are paying for a test and they are not. Many will go home and then realize that they will have to mail material to a lab and pay for the real test. 


I noticed some of you ladies have been asking your husbands about it and getting the answers you want. I ask you to evaluate what would you expect them to say. If they had doubts, and i can assure they did, because they are men with, i'm assuming, a normal dose of intelligence and life experience, do you think by one minute that they would openly say "i had doubts but swallowed the trust pill not to ruffle your feathers"?

Seriously? Please feel free to drop by a forum that is almost exclusively male and ask if they truly had zero doubts when they went through pregnancy and birth with their partners. Oh, and do this identifying yourselves as male too. Make a poll about it. 

Make it like this:

What was your level of doubt?

a) 100% I was sure the kid wasn't mine
b) 75% I had severe doubts that the kid was mine
c) 50% I was unsure the kid was mine
d) 25% I was safe that the kid was mine
e) 1-2% I was very sure the kid was mine
f) 0% I trusted my partner completely when she told me

You will see that the "zero doubts" will be a minority. Now, either you believe all the husbands of the women against this are these "zero doubts" guys (amazing extraordinary coincidence) or your husbands are sparing your feelings. You decide.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> - Yes it's an annoyance sometimes when we protect the innocent. And no running a standard test which they probably already have the blood for does not make you some victim.
> 
> - Insurance company has no right to this information so they don't get it. Why is that a question? "What if" thinking is not how I chose to debate.
> 
> - No need to curse. I'm starting to question your motives.


Okay, well we will disagree then. Just so you know, insurance companies have access to every test you have ever had. Giving them access to peoples DNA just further gives them the upper hand. 

Saying damn is cursing? My motives are to protect my rights and that of my husband/children and not allowing the paranoia of a small percentage to trample on our rights.


----------



## Thundarr

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Okay, well we will disagree then. Just so you know, insurance companies have access to every test you have ever had. Giving them access to peoples DNA just further gives them the upper hand.
> 
> Saying damn is cursing? My motives are to protect my rights and that of my husband/children and not allowing the paranoia of a small percentage to trample on our rights.


Well it's not that I don't get your arguments and they do factor into my opinion. To be honest I would love to find a solution that does not step on rights and at the same time does prevent the problem.

I don't think it exists though. By the way I've seen your posts here and there on other subjects and am almost always in agreement with you. Go figure.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> Well it's not that I don't get your arguments and they do factor into my opinion. To be honest I would love to find a solution that does not step on rights and at the same time does prevent the problem.
> 
> I don't think it exists though. By the way I've seen your posts here and there on other subjects and am almost always in agreement with you. Go figure.


Why thank you. Here's the thing for me and I feel I need to repeat it. I am in full agreement that men should have paternity testing if they chose to. In fact, I encourage it. If my husband wanted it, cool. I would hope that my sons would as well when the time comes. Right now all three of them have the legal right to have a test done if they want it. Nothing is preventing them from doing so. 

Here's the problem though. Why would my husbands rights and my sons rights be less important over your need to know, which is already a legal option? That's the problem I have. Now, if ANY paternity testing was illegal, then I would say let's change the law. The fact is though, it IS legal under the current laws and men are free to test at any time. So their rights are upheld under the current model, my husband/sons rights are upheld under the current system so why should we change it so only your rights (not you literally) are only being upheld? That's my huge issue. Civil rights and privacy laws and chipping away at them.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Well I would but many do not. CS is often garnished from a paycheck. With auto deposit (heck my husband doesn't even get a pay stub), a man could easily get away with neglecting to mention a raise, claim that health insurance went up or that the company cut salaries of the employees. Also, many married men pay OW under the table sort of speak. In other words, don't file for CS under the law and ruin my life, in return I will pay you more to keep this quiet. Also, how many wives trust their husbands with the finances? Lots. So yes, plenty could get away with this.


You've created a _fanciful_ scenario where a woman could experience *ONE* element of the betrayal that millions of men experience.

Why do I say fanciful? Lets take the claim that it is 5% to 20% of births and go with the 5% number. That is 100,000 births a year in the United States. How often do you think that your scenario happens? I personally know of two instances where a man impregnated a woman that wasn't his wife. In both scenarios his wife knew before the child was even born. One divorced and one is still together (at least for now). We have two active threads right now about guys who've recently discovered they aren't the dad. We've got a guy posting to this thread who's lived it. Where are the women of your scenario? 

Yes it could happen, but it is remote and 10's of thousands of times more rare.


----------



## Cosmos

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Well I would but many do not. CS is often garnished from a paycheck. With auto deposit (heck my husband doesn't even get a pay stub), a man could easily get away with neglecting to mention a raise, claim that health insurance went up or that the company cut salaries of the employees. Also, many married men pay OW under the table sort of speak. In other words, don't file for CS under the law and ruin my life, in return I will pay you more to keep this quiet. Also, how many wives trust their husbands with the finances? Lots. So yes, plenty could get away with this.


And this sort of thing happens, too. After my parents died, a half-sister materialized out of the ether. It seems that my father had been an excellent provider whilst her mother was pregnant with her, and his name was on her Birth Certificate etc. As my mother scrimped and saved to rear 6 children, she was oblivious to the fact that money was being sifted away to feather another woman's nest...


----------



## Runs like Dog

Of course the chaos that would result would be stunning. Or maybe it wouldn't since most families are broken anyway and half the children in the US are born out of non married couples. 

The thing that amazes me about "Maury" is not how they find these losers but how they select the ones they do out of an ocean of candidates.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> Talking to your partner? When half the women in here disagreeing with this just said that they would leave the relationship over it? What kind of talking do you want done?
> 
> But you're not seeing the main point. Most guys who need the test don't know they do. Those are the ones who get suckered into it. A guy who has no reasons to suspect will not ask for the test. He has no reason to distrust his wife and will not want to offend her by asking it to be done.
> 
> Isn't that understandable?
> 
> I only mentioned the price of things because that test is a rip-off. Guys think they are paying for a test and they are not. Many will go home and then realize that they will have to mail material to a lab and pay for the real test.
> 
> 
> I noticed some of you ladies have been asking your husbands about it and getting the answers you want. I ask you to evaluate what would you expect them to say. If they had doubts, and i can assure they did, because they are men with, i'm assuming, a normal dose of intelligence and life experience, do you think by one minute that they would openly say "i had doubts but swallowed the trust pill not to ruffle your feathers"?
> 
> Seriously? Please feel free to drop by a forum that is almost exclusively male and ask if they truly had zero doubts when they went through pregnancy and birth with their partners. Oh, and do this identifying yourselves as male too. Make a poll about it.
> 
> Make it like this:
> 
> What was your level of doubt?
> 
> a) 100% I was sure the kid wasn't mine
> b) 75% I had severe doubts that the kid was mine
> c) 50% I was unsure the kid was mine
> d) 25% I was safe that the kid was mine
> e) 1-2% I was very sure the kid was mine
> f) 0% I trusted my partner completely when she told me
> 
> You will see that the "zero doubts" will be a minority. Now, either you believe all the husbands of the women against this are these "zero doubts" guys (amazing extraordinary coincidence) or your husbands are sparing your feelings. You decide.


Oh Boy. Let me try to answer this as best I can. Forgive me, I have had little sleep so keep that in mind. 

Half of the women didn't say they would leave their marriage if a paternity test was requested. I counted under 5 women while the majority of the women said, no problem, me included. Plenty of non-threatening conversation would prevail. 

I am not missing the point. Yes, men don't ask for the test and then end up (potentially) raising another mans child. I understand that perfectly. That's the fear, right? To that my point has always been, take the test at the birth of the child. It doesn't matter if you think infidelity is an issue, take the test to safeguard yourself. It's well within your right to do so and it is legal and affordable currently.

The test is no more a rip off than the one you cited. It's the same price. Actually, a home test probably is preferable for those who want to test themselves and their children without their partners knowledge. Swab yourself, swab your kids and mail it off. Have the results delivered to your work and nobody would be the wiser. 

Now to the part about me asking my husband his opinion on this matter. I didn't get the answer I wanted, I got the truth. He knows and has always known that I have no problem whatsoever with a paternity test. So if he really had doubts, why would he lie rather than ask for a test, knowing I am all for it? The bottom line is he never had doubts. That's why he answered honestly and has never asked for a test.

It is pretty insulting for you to suggest that if a man doesn't have doubts, then he lacks intelligence. Many posters here have heard plenty about my husband. Lacking in intelligence isn't something he is handicapped with. Far, far, far from it. 

To your last point. You want me to go on a website to prove that other men doubt the paternity of their children? I am positive that many men question the paternity of their kids, I never disputed that. Tell me again what is preventing them from taking a test then? Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Test is available, it's cheap and nobody is preventing them from taking it. 

What's the issue here again?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> You've created a _fanciful_ scenario where a woman could experience *ONE* element of the betrayal that millions of men experience.
> 
> Why do I say fanciful? Lets take the claim that it is 5% to 20% of births and go with the 5% number. That is 100,000 births a year in the United States. How often do you think that your scenario happens? I personally know of two instances where a man impregnated a woman that wasn't his wife. In both scenarios his wife knew before the child was even born. One divorced and one is still together (at least for now). We have two active threads right now about guys who've recently discovered they aren't the dad. We've got a guy posting to this thread who's lived it. Where are the women of your scenario?
> 
> Yes it could happen, but it is remote and 10's of thousands of times more rare.


I mentioned in an earlier post that it was a site for OW. I cannot link it due to rules here but a Google search would produce it. These women have elementary age children with married men and the wives don't have any idea.


----------



## ScaredandUnsure

Cosmos said:


> And this sort of thing happens, too. After my parents died, a half-sister materialized out of the ether. It seems that my father had been an excellent provider whilst her mother was pregnant with her, and his name was on her Birth Certificate etc. As my mother scrimped and saved to rear 6 children, she was oblivious to the fact that money was being sifted away to feather another woman's nest...


We could offer mandatory polygraphs along with dna tests, so we could catch the men who have other children their wives don't know about.


----------



## Thundarr

Cosmos said:


> And this sort of thing happens, too. After my parents died, a half-sister materialized out of the ether. It seems that my father had been an excellent provider whilst her mother was pregnant with her, and his name was on her Birth Certificate etc. As my mother scrimped and saved to rear 6 children, she was oblivious to the fact that money was being sifted away to feather another woman's nest...


Maybe I'm missed something obvious but I don't understand this point you are making or the point referenced. 

It's as simple as know who the father is and they are responsible for child support unless some other man pursues parental rights. 

How does it make an argument against knowing who the real father is to say anything about garnishing paycheck for their child support.

Again maybe I missed a valid point in there somewhere.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> :smthumbup: The odds are very important. The argument I've seen is that is violates rights. So as a solution I think we do the following.
> 1. Save the results from the blood that we actually have anyway (mother and child).
> 2. Leave it at that. Make sure that whoever is the father or who ever thinks they are the father has a right at any later time to be tested.
> 
> That way no one was inconvenienced and it was not noticed. Most men would not even check but if years later their spouse has been caught cheating then they can be tested since they then have reason to dis-trust. The BIG advantage here is that the child does not have to know the test was performed. Many men would still love the child as theirs but would not love the mother any more. At least I would feel that way.


Wow. THAT'S something I could get on board with! Kudos, that's a great idea, I really mean it. That way if my husband or sons didn't want to run the test, nobody is forcing them to do so. It provides peace of mind for others who do want it. Great idea. Now how do we make it happen? :scratchhead:


----------



## Thundarr

ScaredandUnsure said:


> We could offer mandatory polygraphs along with dna tests, so we could catch the men who have other children their wives don't know about.


 Would only work if the men knew. More often than not I suspect the husband and the other man neither one know but I agree with the line of thought. Hold everyone accountable for their actions.


----------



## Thundarr

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Wow. THAT'S something I could get on board with! Kudos, that's a great idea, I really mean it. That way if my husband or sons didn't want to run the test, nobody is forcing them to do so. It provides peace of mind for others who do want it. Great idea. Now how do we make it happen? :scratchhead:


Not sure but we'll call it the brighteyes&thundarr initiative. Unfortunately it will not happen because of the very nature of the problem. The woman has chosen her husband to provide likely because he's more able to and is more stable. So more times than not we would be chasing support from people who can not provide it and therefore more tax dollars spent.


----------



## ScaredandUnsure

Thundarr said:


> Would only work if the men knew. More often than not I suspect the husband and the other man neither one know but I agree with the line of thought. Hold everyone accountable for their actions.


Well that's what I meant. My father also had another child while married to my mother, my mom didn't find out about the other child until after they divorced. My father would send the OW some money to support her drug habit, money that my mother made or that my grandparents helped out. But my father was a dead beat, so whatever.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> Not sure but we'll call it the brighteyes&thundarr initiative. Unfortunately it will not happen because of the very nature of the problem. The woman has chosen her husband to provide likely because he's more able to and is more stable. So more times than not we would be chasing support from people who can not provide it and therefore more tax dollars spent.


Let's just say there was no Constitution or Bill of Rights, this still wouldn't become law. The reason being there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for the government to take this on. It is a financial toilet flushing as well as exposes the government to countless lawsuits in the event the tests weren't accurate. The system the way it is set up right now holds the "parents" responsible for the testing. The government would never be so stupid as to undertake this nightmare.


----------



## Cosmos

Thundarr said:


> Maybe I'm missed something obvious but I don't understand this point you are making or the point referenced.
> 
> It's as simple as know who the father is and they are responsible for child support unless some other man pursues parental rights.
> 
> How does it make an argument against knowing who the real father is to say anything about garnishing paycheck for their child support.
> 
> Again maybe I missed a valid point in there somewhere.


No, maybe I missed the point I was responding to. I was just trying to illustrate that unbeknown to a woman, she could be helping to support another woman's child... Less common, I'm sure, but it happens.

For the record, I voted in favour of mandatory paternity tests.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Costa200 said*: I noticed some of you ladies have been asking your husbands about it and getting the answers you want. I ask you to evaluate what would you expect them to say. If they had doubts, and i can assure they did, because they are men with, i'm assuming, a normal dose of intelligence and life experience, do you think by one minute that they would openly say "i had doubts but swallowed the trust pill not to ruffle your feathers"?


I asked my husband this morning, talking about some of the women's reactions on here, the less than 5 that would LEAVE the relationship feeling so insulted (I only noticed 2 ...Tikii and Little Deer ?? )......that *IF* he was the wife, and faithful incarnate, if the husband wanted this, how He (being she) would react.... 

He said he would feel insulted .... he said his reaction would be -let him get it- but when it comes back he is 99.999% the Father, it would be like..."How are you going to make this up to me NOW, for putting me through this "...but No, he wouldn't leave the relationship over it. 

I guess even I would feel like -"Damn husband, how could you question ME, given our past"... but still I wouldn't have a problem with it... I think I'd be curious to see how many 9's was in the results. So my husband DOES understand how some of these women FEEL....if indeed they are faithful incarnate--as I know my husband is this type of person. He understands the "Slap in the face" feeling these women are sharing. 

My husband would never marry a woman who was loose though, he treasured the fact I "waited" for him...we both looked at the act of intercourse as "SACRED".... so in this way, he never entertained such an idea himself. Honestly. 

Over the yrs our friends would Joke about our 3rd son being the Milk Man's -cause he has blue eyes... we both know where they came from ~ his Mom has 'em & so does my dad, it's in the genes. 

Our kids so "act" like us too ....We got a couple introverted ones with his personality...I can see so much of my husband in our 1st 3 sons...then our youngest is well, a bit too much like me..but the spitting image of HIM as a toddler. Will be neat to see an Extroverted version of him growing up (my personality with His looks).


----------



## ScaredandUnsure

Thundarr said:


> Sorry about your father. Hopefully you can have a relationship with your sibling if you don't already.


He's in prison for armed robbery. I don't think there is much of a chance for that lol.

ETA: Not someone I would want to be around or want my children around. My other brother and sister don't want anything to do with him either, for the same reasons.


----------



## Thundarr

SimplyAmorous said:


> He said he would feel insulted .... he said his reaction would be -let him get it- but when it comes back he is 99.999% the Father, it would be like..."How are you going to make this up to me NOW, for putting me through this "...but No, he wouldn't leave the relationship over it.


I'm on board with him on that.



SimplyAmorous said:


> My husband would never marry a woman who was loose though, he treasured the fact I "waited" for him...we both looked at the act of intercourse as "SACRED".... so in this way, he never entertained such an idea himself. Honestly.


I think that's great. To me a huge problem is that some people go by emotion and fall in love then they are not very objective any more. I know it's their fault but then again no one is out there telling young singles some of the simple things that we now know to be true. Those red flags are easy to miss if you're not looking for them. But again you guys seemed to know what expectations to have up front. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Over the yrs our friends would Joke about our 4th son being the Milk Man's -cause he has blue eyes... we both know where they came from ~ his Mom has 'em & so does my dad, it's in the genes.


Your husband has a second job. Milkman


----------



## ScaredandUnsure

Thundarr said:


> There's just no silver lining there at all.


Yeah, I feel bad for him and his rotten childhood and all that. But yeah, I won't be striking up a brother/sister relationship with him. I'm good with not knowing him or anything else about him.


----------



## costa200

> It doesn't matter if you think infidelity is an issue, take the test to safeguard yourself.


It's not that simple and you know it. If you have sons that have no apparent reason to get the test will you ask/advise them to? That could lead to a severe scene within their marriages.



> Now to the part about me asking my husband his opinion on this matter. I didn't get the answer I wanted, I got the truth. He knows and has always known that I have no problem whatsoever with a paternity test. So if he really had doubts, why would he lie rather than ask for a test, knowing I am all for it?


The guy has to live with you. All men above mentally handicapped level know not to openly express doubts on his partner without just cause. This isn't a problem on your end, it's good that he protects you from his own gremlins. 




> It is pretty insulting for you to suggest that if a man doesn't have doubts, then he lacks intelligence.


Only idiots don't have doubts. Doubting everything until a convincing demonstration is the highest form of intelligence. It's the attitude that made possible for us to be here discussing this subject on a virtual place. 




> So my husband DOES understand how some of these women FEEL...


I do too. Perfectly. That's why the mandatory would be important. At first i wondered if this could be done as some sort of default but you can opt out. Signing a piece of paper wavering the test or something. But then i wondered, if given the possibility men would probably be given sh*t on a plate if they didn't sign for the same exact reasons they are if they overtly ask one. So basically they would be only slightly better. 



> Tell me again what is preventing them from taking a test then? Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Test is available, it's cheap and nobody is preventing them from taking it.


Lots of reasons. Fear of the results not being the smaller one. Nobody with a newborn wants to dwell much on this subject. We can even brake the answers we get from that poll in test outcomes:



> a) 100% I was sure the kid wasn't mine
> b) 75% I had severe doubts that the kid was mine
> c) 50% I was unsure the kid was mine
> d) 25% I was safe that the kid was mine
> e) 1-2% I was very sure the kid was mine
> f) 0% I trusted my partner completely when she told me


a) guys that will get tested almost for sure
b) guys that have a high probability to get tested
c) guys who will probably do a hidden test
d) guys who will probably not test but will hold suspicion until they see important similarities to him in the kid
e) guys who don't consider testing necessary since they consider their doubts vestigial (this was me pre-birth)
f) guys for whom testing didn't even crossed their minds

Cathegories d), e) and f) are guys who, naive or not, will not get tested. It is IRRELEVANT if they had doubts or not more or less. The fact remains that they can be raising another man's child. If you ask around the guys who went through the experience of doing this you will see that many had little doubts. They had no reason to be doubtful. They didn't have the information to be doubtful. Or they did and ignored it because they were "trusting". 

The current situation punishes trusting men. It used to be that slime-ball men could knock up a woman and flee. DNA testing corrected that. It was a great advance IMO. It protects women in a measure of such creeps and, more importantly, the children. 

I see nobody opposing this. The slime-ball gets punished as he should. But the moment people start talking about using the tech to punish female slime-balls the sisterhood steps in, like it's an insult to all women.

It's a weird argument to use. When you pass by an airport security do you refuse to pass through the metal detector because you're a law abiding citizen and you should not be controlled because criminals/terrorists exist?


And the thing about costs, the stuff needed for the test itself, if the number of tests rise a good deal, will be made cheaper and the initial costs will go down from the current over a hundred bucks to, i imagine, half that.

I consider the test you posted a rip off because it makes people believe that they are getting a test by that price and they are not. The cost of the real test is hidden. And i did not mention a specific test. I only talked about the average cost of a test. 


Oh, some seem to be concerned about the constitutional rights of men... Don't even go there. I may be forgetting someone, but i don't remember seeing a single man arguing against this. The original article i posted at the beginning was liked to several sites with hundreds of comments and i don't remember seeing a single guy against it. Not one, on several dozens of posters, from different nationalities although most of them US citizens. It seems to be a widespread "no thanks" to your offer to defend their "rights".


----------



## larry.gray

Thundarr said:


> :smthumbup: The odds are very important. The argument I've seen is that is violates rights. So as a solution I think we do the following.
> 1. Save the results from the blood that we actually have anyway (mother and child).
> 2. Leave it at that. Make sure that whoever is the father or who ever thinks they are the father has a right at any later time to be tested.
> 
> That way no one was inconvenienced and it was not noticed. Most men would not even check but if years later their spouse has been caught cheating then they can be tested since they then have reason to dis-trust. The BIG advantage here is that the child does not have to know the test was performed. Many men would still love the child as theirs but would not love the mother any more. At least I would feel that way.


There is no reason to save anything. The child is walking around with their DNA for the rest of their life. Testing can be done later without the blood.

What I advocate is for a man to be able to shed all legal responsibility if he's the victim of paternity fraud. The laws were created before paternity could be unambiguously ruled out. The laws haven't caught up. I'm pretty passionate about the need for the laws to change.


----------



## Thundarr

larry.gray said:


> There is no reason to save anything. The child is walking around with their DNA for the rest of their life. Testing can be done later without the blood.


Oh yes there would be for me. I would not have it in me to ask my grown son to do a DNA test because I thought he may not be mine. That says all kinds of things to him depending on how he interprets it.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I mentioned in an earlier post that it was a site for OW. I cannot link it due to rules here


Doc Cool is talked about on here. If that one can be, what forum can't be. 



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Google search would produce it. These women have elementary age children with married men and the wives don't have any idea.


I wouldn't know what terms to google. Women who get knocked up by married men?


----------



## larry.gray

costa200 said:


> The current situation punishes trusting men. It used to be that slime-ball men could knock up a woman and flee. DNA testing corrected that. It was a great advance IMO. It protects women in a measure of such creeps and, more importantly, the children.
> 
> I see nobody opposing this. The slime-ball gets punished as he should. But the moment people start talking about using the tech to punish female slime-balls the sisterhood steps in, like it's an insult to all women.


Bingo. It is about hypocrisy. Women's rights have evolved a lot. Men's are stuck in 1955. Too many women are content with that.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Okay, well we will disagree then. Just so you know, insurance companies have access to every test you have ever had. Giving them access to peoples DNA just further gives them the upper hand.
> 
> Saying damn is cursing? My motives are to protect my rights and that of my husband/children and not allowing the paranoia of a small percentage to trample on our rights.


its not paranoia when people turn out to have been raising OM's kids. but you dont want to hear that .


----------



## larry.gray

So let's put my list of "men's rights" as I see them.

The right not to be legally tied to and responsible for a child that isn't his.

The right to not be forced to raise a child he never, ever wanted and asked not to be responsible for from when he found out.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> It's not that simple and you know it. If you have sons that have no apparent reason to get the test will you ask/advise them to? That could lead to a severe scene within their marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> The guy has to live with you. All men above mentally handicapped level know not to openly express doubts on his partner without just cause. This isn't a problem on your end, it's good that he protects you from his own gremlins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiots don't have doubts. Doubting everything until a convincing demonstration is the highest form of intelligence. It's the attitude that made possible for us to be here discussing this subject on a virtual place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do too. Perfectly. That's why the mandatory would be important. At first i wondered if this could be done as some sort of default but you can opt out. Signing a piece of paper wavering the test or something. But then i wondered, if given the possibility men would probably be given sh*t on a plate if they didn't sign for the same exact reasons they are if they overtly ask one. So basically they would be only slightly better.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of reasons. Fear of the results not being the smaller one. Nobody with a newborn wants to dwell much on this subject. We can even brake the answers we get from that poll in test outcomes:
> 
> 
> 
> a) guys that will get tested almost for sure
> b) guys that have a high probability to get tested
> c) guys who will probably do a hidden test
> d) guys who will probably not test but will hold suspicion until they see important similarities to him in the kid
> e) guys who don't consider testing necessary since they consider their doubts vestigial (this was me pre-birth)
> f) guys for whom testing didn't even crossed their minds
> 
> Cathegories d), e) and f) are guys who, naive or not, will not get tested. It is IRRELEVANT if they had doubts or not more or less. The fact remains that they can be raising another man's child. If you ask around the guys who went through the experience of doing this you will see that many had little doubts. They had no reason to be doubtful. They didn't have the information to be doubtful. Or they did and ignored it because they were "trusting".
> 
> The current situation punishes trusting men. It used to be that slime-ball men could knock up a woman and flee. DNA testing corrected that. It was a great advance IMO. It protects women in a measure of such creeps and, more importantly, the children.
> 
> I see nobody opposing this. The slime-ball gets punished as he should. But the moment people start talking about using the tech to punish female slime-balls the sisterhood steps in, like it's an insult to all women.
> 
> It's a weird argument to use. When you pass by an airport security do you refuse to pass through the metal detector because you're a law abiding citizen and you should not be controlled because criminals/terrorists exist?
> 
> 
> And the thing about costs, the stuff needed for the test itself, if the number of tests rise a good deal, will be made cheaper and the initial costs will go down from the current over a hundred bucks to, i imagine, half that.
> 
> I consider the test you posted a rip off because it makes people believe that they are getting a test by that price and they are not. The cost of the real test is hidden. And i did not mention a specific test. I only talked about the average cost of a test.
> 
> 
> Oh, some seem to be concerned about the constitutional rights of men... Don't even go there. I may be forgetting someone, but i don't remember seeing a single man arguing against this. The original article i posted at the beginning was liked to several sites with hundreds of comments and i don't remember seeing a single guy against it. Not one, on several dozens of posters, from different nationalities although most of them US citizens. It seems to be a widespread "no thanks" to your offer to defend their "rights".


You are jumping all over the place. This topic wasn't about court ordered paternity testing in the case of a man fleeing responsibility or in the case where a woman is being asked to prove the paternity of the child for child support purposes. The topic that you started was about whether in marriage the government should force all would be fathers and the children to undergo medical testing against their will. 

I have to say, you seem to have plenty of excuses. The conversation would be difficult, the test is too expensive, men don't care about the Constitution, the sisterhood is preventing this, etc. Not one of those trumps free will. Not a single man on the forum or in real life is prevented from getting a test done. 

In no way am I defending anybody but my husband and my sons. If the Constitution doesn't matter to anybody else, that's their business. It matters to me and to my family.

Duly noted that you think my husband is an idiot. I would disagree.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> What I advocate is for a man to be able to shed all legal responsibility if he's the victim of paternity fraud. The laws were created before paternity could be unambiguously ruled out. The laws haven't caught up. I'm pretty passionate about the need for the laws to change.


You would have no argument from me on this. None. I also think that the 3 remaining states that assume that because of marriage, the husband is always the "father" regardless if he is, need to have their laws changed pronto. I would sign any petition to support it. Being forced to pay for a child even after it is ruled not to be his is outrageous and I am stunned that it is even legal.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> Doc Cool is talked about on here. If that one can be, what forum can't be.


A website for other women that promotes infidelity. I've been banned too many times. I'm playing by the rules....finally.


----------



## costa200

> Duly noted that you think my husband is an idiot. I would disagree.


I strongly believe he is not an idiot. I believe he is a sensible man and is sparing your feelings. And it's very likely he hates my guts right now for creating this thread and making you hammer him into a corner.



> You are jumping all over the place. This topic wasn't about court ordered paternity testing in the case of a man fleeing responsibility or in the case where a woman is being asked to prove the paternity of the child for child support purposes. The topic that you started was about whether in marriage the government should force all would be fathers and the children to undergo medical testing against their will.


Against their will? The kid doesn't even have to be tested per se because it can be done off the umbilical chord. I've never met a man that would refuse this test. I meet a lot of women who say their husbands are against it. Which is a brilliant irony. So good of you to care about men's "rights". Specially being the kind of rights they are not interested in seeing defended and that in all apparent things are rights that can result in severe harm to themselves and the kid. 

Yes, because so far nobody has pointed out that a kid that gets put into the situation that his father isn't his "father" is no sweet roll.



> Not one of those trumps free will.


You have a strange notion of "free will". True free will comes from having the maximum information available to decide. That's free will, not being fooled into things. And i think you would do well the realize that men don't really need to be told by women what their "free will" consist of, just like the vice versa is also true.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> its not paranoia when people turn out to have been raising OM's kids. but you dont want to hear that .


I have heard it and that is why I have maintained throughout this discussion that I think men should get paternity tests if that's what they want. There are thousands of clinics that offer it.


----------



## ozymandias

I see some libertarian arguments being made against paternity verification and as someone who considers themselves a fairly doctrinaire libertarian, I can't say that I agree. I think the government is already reaching to produce a document that establishes paternity and with the current procedure, that field on the certificate is pure supposition. The state is already asserting this relationship. Bringing more rigor to that assertion doesn't seem like more intrusiveness. It seems like a refinement.

I suspect most of the outrage we are hearing from women is driven by the perception that this would represent a loss of power and agency for their gender. As Melanie McDonagh of the Times of London wrote in her opinion piece "Paternity Tests Rob Women Of Their Hold Over Men"...

"The woman's prerogative of knowing who is a child's father was, when you think about it, the trump card of the sex. It accounted for the vice of jealousy in men; it made a mockery of the laws of inheritance; it made male claims to omnipotence absurd."

Tough to find that article from '09 but there's a copy of it here - Yahoo! Groups

At the end of the day this is what is making the rationalization hamsters spin. "Choosing" paternity is a power that women are loathe to relinquish.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> I strongly believe he is not an idiot. I believe he is a sensible man and is sparing your feelings. And it's very likely he hates my guts right now for creating this thread and making you hammer him into a corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Against their will? The kid doesn't even have to be tested per se because it can be done off the umbilical chord. I've never met a man that would refuse this test. I meet a lot of women who say their husbands are against it. Which is a brilliant irony. So good of you to care about men's "rights". Specially being the kind of rights they are not interested in seeing defended and that in all apparent things are rights that can result in severe harm to themselves and the kid.
> 
> Yes, because so far nobody has pointed out that a kid that gets put into the situation that his father isn't his "father" is no sweet roll.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a strange notion of "free will". True free will comes from having the maximum information available to decide. That's free will, not being fooled into things. And i think you would do well the realize that men don't really need to be told by women what their "free will" consist of, just like the vice versa is also true.


No, I haven't taken a Craftsman to him. He's doing just fine. I read him your original post, a few of the others and he proceeded to tell me that continuing to argue this is as about as productive as talking to a cactus. 

Regardless of how the specimen is collected, it is "against their will" if the party doesn't want it. I'm sure there are men out there who wouldn't like there basic rights to be eroded but I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about my own family and that none of us should be forced to undergo any testing whatsoever, without our consent. 

I don't think I have a strange notion of free will. The very term free will means the ability or discretion to choose. That is the exact opposite of what you are proposing. 

Under the current model, everybody is free to decide for themselves. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

I am going to back out of this discussion now. You seem to be getting hostile towards me and make assumptions about my husband because you feel a certain way. There is little left to gain by continuing. 

This has been a great discussion, lots of good points by many and plenty to think about.


----------



## Thundarr

ozymandias said:


> I see some libertarian arguments being made against paternity verification and as someone who considers themselves a fairly doctrinaire libertarian, I can't say that I agree. I think the government is already reaching to produce a document that establishes paternity and with the current procedure, that field on the certificate is pure supposition. The state is already asserting this relationship. Bringing more rigor to that assertion doesn't seem like more intrusiveness. It seems like a refinement.
> 
> I suspect most of the outrage we are hearing from women is driven by the perception that this would represent a loss of power and agency for their gender. As Melanie McDonagh of the Times of London wrote in her opinion piece "Paternity Tests Rob Women Of Their Hold Over Men"...
> 
> "The woman's prerogative of knowing who is a child's father was, when you think about it, the trump card of the sex. It accounted for the vice of jealousy in men; it made a mockery of the laws of inheritance; it made male claims to omnipotence absurd."
> 
> Tough to find that article from '09 but there's a copy of it here - Yahoo! Groups
> 
> At the end of the day this is what is making the rationalization hamsters spin. "Choosing" paternity is a power that women are loathe to relinquish.


Oh my gosh ozymandias. You completely solidified my thoughts on this. I was looking for and even mentioned having a hard time establishing motive or at least for articulating it. Very nice.


----------



## chillymorn

I see the one who just like to argue is back!

any guesses who that my be?


----------



## larry.gray

Thundarr said:


> I assume you are talking about a child which is not his in both cases. If so then I agree.


Not necessarily. 

If you're pro life, then you're consistent in saying that if a person regardless of gender gets pregnant / impregnates someone then they are responsible for it.

If you're pro-choice, then giving women the right to have an out after impregnation without giving men the same right is hypocritical.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You would have no argument from me on this. None. I also think that the 3 remaining states that assume that because of marriage, the husband is always the "father" regardless if he is, need to have their laws changed pronto.


I think the count is far more than three. Do you know of a list? 

My state, Oregon, only allows an out if the husband already had a vas more than 9 months prior to birth. Otherwise he has no out, period. Also, a guy only has a limited window after birth to contest in non-marriage situations. Even if he finds out later, too bad.

At least Florida lets a guy contest within a certain window of time after finding out.


----------



## Thundarr

larry.gray said:


> I think the count is far more than three. Do you know of a list?
> 
> My state, Oregon, only allows an out if the husband already had a vas more than 9 months prior to birth. Otherwise he has no out, period. Also, a guy only has a limited window after birth to contest in non-marriage situations. Even if he finds out later, too bad.
> 
> At least Florida lets a guy contest within a certain window of time after finding out.


I'd be fighting the legal system for a long time trying to get my money back if I unknowingly supported someone elses child. Probably spend twice as much but I'd make noise for years until every court and every appeal failed.


----------



## larry.gray

ozymandias said:


> I see some libertarian arguments being made against paternity verification and as someone who considers themselves a fairly doctrinaire libertarian, I can't say that I agree. I think the government is already reaching to produce a document that establishes paternity and with the current procedure, that field on the certificate is pure supposition. The state is already asserting this relationship. Bringing more rigor to that assertion doesn't seem like more intrusiveness. It seems like a refinement.


I'm pretty darn libertarian myself, and you're eloquently stating what I already was trying to say. We've long accepted the government has the authority to dictate fatherhood and its subsequent legal obligations. 

What we're proposing here is ensuring the document isn't fraudulent. We're proposing to prevent men from becoming _victims_ of fraud and the associated ramifications of the power of the government to come down on them.


----------



## Thundarr

larry.gray said:


> I'm pretty darn libertarian myself, and you're eloquently stating what I already was trying to say. We've long accepted the government has the authority to dictate fatherhood and its subsequent legal obligations.
> 
> What we're proposing here is ensuring the document isn't fraudulent. We're proposing to prevent men from becoming _victims_ of fraud and the associated ramifications of the power of the government to come down on them.


That. :iagree: Other forms of fraud are criminal offenses. This one should be too.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No, I haven't taken a Craftsman to him. He's doing just fine. I read him your original post, a few of the others and he proceeded to tell me that continuing to argue this is as about as productive as talking to a cactus.


You've seen my posts.

If my wife asked this question out of the blue, I'd probably give the answer to her that your husband gave to you.


----------



## Thundarr

In addition to your comment lg. The outrage would be a red flag. The kind of reaction you're commenting on is one of the things investigators look for during questioning.


----------



## larry.gray

Thundarr said:


> In addition to your comment lg. The outrage would be a red flag. The kind of reaction you're commenting on is one of the things investigators look for during questioning.


Exactly.

If my wife ever doubted my fidelity, I would be saddened, not angry. I would try to be as open as possible, trying to understand her concerns why she thought that. Angry is EXACTLY the wrong response.


----------



## Caribbean Man

costa200 said:


> *Only idiots don't have doubts. Doubting everything until a convincing demonstration is the highest form of intelligence. It's the attitude that made possible for us to be here discussing this subject on a virtual place. .*


:iagree: fully with this statement.
In fact , one of my favorite Russell quotes goes like this:
*"...In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted........"*
Bertrand Russell 

A certain healthy amount of doubt is necessary in order to find the truth.


----------



## costa200

> Under the current model, everybody is free to decide for themselves.


Grab me a guy who was deceived with paternity fraud who agrees with you. 



> fully with this statement.
> In fact , one of my favorite Russell quotes goes like this:
> "...In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted........"
> Bertrand Russell
> 
> A certain healthy amount of doubt is necessary in order to find the truth.


Lucky for him to have been born first or it would be him reading my stuff and agreeing


----------



## that_girl

larry.gray said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If my wife ever doubted my fidelity, I would be saddened, not angry. I would try to be as open as possible, trying to understand her concerns why she thought that. Angry is EXACTLY the wrong response.


Yes, I would be very sad and feel like maybe I did something untrustworthy.

It would affect our intimacy, so he'd be shooting himself in the foot  lol. As much as I love sex, I also love respect and trust. THAT's what I waited so long to marry for. Without it, sex isn't much fun with my husband. I can masturbate because i trust and respect myself.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You would have no argument from me on this. None. I also think that the 3 remaining states that assume that because of marriage, the husband is always the "father" regardless if he is, need to have their laws changed pronto. I would sign any petition to support it. Being forced to pay for a child even after it is ruled not to be his is outrageous and I am stunned that it is even legal.


only 3 states? wheres your source?


----------



## larry.gray

anonim said:


> only 3 states? wheres your source?


Already asked and not answered.


----------



## anonim

larry.gray said:


> Already asked and not answered.


IKR? Ive read its more like 3 states dont have presumption of legitimacy and the rest do.


----------



## larry.gray

anonim said:


> IKR? Ive read its more like 3 states dont have presumption of legitimacy and the rest do.


That's what I've been led to believe.


----------



## Thundarr

Trenton said:


> I can see how it would be seen as a red flag but I don't necessarily agree. I think it would also be normal for a truly faithful woman to be outraged and hurt by a man's desire to test for paternity.
> 
> I just don't see this outrage and hurt as a reason that supersedes a man's right to know.


You must have inferred that I think a red flag means guilt. Not at all. A red flag is an action or behavior that is consistent with someone lying or guilty. 

I'm sure there are some innocents who would be very offended but none the less, outrage is one of the responses to look for to uncover deception.


----------



## Cosmos

Thundarr said:


> You must have inferred that I think a red flag means guilt. Not at all. A red flag is an action or behavior that is consistent with someone lying or guilty.
> 
> I'm sure there are some innocents who would be very offended but none the less, outrage is one of the responses to look for to uncover deception.


Unless it was mandatory, and an accepted norm, I can see that it could be pretty damaging. I'm imagining the scenario of a newly married couple where the W has high values, but on the birth of their first child her H is being urged by his friends and family to get a DNA test...

Mandatory, routine testing would remove choice and protect the feelings / rights of the innocent. I can't see it ever being implemented, though.


----------



## anonim

Trenton said:


> I can see how it would be seen as a red flag but I don't necessarily agree. I think it would also be normal for a truly faithful woman to be outraged and hurt by a man's desire to test for paternity.
> 
> I just don't see this outrage and hurt as a reason that supersedes a man's right to know.


angry yes, out rage = red flag


----------



## Created2Write

> what would you suggest to men who share the situation of Tikiis husband, that stand to lose their children and marriage if they seek a paternity test?


I honestly don't have an answer. I definitely think it's immature and unfair for a woman to be _that_ upset over her husband asking her for a paternity test. I would never see that as him not trusting me. He has a right to know, for 100% certainty, that these children are his. And leaving him over it is pretty low.

However, there are still couples who don't care/don't want paternity tests and, for them, I think it's just as unfair to force one on them. On the flip side of Tikki's situation, if her husband doesn't want a paternity test and he trusts her(as she has said that he does), then why should they be mandated to get one? I don't think the government should have the right to impose such things upon the people.


----------



## Created2Write

Tikii said:


> That's hilarious to me. I FAR from rule the roost, and my husband does not walk on egg shells. We say whatever is on our minds to the other, and deal with what it brings. I wouldn't be in a relationship that wasn't full on honest.
> 
> Saying a man deserves assurance, doesn't mean that it doesn't come with consequences. He can have that assurance, but it doesn't mean that Iam going to ignore the doubt that brought on the need for assurance.
> 
> Again, I think it is hilarious that because someone expects and deserves trust and opposes government mandated testing they must be cheating. If my husband feels the need to question me, the relationship is over.


See, I really don't understand. I am rather young as well. Only been married three years. But one thing I _know_ to be a truth in marriage is that sometimes, spouses are going to question each other. Often times, it's no one's fault even. As an example, my husband tells me he loves me every day. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that he loves me endearingly. Yet, sometimes I still ask him, "Do you love me?" Do I ask him that because, all of a sudden, I know longer believe that he does? No. Do I ask it because I never believed him when he said it before? No. Do I ask it because I'm insecure and need constant assurance from him? No. _I ask it because, sometimes, I just like hearing him say it._ 

That's exactly what I would also see if my husband asked for a paternity test. My husband knows I'm faithful. Despite our issues, one thing neither of us has ever done or even considered, is cheating. Yet, if he asked for a paternity test, I wouldn't refuse him. Nor would I leave him for it. Nor would I think he didn't trust me. I'd probably look at him like he's silly, and tell him that he'll owe me a nice, hot dinner date afterward, but I would concede. And he would find that our kids(we don't have any right now btw...so this would be future children) are all his. Cause, sometimes, a man just likes to know for 100% certainty. 

I can kind of see where the idea of a lack of trust comes in, but trust goes _both ways_. As wives we want to be trusted and we don't like to feel as though we are being questioned for something we've never done. However, men want to be trusted to. They should be able to say, "Hey, I'd like a paternity test" without being judged so dang harshly. Cause, let's face it ladies, sometimes we aren't exactly the most trustworthy people. And neither are some men. Which is why, in my opinion, the more we work together as couples and not against each other, the more successful our relationships will be. That's why I choose to assume that my husband will have the best of intentions if he asked for a paternity test. And, knowing my husband, he would have an incredibly legitimate reason for asking for one...only, he won't tell me until after the test has been done. :rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> I say .... WOW ...that is quite the statement ..... indulge us.... what else can he NOT question you on...so you are ready to jump ship ??
> 
> You must realize how this is sounding to us reading your replies....surely it is not just me???? If my husband talked to ME like that, I would find his *attitude* more insulting than any TEST he could possibly throw at me.


Honestly, if my husband said the things she's been saying, _that_ would mean the relationship was over, regardless of whether the testing happened at all. Just knowing that I could never bring the subject up without fearing to lose my children would be a sign to my that I need to end the marriage now and find someone I can be open and honest with, without the fear of being judged.


----------



## Thundarr

You are awesome Created2Write. That's all I have to say


----------



## Created2Write

larry.gray said:


> It would be one thing if both didn't want it. But there are a whole lot of guys who would get peace of mind from one but would never want to admit it to their wife.


Granted. And I really, truly, don't have a solution. I wish I did. But forcing paternity tests on couples who don't want them is a violation of their rights as American citizens, and, imo, not justified because of the men who want paternity tests but wouldn't admit it. I feel for them. I really do. I wish those men were able to ask for one without being judged. But I can't support mandatory paternity tests.


----------



## Created2Write

Costa200 said:


> I noticed some of you ladies have been asking your husbands about it and getting the answers you want. I ask you to evaluate what would you expect them to say. If they had doubts, and i can assure they did, because they are men with, i'm assuming, a normal dose of intelligence and life experience, do you think by one minute that they would openly say "i had doubts but swallowed the trust pill not to ruffle your feathers"?


My husband and I don't have children yet. And this is something he and I have never discussed before. Still, when I asked him his opinion, I made sure to wait until he had given his opinion before I gave my own. And he was honest and said that he wouldn't support mandatory paternity testing, since as American citizens, we have the right to choose or reject such tests. I then told him that, if he ever wanted one, I would be fine with it, so long as he took me out to Benihana on our next date.


----------



## Created2Write

Thundarr said:


> You are awesome Created2Write. That's all I have to say


Thank ye, thank ye.


----------



## COGypsy

Cosmos said:


> Unless it was mandatory, and an accepted norm, I can see that it could be pretty damaging. I'm imagining the scenario of a newly married couple where the W has high values, but on the birth of their first child her H is being urged by his friends and family to get a DNA test...
> 
> Mandatory, routine testing would remove choice and protect the feelings / rights of the innocent. I can't see it ever being implemented, though.


I doubt very seriously that paternity testing will ever become standard medical practice. However, I would imagine that in the next several years as personalized medicine becomes implemented more and more widely, that the information would be readily available to any party with access to the child's medical records for comparison to the purported father's genetic profile.


----------



## Tikii

Created2Write said:


> See, I really don't understand. I am rather young as well. Only been married three years. But one thing I _know_ to be a truth in marriage is that sometimes, spouses are going to question each other. Often times, it's no one's fault even. As an example, my husband tells me he loves me every day. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that he loves me endearingly. Yet, sometimes I still ask him, "Do you love me?" Do I ask him that because, all of a sudden, I know longer believe that he does? No. Do I ask it because I never believed him when he said it before? No. Do I ask it because I'm insecure and need constant assurance from him? No. _I ask it because, sometimes, I just like hearing him say it._
> 
> That's exactly what I would also see if my husband asked for a paternity test. My husband knows I'm faithful. Despite our issues, one thing neither of us has ever done or even considered, is cheating. Yet, if he asked for a paternity test, I wouldn't refuse him. Nor would I leave him for it. Nor would I think he didn't trust me. I'd probably look at him like he's silly, and tell him that he'll owe me a nice, hot dinner date afterward, but I would concede. And he would find that our kids(we don't have any right now btw...so this would be future children) are all his. Cause, sometimes, a man just likes to know for 100% certainty.
> 
> I can kind of see where the idea of a lack of trust comes in, but trust goes _both ways_. As wives we want to be trusted and we don't like to feel as though we are being questioned for something we've never done. However, men want to be trusted to. They should be able to say, "Hey, I'd like a paternity test" without being judged so dang harshly. Cause, let's face it ladies, sometimes we aren't exactly the most trustworthy people. And neither are some men. Which is why, in my opinion, the more we work together as couples and not against each other, the more successful our relationships will be. That's why I choose to assume that my husband will have the best of intentions if he asked for a paternity test. And, knowing my husband, he would have an incredibly legitimate reason for asking for one...only, he won't tell me until after the test has been done. :rofl:


There is an ENORMOUS difference between asking someone if they love you because you need to hear it, and asking them to PROVE that the child you created together is in fact theirs. One is innocent fishing for compliments and the other is accusing. 

If a man needs a test to prove that the children are his, he doesn't trust the mother. It can be said any way you want, but that's how I feel and nothing is going to change that.

Absolutely trust goes both ways. Just as my husband would never ask me for a paternity test(not because of fear of the reprcussions), I would never ask him if he were cheating on me. If my kid came out bi-racial(both of us are the same race), or he had been away for a period of time that would make it appear the child could possibly not be his, sure I would humor him, because there would be doubt. If he just came off and demanded a test out of the blue, I would see it as a complete and total lack of trust, and a relationship I would no longer be in. My happiness is important, and if my husband didn't trust me, I wouldn't be happy.

My husband and I do work together as a couple, which is why we have such a happy marriage. I think the implications that I am in an unhappy marriage, am some horrible person, am a cheater etc are ridiculous and are judgements worse than the ones people claim I am making.

I'm so amazed that people cannot accept that not everyone feels the same, and that disagreeing and expecting a certain level of comfort in their relationship means they are a horrible person.


----------



## Blanca

larry.gray said:


> That's where I think defense attorneys should be making hay. The public has been convinced at the phenomenal odds against mistakes, but that is because a jury is only told about the statistics of a mismatch if everything went according to theory. I suspect if you got an expert witness who's actually been in a lab, you could make a fool of them by pointing out that their quoted numbers ignore human error and other possible failures. Once their states chances of error drop by "I don't know" amounts the test seem much less convincing.


I'm sure it'll come to that. Scientists and specialists can only guarantee the statistics of the theory but it would be impossible to quantify the error rate from lab to lab because it's so variable depending on the technicians training and which protocols and machines are used - not to mention ethics. It is not uncommon for technicians to alter and completely change data; They're human and keeping their job is more important to them. You're just a number on a tube. 

At one lab I worked at they were doing a quality control check to see how well their data from a certain protocol and machine matched data from other labs who were asked to use the same protocol and machine. I sat in on these meetings and my jaw dropped at all the data altering. In the end they got the results they wanted but you know what one of the key things they had to request? That the same technician perform the technique every time. There was far too much variability when different technicians completed the task.


----------



## ScaredandUnsure

Tikii said:


> There is an ENORMOUS difference between asking someone if they love you because you need to hear it, and asking them to PROVE that the child you created together is in fact theirs. One is innocent fishing for compliments and the other is accusing.
> 
> If a man needs a test to prove that the children are his, he doesn't trust the mother. It can be said any way you want, but that's how I feel and nothing is going to change that.
> 
> Absolutely trust goes both ways. Just as my husband would never ask me for a paternity test(not because of fear of the reprcussions), I would never ask him if he were cheating on me. If my kid came out bi-racial(both of us are the same race), or he had been away for a period of time that would make it appear the child could possibly not be his, sure I would humor him, because there would be doubt. If he just came off and demanded a test out of the blue, I would see it as a complete and total lack of trust, and a relationship I would no longer be in. My happiness is important, and if my husband didn't trust me, I wouldn't be happy.
> 
> My husband and I do work together as a couple, which is why we have such a happy marriage. I think the implications that I am in an unhappy marriage, am some horrible person, am a cheater etc are ridiculous and are judgements worse than the ones people claim I am making.
> 
> I'm so amazed that people cannot accept that not everyone feels the same, and that disagreeing and expecting a certain level of comfort in their relationship means they are a horrible person.


Yeah, it would be like coming out of no where and asking your husband for a polygraph, to make sure he wasn't screwing around.


----------



## Created2Write

Tikii said:


> I think it is hilarious that you feel the need to attack my relationship because I won't stand to have my faithfulness questioned. I have a very open and honest relationship with my husband, but I will not be openly accused of carrying a child that isn't his within my relationship. Why would I want to be with someone who would feel the need to question me? I wouldn't be judging him at all, that's a horrible choice of words. I would be moving on with my life, away from a relationship that lacked trust. That isn't FAR from judging him as a person.


I don't see it as a lack of trust, though. That's where you and I differ. And yes, it _is_ a judgement. 

Let me ask this: according to you, if you husband came to you when you gave birth and said, "Honey, I know this sounds ridiculous, but would you be against getting a paternity test? It's not that I don't trust you, it's just that I'd like to know for 100% sure." You have said that your _assumption_ would be that he doesn't trust you. _That_ is a judgement. 

Would you allow him to explain? Would you even listen to his reasoning? A truly open relationship is one where _anything_ can be discussed without consequences ensuing. It's incredibly unfair to assume that he doesn't trust you. Moreover, to take his children away from him! All because of a test? 

And I'm not trying to attack your relationship. As one fellow young person to another, I'm merely trying to help you see why so many of us are so...baffled by your stance. Asking for a paternity test _can_ mean a lack of trust, but it can also mean a desire for assurance. And, as spouses who claim to love the man or woman we married, should we not give them that assurance? Obviously your marriage is your marriage and your choices are your own. I just happen to think they're incredibly unfortunate, for the sake of your husband and your children.



Tikki said:


> There is an ENORMOUS difference between asking someone if they love you because you need to hear it, and asking them to PROVE that the child you created together is in fact theirs.


No there's not. I have had to explain this to my husband many times. He didn't understand why I asked him, "Do you love me?" He looked at me, with tears in his eyes, and said, "I tell you I love you every day! I show you that I love you through my actions! Why don't you believe me? Why do you have to ask?" He jumped to the same conclusion as you are; he assumed that I didn't trust him, if I had to ask. Cause, with your logic, if you have to ask then there's no trust. But I explained to him, "No, it's not that I don't believe you. I believe you with every fiber that exists in my body and soul. But I love hearing you say it. And sometimes I need the comfort of those words."

No different with a paternity test, in my opinion. You know the child if yours, and you know it's his. He knows the child is his, but wants the technical, factual evidence of it. I knew he loved me, he knew he loved me. I just wanted to hear and see the evidence. 



Tikki said:


> One is innocent fishing for compliments and the other is accusing.


It's not necessarily accusational, though. That's why communication is so much more effective than assumption. You've already made your mind up that him asking for a paternity test means he _must_ suspect you of being unfaithful. When that may not be the case at all! 



Tikki said:


> If a man needs a test to prove that the children are his, he doesn't trust the mother. It can be said any way you want, but that's how I feel and nothing is going to change that.


I'm not trying to change your opinion. You've stated very clearly what it is, and have repeated it over and over. I just think you should _try_ and see what others have been saying. I'm glad your husband does agree with you, because this should never be an issue for the two of you. 



Tikki said:


> Absolutely trust goes both ways. Just as my husband would never ask me for a paternity test(not because of fear of the reprcussions), I would never ask him if he were cheating on me. If my kid came out bi-racial(both of us are the same race), or he had been away for a period of time that would make it appear the child could possibly not be his, sure I would humor him, because there would be doubt. If he just came off and demanded a test out of the blue, I would see it as a complete and total lack of trust, and a relationship I would no longer be in. My happiness is important, and if my husband didn't trust me, I wouldn't be happy.


But why does the test absolutely have to mean a lack of trust? That's what I don't understand. My husband would ask for one just for kicks. Cause he's a total ham. Regardless, as my husband, if he wanted a paternity test, I would prove my devotion and trust _in him_, and I would trust that he had a good reason for asking for one. I wouldn't assume that he was doubting me. 

And let's say, for the sake of argument, that he did doubt me? If I really, truly, have nothing to hide, why would I be angry? True, I would be disappointed that he questioned me, but we would _discuss it_. I would rather get to the bottom of why he didn't trust me, then just up and leave the man I claim to love. For the sake of our child/children, I think it's better to stay and work it out. Maybe I said something that he completely misunderstood and made him question? Maybe he's just insecure? In which case I would stay and work with him and help him conquer his insecurity. 

If he was just a jerk who didn't believe me no matter what I did or said, then yeah, I can see leaving. But in a relationship that is healthy and, otherwise, has no trust issues, leaving and taking the kids is highly extreme and one sided.



Tikki said:


> My husband and I do work together as a couple, which is why we have such a happy marriage. I think the implications that I am in an unhappy marriage, am some horrible person, am a cheater etc are ridiculous and are judgements worse than the ones people claim I am making.


I don't think you're a cheater. Nor do I think you're in an unhappy marriage, or that you're an evil person. On the contrary. It sounds as if you have an exceedingly happy marriage. Which only makes me even more confused as to why you would doubt your husband so irrevocably. Like I said, there are many reasons why men ask for paternity tests. And, unless the man is a jerk(which your husband doesn't sound like one), I think leaving is an extreme choice and unfair. But, that's just me. I understand that not everyone is the same. 

I have to say, though, that I could never hold your opinion. While my husband has my love and my respect, even if he suddenly didn't trust me, I wouldn't leave him. I would honor my vows and help him over come his lack of trust. 



Tikki said:


> I'm so amazed that people cannot accept that not everyone feels the same, and that disagreeing and expecting a certain level of comfort in their relationship means they are a horrible person.


I don't think you're a horrible person. I think the position your hold is unfair. That's all. Even great people can have views that I find appalling.


----------



## Created2Write

Tikki, maybe I have a weird belief about marriage...but in my relationship, at least, we believe that _every_ topic is open to discussion. No matter how uncomfortable or controversial, anything is open to be discussed without fear of consequence or judgement. If my husband came to me and said he was attracted to men, I would secretly be devastated. But before I ever showed or acted on that devastation, I would sit down with him and as him a lot of questions. Cause there is _so much more_ that needs to be discovered before I can conclude that our marriage is in trouble. 

If I chose to become outraged and threatened divorce and cried and made a scene, what would I accomplish? Nothing. Zip. He could merely be telling me that he likes the look of a man's body, nothing more. In which case, I would have no cause to be devastated, and now I've just made an idiot out of myself. And worse, I've proven to him that he really can't trust me as a wife. Even though I say we have an honest, open relationship and I want communication, in action it's a load of bull. 

Which is why, as a rule, I do my best not to let my emotions get the better of me. (And I am a highly emotional person. My husband will attest that I can throw a dang good tantrum if I so desire) I wait until he has explained his reasons before I either concede, or object to what it is he's told me. (And no, for the record, my husband has never said he was attracted to men.)


----------



## Tikii

Created2Write said:


> I don't see it as a lack of trust, though. That's where you and I differ. And yes, it _is_ a judgement.


It is not a judgement in any way. 



> Let me ask this: according to you, if you husband came to you when you gave birth and said, "Honey, I know this sounds ridiculous, but would you be against getting a paternity test? It's not that I don't trust you, it's just that I'd like to know for 100% sure." You have said that your _assumption_ would be that he doesn't trust you. _That_ is a judgement.


No, that's not a judgement. To me that is flat out SAYING he doesn't trust me. If he trusted me, he would be 100% sure the children are his, and wouldn't require me to prove it. 




> Would you allow him to explain? Would you even listen to his reasoning? A truly open relationship is one where _anything_ can be discussed without consequences ensuing. It's incredibly unfair to assume that he doesn't trust you. Moreover, to take his children away from him! All because of a test?


I certainly would listen to his reasoning, but it wouldn't change how I feel. The only reason a man would want a paternity test would be to verify paternity. If he needed to verify paternity, he believes I have been unfaithful. If he believes I have been unfaithful, he doesn't trust me. We are in a TRULY open relationship, we discuss anything and everything, but that doesn't mean that I am willing to stay with a man who doesn't trust me. We have discussed this topic at length, and have had slight difference in opinion, but for the most part agree. He even said the only reason he would ever imagine asking would be because he doubted he was the father, which would be because he hadn't believed that I had remained faithful. His children wouldn't be away from him for long. He would get the paternity test he requested, and would get visitation. 



> And I'm not trying to attack your relationship. As one fellow young person to another, I'm merely trying to help you see why so many of us are so...baffled by your stance. Asking for a paternity test _can_ mean a lack of trust, but it can also mean a desire for assurance. And, as spouses who claim to love the man or woman we married, should we not give them that assurance? Obviously your marriage is your marriage and your choices are your own. I just happen to think they're incredibly unfortunate, for the sake of your husband and your children.


I understand why people are baffled by my stance, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to have that stance. A stance that I share with my husband, and many of my friends. There would be no need for an assurance if there was trust. As spouses who claim to love their spouses, do we not deserve trust? I happen to think it's unfortunate that a woman can be perfectly okay with her husband not believing that she has remained faithful to him. The only people that matter in our relationship are my husband and I. We hold high standards for our relationship. We have an extremely open relationship, with love and communication that thrives, but that doesn't mean I am going to stay with someone who doesn't trust me.




> No there's not. I have had to explain this to my husband many times. He didn't understand why I asked him, "Do you love me?" He looked at me, with tears in his eyes, and said, "I tell you I love you every day! I show you that I love you through my actions! Why don't you believe me? Why do you have to ask?" He jumped to the same conclusion as you are; he assumed that I didn't trust him, if I had to ask. Cause, with your logic, if you have to ask then there's no trust. But I explained to him, "No, it's not that I don't believe you. I believe you with every fiber that exists in my body and soul. But I love hearing you say it. And sometimes I need the comfort of those words."


Yes there absolutely is. If he were to say, "Baby doesn't have my eyes, are you sure she isn't the milkman's?" would be the same as "Do you love me". Asking for a paternity test to be sure would be like saying, "You need to prove that you love me by doing X, Y, Z because I don't believe you for sure." There is a HUGE difference between ASKING verbally, and demanding a DNA test.



> No different with a paternity test, in my opinion. You know the child if yours, and you know it's his. He knows the child is his, but wants the technical, factual evidence of it. I knew he loved me, he knew he loved me. I just wanted to hear and see the evidence.


 If he truly knows the child is his, he wouldn't need a DNA test. Again, I don't see it as anything close to a "Do you love me"



> It's not necessarily accusational, though. That's why communication is so much more effective than assumption. You've already made your mind up that him asking for a paternity test means he _must_ suspect you of being unfaithful. When that may not be the case at all!


Again, I love how you make assumptions of my relationship. My husband and I have excellent communication. That is one of the main things in our relationship that is truly thriving, without a doubt. The only reason to have a paternity test is to be sure that the child is his, AGAIN, if he trusted me, he wouldn't need a test to know that child is his.



> I'm not trying to change your opinion. You've stated very clearly what it is, and have repeated it over and over. I just think you should _try_ and see what others have been saying. I'm glad your husband does agree with you, because this should never be an issue for the two of you.


Just because I haven't changed my views, doesn't mean I haven't read and considered the things that are being said. 



> But why does the test absolutely have to mean a lack of trust? That's what I don't understand. My husband would ask for one just for kicks. Cause he's a total ham. Regardless, as my husband, if he wanted a paternity test, I would prove my devotion and trust _in him_, and I would trust that he had a good reason for asking for one. I wouldn't assume that he was doubting me.


I do not see a need to have a test if there is trust. If there is true trust, there would be no doubt that the child is his. There then would be no need for a paternity test.



> And let's say, for the sake of argument, that he did doubt me? If I really, truly, have nothing to hide, why would I be angry? True, I would be disappointed that he questioned me, but we would _discuss it_. I would rather get to the bottom of why he didn't trust me, then just up and leave the man I claim to love. For the sake of our child/children, I think it's better to stay and work it out. Maybe I said something that he completely misunderstood and made him question? Maybe he's just insecure? In which case I would stay and work with him and help him conquer his insecurity.


Why would I not be angry? I have been faithful, haven't even thought about another man, and to be accused of being unfaithful? I would see it as a guilty conscience on his part, and as I have said, a lack of trust. I could not be in a relationship that lacked trust. If my husband had doubt, and wanted to discuss his doubt with me, it would be no problem. Asking for a paternity test to make me prove it, would be the breaking point. I love how you imply that I don't love my husband by throwing the word claim in there. Yet, you claim not to be attacking my relationship. There wouldn't be anything to work out. No one would tell someone to stay with a person who had been unfaithful, why expect someone accused of unfaithfulness to stay? I couldn't remain happy in a relationship that didn't meet my emotional needs, and it's ridiculous to say I should.



> If he was just a jerk who didn't believe me no matter what I did or said, then yeah, I can see leaving. But in a relationship that is healthy and, otherwise, has no trust issues, leaving and taking the kids is highly extreme and one sided.


Demanding a paternity test is extreme and one sided when there is no reason to doubt.



> I don't think you're a cheater. Nor do I think you're in an unhappy marriage, or that you're an evil person. On the contrary. It sounds as if you have an exceedingly happy marriage. Which only makes me even more confused as to why you would doubt your husband so irrevocably. Like I said, there are many reasons why men ask for paternity tests. And, unless the man is a jerk(which your husband doesn't sound like one), I think leaving is an extreme choice and unfair. But, that's just me. I understand that not everyone is the same.
> 
> I have to say, though, that I could never hold your opinion. While my husband has my love and my respect, even if he suddenly didn't trust me, I wouldn't leave him. I would honor my vows and help him over come his lack of trust.
> 
> I don't think you're a horrible person. I think the position your hold is unfair. That's all. Even great people can have views that I find appalling.


If my husband doubted my faithfulness, he would be breaking his vows to love, honor and trust. Why should I honor my vows when he hadn't honored his? 

I think it is unfair to expect someone to hold their own views. I watched my mom suffer through a miserable marriage to a man who used guilt and intimidation to question her and break her down. He used paternity and a claim of unfaithfulness to control her. I do believe that my experience fuels my views, but I also find making excuses for being doubted appalling.


----------



## that_girl

With my first child, I had been dating her father for about 2 months when I got pregnant. He was my second lover. My first lover and i stopped having sex a year before. I was JUST AS SHOCKED as he was because I was told, by my gyno, that because of my horrible endo, children weren't possible. (which is why I broke up with my 1st lover...we were very serious and he wanted children. I couldn't have them...or so I was told.)

Yea. Nice one, doc. I went back in pregnant and made her eat her words. 

Anyhoo, that pregnancy was horrific. He and I broke up, there was stress. He moved an hour away, he never came to anything willingly (birth classes, etc) and even her first year, when i lived with my mom, he came down once a week for a couple of hours to look at our baby and then go home.

He was there for the labor. He was there for the birth, cut her cord and was VERY supportive throughout the whole thing. Bizarre to me. Anyway, had he asked for a test, as offended as I might have been (seeing that *I* knew he was my second lover), he may not have trusted that i was telling the truth. I would have consented to a test, JUST TO PROVE HIM WRONG. And then I could have said, "SEE! It's YOUR CHILD. HELP!" But, she came out very [his last name]...had THE SAME ear defect he has (nothing important, just cosmetic), so it was never questioned. And, holy crap, as she grew, she looked JUST LIKE HIM. She once asked when did she have short hair...  ...she had seen a childhood picture of him.

However, I would have consented to his request for a paternity test, just to make it clear that I am not a liar or a sneak or anything of that fashion.

However, my husband and I met, and dated, a couple short months. Being with my condition of endo, I was NOT on BC, he and I used condoms until our STD tests came back ok (we both had tests done previously as well. I never effed around with sex). My girls are 9 years apart. That wasn't an accident. i was RELIGIOUS about charting. 33 day cycles, ovulate on day 19. Like clockwork.

I told him I chart my cycle which was textbook. I was honest with my amount of partners and when my last partner was (2 months before him always with condoms.). My chart was in the kitchen, visible to him (and my mom LOLOL), and it was important to me to be very careful. 

On the night our daughter was conceived, he and i were hanging out, like we did, and I told him I was ovulating. I knew I had because I felt the pain of ovulation that late morning. Eggs live about 24 hours (you are fertile for a week before ovulation because sperm can live that long inside a woman's body in the right conditions. We were careful for that week...not much sex, and when it happened, it was pull out AND condom.) But that night I told him i was ovulating and to basically stay away. We could do "other things". Well, things progressed that night, I reminded him I had ovulated, he said he didn't care-- he'd wear a condom and be 'careful'. Worst case, I'd have another child WHICH I could have supported with my salary. We had sex and he came inside me. I will NEVER forget the look on his face. LOL! Where was the condom? Oh it was off...yea. We had sex a 2nd time and he came in me again. MORE baby batter. awesome.

I was not mad at him. I wanted him from day one. he was not mad at me...we were happy together. That's not the point. The point is, he KNEW i ovulated, he was TOLD TWICE that I ovulated, he said he didn't care, and busted 2 nuts. Inside. 

HE MADE THIS BABY. it was no surprise. Three days later he asked where i was in my cycle. i said, 3DPO (3 days past ovulation)...and that I'd test in about 7 more days.

i tested, and there were 2 faint pink lines. I told him I was pregnant and he said he already knew...and that was that.

If he had the nerve to ask for a test, after that night when he KNEW what he had done, I would have punched him in the neck.

seriously.

Every situation is different. I would have been FINE with my ex asking for a test. Awesome. I know i'm not sleeping around, this will be my proof AND you get to pay support.

With my husband, I would have been angry because it didn't "just happen". HE CHOSE to get me pregnant.

I have a couple of friends who experienced infertility. THEY were the problems (low progesterone, etc), their husbands were fine (good sperm count). One tried for 5 years. One tried for 3 years. BOTH are pregnant now. Should their men ask for tests?  For shame! The husbands and wives BOTH have worked their asses off those this baby (literally haha), and they know it's their child.

How can you be excited about a pregnancy when you want to ask your wife for proof? A ONS, a gf you just met, etc, I get having a test. I GET THAT. But every situation is different and not every situation would call for a test.

Those are MY two very different situations. Maybe not even CLOSE to your situation or anyone else's situation. Basically, it's all situational. lol. I guess I like that word today...ok...novel done.


----------



## Blanca

I'm with you *Tikii* :smthumbup:


----------



## Tikii

that_girl said:


> I have a couple of friends who experienced infertility. THEY were the problems (low progesterone, etc), their husbands were fine (good sperm count). One tried for 5 years. One tried for 3 years. BOTH are pregnant now. Should their men ask for tests?  For shame! The husbands and wives BOTH have worked their asses off those this baby (literally haha), and they know it's their child.
> 
> How can you be excited about a pregnancy when you want to ask your wife for proof? A ONS, a gf you just met, etc, I get having a test. I GET THAT. But every situation is different and not every situation would call for a test.


I agree with every bit of this. My husband and I have been trying to concieve for more than FIVE long years. We actively try every month. I am the problem, and we know that. If my husband had the nerve to ask me, it would be a complete and total slap in the face. Just not something I would tolerate. I would absolutely question his dedication to the child as well. Are you looking for a way out of parenting??? I'd be heartbroken if he wasn't completely into the pregnancy and excited for the birth of the child. I wouldn't be able to look at him the same. This is the child we WORKED for. He knows when I ovulate, and when we have sex in those cycles etc. 

Had my ex asked me, we used protection, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. We were dating, in high school and "protected". I wouldn't have blamed him for having doubt as we didn't live together, know where the other was all the time etc. He wasn't my husband and I didn't have/expect the amount of trust that is involved in my marriage.


----------



## Tikii

Created2Write said:


> Tikki, maybe I have a weird belief about marriage...but in my relationship, at least, we believe that _every_ topic is open to discussion. No matter how uncomfortable or controversial, anything is open to be discussed without fear of consequence or judgement. If my husband came to me and said he was attracted to men, I would secretly be devastated. But before I ever showed or acted on that devastation, I would sit down with him and as him a lot of questions. Cause there is _so much more_ that needs to be discovered before I can conclude that our marriage is in trouble.


 As I have stated over and over, every topic is open for discussion in our relationship. An accusation and demand of proof of infidelity is heartbreaking, and unforgivable. If he wanted to discuss doubts, that's a different subject. 



> If I chose to become outraged and threatened divorce and cried and made a scene, what would I accomplish? Nothing. Zip. He could merely be telling me that he likes the look of a man's body, nothing more. In which case, I would have no cause to be devastated, and now I've just made an idiot out of myself. And worse, I've proven to him that he really can't trust me as a wife. Even though I say we have an honest, open relationship and I want communication, in action it's a load of bull.


 If my husband demanded a paternity test to prove that I didn't cheat on him, it wouldn't be a threat of divorce, it would be the beginning of a divorce. If he said he had concerns, we would discuss it, and see where the situation ends up. I don't think you are comprehending the difference between a concern of infidelity and a demand for proof that the infidelity didn't occur. If my husband is requiring me to have a paternity test, he already doesn't trust me as a wife. You aren't in my marriage, you are making assumptions because you don't like my opinion. That's immature.



> Which is why, as a rule, I do my best not to let my emotions get the better of me. (And I am a highly emotional person. My husband will attest that I can throw a dang good tantrum if I so desire) I wait until he has explained his reasons before I either concede, or object to what it is he's told me. (And no, for the record, my husband has never said he was attracted to men.)


I can say I don't let my emotions don't get the better of me either, when in fact the whole discussion is fueled by emotion.:rofl:


----------



## chillymorn

the best # I can find conserning how many times this happens is 3.85 %

there are 4 million births per year in the usa.

4% rounding up equals 160000. thats per year!


if the shoe was one the other foot you bet the women would have mandatory paternaty testing!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

chillymorn said:


> the best # I can find conserning how many times this happens is 3.85 %
> 
> there are 4 million births per year in the usa.
> 
> 4% rounding up equals 160000. thats per year!
> 
> 
> if the shoe was one the other foot you bet the women would have mandatory paternaty testing!


I knew I said I was going to stay away from this but I just had to comment. The way the men here talked about this, you would have thought this was an epidemic along the ranks of smallpox or scarlet fever. 3.85%?! Give me a break. Yeah, instead let's spend money to test 4,000,000 babies and 4,000,000 potential fathers. I have a better idea. Why don't the small percent affected spend their own money and leave mine out of it. This just gets more and more ridiculous.


----------



## Created2Write

Tikii said:


> It is not a judgement in any way.
> 
> 
> No, that's not a judgement. To me that is flat out SAYING he doesn't trust me. If he trusted me, he would be 100% sure the children are his, and wouldn't require me to prove it.


Well, we disagree. I think it is a judgement, and no, I don't think that _asking_ for a test means the spouse doesn't trust the mother.



Tikki said:


> I certainly would listen to his reasoning, but it wouldn't change how I feel. The only reason a man would want a paternity test would be to verify paternity. If he needed to verify paternity, he believes I have been unfaithful. If he believes I have been unfaithful, he doesn't trust me. We are in a TRULY open relationship, we discuss anything and everything, but that doesn't mean that I am willing to stay with a man who doesn't trust me. We have discussed this topic at length, and have had slight difference in opinion, but for the most part agree. He even said the only reason he would ever imagine asking would be because he doubted he was the father, which would be because he hadn't believed that I had remained faithful. His children wouldn't be away from him for long. He would get the paternity test he requested, and would get visitation.


You know, we're all human. People make mistakes. Trust in a relationship is, inevitably, going to falter at times. Sometimes it falters a little, sometimes it falters a lot. And there are a plethora of reasons why. If a marriage completely and entirely hangs on trust, what's to stop a spouse from leaving merely because their feelings have been hurt? Even in cases where adultery has taken place, couples _still_ manage to come back and rebuild trust. Is there a specific reason that you wouldn't want to try and work through it? Even if he had a legitimate reason?



Tikki said:


> I understand why people are baffled by my stance, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to have that stance.


No one said you don't have that right. Of course you have the right to any stance you want. Just like I have the right to disagree as speak my mind as well. 



Tiki said:


> A stance that I share with my husband, and many of my friends. There would be no need for an assurance if there was trust. As spouses who claim to love their spouses, do we not deserve trust?


Let me use a personal example that is a lot...more emotional, for me. In our second year of marriage my husband and I were going through a very rocky time. We were fighting all the time, he wasn't meeting my emotional needs and I wasn't meeting his. I actually almost left the marriage at one point, but we were able to talk through it and decided not to end it. Around that rough time, I was taking a Swing Dance class at college. There was a young man there my age who was a _very_ good dancer. I, likewise, was a good dancer. The best in the class, actually. 

He danced with me every class, and flirted a lot. I didn't flirt back, although I was slightly tempted. I was getting attention that I craved from my husband. But, knowing that I loved my husband and not this guy, I made sure to keep the acquaintance at nothing more than dancing. Well, this guy asked me if I would go to an open-Swing dancing event at a local ballroom. I wasn't going _with_ him, but nevertheless, he was asking me to go. I said that I would. 

When I told my husband about it, he was very quiet. He didn't say anything for quite some time, actually. I sent the message to him over text and when he came home, I told him that it was nothing but dance. My husband didn't know how to Swing Dance, and it was something I loved to do. Still, he took me by the hands and said, "I know you already said this, and it's not that I don't trust you...but, will you tell me again that's it's only dance? And that you won't leave me for this guy?" 

I think he was totally within his rights to ask that question. I hadn't done anything to cause him to question my integrity, nor had I ever spoken highly about this guy outside of his dancing ability. So, should I have assumed that my husband didn't trust me and that our relationship was over? Hardly. Sometimes, we need to step outside of ourselves and see things from the other persons' perspective, as hard as that may be.



Tikki said:


> I happen to think it's unfortunate that a woman can be perfectly okay with her husband not believing that she has remained faithful to him.


Just because you think _your_ husband would be distrusting if he asked for a test, doesn't mean that I think mine would be. I'm not okay with my husband not believing me. But I *do not* see distrust in asking for a paternity test in all cases. If my husband asked for one, I wouldn't think our trust was gone unless he said he believed I had been unfaithful. And even then, I wouldn't leave him.



Tikki said:


> The only people that matter in our relationship are my husband and I. We hold high standards for our relationship. We have an extremely open relationship, with love and communication that thrives, but that doesn't mean I am going to stay with someone who doesn't trust me.


Like I said, your choice. For your husband's sake, I'm glad he mostly agrees with you and wouldn't ever ask for a paternity test.



Tikki said:


> Yes there absolutely is. If he were to say, "Baby doesn't have my eyes, are you sure she isn't the milkman's?" would be the same as "Do you love me". Asking for a paternity test to be sure would be like saying, "You need to prove that you love me by doing X, Y, Z because I don't believe you for sure." There is a HUGE difference between ASKING verbally, and demanding a DNA test.


I've said nothing about "demanding" a test. Only two kinds of people would demand a test: a man who legitimately believes his woman has cheated, and a jerk who can't be please anyway.



Tikki said:


> If he truly knows the child is his, he wouldn't need a DNA test. Again, I don't see it as anything close to a "Do you love me"


Then you've missed the point. The point isn't that they're the same scenario, the point is that there are certain circumstances in marriage that aren't as simple as "He doesn't trust me" or "She doesn't love me." If it's that simple for you then fine. _I_ just don't think things are that simple most of the time.



Tikki said:


> Again, I love how you make assumptions of my relationship. My husband and I have excellent communication. That is one of the main things in our relationship that is truly thriving, without a doubt. The only reason to have a paternity test is to be sure that the child is his, AGAIN, if he trusted me, he wouldn't need a test to know that child is his.


I wasn't making any assumptions about your relationship. I haven't made any assumptions about you at all. I'm glad you have good communication. 



Tikki said:


> Just because I haven't changed my views, doesn't mean I haven't read and considered the things that are being said.


I didn't say you _hadn't_ considered what's being said. I'm sure you have. I'm just asking you to consider them again. You assume a lot about everyone it seems, and that worries me a great deal. Assumptions are almost never a good idea. But, of course, what you do is entirely your decision. 



Tikki said:


> I do not see a need to have a test if there is trust. If there is true trust, there would be no doubt that the child is his. There then would be no need for a paternity test.


So you keep saying. 



Tikki said:


> Why would I not be angry? I have been faithful, haven't even thought about another man, and to be accused of being unfaithful? I would see it as a guilty conscience on his part, and as I have said, a lack of trust. I could not be in a relationship that lacked trust. If my husband had doubt, and wanted to discuss his doubt with me, it would be no problem. Asking for a paternity test to make me prove it, would be the breaking point.


But, by your logic, having doubt is the same as not having trust. So why is there a difference between saying, "I'm having doubts about your faithfulness" and "I'd like to get a paternity test"? If it's okay for him to discuss his doubts, why isn't it okay for _you_ to show him he has nothing to worry about?



Tikki said:


> I love how you imply that I don't love my husband by throwing the word claim in there. Yet, you claim not to be attacking my relationship.


Oh geez. I said "we", Tikki. I never said "you". Yet again, you make far too many assumptions. 



Tikki said:


> There wouldn't be anything to work out. No one would tell someone to stay with a person who had been unfaithful, why expect someone accused of unfaithfulness to stay? I couldn't remain happy in a relationship that didn't meet my emotional needs, and it's ridiculous to say I should.


I still don't get it. In a marriage where the husband has a lot of trust issues, I can see feeling that way. But in a relationship where there is mutual love and respect and open communication, why can't there be honesty about trust issues? If I was pregnant and my husband came to me and said, "I'm having doubts about your faithfulness", I would offer to have a paternity test to set his mind at ease. In my opinion, that's what marriage is. Accepting the flaws of the person while also striving to better oneself. 



Tikki said:


> Demanding a paternity test is extreme and one sided when there is no reason to doubt.


Ugh. When did I ever say "demand"? 



Tikki said:


> If my husband doubted my faithfulness, he would be breaking his vows to love, honor and trust. Why should I honor my vows when he hadn't honored his?


Since when does one wrong make another okay? _That_ is a selfish attitude, in my opinion. My husband and I have both "broken" our vows in some way because, surprise, we're humans. We're not perfect and it is ridiculous of me to expect him to be. As another example, I have asked him a couple of times if he looks at porn. Even though he _rarely_ ever has in his life, and has only ever looked at really softcore stuff once since we've been married, there have been a couple of times when I was afraid that he was looking at it and I didn't know. So many of the women around me have came forward about their husbands being addicted to porn, so I became afraid and asked him if he did. And he had done nothing wrong. 

It was a moment of weakness for me, but he didn't leave me over it. And no, in that moment when I asked, I didn't have a lot of trust. Which was why I was asking. Yet, he merely smiled, wrapped his arms around me and said, "No love. I promise. I'm not." Should he have left me? 



Tikki said:


> I think it is unfair to expect someone to hold their own views. I watched my mom suffer through a miserable marriage to a man who used guilt and intimidation to question her and break her down. He used paternity and a claim of unfaithfulness to control her. I do believe that my experience fuels my views, but I also find making excuses for being doubted appalling.


I'm not making any excuses. And I'm sorry to hear about your mother.


----------



## 日本顎の恋人

Tikii said:


> That's the thing, I understand that. That doesn't mean however that I feel like I should have to pay for a DNA test, because the government wants one. Why it is any of their concern, or the concern of anyone not involved in creating the child is beyond me.


Unfortunately, it just so happens that your children probably were tested, without your consent

The government has your baby's DNA - CNN

In the case of the couple noted in the article, they now fear this repercussion



> Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.


As far as a man demanding that any child I bore be tested for paternity - sure. But then the only contact he'd have with the child assured to be his would be governed by a custody agreement, 'cause that would break the relationship.

Some say "f*ck trust" quite blithely, but _*I *_absolutely would not endure the insult to my honesty or integrity. To some of us, those characteristics are worth more than our lives. It probably comes from being raised in a multi-generation military family, where words like "honesty, faith and sacrifice" were drilled into our heads (and enforced with a belt to the ass when we failed those tenets) but, to those who do not trust - there are *some* whose _lives_ would not be worth living if we failed to uphold certain values. And I know that any man who accused me of being so dishonest as to try and pass a wood's colt as his would probably rue the day he uttered those words when I told my father of what I was accused.


----------



## Created2Write

Tikii said:


> As I have stated over and over, every topic is open for discussion in our relationship. An accusation and demand of proof of infidelity is heartbreaking, and unforgivable. If he wanted to discuss doubts, that's a different subject.


I don't see a difference between them.



Tikki said:


> If my husband demanded a paternity test to prove that I didn't cheat on him, it wouldn't be a threat of divorce, it would be the beginning of a divorce. If he said he had concerns, we would discuss it, and see where the situation ends up. I don't think you are comprehending the difference between a concern of infidelity and a demand for proof that the infidelity didn't occur. If my husband is requiring me to have a paternity test, he already doesn't trust me as a wife. You aren't in my marriage, you are making assumptions because you don't like my opinion. That's immature.


1. I have not been talking about a "demand" for a paternity test, so I don't know where that's coming from. 
2. I have made no assumptions about you as a person, or as you as a wife. I merely disagree with your opinion. And that's not immature.



Tikki said:


> I can say I don't let my emotions don't get the better of me either, when in fact the whole discussion is fueled by emotion.:rofl:


I understand being passionate due to your situation trying to concieve. I still hold strongly to my opinion, though.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

日本顎の恋人;1006519 said:


> Unfortunately, it just so happens that your children probably were tested, without your consent
> 
> The government has your baby's DNA - CNN
> 
> In the case of the couple noted in the article, they now fear this repercussion
> 
> 
> 
> As far as a man demanding that any child I bore be tested for paternity - sure. But then the only contact he'd have with the child assured to be his would be governed by a custody agreement, 'cause that would break the relationship.
> 
> Some say "f*ck trust" quite blithely, but _*I *_absolutely would not endure the insult to my honesty or integrity. To some of us, those characteristics are worth more than our lives. It probably comes from being raised in a multi-generation military family, where words like "honesty, faith and sacrifice" were drilled into our heads (and enforced with a belt to the ass when we failed those tenets) but, to those who do not trust - there are *some* whose _lives_ would not be worth living if we failed to uphold certain values. And I know that any man who accused me of being so dishonest as to try and pass a wood's colt as his would probably rue the day he uttered those words when I told my father of what I was accused.


Interesting about the CNN article. I mentioned a scenario of exactly that many pages ago but was quickly shot down as a conspiracy theorist because afterall, insurance companies have our best interest at heart and would never discriminate against anybody using this DNA information.


----------



## Tikii

Created2Write said:


> I don't see a difference between them.


That doesn't mean there isn't a difference to others.



> 1. I have not been talking about a "demand" for a paternity test, so I don't know where that's coming from.
> 2. I have made no assumptions about you as a person, or as you as a wife. I merely disagree with your opinion. And that's not immature.


When a man says, I want/I am getting paternity test and goes after one, it is a demand. It isn't something a woman can legally refuse in most places. 

You HAVE made assumptions, and tried to hide snide comments into what you type, that is immature.




> I understand being passionate due to your situation trying to concieve. I still hold strongly to my opinion, though.


You don't understand unless you've been there, and I still hold strongly to my opinion.


----------



## Tikii

日本顎の恋人;1006519 said:


> Unfortunately, it just so happens that your children probably were tested, without your consent
> 
> The government has your baby's DNA - CNN
> 
> In the case of the couple noted in the article, they now fear this repercussion
> 
> As far as a man demanding that any child I bore be tested for paternity - sure. But then the only contact he'd have with the child assured to be his would be governed by a custody agreement, 'cause that would break the relationship.
> 
> Some say "f*ck trust" quite blithely, but _*I *_absolutely would not endure the insult to my honesty or integrity. To some of us, those characteristics are worth more than our lives. It probably comes from being raised in a multi-generation military family, where words like "honesty, faith and sacrifice" were drilled into our heads (and enforced with a belt to the ass when we failed those tenets) but, to those who do not trust - there are *some* whose _lives_ would not be worth living if we failed to uphold certain values. And I know that any man who accused me of being so dishonest as to try and pass a wood's colt as his would probably rue the day he uttered those words when I told my father of what I was accused.


I do not have any children, and when we do have them, they will no be tested. Any testing done on my child has to be done with my permission. Doing it without my permission is illegal, especially if it is billed to me, or my insurance.

:iagree: with the rest


----------



## Created2Write

Tikii said:


> That doesn't mean there isn't a difference to others.


:smthumbup:



Tikki said:


> When a man says, I want/I am getting paternity test and goes after one, it is a demand. It isn't something a woman can legally refuse in most places.


If he does it without her consent, then yeah. But saying "I want/would like a paternity test" isn't a demand. Anyway, I haven't been talking about "demands". I've been talking about a husband _asking_ his wife for a test. 



Tikki said:


> You HAVE made assumptions, and tried to hide snide comments into what you type, that is immature.


LOL. Okay. If you say so.



Tikki said:


> You don't understand unless you've been there, and I still hold strongly to my opinion.


No, I can't _empathize_ unless I've been there. But I can _sympathize_ just fine.


----------



## 日本顎の恋人

Created2Write said:


> I still don't get it. In a marriage where the husband has a lot of trust issues, I can see feeling that way. But in a relationship where there is mutual love and respect and open communication, why can't there be honesty about trust issues? If I was pregnant and my husband came to me and said, "I'm having doubts about your faithfulness", I would offer to have a paternity test to set his mind at ease. In my opinion, that's what marriage is. Accepting the flaws of the person while also striving to better oneself.


Because that is to say _"well, yeah, we took those marriage vows - the ones about faithfulness and forsaking and all that - but I don't believe you meant them." _

Some of us would stake our lives on our word. And those words; given before G*d, family and dear ones; are not to be broken. Temptation happens, that's for sure, but honor means you do not act. Faithlessness would not happen as long as I lived within the boundaries of those vows. I sense some of that stringency (which it admittedly is) in Tikii. A doubt about *my* faithfulness would strike me to the heart; impugn on my ability to give my word and stick to it. Some people are able to be more flexible about that, some of us aren't. That's why there are polarized views about this subject.


----------



## Tikii

Created2Write said:


> Well, we disagree. I think it is a judgement, and no, I don't think that _asking_ for a test means the spouse doesn't trust the mother.


The only judgement involved would be his judgment of being, feeling as if I were unfaithful. If he trusts the mother of his children, he wouldn't need a test to prove it.



> You know, we're all human. People make mistakes. Trust in a relationship is, inevitably, going to falter at times. Sometimes it falters a little, sometimes it falters a lot. And there are a plethora of reasons why. If a marriage completely and entirely hangs on trust, what's to stop a spouse from leaving merely because their feelings have been hurt? Even in cases where adultery has taken place, couples _still_ manage to come back and rebuild trust. Is there a specific reason that you wouldn't want to try and work through it? Even if he had a legitimate reason?


Yes, we are human, but being human doesn't mean that we are all going to be unfaithful. Having a partner that needs a DNA test to believe that our child is his, is not trusting, and would likely never fully trust. There is a difference between not trusting someone with money, not trusting them to get somewhere on time, not trusting them to do something they said they would and not trusting them to be able to keep their legs closed. No where did I say a marriage is based on trust and only trust. However, a lack of trust, is a lack of love, faith, honor and everything else that our vows stood for. That's great that some people can forgive their spouse for cheating, but that doesn't mean all of us should be expected to even attempt the same. I wouldn't stay with someone who didn't trust me. If he truly believed that a test was necessary, he would have to believe I cheated, and the marriage would be over any way. I would not stay with someone who disrespected me in such a way. There are plenty of other people out there who are willing to give me their all, not their most with a little something on the side.



> No one said you don't have that right. Of course you have the right to any stance you want. Just like I have the right to disagree as speak my mind as well.


 I never said you didn't have that right, but it doesn't mean that attacking my marriage is appropriate because you don't like my views. I find that to be quite sad, and a sorry way to get a point across.



> Let me use a personal example that is a lot...more emotional, for me. In our second year of marriage my husband and I were going through a very rocky time. We were fighting all the time, he wasn't meeting my emotional needs and I wasn't meeting his. I actually almost left the marriage at one point, but we were able to talk through it and decided not to end it. Around that rough time, I was taking a Swing Dance class at college. There was a young man there my age who was a _very_ good dancer. I, likewise, was a good dancer. The best in the class, actually.
> 
> He danced with me every class, and flirted a lot. I didn't flirt back, although I was slightly tempted. I was getting attention that I craved from my husband. But, knowing that I loved my husband and not this guy, I made sure to keep the acquaintance at nothing more than dancing. Well, this guy asked me if I would go to an open-Swing dancing event at a local ballroom. I wasn't going _with_ him, but nevertheless, he was asking me to go. I said that I would.
> 
> When I told my husband about it, he was very quiet. He didn't say anything for quite some time, actually. I sent the message to him over text and when he came home, I told him that it was nothing but dance. My husband didn't know how to Swing Dance, and it was something I loved to do. Still, he took me by the hands and said, "I know you already said this, and it's not that I don't trust you...but, will you tell me again that's it's only dance? And that you won't leave me for this guy?"
> 
> I think he was totally within his rights to ask that question. I hadn't done anything to cause him to question my integrity, nor had I ever spoken highly about this guy outside of his dancing ability. So, should I have assumed that my husband didn't trust me and that our relationship was over? Hardly. Sometimes, we need to step outside of ourselves and see things from the other persons' perspective, as hard as that may be.


 That is an entirely different situation IMO. He was asking for assurance that you weren't going to do something, not accusing you of doing something. I do see it as a slight lack in trust honestly, and it would upset me, but no where near as much as a flat out accusation of cheating. I think you are entirely missing every point, and twisting everythign I am saying.



> Just because you think _your_ husband would be distrusting if he asked for a test, doesn't mean that I think mine would be. I'm not okay with my husband not believing me. But I *do not* see distrust in asking for a paternity test in all cases. If my husband asked for one, I wouldn't think our trust was gone unless he said he believed I had been unfaithful. And even then, I wouldn't leave him.


I never claimed it was the same in every situation. I am speaking only for my relationship, and have never claimed otherwise. I do see asking for a paternity test as distrust. There is no other reason for one. I just asked my husband what other reason a man would want to have a paternity test for, and he said there wasn't a single one other than infidelity that he could think of. If he didn't believe you were unfaithful, there would be no reason for a paternity test. The only way he wouldn't have been the father, would have been if you screwed around with someone else. That's fine if you are willing to stay, but that wouldn't be fair, or logical to expect everyone to feel the same.




> Like I said, your choice. For your husband's sake, I'm glad he mostly agrees with you and wouldn't ever ask for a paternity test.


I wouldn't have married my husband if he didn't trust me completely. Those are things we thought about and discussed before we married.



> I've said nothing about "demanding" a test. Only two kinds of people would demand a test: a man who legitimately believes his woman has cheated, and a jerk who can't be please anyway.


 



> Then you've missed the point. The point isn't that they're the same scenario, the point is that there are certain circumstances in marriage that aren't as simple as "He doesn't trust me" or "She doesn't love me." If it's that simple for you then fine. _I_ just don't think things are that simple most of the time.


I haven't missed a single point. We are discussing a particular situation, not marriage in general, I am not referring to every situation in marriage, ONLY the situation we are discussing, which would have been infidelity.



> I wasn't making any assumptions about your relationship. I haven't made any assumptions about you at all. I'm glad you have good communication.


 Yet you refer to the man I CLAIM to love.



> I didn't say you _hadn't_ considered what's being said. I'm sure you have. I'm just asking you to consider them again. You assume a lot about everyone it seems, and that worries me a great deal. Assumptions are almost never a good idea. But, of course, what you do is entirely your decision.


You are making assumption after assumption after assumption about me, yet say I am assuming? That's laughable I am sorry. You don't know how much thought or consideration I have put into anything here. Considering something again, isn't going to change things, and it isn't going to make me agree with your opinion. I'm not trying to make you agree with mine, so I am missing why you feel the need to make me believe yours.



> But, by your logic, having doubt is the same as not having trust. So why is there a difference between saying, "I'm having doubts about your faithfulness" and "I'd like to get a paternity test"? If it's okay for him to discuss his doubts, why isn't it okay for _you_ to show him he has nothing to worry about?


 NO, putting words in my mouth. Doubting that the children we create togther, is lacking trust. The fact that we are married, and actively trying to have a child togther is showing him he has nothing to worry about. There is a difference between saying "I have concerns" and "I'm getting a paternity test because I don't believe that child is mine"



> Oh geez. I said "we", Tikki. I never said "you". Yet again, you make far too many assumptions.


Yet, you make assumptions about me.



> I still don't get it. In a marriage where the husband has a lot of trust issues, I can see feeling that way. But in a relationship where there is mutual love and respect and open communication, why can't there be honesty about trust issues? If I was pregnant and my husband came to me and said, "I'm having doubts about your faithfulness", I would offer to have a paternity test to set his mind at ease. In my opinion, that's what marriage is. Accepting the flaws of the person while also striving to better oneself.


 There absolutely can be honesty about trust issues, but that doesn't mean that I have to stay with someone who doesn't trust me to the point of believing that I am unfaithful. There is a difference between accepting flaws, and accusing you partner of cheating and needing a paternity test to accept a child as their own.




> Since when does one wrong make another okay? _That_ is a selfish attitude, in my opinion. My husband and I have both "broken" our vows in some way because, surprise, we're humans. We're not perfect and it is ridiculous of me to expect him to be. As another example, I have asked him a couple of times if he looks at porn. Even though he _rarely_ ever has in his life, and has only ever looked at really softcore stuff once since we've been married, there have been a couple of times when I was afraid that he was looking at it and I didn't know. So many of the women around me have came forward about their husbands being addicted to porn, so I became afraid and asked him if he did. And he had done nothing wrong.
> 
> It was a moment of weakness for me, but he didn't leave me over it. And no, in that moment when I asked, I didn't have a lot of trust. Which was why I was asking. Yet, he merely smiled, wrapped his arms around me and said, "No love. I promise. I'm not." Should he have left me?
> .


You can have an opinion and believe something to be selfish, but that doesn't mean it is, or that others have to share that opinion. My husband and I have not broken our vows, and we are human. We hold high value to our relationship, and I couldn't imagine doing anything to put a strain on our relationship, and to expect the same in return is not unreasonable. No where did anyone expect or claim to expect their partner to be perfect, but that has nothing to do with this.

Watching porn and accusing your partner of cheating and creating a child with another man are far from comperable. :scratchhead:

Anyway, nothing productive can come from discussing this with you, so I am finished. You are set on changing my opinion, that only effects my relationship, and I still don't see why.:sleeping:


----------



## anonim

Tikii said:


> As I have stated over and over, every topic is open for discussion in our relationship.* ...snip....* If he wanted to discuss doubts, that's a different subject.


You cant be on both sides of the river.


----------



## Thundarr

Blanca said:


> I'm sure it'll come to that. Scientists and specialists can only guarantee the statistics of the theory but it would be impossible to quantify the error rate from lab to lab because it's so variable depending on the technicians training and which protocols and machines are used - not to mention ethics. It is not uncommon for technicians to alter and completely change data; They're human and keeping their job is more important to them. You're just a number on a tube.


Doesn't take rocket science to say negative result get's second run. Lightning doesn't strike the same place twice.


----------



## Thundarr

Tikii said:


> If a man needs a test to prove that the children are his, he doesn't trust the mother. It can be said any way you want, but that's how I feel and nothing is going to change that.
> 
> Absolutely trust goes both ways. Just as my husband would never ask me for a paternity test(not because of fear of the reprcussions), I would never ask him if he were cheating on me. If my kid came out bi-racial(both of us are the same race), or he had been away for a period of time that would make it appear the child could possibly not be his, sure I would humor him, because there would be doubt. If he just came off and demanded a test out of the blue, I would see it as a complete and total lack of trust, and a relationship I would no longer be in. My happiness is important, and if my husband didn't trust me, I wouldn't be happy.


The fact that there is a scenario at all where you would humor the notion means we are not as far off on this as I thought we were. 

I get that you would feel very insulted because you have given your husband absolutely no reason to question you. I think that means he would not question you and would not care to see the results.


----------



## anonim

Tikii, according to my poll http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/53907-paternity-testing-birth-3.html#post1006217 75% of men would paternity test their child w/o the mothers knowledge. 25% would trust in their partners.
given all the red flags you've raised which do you think your H would do?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> Tikii, according to my poll http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/53907-paternity-testing-birth-3.html#post1006217 75% of men would paternity test their child w/o the mothers knowledge. 25% would trust in their partners.
> given all the red flags you've raised which do you think your H would do?


75% HERE who already have marital issues. I could take a poll at an AA meeting asking how many think alcohol is evil and get nearly the same result. Context is everything.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> 75% HERE who already have marital issues. I could take a poll at an AA meeting asking how many think alcohol is evil and get nearly the same result. Context is everything.


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/53902-mandatory-paternity-tests-12.html#post999773 red flags in here are marital landmines. they just haven't been stepped on yet. That is sufficient context IMO.


----------



## Thundarr

I guess it's appalling to prevent people from stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the person they claim to love with no consequences as long as you are not the one being stolen from. 

Not to mention it must be appalling to think someone would not just want to raise other man's child without knowledge of it.

I mean even though your husbands could choose to not be tested (at least in the way I think it should work). It does not matter. He says he will not be tested and you trust him so much apparently but still ... The outrage that he could check if he wanted to. And for something so insignificant as a 3+ percent of the population.

How dare they not want to bite the bullet and suck it up and invest years of their lives to raise the milkman's kid.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/53902-mandatory-paternity-tests-12.html#post999773 red flags in here are marital landmines. they just haven't been stepped on yet. That is sufficient context IMO.


Polling a bunch of guys with existing marital issues such as previous infidelity or mistrust of women in general and using that data to suggest that 75% of men would paternity test their kids if they could get away with it is laughable.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> I guess it's appalling to prevent people from stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the person they claim to love with no consequences as long as you are not the one being stolen from.
> 
> Not to mention it must be appalling to think someone would not just want to raise other man's child without knowledge of it.
> 
> I mean even though your husbands could choose to not be tested (at least in the way I think it should work). It does not matter. He says he will not be tested and you trust him so much apparently but still ... The outrage that he could check if he wanted to. And for something so insignificant as a 3+ percent of the population.
> 
> How dare they not want to bite the bullet and suck it up and invest years of their lives to raise the milkman's kid.


Are you addressing that comment to me because I have at great length said that I think men should get paternity tests, just not government mandated ones and on my taxpayer dollars. I really don't know how many times I have to say that. Will this be enough?


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Polling a bunch of guys with existing marital issues such as previous infidelity or mistrust of women in general and using that data to suggest that 75% of men would paternity test their kids if they could get away with it is laughable.


The poll is anonymous. there is no way of knowing a voter had whatever marital issues or mistrust.
but I'll say that EVERY marriage has issues at some point so your argument is moot. 75% is 75%


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are you addressing that comment to me because I have at great length said that I think men should get paternity tests, just not government mandated ones and on my taxpayer dollars. I really don't know how many times I have to say that. Will this be enough?


And i really dont know how many times it has to be said that the people that would benefit from mandatory testing are NOT the ones that would be suspicious and test themselves. BTW, women would also benefit from manadatory dna testing also.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

anonim said:


> The poll is anonymous. there is no way of knowing a voter had whatever marital issues or mistrust.
> but I'll say that EVERY marriage has issues at some point so your argument is moot. 75% is 75%


Hilarious. It's not moot. Could you find a study reflective of the general population and not one sensationalizing your own agenda??
Just asking. Lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim

*LittleDeer* said:


> Hilarious. It's not moot. Could you find a study reflective of the general population and not one sensationalizing your own agenda??
> Just asking. Lol
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


*sigh* The poll is anonymous. there is no way of knowing a voter had whatever marital issues or mistrust.
but I'll say that EVERY marriage has issues at some point so your argument is moot as well. 75% is 75%


----------



## Thundarr

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are you addressing that comment to me because I have at great length said that I think men should get paternity tests, just not government mandated ones and on my taxpayer dollars. I really don't know how many times I have to say that. Will this be enough?


No brighteyes. I don't think so. . I'm addressing it to the guys (or gals I suppose) who seem to hold their feelings of being offended above what I consider a despicable criminal (I think) act that happens to men every single day. Their indifference to the terrible pain this causes for the sake of their pride confuses me. 

No you and I had 2-3 pages of back and forth and I think I know where you are coming from. We even had consensus on a couple of things.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Bari Zell Weinberger, Esq.: Who's Your Daddy? Paternity Testing and the Nature of Fatherhood

Interesting article.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> The poll is anonymous. there is no way of knowing a voter had whatever marital issues or mistrust.
> but I'll say that EVERY marriage has issues at some point so your argument is moot. 75% is 75%


You wouldn't get 75% of the population to agree to forced testing and taxpayer money to pay for what affects 154,000 out of the 300MM in this country. Again, context is everything. 

All marriages have issues but taking a poll from a sample size of those who join a marriage help forum is going to net you a very skewed result.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

anonim said:


> *sigh* The poll is anonymous. there is no way of knowing a voter had whatever marital issues or mistrust.
> but I'll say that EVERY marriage has issues at some point so your argument is moot as well. 75% is 75%


Repeating yourself doesn't change that you need a better study to back up your argument.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> And i really dont know how many times it has to be said that the people that would benefit from mandatory testing are NOT the ones that would be suspicious and test themselves. BTW, women would also benefit from manadatory dna testing also.


I don't know how many times I have to say that I think *all men should get the test done, regardless of suspicion*. I don't however want the government forcing it nor my money paying for it. It should be paid for by the individual. I have said this all along, haven't deviated from it whatsoever, have repeated it over 20 times and yet for some reason I am not heard.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove

diwali123 said:


> I think one of the cruelest things a woman can do is convince her h to care for kids who aren't his and then divorce and refuse to let him see them. It just is so abusive and so wrong to him and the kids. And then women who don't tell a man she had his child until the kid is like five and then expect back child support. Same thing.
> I highly doubt that this would ever fly, the Right would never allow it.
> I think laws should change so that if a man takes care of a child and then finds out it isn't his he should still get visitation. And if a woman doesn't tell a man until later she doesn't get child support. And if a man pays child support for a child who isn't his, she has to pay him back.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I call women who behave like that "gestational carriers", not real mothers in any sense of the word. Women who use children as pawns and weapons--should have their rights taken away.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You wouldn't get 75% of the population to agree to forced testing and taxpayer money to pay for what affects 154,000 out of the 300MM in this country if you tried. Again, context is everything.
> 
> As for the poll here, I could name off every man who was for it. All marriages have issues but taking a poll from a sample size of those who join a marriage help forum is going to net you a very skewed result.


the majority of men ive asked outside this forum said they would vote for mandatory testing.

and you forget one thing. None of those men want to be one of those 154,000. not a single one.


----------



## anonim

*LittleDeer* said:


> Repeating yourself doesn't change that you need a better study to back up your argument.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


and asking the same question as someone else wont net you a different answer.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove

I think it's a great idea - but who would fund it?

I, as a taxpayer do not want to fund the paternity test of someone else and wouldn't want a taxpayer paying for mine.

So while I think it's a great idea--too many men are stuck raising children that are not theirs because of lying, cheating, unscruplous women - it could be mandatory and added as a part of the hospital bill as the birth is. But then again, for women who are on Medicaid (which BTW is an entirely different subject--if you can't afford health care why in the hell would you have children on the taxpayer's dime?), then you have federal/state dollars paying for all their health care, births included.

So--bottom line - I'm all for it, but needs to be funded by the individual, not the government.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't know how many times I have to say that I think *all men should get the test done, regardless of suspicion*. I don't however want the government forcing it nor my money paying for it. It should be paid for by the individual. I have said this all along, haven't deviated from it whatsoever, have repeated it over 20 times and yet for some reason I am not heard.


Oh I hear you. I even sympathize. But your say doesnt take into account *the men and women that need it and dont know that they need it,* and the men and women who are *threatened/coerced out of having one done*.


----------



## anonim

Have it as a cost tacked onto your hospital bill. That way if you dont have a baby you wont have to pay for a test. howzat?


----------



## norajane

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You wouldn't get 75% of the population to agree to forced testing and taxpayer money to pay for what affects 154,000 out of the 300MM in this country if you tried. Again, context is everything.


There are over 4,000,000 babies born in the US each year. At $100 per test, that's $400M per year. Even if the test costs came down some, there would still be the costs for all the extra people that the insurance companies (and/or government) and labs and hospitals will need to hire to process all those additional tests, equipment, records, and payments. 

Those overhead costs would be passed on to all of us. I don't think there would be a lot of people who would want to add that cost to their taxes or insurance premiums. 

4,000,000 babies and fathers don't all need DNA tests. That's too big a burden on our already struggling health care system to handle.


----------



## anonim

The reason why the US healthcare system is struggling is because its cost is bloated by a profit making model.

but i digress. just add the cost onto the hospital bill. whats 100$?


----------



## norajane

anonim said:


> The reason why the US healthcare system is struggling is because its cost is bloated by a profit making model.
> 
> but i digress. just add the cost onto the hospital bill. whats 100$?


That bill is paid by insurance (or Medicaid). That means the costs of the bill are spread out amongst the other members of the insurance plan. That means your premiums go up to cover an additional $400M in costs, at the least, every year.

If you mean the $100 is to be paid by the individual out of pocket, then making it mandatory forces people who don't need or want the test to fork over $100 for nothing.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> the majority of men ive asked outside this forum said they would vote for mandatory testing.
> 
> and you forget one thing. None of those men want to be one of those 154,000. not a single one.


I understand that, I really do! I don't want any man to be part of that club. I just don't think it should be government mandated and taxpayer funded. 

Thunderr had a great idea and I have another one, I hope. Hear me out. When I was pregnant with both kids I had to sign a document that said I agreed to be STD tested. I certainly didn't think I had one but it is better to be safe than sorry. I signed and all was well. Plenty don't agree to it and the testing isn't forced on them. What if a potential father could sign a document asking for a paternity test at the birth of the child or refuse to sign if he didn't want one? It would be paid for by him. That way nobody is forced and I am not stuck paying for it?


----------



## anonim

They would save the money in legal fees later


----------



## Thundarr

So I have questions for Tikii, LittleDeer, TheRealBrightEyes, that_girl, and others with the same arguments. Well I know some of your thoughts brighteyes which I'm not very far from myself.

I presume you DO CARE about the men being fooled to raise children who are not their own unknowingly.

I know for a fact that you do not like mandatory paternity testing.

So my first question is : Am I correct that you do not like this happening to men?
Do you think it's okay that it's 3+% or so of the men in this country. I know you think mandatory testing is worse but I'm asking how bad you think this is.
Do you think there should be a way for a man to check paternity after the fact maybe years later if his wife cheats.
I think it's fraud and the man should be able to recoup back child support. Of course sometimes you can't squeeze blood from a turnip but sometimes the mother and bio father have resources. What do you think about this idea.

What I'm really asking is what do you think we should do? Something or nothing?


I just think this is an unnecessary problem with our current ability. Never in human history have we had this capability and were not using it as a standard.

And finally here is something I mentioned way back in this thread.

1. Save the results from the blood that we actually have anyway (mother and child).
2. Leave it at that. Make sure that whoever is the father or who ever thinks they are the father has a right at any later time to be tested.
3. Do not force father to test and for that matter do the minimum amount of blood work to have it in the system.

That way no one was inconvenienced and it was not noticed. Most men would not even check but if years later their spouse has been caught cheating then they can be tested since they then have reason to dis-trust. The BIG advantage here is that the child does not have to know the test was performed. Many men would still love the child as theirs but would not love the mother any more. At least I would feel that way.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I understand that, I really do! I don't want any man to be part of that club. I just don't think it should be government mandated and taxpayer funded.
> 
> Thunderr had a great idea and I have another one, I hope. Hear me out. When I was pregnant with both kids I had to sign a document that said I agreed to be STD tested. I certainly didn't think I had one but it is better to be safe than sorry. I signed and all was well. Plenty don't agree to it and the testing isn't forced on them. What if a potential father could sign a document asking for a paternity test at the birth of the child or refuse to sign if he didn't want one? It would be paid for by him. That way nobody is forced and I am not stuck paying for it?


i dont see a difference in this and what you've said earlier?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> Have it as a cost tacked onto your hospital bill. That way if you dont have a baby you wont have to pay for a test. howzat?


It can't be government mandated and yet privately paid. Not that any of this would happen but that REALLY couldn't happen.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> They would save the money in legal fees later


Who's they?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> True you have been consistent. I think it's correct for the individual to pay for this. I also think it should be anonymous especially from the child if they are older. I don't know your view on that part.


Absolutely. Again, I have never said a man should get his wife's permission. Get the test done on your own, pay for it yourself and leave my moolah out of it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> i dont see a difference in this and what you've said earlier?


Eh, nothing really now that I think about it. Hey, at least you heard me on this one!


----------



## Thundarr

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I understand that, I really do! I don't want any man to be part of that club. I just don't think it should be government mandated and taxpayer funded.
> 
> Thunderr had a great idea and I have another one, I hope. Hear me out. When I was pregnant with both kids I had to sign a document that said I agreed to be STD tested. I certainly didn't think I had one but it is better to be safe than sorry. I signed and all was well. Plenty don't agree to it and the testing isn't forced on them. What if a potential father could sign a document asking for a paternity test at the birth of the child or refuse to sign if he didn't want one? It would be paid for by him. That way nobody is forced and I am not stuck paying for it?


I like this. Only thing it does not cover is the situation where he has complete trust but finds out later that his trust was misguided. Love is blind so it would be common for this to happen. I hope the test would still be there for him then.


----------



## anonim




----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> So I have questions for Tikii, LittleDeer, TheRealBrightEyes, that_girl, and others with the same arguments. Well I know some of your thoughts brighteyes which I'm not very far from myself.
> 
> I presume you DO CARE about the men being fooled to raise children who are not their own unknowingly.
> 
> I know for a fact that you do not like mandatory paternity testing.
> 
> So my first question is : Am I correct that you do not like this happening to men? Yes!
> Do you think it's okay that it's 3+% or so of the men in this country. I know you think mandatory testing is worse but I'm asking how bad you think this is. I really don't know the percent. I went with Chillymorns stats.
> Do you think there should be a way for a man to check paternity after the fact maybe years later if his wife cheats. Hell yes.
> I think it's fraud and the man should be able to recoup back child support. Of course sometimes you can't squeeze blood from a turnip but sometimes the mother and bio father have resources. What do you think about this idea. Yes, yes and in some cases jail time. It's fraud and theft afterall.
> 
> What I'm really asking is what do you think we should do? Something or nothing? If "we" you mean society, then nothing. It is up to the individuals to get the test.
> 
> 
> I just think this is an unnecessary problem with our current ability. Never in human history have we had this capability and were not using it as a standard. Not sure what the question is here.
> 
> And finally here is something I mentioned way back in this thread.
> 
> 1. Save the results from the blood that we actually have anyway (mother and child).
> 2. Leave it at that. Make sure that whoever is the father or who ever thinks they are the father has a right at any later time to be tested.
> 3. Do not force father to test and for that matter do the minimum amount of blood work to have it in the system.
> 
> That way no one was inconvenienced and it was not noticed. Most men would not even check but if years later their spouse has been caught cheating then they can be tested since they then have reason to dis-trust. The BIG advantage here is that the child does not have to know the test was performed. Many men would still love the child as theirs but would not love the mother any more. At least I would feel that way.


And you would get a round of applause from me and where do I sign?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> I like this. Only thing it does not cover is the situation where he has complete trust but finds out later that his trust was misguided. Love is blind so it would be common for this to happen. I hope the test would still be there for him then.


I don't see how it wouldn't be. It's available now.


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> You cant be on both sides of the river.


Creative out of context snipping. If my husband wanted to discuss compared to demanding a test, not implying he can't discuss. Didn't think you were that desperate to be right.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tikii

anonim said:


> Tikii, according to my poll http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/53907-paternity-testing-birth-3.html#post1006217 75% of men would paternity test their child w/o the mothers knowledge. 25% would trust in their partners.
> given all the red flags you've raised which do you think your H would do?


My husband is in the 25%. Your poll here is biased in that you polled men who are for the most part divorced, insecure or scorned. Range that to men without rocky or ending relationships that would be a completely different result.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

Tikii,
It truly feels like you couldn't give a shot about the men who have been fooled to raise children who are not their own unknowingly or the ones to come. Do you? I'm seriously asking so I know if we have any common ground on this.

What do you think we should do? Something or nothing?

And if you mean what you say (If he asked then you would divorce him no questions) then I feel really bad for your husband. He's married to time bomb because eventually he'll hit a hot button by accident and there's no room for confusion or even a lapse in judgement granted to him.

I don't think you will respond with anything directed toward changing my view or anyone else's view of you because I don't think you care what we thing and I think you are coming at this from a place of selfishness and entitlement. Entitled to not be bothered, entitled to not be offended, entitled to not be ask something you don't like.

Tell me I'm wrong if I am please. I don't want to have so little respect for you. I can usually tell where people are coming from and then see their points of view after a while. I think I know where you are coming from too and I don't like to think it.


----------



## Tikii

I do feel bad for men who raise others children unknowingly, and believe they have every right to ask for paternity test, but I don't feel that warrants mandatory testing. I am far from a time bomb or selfish in any way. I just have a standard to which I hold myself, my husband knows that standard, and to have him demand proof of fidelity would be accusing me of cheating and showing me a lack f trust. Why would someone be expected to stay in a marriage where their partner lacks basic trust and believes them to be a cheater?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

Tikii said:


> I do feel bad for men who raise others children unknowingly, and believe they have every right to ask for paternity test, but I don't feel that warrants mandatory testing.


First of all thank you for answering this civilly because I was expecting a critical response. And I'm glad to hear that you do care about the men (and children) being wronged.



Tikii said:


> I am far from a time bomb or selfish in any way. I just have a standard to which I hold myself, my husband knows that standard, and to have him demand proof of fidelity would be accusing me of cheating and showing me a lack f trust. Why would someone be expected to stay in a marriage where their partner lacks basic trust and believes them to be a cheater?


I understand the logic behind why would be offended. I just don't grasp how extreme your reaction is. I think I'm not in the minority in thinking divorce over questioning paternity is extreme. I recall plenty of people saying that it would be offensive and would make them mad or sad and maybe even harm their relationship. I don't recall any other person having such a black/white view on it though. You seem to think trust is either 100% or 0% which I completely disagree with. I think trust builds to close to 100% and stays there if your trustworthy. It's not actually 100% though because all people are fallible including me and you.

You said if there was some reason for your husband to have suspicion then you might humor the idea. The problem is that if you don't agree with whatever his reason is then you'd just leave. 

Anyway, thanks for the reply.


----------



## Created2Write

日本顎の恋人;1006583 said:


> Because that is to say _"well, yeah, we took those marriage vows - the ones about faithfulness and forsaking and all that - but I don't believe you meant them." _
> 
> Some of us would stake our lives on our word. And those words; given before G*d, family and dear ones; are not to be broken. Temptation happens, that's for sure, but honor means you do not act. Faithlessness would not happen as long as I lived within the boundaries of those vows. I sense some of that stringency (which it admittedly is) in Tikii. A doubt about *my* faithfulness would strike me to the heart; impugn on my ability to give my word and stick to it. Some people are able to be more flexible about that, some of us aren't. That's why there are polarized views about this subject.


Doubt about my faithfulness would hurt to. But people are human. Imperfect, and marriage is a place where being imperfect should be safe. Jumping to an extreme, like divorce and taking the kids, seems like a harsh reaction. I would be devestated if my husband doubted my faithfulness, but I wouldn't leave him unless he was being a jerk about it. A man having doubts doesn't mean the marriage is or should be over, it just means he has doubts. We all have doubts about things in our lives.


----------



## Created2Write

Tikii said:


> The only judgement involved would be his judgment of being, feeling as if I were unfaithful. If he trusts the mother of his children, he wouldn't need a test to prove it.
> 
> Yes, we are human, but being human doesn't mean that we are all going to be unfaithful. Having a partner that needs a DNA test to believe that our child is his, is not trusting, and would likely never fully trust. There is a difference between not trusting someone with money, not trusting them to get somewhere on time, not trusting them to do something they said they would and not trusting them to be able to keep their legs closed. No where did I say a marriage is based on trust and only trust. However, a lack of trust, is a lack of love, faith, honor and everything else that our vows stood for. That's great that some people can forgive their spouse for cheating, but that doesn't mean all of us should be expected to even attempt the same. I wouldn't stay with someone who didn't trust me. If he truly believed that a test was necessary, he would have to believe I cheated, and the marriage would be over any way. I would not stay with someone who disrespected me in such a way. There are plenty of other people out there who are willing to give me their all, not their most with a little something on the side.
> 
> I never said you didn't have that right, but it doesn't mean that attacking my marriage is appropriate because you don't like my views. I find that to be quite sad, and a sorry way to get a point across.
> 
> That is an entirely different situation IMO. He was asking for assurance that you weren't going to do something, not accusing you of doing something. I do see it as a slight lack in trust honestly, and it would upset me, but no where near as much as a flat out accusation of cheating. I think you are entirely missing every point, and twisting everythign I am saying.
> 
> I never claimed it was the same in every situation. I am speaking only for my relationship, and have never claimed otherwise. I do see asking for a paternity test as distrust. There is no other reason for one. I just asked my husband what other reason a man would want to have a paternity test for, and he said there wasn't a single one other than infidelity that he could think of. If he didn't believe you were unfaithful, there would be no reason for a paternity test. The only way he wouldn't have been the father, would have been if you screwed around with someone else. That's fine if you are willing to stay, but that wouldn't be fair, or logical to expect everyone to feel the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have married my husband if he didn't trust me completely. Those are things we thought about and discussed before we married.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't missed a single point. We are discussing a particular situation, not marriage in general, I am not referring to every situation in marriage, ONLY the situation we are discussing, which would have been infidelity.
> 
> Yet you refer to the man I CLAIM to love.
> 
> You are making assumption after assumption after assumption about me, yet say I am assuming? That's laughable I am sorry. You don't know how much thought or consideration I have put into anything here. Considering something again, isn't going to change things, and it isn't going to make me agree with your opinion. I'm not trying to make you agree with mine, so I am missing why you feel the need to make me believe yours.
> 
> NO, putting words in my mouth. Doubting that the children we create togther, is lacking trust. The fact that we are married, and actively trying to have a child togther is showing him he has nothing to worry about. There is a difference between saying "I have concerns" and "I'm getting a paternity test because I don't believe that child is mine"
> 
> Yet, you make assumptions about me.
> 
> There absolutely can be honesty about trust issues, but that doesn't mean that I have to stay with someone who doesn't trust me to the point of believing that I am unfaithful. There is a difference between accepting flaws, and accusing you partner of cheating and needing a paternity test to accept a child as their own.
> 
> 
> You can have an opinion and believe something to be selfish, but that doesn't mean it is, or that others have to share that opinion. My husband and I have not broken our vows, and we are human. We hold high value to our relationship, and I couldn't imagine doing anything to put a strain on our relationship, and to expect the same in return is not unreasonable. No where did anyone expect or claim to expect their partner to be perfect, but that has nothing to do with this.
> 
> Watching porn and accusing your partner of cheating and creating a child with another man are far from comperable. :scratchhead:
> 
> Anyway, nothing productive can come from discussing this with you, so I am finished. You are set on changing my opinion, that only effects my relationship, and I still don't see why.:sleeping:


Set on changing your opinion? Neither of us has done anything but state our opinions and our arguments. I'm not trying to change your opinion, I just happen to see many faults in it.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> *sigh* The poll is anonymous. there is no way of knowing a voter had whatever marital issues or mistrust.
> but I'll say that EVERY marriage has issues at some point so your argument is moot as well. 75% is 75%


The outrage you're getting in responses is pretty...hilarious to me. It's a hypothetical situation anyway. My gosh.

And, honestly, in a country where the divorce rate is up over 50% now, I'm not surprised that 75% of men would want a dna test. I read something a while ago(I'm sure the numbers have changed now) but it said that married women were twice as likely to live out their fantasies with other men than married men were.

I'm not trying to poke at women or anything, nor am I still entirely convinced that paternity tests should be mandated by the government. I do see why a lot of the men feel this way though.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> Have it as a cost tacked onto your hospital bill. That way if you dont have a baby you wont have to pay for a test. howzat?


This fixes one of my issues with it.


----------



## chillymorn

the government already dose all kind of testing and probly funded some paternaty studies it would be hardly any cost to do the test so the poster who thinks it would affect her taxes is just arguing to argue.


if you want to cut taxes then quit giving birth control to poor people. they don't seem to use it any ways. might as well get rid of food stamps. why stop there how about corperate welfare .

the cost argument is BS. Imo


----------



## Created2Write

Thundarr, I just saw this post of yours:



> 1. Save the results from the blood that we actually have anyway (mother and child).
> 2. Leave it at that. Make sure that whoever is the father or who ever thinks they are the father has a right at any later time to be tested.
> 3. Do not force father to test and for that matter do the minimum amount of blood work to have it in the system.
> 
> That way no one was inconvenienced and it was not noticed. Most men would not even check but if years later their spouse has been caught cheating then they can be tested since they then have reason to dis-trust. The BIG advantage here is that the child does not have to know the test was performed. Many men would still love the child as theirs but would not love the mother any more. At least I would feel that way.


THIS, I would be 100% for. Completely. Definitely. And it would save him the embarrassment from having to ask for a test at the birth, if he did doubt things then. I like this a lot, actually.  Good thinking!


----------



## Created2Write

Thundarr said:


> First of all thank you for answering this civilly because I was expecting a critical response. And I'm glad to hear that you do care about the men (and children) being wronged.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the logic behind why would be offended. I just don't grasp how extreme your reaction is. I think I'm not in the minority in thinking divorce over questioning paternity is extreme. I recall plenty of people saying that it would be offensive and would make them mad or sad and maybe even harm their relationship. I don't recall any other person having such a black/white view on it though. You seem to think trust is either 100% or 0% which I completely disagree with. I think trust builds to close to 100% and stays there if your trustworthy. It's not actually 100% though because all people are fallible including me and you.
> 
> You said if there was some reason for your husband to have suspicion then you might humor the idea. The problem is that if you don't agree with whatever his reason is then you'd just leave.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the reply.


:smthumbup: Yup. 

I completely agree.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Created2Write said:


> The outrage you're getting in responses is pretty...hilarious to me. It's a hypothetical situation anyway. My gosh.
> 
> And, honestly, in a country where the divorce rate is up over 50% now, I'm not surprised that 75% of men would want a dna test. I read something a while ago(I'm sure the numbers have changed now) but it said that married women were twice as likely to live out their fantasies with other men than married men were.
> 
> I'm not trying to poke at women or anything, nor am I still entirely convinced that paternity tests should be mandated by the government. I do see why a lot of the men feel this way though.


Just to be clear, I am not outraged whatsoever. Hopefully I was having a discussion about an idea. My irritation however came when I felt I was being personally attacked by somebody who doesn't know me or my husband. I have maintained that I am PRO paternity testing without the mothers consent but AGAINST making it mandatory and therefore taxpayer funded.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

chillymorn said:


> the government already dose all kind of testing and probly funded some paternaty studies it would be hardly any cost to do the test so the poster who thinks it would affect her taxes is just arguing to argue.
> 
> 
> if you want to cut taxes then quit giving birth control to poor people. they don't seem to use it any ways. might as well get rid of food stamps. why stop there how about corperate welfare .
> 
> the cost argument is BS. Imo


Since I know that was directed at me, I will answer. Show me one piece of evidence that the government forcibly runs a medical test on its citizens and sticks the tax payers with the bill. Just one. 
I am not arguing. This is a discussion and I am stating my opinion just as you state yours, unless of course you also want that right to be taken away.


----------



## chillymorn

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Since I know that was directed at me, I will answer. Show me one piece of evidence that the government forcibly runs a medical test on its citizens and sticks the tax payers with the bill. Just one.
> I am not arguing. This is a discussion and I am stating my opinion just as you state yours, unless of course you also want that right to be taken away.


lol you so cute. the government dose what it wants how it wants just look at the health care bill that was forced on us.


lol


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

chillymorn said:


> lol you so cute.
> 
> lol


Why thank you!


----------



## Created2Write

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Just to be clear, I am not outraged whatsoever. Hopefully I was having a discussion about an idea. My irritation however came when I felt I was being personally attacked by somebody who doesn't know me or my husband. I have maintained that I am PRO paternity testing without the mothers consent but AGAINST making it mandatory and therefore taxpayer funded.


I wasn't necessarily referring to you. But there does seem(to me at least...I could totally be wrong) to be hostility in this thread. I guess it's understandable on both sides, considering the topic.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Created2Write said:


> I wasn't necessarily referring to you. But there does seem(to me at least...I could totally be wrong) to be hostility in this thread. I guess it's understandable on both sides, considering the topic.


I don't think their is hostility per se. I think many here (me included) were saying if you want a test, get a test and leave me out of it. That sort of thing.


----------



## Thundarr

I'm just glad we are not all setting in a room discussing this. I would be in flight mode ready to run for a door before a shoe or something hit me in the head.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> I'm just glad we are not all setting in a room discussing this. I would be in flight mode ready to run for a door before a shoe or something hit me in the head.


Why? I think face to face would be great as we could read each other better. Tone doesn't come across well on message boards. I am not upset and this conversation is fascinating to me. Lots of great points being made, ones I would have never thought of and I still think it is a healthy discussion that has managed (for the subject matter) to stay remarkably on calm.


----------



## Lenny

I believe my husband has been duped in that very manner, but he is in complete denial and will never know the truth, in the mean time he has suffered many years of pain due to a nasty divorce and custody issues, 18 years later still going and affecting/devastating his current relationship.


----------



## Thundarr

Lenny said:


> I believe my husband has been duped in that very manner, but he is in complete denial and will never know the truth, in the mean time he has suffered many years of pain due to a nasty divorce and custody issues, 18 years later still going and affecting/devastating his current relationship.


No doubt about it. It would be a conflicting situation and all of the blame sets squarely on his ex's shoulders. She's not the one going the turmoil over it though. Why would she care?

Anyway this a situation where it would be so useful for him to have the ability to find out for sure but at the same time not let the child know anything about it. He would probably then just accept it and never anything to his child about it but at least he would know. The unknowing is a huge aspect of it.

Now in a perfect world, he could sue his ex for emotional distress and back support for all of the years. Of course this is more complicated and it's just icing on the cake. Really the ability to know is the key.


----------



## CandieGirl

I think it would be a great idea! 

I wonder how many kids out there aren't who they think they are?


----------



## Thundarr

Something that would help is if there were consequences for this when discovered. 

More women would confess early and we would have more men knowingly raising non-biological children rather than unknowingly.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> Something that would help is if there were consequences for this when discovered.
> 
> More women would confess early and we would have more men knowingly raising non-biological children rather than unknowingly.


See, THAT'S the kind of law that needs to be made and I mentioned it before.  If a woman lies about the paternity of the child, she should be forced to pay back all money and face jail time. It is fraud and theft.


----------



## chillymorn

if there was mandatory testing I'd bet my a$$ the cheating scums of the world woudl at least start using condoms. or just swallow instead.


----------



## Thundarr

chillymorn said:


> if there was mandatory testing I'd bet my a$$ the cheating scums of the world woudl at least start using condoms. or just swallow instead.


First of all we I need to understand what mandatory means. What I was thinking as mandatory is not what others were. 

My version of mandatory is that it's mandatory that enough information is available and saved for a father or other man to prove or disprove their paternity. I would like for it to seem normal for a man to want it done. I do not however think it's necessary to make a guy validate his paternity. Just make sure he can if he wants to and that the mother and child do not know. Really the child is the one who needs to not know therefore the mother can not know either.

I think when we say mandatory what we are looking for is way to hold paternal fathers and mothers who lie about the father accountable and this is one way to do it.

Rather than being that hard core, I think we could 
1. make sure validation could occur any time, and 
2. have real penalties when discovered.

To me the father who has raised a non-bio unknowingly(unknowingly is key) is entitled to back child support AS WELL AS restitution for emotional distress from the mother. The mother would be entitled to back child support from the bio father except maybe he didn't know. At least she's entitled to support for the remaining years for the child. We already put fathers who do not pay support in jail so there's the precedent if the mother or other man are not paying restitution. It does not have to be a lump sum all at once.

Now this means any mother who knows the child may not be the provider's will worry that it can come back to bite her and she will prefer to get it out in the open before she has tens of thousands of dollars rather than just confess. Then let the guy choose if he wants to accept responsibility or not.


----------



## COGypsy

So then just out of curiosity, where would these genetic materials be stored? How would the archiving of this data or samples be overseen? What entity would be in charge of orchestrating it and for how long would the material have to be kept? 

Most importantly, who would pay for the infrastructure to make this sort of warehousing mandatory?


----------



## Blanca

Thundarr said:


> Doesn't take rocket science to say negative result get's second run. Lightning doesn't strike the same place twice.


True, a rocket scientists would never make such a negligent assumption. Neither would a technician. 

Why would they test it twice? And if so, why do you assume that only the negatives need to be re-run? why would we assume there's a mistake in the first place? We run over 1,000 samples a month; you really think we're going to run them all twice?? There's no time or money for that sort of thing. If your positive controls don't return errors then you don't re-run the test. But all that really tells you is that you calibrated the machine well enough for your controls. There's no way to know if your unknowns are correct and no one is going to shoot in the dark re-running tests based off of assumptions. That's not very scientific or logical.


----------



## Thundarr

COGypsy said:


> So then just out of curiosity, where would these genetic materials be stored? How would the archiving of this data or samples be overseen? What entity would be in charge of orchestrating it and for how long would the material have to be kept?
> 
> Most importantly, who would pay for the infrastructure to make this sort of warehousing mandatory?


I'll speculate.

Well first of all it would be stored electronically and not physically. I presume you were already thinking that.

Yea oversight is important. I'm not a big government guy either but I think we already have databases with this exact kind of information anyway. So just more of it. CIA/FBI/Other.

I think the data is kept forever. Why not. cyberspace is cheap.


These are the kinds of questions I would ask me if I posted what I did  and I know this stuff is not free. On the other hand the administration and protection of the information seems pretty cheap except that everything cost when the government does it. I've written software for the past twenty years, some of it holding very protected information in databases so this is actually the part of the equation that I actually do have an opinion with a tiny bit of experience behind it.


----------



## Thundarr

Blanca said:


> True, a rocket scientists would never make such a negligent assumption. Neither would a technician.
> 
> Why would they test it twice? And if so, why do you assume that only the negatives need to be re-run? why would we assume there's a mistake in the first place? We run over 1,000 samples a month; you really think we're going to run them all twice?? There's no time or money for that sort of thing. If your positive controls don't return errors then you don't re-run the test. But all that really tells you is that you calibrated the machine well enough for your controls. There's no way to know if your unknowns are correct and no one is going to shoot in the dark re-running tests based off of assumptions. That's not very scientific or logical.


I think your not giving enough credit to our existing technology. Plus any mistake can be EASILY resolved by getting blood sample on what should be a very rare occasion. One mistake that prevents thousands or more seems like good odds. But then you don't understand how odds and statistics work otherwise you would not be confused as to why I said lightning does not strike the same place twice. If everything has to be perfect then we'll have nothing.

Okay statistics 101. It's very complicated so get ready for it ..........
Odds are greatly higher that lightning will not strike the same place twice. I know it's confusing. In my reference what I was saying is that odds of the same error in results happening twice are very very unlikely.


----------



## Blanca

Thundarr said:


> I think your not giving enough credit to our existing technology. Plus any mistake can be EASILY resolved by getting blood sample on what should be a very rare occasion. One mistake that prevents thousands or more seems like good odds. But then you don't understand how odds and statistics work otherwise you would not be confused as to why I said lightning does not strike the same place twice. If everything has to be perfect then we'll have nothing.
> 
> Okay statistics 101. It's very complicated so get ready for it ..........
> Odds are greatly higher that lightning will not strike the same place twice. I know it's confusing.


why are you talking about lighting? are you assuming that the machines work the same way that lightning does?


----------



## Thundarr

Blanca said:


> why are you talking about lighting? are you assuming that the machines work the same way that lightning does?


I said it once as an analogy lots of pages back. Done. you brought it back up so I thought I would help you comprehend it. You're welcome :lol:

Oh wait. I'm not sure I can help you. I can only explain it.


----------



## Blanca

Thundarr said:


> I think your not giving enough credit to our existing technology. Plus any mistake can be EASILY resolved by getting blood sample on what should be a very rare occasion. One mistake that prevents thousands or more seems like good odds.


Easily huh?? and you would know because...what exactly are your credentials?


----------



## Blanca

Thundarr said:


> I said it once as an analogy lots of pages back. Done. you brought it back up so I thought I would help you comprehend it. You're welcome :lol:
> 
> Oh wait. I'm not sure I can help you. I can only explain it.


so i'll ask again, why did you use lighting as an analogy to the machines? are you assuming that lighting is analogous to our machines?


----------



## Thundarr

Blanca said:


> Easily huh?? and you would know because...what exactly are your credentials?


Regarding most of the stuff on this forum? same as a lot on here I guess. I have opinions and try hard to make them well thought out and not dangerous. Maybe I succeed some of the time.

Regarding technology? Been writing software, managing software projects for twenty years. I can't suck too bad otherwise wiz kids would have bump me out of the business. To be honest though sometimes the view is better from the outside. You may see this more clearly than me specifically because of my background.

But really my opinion is worth however much influence it has on people. Just like yours. Hopefully worth more to people who know us on a personal level.


----------



## Thundarr

Blanca said:


> so i'll ask again, why did you use lighting as an analogy to the machines? are you assuming that lighting is analogous to our machines?


Oh you did not understand. I thought I was just picking.

The analogy is not about lightning or machines. It's about odds. ODDS of lightning striking same place twice like the ODDS of same error in result twice.

But I'm taking my toys and going home on this topic because I think you are just screwing with me.


----------



## Blanca

Thundarr said:


> Regarding most of the stuff on this forum? same as a lot on here I guess. I have an opinion and try hard to make them well thought out and not dangerous. Maybe I succeed some of the time.
> 
> Regarding technology? Writing software and managing software projects has paid my bills for twenty years. I can't suck at it too bad otherwise these wizz kids would have bump me out of the business.
> 
> But really my opinion is worth what others put on it. Just like yours.


the entire process of receiving biological samples, processing them, analyzing them, and interpreting data is not analogous to a software program - or lightning. we wouldn't re-run negatives simply because they are negative any more then we would re-run positives simply because they're positive. that's not logical or monetarily conscientious. Identifying false-negatives and false-positives in biological samples is a rather complicated process that is anything but easy. there's a significant element of uncertainty in accepted data that only those in the field recognize - because we're the one's producing it.


----------



## Thundarr

Blanca said:


> the entire process of receiving biological samples, processing them, analyzing them, and interpreting data is not analogous to a software program - or lightning. we wouldn't re-run negatives simply because they are negative any more then we would re-run positives simply because they're positive. that's not logical or monetarily conscientious. Identifying false-negatives and false-positives in biological samples is a rather complicated process that is anything but easy. there's a significant element of uncertainty in accepted data that only those in the field recognize - because we're the one's producing it.


Oh no. Not just running the software again. To test again means to actually get samples again and do it again from scratch. That improved the odds drastically but really we are off base here because that should be rare.

At least more rare than 3-4% which is the number I've heard for fathers raising non-bio kids unknowingly.

By the way do you think it's okay for men to be fooled into raising someone else's bio kid? I ask because I don't understand your argument's motive.


----------



## Blanca

Thundarr said:


> Oh no. Not just running the software again. To test again means to actually get samples again and do it again from scratch. That improved the odds drastically but really we are off base here because that should be rare.


You can't simply request recollects because you "think" the negative might be false. It costs thousands to have those shipped. This is science and a business. There has to be a logical reason to make such a request. If the client requested a re-run then that's a different story. But re-running a test on a poorly calibrated machine, poorly designed primers, faulty reagents, or by dishonest technician isn't going to help. 

You're also not taking into account the ramifications of false-positives. 



Thundarr said:


> By the way do you think it's okay for men to be fooled into raising someone else's bio kid? I ask because I don't understand your argument's motive.


of course i think it's OK. who wouldn't? I mean really...

my arguments motive is at the end of my response to simplyamorous. putting your faith in science to protect you from being fooled is foolish.


----------



## chillymorn

Blanca said:


> You can't simply request recollects because you "think" the negative might be false. It costs thousands to have those shipped. This is science and a business. There has to be a logical reason to make such a request. If the client requested a re-run then that's a different story. But re-running a test on a poorly calibrated machine, poorly designed primers, faulty reagents, or by dishonest technician isn't going to help.
> 
> You're also not taking into account the ramifications of false-positives.
> 
> 
> 
> of course i think it's OK. who wouldn't? I mean really...
> 
> my arguments motive is at the end of my response to simplyamorous. putting your faith in science to protect you from being fooled is foolish.


I think not using all the avaliable technology or pertanant information is foolish. but your point of trying your best to be suspicious and aware so you don't get douped is also valid.


----------



## chillymorn

just read an artical that interviewed doctors and their opinion as to weather or not they would tell the husband if they found out that your child was not yours. would they tell or not.

the vast majorty said they wouldn't.


----------



## EleGirl

Blanca said:


> of course i think it's OK. who wouldn't? I mean really...


I think you left the word _*"NOT"*_ out of the above.


----------



## EleGirl

chillymorn said:


> just read an artical that interviewed doctors and their opinion as to weather or not they would tell the husband if they found out that your child was not yours. would they tell or not.
> 
> the vast majorty said they wouldn't.


I believe that doctor's are taught to stay out of people's personal lives. Their job would be to birth the baby... not to police who the may or may not be the father of the baby.


----------



## EleGirl

Lenny said:


> I believe my husband has been duped in that very manner, but he is in complete denial and will never know the truth, in the mean time he has suffered many years of pain due to a nasty divorce and custody issues, 18 years later still going and affecting/devastating his current relationship.


So he does not know if he's the bio-dad of the child(ren)?

You seem to think that he is not. Why?


----------



## EleGirl

Thundarr said:


> No doubt about it. It would be a conflicting situation and all of the blame sets squarely on his ex's shoulders. She's not the one going the turmoil over it though. Why would she care?
> 
> Anyway this a situation where it would be so useful for him to have the ability to find out for sure but at the same time not let the child know anything about it. He would probably then just accept it and never anything to his child about it but at least he would know. The unknowing is a huge aspect of it.
> 
> Now in a perfect world, he could sue his ex for emotional distress and back support for all of the years. Of course this is more complicated and it's just icing on the cake. Really the ability to know is the key.


Maybe he's not doing tests because he loves the children and does not care.


----------



## EleGirl

Thundarr said:


> Okay statistics 101. It's very complicated so get ready for it ..........
> 
> Odds are greatly higher that lightning will not strike the same place twice. I know it's confusing. In my reference what I was saying is that odds of the same error in results happening twice are very very unlikely.


Unless the rerun is done through the same machines, calibrated by the same people in the same lab. Then the chance of an incorrect result re-occurring becomes quite a bit higher. It can even be highly likely.

The best chance for accurate results is for the individual to send samples to 3 different labs.

Both negative & positive results can be wrong. So rerunning only the negatives does not make sense.


----------



## COGypsy

chillymorn said:


> just read an artical that interviewed doctors and their opinion as to weather or not they would tell the husband if they found out that your child was not yours. would they tell or not.
> 
> the vast majorty said they wouldn't.


Most doctors likely wouldn't tell the husband because it's a patent violation of privacy laws. The husband is not the patient when it comes to labor and delivery. The patient of an OB doc is the mother and the fetus. After birth, a pediatrician takes over care of the baby and the OB cares for the mother. The OB has no obligation to the father and certainly not enough obligation to be brought up on a HIPPA violation. I don't know very many docs that would risk their job or their license on passing along information that may not be confirmed or may not even be an issue for the family.


----------



## COGypsy

Thundarr said:


> I'll speculate.
> 
> Well first of all it would be stored electronically and not physically. I presume you were already thinking that.
> 
> Yea oversight is important. I'm not a big government guy either but I think we already have databases with this exact kind of information anyway. So just more of it. CIA/FBI/Other.
> 
> I think the data is kept forever. Why not. cyberspace is cheap.
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of questions I would ask me if I posted what I did  and I know this stuff is not free. On the other hand the administration and protection of the information seems pretty cheap except that everything cost when the government does it. I've written software for the past twenty years, some of it holding very protected information in databases so this is actually the part of the equation that I actually do have an opinion with a tiny bit of experience behind it.


Actually, if it were cheap and easy to store personal health information electronically, Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems would be in place, nationally compatible and fully implemented. Instead it's a project that's been going on for nearly a decade. 

I totally get that the software tweaks are easy, but creating a national DNA database would require an entirely new national initiative. Yes, law enforcement does maintain DNA records. On criminals. So unless reproduction is a crime....ALL reproduction, then CIA FBI DEA or whatever isn't an option until a woman is accused or convicted of child support fraud. 

I think that certainly a person should have the right to know who and what they're financially and legally obligated to for 18 years, but I just don't see a way for that to happen in a way that's equitable to the taxpayers and those of us that won't ever face this issue.

And full disclosure: I manage a health care policy research group. Issues like this are our bread and butter


----------



## anonim

Blanca said:


> You can't simply request recollects because you "think" the negative might be false. It costs thousands to have those shipped. This is science and a business. There has to be a logical reason to make such a request. If the client requested a re-run then that's a different story. But re-running a test on a poorly calibrated machine, poorly designed primers, faulty reagents, or by dishonest technician isn't going to help.
> 
> You're also not taking into account the ramifications of false-positives.
> 
> 
> 
> of course i think it's OK. who wouldn't? I mean really...
> 
> my arguments motive is at the end of my response to simplyamorous. putting your faith in science to protect you from being fooled is foolish.


putting your faith in trust to prevent being fooled is infinitly more foolish IMO.


----------



## anonim

Why has no one commented on how mandatory testing for paternity would affect women being able to find out if their H has kids by another woman??


----------



## Blanca

EleGirl said:


> I think you left the word _*"NOT"*_ out of the above.


No, my response was sarcastic.


----------



## Blanca

anonim said:


> putting your faith in trust to prevent being fooled is infinitly more foolish IMO.


OK, i never said it wasn't.


----------



## that_girl

It would still need to be requested. What about surrogates? What about adoptions? The test would be run (if mandatory) and would come up with the adoptive father NOT being the father. Well, no shet. Test money wasted.


----------



## Blanca

chillymorn said:


> I think not using all the avaliable technology or pertanant information is foolish. but your point of trying your best to be suspicious and aware so you don't get douped is also valid.


Of course and part of that would be using the information that human beings, who make many mistakes, are the one's processing your samples. If I was a guy and suspected my wife was cheating I'd get a test done, probably send it to multiple labs like *ele* suggested. But getting one test at birth wouldn't convince me. If you get one test done and it comes back that you're not the father and you instantaneously believe it, well, whether it's actually true or not isn't all that relevant if assumptions and fear are driving you. You'll believe it out of fear and never consider all the information. And what about those who have a sort of religious-like blind faith in science and believe the results without being able to think critically. Sucks for them if they fall into that small group of individuals where the technician accidentally switched the brushes and put them in the wrong tubes (i've done that; luckily it was just training). If you trust science more then you trust your spouse, well, i just don't think that that's going to protect you from suffering or being fooled.


----------



## EleGirl

anonim said:


> Why has no one commented on how mandatory testing for paternity would affect women being able to find out if their H has kids by another woman??


I guess if women start naming the married men who fathered their child this would happen more often.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

anonim said:


> Why has no one commented on how mandatory testing for paternity would affect women being able to find out if their H has kids by another woman??


Ummm I did, many many many pages ago.

Methinks some people only read what they wanna.


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> Unless the rerun is done through the same machines, calibrated by the same people in the same lab. Then the chance of an incorrect result re-occurring becomes quite a bit higher. It can even be highly likely.
> 
> The best chance for accurate results is for the individual to send samples to 3 different labs.
> 
> Both negative & positive results can be wrong. So rerunning only the negatives does not make sense.


I understand it's not perfect and I know there will be a false positive once in a while but it seems like you guys are shooting down every way to make the existing problem better than is currently is but you're not giving any ideas of how to do that. I get the argument that brighteyes and others have made that someone could get a test now if they want to. But then they have to find a way to get DNA from their kids (hopefully without them knowing). 

And actually I'm got off the mandatory train many pages back. I just think we save information so a father could do his check later if he wanted to. For that matter just save it from the cord at birth. DNA test with father and child alone is 98.9% accurate which is pretty close without even having the mother's DNA. With all three it's 99.9%.


----------



## Thundarr

COGypsy said:


> Actually, if it were cheap and easy to store personal health information electronically, Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems would be in place, nationally compatible and fully implemented. Instead it's a project that's been going on for nearly a decade.
> 
> I totally get that the software tweaks are easy, but creating a national DNA database would require an entirely new national initiative. Yes, law enforcement does maintain DNA records. On criminals. So unless reproduction is a crime....ALL reproduction, then CIA FBI DEA or whatever isn't an option until a woman is accused or convicted of child support fraud.
> 
> I think that certainly a person should have the right to know who and what they're financially and legally obligated to for 18 years, but I just don't see a way for that to happen in a way that's equitable to the taxpayers and those of us that won't ever face this issue.
> 
> And full disclosure: I manage a health care policy research group. Issues like this are our bread and butter


COGypsy. Those are good points. I just am trying to figure out in my head why this problem has not been addressed and then I get pulled into ridiculous debates over analogies and other things that just miss the core of the debate. Your reply however logically addresses areas to think about . Thank you. I'll have to think some more on it.


----------



## Created2Write

Thundarr said:


> I'll speculate.
> 
> Well first of all it would be stored electronically and not physically. I presume you were already thinking that.
> 
> Yea oversight is important. I'm not a big government guy either but I think we already have databases with this exact kind of information anyway. So just more of it. CIA/FBI/Other.
> 
> I think the data is kept forever. Why not. cyberspace is cheap.
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of questions I would ask me if I posted what I did  and I know this stuff is not free. On the other hand the administration and protection of the information seems pretty cheap except that everything cost when the government does it. I've written software for the past twenty years, some of it holding very protected information in databases so this is actually the part of the equation that I actually do have an opinion with a tiny bit of experience behind it.


I mentioned your idea to my husband last night and he said that he's fairly certain that blood samples from the child being born are already stored and kept. So, your idea is really a great one seeing as this is already being done on its most basic level. The only thing that would need to be implemented is the idea that a man can come at any time in the near or distant future and ask for a paternity test, without his partner's knowledge. 

And again, I am for this idea 100%. Genius, imo.


----------



## Created2Write

Thundarr said:


> Oh no. Not just running the software again. To test again means to actually get samples again and do it again from scratch. That improved the odds drastically but really we are off base here because that should be rare.
> 
> At least more rare than 3-4% which is the number I've heard for fathers raising non-bio kids unknowingly.
> 
> By the way do you think it's okay for men to be fooled into raising someone else's bio kid? I ask because I don't understand your argument's motive.


When I was enlisting in the Marine Corps I had to go to MEPS, the military medical station where they run your physical and make sure you're in healthy enough shape for boot camp. One of the things they did was a urine test, and another was a blood sample. They made me take _two_ urine tests and _two_ blood samples. Why? Because sometimes(not very often, mind you) the tests are faulty. When it comes to someone's eligibility to serve their country, they don't want a faulty test to disqualify a completely healthy human from enlisting. 

I don't see why the importance would be any less in a situation of establish who the father of a child is. In fact, I think it would be best if they _did_ make two tests, regardless of the results of the first one.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> Why has no one commented on how mandatory testing for paternity would affect women being able to find out if their H has kids by another woman??


Probably because we wouldn't care unless we had a reason to doubt. Unless my husband went and cheated, or started becoming secretive and giving me reasons to suspect him of infidelity, I really would never even think...'Does he have another kid somewhere?' But that's just me.


----------



## chillymorn

the problem with just storing the blood until if and when the husbands wants it done it that the damage will already be done the longer the amount of time that past the more emotional attachment there is.

well I raise you like a son .....because I thought you were my son ....but now that we determined that your just a basta*d child by a sl*t of a women I no long want to be involved in your life .....see ya have good life.


as aposed to ....excuse me sir but this is not your child do you still want a relationship and financial burdon for the next ....say 20years.

for it to really help it has to be done right at birth!

Ithe real problem is when the insurance companies start testing your dna to see what health problems you would be perdetermined to most likley manifest in you and then upping your rates or denining you insurance.


is that really a problem? why should a health person with great dna pay as much as a sickly person. just like why should a responsible person who drives carefull be charged the same as a person who is in accidents or take risks like texting or drinking while driving.


I can see it now ....when do you ask you date if you can see their dna profile. well I really like you but it looks like you will most likley be dead from breast cancer by the time your 50 some I goning to shuffle on down the road and look for something with a stronger dna profile.


----------



## Created2Write

There isn't going to be a magical fix to this problem. There just isn't. _I_ would never agree to mandatory paternity tests. I just wouldn't. If my husband and I don't want to get one we shouldn't have to. Period. And I'm sure a lot of other American citizens would feel the same way. 

The best option, imo, is to find a solution that doesn't infringe on the rights of those who don't want paternity tests, but still provides a better option for a man to get one without having to ask his wife at the birth or later in life. Thundarr had a fantastic idea, imo. Couples still have the option of saying no to paternity tests if they don't want them, and the man still has the option of coming back at any time in his life to see if his "kids" are really his.


----------



## chillymorn

ignornce is bliss in this case.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Assuming of course there's some proviso that allows for 'lost' DNA. I'm a sperm donor per my own backup plan in case my cancer therapy didn't end well. Guess what - - the lab 'lost' it all. For all I know there's some little Dogs running around out there w.o. my knowledge. Well they inherited a ton of genetic bad wiring so good luck with that.


----------



## chillymorn

Runs like Dog said:


> Assuming of course there's some proviso that allows for 'lost' DNA. I'm a sperm donor per my own backup plan in case my cancer therapy didn't end well. Guess what - - the lab 'lost' it all. For all I know there's some little Dogs running around out there w.o. my knowledge. Well they inherited a ton of genetic bad wiring so good luck with that.


I think some compinsaton is in order .....call a lawyer.


----------



## Thundarr

Created2Write said:


> I mentioned your idea to my husband last night and he said that he's fairly certain that blood samples from the child being born are already stored and kept. So, your idea is really a great one seeing as this is already being done on its most basic level. The only thing that would need to be implemented is the idea that a man can come at any time in the near or distant future and ask for a paternity test, without his partner's knowledge.
> 
> And again, I am for this idea 100%. Genius, imo.


Me and genius in the same sentence :rofl:. I would have liked your comment no matter what you said after that.

It's not a perfect solution since false positives are possible but what's ever perfect. Seems like a step in the right direction though.


----------



## Thundarr

chillymorn said:


> the problem with just storing the blood until if and when the husbands wants it done it that the damage will already be done the longer the amount of time that past the more emotional attachment there is.
> 
> well I raise you like a son .....because I thought you were my son ....but now that we determined that your just a basta*d child by a sl*t of a women I no long want to be involved in your life .....see ya have good life.
> 
> 
> as aposed to ....excuse me sir but this is not your child do you still want a relationship and financial burdon for the next ....say 20years.
> 
> for it to really help it has to be done right at birth!


I agree accept I think it would be difficult to force men to be tested. A lot of girls would never tell the bio father and he would not even know to be tested.



chillymorn said:


> Ithe real problem is when the insurance companies start testing your dna to see what health problems you would be perdetermined to most likley manifest in you and then upping your rates or denining you insurance.
> 
> is that really a problem? why should a health person with great dna pay as much as a sickly person. just like why should a responsible person who drives carefull be charged the same as a person who is in accidents or take risks like texting or drinking while driving.


Well it is it's own topic but I'll bite and say something.

I've never understood how an industry in the business of making profits can at the same time have our best interest at heart which is what I think the health care system should be for. Big gov goes against my nature but I don't know about health care. I would feel guilty saying you might cost too much so your not covered. Ever see the movie Gattica? It's about that.


----------



## Thundarr

Runs like Dog said:


> Assuming of course there's some proviso that allows for 'lost' DNA. I'm a sperm donor per my own backup plan in case my cancer therapy didn't end well. Guess what - - the lab 'lost' it all. For all I know there's some little Dogs running around out there w.o. my knowledge. Well they inherited a ton of genetic bad wiring so good luck with that.


I hope you have recovered fully "Runs like Dog". I wanted to shorten your name but "Runs" just did not sound right . Hopefully this type of problem is isolated. I would be pretty furious in your shoes.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> Why has no one commented on how mandatory testing for paternity would affect women being able to find out if their H has kids by another woman??


Well I did but was scoffed at that if a woman finds out that a man fathered a child with another woman, it wouldn't affect her. I disagree as her resources were being used to support said child. In any case, I am against mandatory testing for either sex. I still say the best course of action is for the individual to get the test done and I encourage it.


----------



## Cosmos

> Originally Posted by anonim
> Why has no one commented on how mandatory testing for paternity would affect women being able to find out if their H has kids by another woman??





> Therealbrighteyes posted: Well I did but was scoffed at saying if a woman finds out that a man fathered a child with another woman, it wouldn't affect her. I disagree as her resources were being used to support said child. In any case, I am against mandatory testing for either sex. I still say the best course of action is for the individual to get the test done and I encourage it.


Yes, I seem to remember making a similar post - if not in this thread, in another.

I'm sure it impacted on my hard-working mother, financially, when my father was secretly supporting another woman and their child...


----------



## COGypsy

anonim said:


> Why has no one commented on how mandatory testing for paternity would affect women being able to find out if their H has kids by another woman??


Because that would violate just about every health privacy law in existence. Genetic information would belong to the woman, the child and the purported father. Even if you're married, you don't have automatic rights to your spouse's health care records. Unless releases are signed giving the alleged father's wife access to those medical records, there's no way it can be legally accessed without a subpoena. It's almost inconceivable that in today's health care environment a person could just cruise around some database checking to see who has parented random children.

That's even assuming that genetic material was collected from the father of the child was born out of wedlock (whether affair or even a one-night stand).


----------



## tacoma

chillymorn said:


> the problem with just storing the blood until if and when the husbands wants it done it that the damage will already be done the longer the amount of time that past the more emotional attachment there is.
> 
> well I raise you like a son .....because I thought you were my son ....but now that we determined that your just a basta*d child by a sl*t of a women I no long want to be involved in your life .....see ya have good life.
> 
> 
> as aposed to ....excuse me sir but this is not your child do you still want a relationship and financial burdon for the next ....say 20years.
> 
> for it to really help it has to be done right at birth!


I dunno chilly.

I`ve said before (Maybe even in this thread).
My daughter is 11 and if I were to have her tested and she wasn`t mine there`s no way I`d give her up.
In fact I`d use that law which states I`m her father regardless to get custody.

My wife however would be having divorce papers served at a new address.


----------



## anonim

COGypsy said:


> Because that would violate just about every health privacy law in existence. Genetic information would belong to the woman, the child and the purported father. Even if you're married, you don't have automatic rights to your spouse's health care records. Unless releases are signed giving the alleged father's wife access to those medical records, there's no way it can be legally accessed without a subpoena. It's almost inconceivable that in today's health care environment a person could just cruise around some database checking to see who has parented random children.
> 
> That's even assuming that genetic material was collected from the father of the child was born out of wedlock (whether affair or even a one-night stand).


dont you think a woman should have the right to know if her H has kids she doesnt know about?


----------



## anonim

Trenton said:


> Mandatory paternity testing (and the results) is something you wouldn't have to know about unless you wanted to and is harmless to your child and your husband/self.
> 
> I hope that in the end the majority is with me because I do think men should have an automatic right to know whether or not their child is genetically theirs, especially considering the low cost of the test, the low risk of testing, and the genetic benefit to the child in knowing whether or not the history is correct on both sides.
> 
> I don't really care about any woman's feelings on this.


It may seem obvious but would you care to elaborate on why?


----------



## Thundarr

Trenton said:


> Mandatory paternity testing (and the results) is something you wouldn't have to know about unless you wanted to and is harmless to your child and your husband/self.
> 
> I hope that in the end the majority is with me because I do think men should have an automatic right to know whether or not their child is genetically theirs, especially considering the low cost of the test, the low risk of testing, and the genetic benefit to the child in knowing whether or not the history is correct on both sides.
> 
> I don't really care about any woman's feelings on this.


I do CARE what they think. However I still think the husband should be able to find out since he is the one at risk. The thing that sways my opinion is the level of deceit, betrayal and devastation this causes. Not to mention like Trenton said, the child does not have vital information about the biological father's side of the family.

I care what women think because I would not want to step on their rights gaining this right for men.


----------



## chillymorn

tacoma said:


> I dunno chilly.
> 
> I`ve said before (Maybe even in this thread).
> My daughter is 11 and if I were to have her tested and she wasn`t mine there`s no way I`d give her up.
> In fact I`d use that law which states I`m her father regardless to get custody.
> 
> My wife however would be having divorce papers served at a new address.


there was a dose of sarcasim in there.

my point being it was forced on you and now with emotional attachment not many people would disown them for a lack of a better trem. 

thats exactly why is has to be done as soon as possible. 

really what rights would be infringed on. again the real danger would be the mis use of dna by the insurance companies.which could be aleaviated by passing some laws ........LOL the old foot in the door argument. once the info is there then eventualy it will be miss used.


----------



## that_girl

Wow. So...the woman has no say, and no one cares about her feelings, because she's just a lying piece of cheating scum. I get it.

And the man should test the child to make sure it's his--- for vital medical information.

lol. I didn't even talk to my dad or his side of the family for over 13 years. Didn't have vital medical information. 

What about people who are adopted? they don't get that either. We don't know my brother's father (adopted), and we knew his mother for a bit.

Unreal. So glad this won't be a part of my life. My baby bearing days are over. But my daughters will be women and mothers someday and I hope this isn't a practice that is in place. I doubt it will be because the government really has no money to make it mandatory and it doesn't pay off for them anyway.


----------



## Thundarr

that_girl, your view of how I think (If you're referring to me) is way off but you have a couple of good points.



that_girl said:


> And the man should test the child to make sure it's his--- for vital medical information.
> 
> lol. I didn't even talk to my dad or his side of the family for over 13 years. Didn't have vital medical information.
> 
> What about people who are adopted? they don't get that either. We don't know my brother's father (adopted), and we knew his mother for a bit.


That's a very good point. You are pointing out that this aspect is not a huge deal and I AGREE. See how that works. You had a valid point and I did not pick out just the bad parts. I actually understand your point of view.




that_girl said:


> Wow. So...the woman has no say, and no one cares about her feelings, because she's just a lying piece of cheating scum. I get it.


No that is how extreme you want to paint the opposing view. It's easier than thinking about if there is any value to any part of argument. So no you don't get it AT ALL because you don't try to understand it. (again if that was directed toward me. It is not what I think). I think the person who does not know if the child is theirs should be able to find out. You can say that's treating every woman like a "lying piece of cheating scum." if you want to. It just means you don't want to know the truth. Ask any person a question about their comment if it confuses you.




that_girl said:


> Unreal. So glad this won't be a part of my life. My baby bearing days are over. But my daughters will be women and mothers someday and I hope this isn't a practice that is in place. I doubt it will be because the government really has no money to make it mandatory and it doesn't pay off for them anyway.


Based on your outlandish view of how people MUST THINK in order to want this. Then I can completely see why you would feel like it's "Unreal". I don't think it's "Unreal" that you hate it so much. I just think I understand what makes you hate it so much. I eluded to one aspect above.


----------



## Thundarr

Trenton said:


> Because individuals will always feel one way or another on specific topics but in the case of paternity, it should be the man's right to know whether or not he fathered the child. So his right supersedes her feelings on this specific topic.
> 
> It has nothing to do with whether or not there is enough trust or whether or not the woman is a ****.
> 
> In regards to couples and how they deal with this right, that's on them. It's the man's choice.
> 
> I know I keep repeating this, but this is such a no brainer to me that I'm having trouble understanding such strong opposition.


Yea I don't understand it either.


----------



## anonim

that_girl said:


> Wow. So...the woman has no say, and no one cares about her feelings, because she's just a lying piece of cheating scum. This isn't even logic. The father gets tested and the baby too. are they all scum then? No. Your reaction, is just extremist. I get it.
> 
> And the man should test the child to make sure it's his--- for vital medical information. For any reason. and without the propensity for interference from any agency.
> 
> lol. I didn't even talk to my dad or his side of the family for over 13 years. Didn't have vital medical information.
> 
> What about people who are adopted? they don't get that either. If they need it, they should have the medical info accessible. We don't know my brother's father (adopted), and we knew his mother for a bit.
> 
> Unreal. everything is until its normalized. So glad this won't be a part of my life. My baby bearing days are over. But my daughters will be women and mothers someday and I hope this isn't a practice that is in place. I doubt it will be because the government really has no money to make it mandatory and it doesn't pay off for them anyway. Same could have been said about the womens rights movement. But civil advancement was required for 1/2 of the citizens right?


Adopted people have the right to know who their parents are too!


----------



## tacoma

Actually I was in the "Non-mandatory" camp at the beginning of this thread.

Trentons posts have spun me around.

I`m thinking mandatory but personal knowledge optional is a good way to go for all concerned.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Because individuals will always feel one way or another on specific topics but in the case of paternity, it should be the man's right to know whether or not he fathered the child. So his right supersedes her feelings on this specific topic.
> 
> It has nothing to do with whether or not there is enough trust or whether or not the woman is a ****.
> 
> In regards to couples and how they deal with this right, that's on them. It's the man's choice.
> 
> I know I keep repeating this, but this is such a no brainer to me that I'm having trouble understanding such strong opposition.


The option is there RIGHT NOW for all men to have this test done. Instead you support crapping on the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and forcing 300MM taxpayers to suck up the cost? Why? Wouldn't it make more sense to tell these would be fathers to pay for the tests themselves and let each one make a choice on their own?


----------



## that_girl

Thundarr said:


> that_girl, your view of how I think (If you're referring to me) is way off but you have a couple of good points.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point. You are pointing out that this aspect is not a huge deal and I AGREE. See how that works. You had a valid point and I did not pick out just the bad parts. I actually understand your point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is how extreme you want to paint the opposing view. It's easier than thinking about if there is any value to any part of argument. So no you don't get it AT ALL because you don't try to understand it. (again if that was directed toward me. It is not what I think). I think the person who does not know if the child is theirs should be able to find out. You can say that's treating every woman like a "lying piece of cheating scum." if you want to. It just means you don't want to know the truth. Ask any person a question about their comment if it confuses you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your outlandish view of how people MUST THINK in order to want this. Then I can completely see why you would feel like it's "Unreal". I don't think it's "Unreal" that you hate it so much. I just think I understand what makes you hate it so much. I eluded to one aspect above.


The only reason a husband would ask his wife for a paternity test of the baby is because he suspects she's been stepping out on him. 

End of story.

All of that other stuff is just routine blood work. Blood type, etc. But a paternity test is used to make sure a man is the father. If you ask your wife for this, it's because you have doubts that she's been faithful.

I see your view, I just don't agree.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> I think we could pull this from a fund or act already in place in a way where the cost is absorbed by a subset of the population already in place such as the Victims of Crimes Act (funded by proceeds from federal criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalty fees, and forfeited literary profits). That is one suggestion but there are other Acts with funding established that could make it so the cost would not have to be absorbed directly by taxpayers. Especially if it were funded on a set up basis (implementing all the required tools, equipment, training with a grant from a Federal Act) and then subsequently offered at a very affordable price.
> 
> Who do you think is paying for the cost of the many paternity tests given during litigation in family courts for low income families (and in a much less cost effective way) btw?
> 
> As for the Bill of Rights, since when is giving a man a right to know whether or not he is the father of a child taking away rights from anyone? If anything, you're upholding the Bill of Rights.


If you force all Americans to be subject to medical testing regardless if they want it, you are not upholding anything. Again, I fully support DNA testing for those who want it. Leave my freedoms be and my finances out of it. That is all I am saying.


----------



## sisters359

Juicer said:


> Well, I know two males that went through this.
> 
> I had a good friend back in high school. I remember one day, he came to school, saying his parents were up late last night, fighting. I tried asking him about it, but he didn't go into it. I come to find out through the grape-vine, that his mom had cheated on his father, told his father that the baby (him) wasn't his, and the dad just filed and left. Never said anything to the family, or sent any money. And who can blame him?


So he parented your friend through high school and then just abandoned him. I blame him. What a truly horrible person. Why would you even think that behavior is defensible? He ABANDONED his son. Nearly 18 years of parenting meant NOTHING, but one sperm would?? 

I sure hope most men don't feel this way.


----------



## sisters359

costa200 said:


> Personally, screw trust. Every sucker out there who got conned into bonding and supporting a child that wasn't his had "trust".


I know; what a horrible, horrible thing to love and support a child, and to receive a child's love, when it was not your sperm that created him! My god, what hideous abuse!!! The little bastard deserves to be punished severely.


----------



## tacoma

sisters359 said:


> I know; what a horrible, horrible thing to love and support a child, and to receive a child's love, when it was not your sperm that created him! My god, what hideous abuse!!! The little bastard deserves to be punished severely.


Utter hypocrisy!
This is why I have a hard time keeping that misogynist streak at bay.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sisters359

> :
> 
> 
> 
> Another guy I knew in college, moved out to California. I found him on facebook, and I saw he became quite the player.
> Well, 3 years later, he gets hit with 3 years of child support plus interest from this woman. He was surprised, and went to court about it. Come to find out, this women never made any attempt to find him, and it never had to proved that he was served the papers so he knew he was the daddy. So she had the papers to tell him that he was a daddy sent to the bar he met her at. Never sent to his home address. Interestingly, I found out the only lawsuit that they don't have to prove they served you papers in California is for child support.
> Well, he did a paternity test, and come to find out, IT AIN'T HIS! But guess what! He still has to PAY! Because he didn't do it in the time limit (one year after birth, until that kid hits 18) and California doesn't care. So he is paying child support, on a kid, that is not his, for some women that he hasn't seen in years to parent a kid. And he has no idea on how she spends that money. It could be spent on food and clothing for the kid, or beer and designer clothes for mommy.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, that's sick... I would leave the country!
Click to expand...

Yes, God forbid that a man be responsible for keeping track of where his d*ck went. 

This whole thread is making me sick. If a guy wants to know a child is "his" at birth, get testing. Otherwise, suck it up and be a man--which means, being a parent to the children in your household. Don't blame THEM for the sins of their mom. Don't blame the State for refusing to accept "oh, I didn't know," or "Oh, I couldn't find her!" as an excuse ignoring the fact that sex produces children. 

I can only imagine how this same guy would be pumping his fist in victory if he found out he "scored" but didn't get hit with child support b/c he managed to evade legal service for one year, if the child was his but the legal circumstances were different. 

Children belong to the people who raise them. Any so-called man who abandons a child who has already bonded with him is no real man. He is supposed to be the adult, but by cruelly abandoning a child who has no blame in the matter, he is demonstrating he is demonstrating a complete lack of the maturity that characterizes a real man. Same with wanting no responsibility after sex--when he KNOWS he has no control over a woman's body but has sex anyway. You can rant all you want about "well, she has a choice." Yeah, it is HER body. You know that. You don't want to be a father, then don't risk it. Get snipped, and get tested at least every 6 months (only guarantee, b/c spontaneous reversals DO happen). 

Quit whining about being victims. Do the right thing. Take responsibility for the children you have created AND the children you have parented. It isn't their damn fault. Stop fc*king and forgetting if you don't want to get blind-sided later. 

You can be as mad as you want at the woman who involves you in these situations, but that does not justify ignoring your own responsibilities or thinking it is ok to take out your anger on children. Her bad, even immoral behavior is no excuse for yours.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Firstly, I already addressed your issue of cost.
> 
> Second, A father can demand a paternity test at any point in time and the judge is going to uphold it and order it.
> 
> Why do you think it doesn't make sense to change the process so that it is not longer something a father has to do through a judge and court? It is recognized that it is within his rights already. You don't think it's better for all involved to deal with and have this information on hand from the beginning? This is better for the child, the father and the mother.
> 
> Again, this has nothing to do with you specifically. This is all about fathers and men who are not fathers but are being told they are. It's not trampling on anything except personal feelings at the detriment to a man and child's right to know who the father of a child is. Your argument is basically saying that your feelings about this are more important than the rights of all men and that the government can't demand you do anything without trampling on your rights, but we both know this is a lie.
> 
> And it's true that there are no other mandatory tests for baby and mother and that a mother has a right to deny testing for any type of service. But I can tell you that the state does have the right to take away your children if they feel that by not taking a test you are neglecting your child. Just as states can refuse your child the right to go to school if you don't vaccinate the child.
> 
> _So even if we moved for standardized testing with the option to opt out, I think if a test is later done and the woman is found to be lying, it absolutely should be used in court against her. I also think it should still become acceptable and normal practice in the least so that more man have access to such testing._


So you suggest that we pull money from programs that help victims in the immediate aftermath of violent crimes and support them as they rebuild their lives so that we can channel that money for paternity testing? 

Quoting you: "even if we moved for standardized testing with the option to opt out", that isn't mandatory then. The topic is MANDATORY testing so that nobody can opt out. If people can say no thanks, then it isn't mandatory. 

As for vaccinations, they are not mandatory. They are guidelines but all students can enter without them based on a variety of reasons. 

Rights already exist for any father to question the paternity of a child. I don't see the benefit of forcing everybody else to give up theirs to appease under 4%. Again, they already have the right under the current model. If we changed it however, 96% would have no right in this matter. This is somehow better?


----------



## chillymorn

Therealbrighteyes said:


> If you force all Americans to be subject to medical testing regardless if they want it, you are not upholding anything. Again, I fully support DNA testing for those who want it. Leave my freedoms be and my finances out of it. That is all I am saying.


all americans are subject to inoculations or they can"t go to public schools.


----------



## Juicer

Ok, to put this to bed, what if we did this:

After we have a child born, we give the mother and the baby time to be together, and she puts down the names on the birth certificate.
Meanwhile, the dad is taken into a separate room, and asked if he would like to have a paternity test. It is mandatory that a doctor ask if the man there would want one, but it is not mandatory that he submit to it. 

And as for this poster:


> Yes, God forbid that a man be responsible for keeping track of where his d*ck went.
> 
> This whole thread is making me sick. If a guy wants to know a child is "his" at birth, get testing. Otherwise, suck it up and be a man--which means, being a parent to the children in your household. Don't blame THEM for the sins of their mom. Don't blame the State for refusing to accept "oh, I didn't know," or "Oh, I couldn't find her!" as an excuse ignoring the fact that sex produces children.
> 
> I can only imagine how this same guy would be pumping his fist in victory if he found out he "scored" but didn't get hit with child support b/c he managed to evade legal service for one year, if the child was his but the legal circumstances were different.
> 
> Children belong to the people who raise them. Any so-called man who abandons a child who has already bonded with him is no real man. He is supposed to be the adult, but by cruelly abandoning a child who has no blame in the matter, he is demonstrating he is demonstrating a complete lack of the maturity that characterizes a real man. Same with wanting no responsibility after sex--when he KNOWS he has no control over a woman's body but has sex anyway. You can rant all you want about "well, she has a choice." Yeah, it is HER body. You know that. You don't want to be a father, then don't risk it. Get snipped, and get tested at least every 6 months (only guarantee, b/c spontaneous reversals DO happen).
> 
> Quit whining about being victims. Do the right thing. Take responsibility for the children you have created AND the children you have parented. It isn't their damn fault. Stop fc*king and forgetting if you don't want to get blind-sided later.
> 
> You can be as mad as you want at the woman who involves you in these situations, but that does not justify ignoring your own responsibilities or thinking it is ok to take out your anger on children. Her bad, even immoral behavior is no excuse for yours


Now, let me understand:
This guy, that never met this child, and was never told about being a dad, and was then hit with 3 years of child support is right? And by the way, he isn't given visitation rights, because he proved he wasn't the father. So he is denied visitation rights, but is still expected to pay. So where is the justice in that?
Then the fact the child IS NOT HIS is irrelevant. He had sex with her, so it is HIS RESPONSIBILITY! Not hers to figure out which man she had sex with is the right daddy, it is HIS to find her, track her down 9 months later in every hospital, make sure she isn't about to give birth, and if she is, make sure that he is the daddy. Yea, that seeems right.

How about the fact a man has ZERO choice in making a child after it is concieved. 
If he wants to have a child, and the woman wants an abortion, what will happen? An abortion.
If he wants her to have an abortion, and she wants a baby, what will happen? A baby!!!

Now, this drives me crazy. To you, it seems that if a women is irresponsible, she can get off almost free!!!

A woman can have sex with an irresponsible dead-beat loser, than she thinks is hot and nice. But then she gets knocked up by him, HE needs to be responsible. 
Now I understand he is obviously a loser, but where do women get responsibility!?! They should be smart enough to know to NOT procreate with a man that is a loser with no future, then expect him to change because there is a miniature version of him running around.

Then how about this:
A wife can have sex with another man, get pregnant by him, then trick her husband into raising this child. 
Then if the husband finds out that it is not his child, he should still be required to pay for it!?!?!?!?!
Are you kidding me?!

To put that in perspective:
Let's say you have a brother. Well your brother forges your signature on a loan document, and takes out a $250k 18 year loan (because that is what current estimates say it takes to raise a kid) to buy a house or something or whatever. 
But then they fail on the loan, and you get hit with it. All of it. 

So you are now, responsible for a big $250k loan, that you didn't even know was yours, and if you don't pay it, the bank will take your house. 

Because that is what you expect a man to do financially. We haven't even touched the emotional and mental trauma that goes with it. (And by the way, that is fraud, and you couldn't be held responsible for that. So rethink your stance)


----------



## anonim

sisters359 said:


> So he parented your friend through high school and then just abandoned him. I blame him. What a truly horrible person. Why would you even think that behavior is defensible? He ABANDONED his son. Nearly 18 years of parenting meant NOTHING, but one sperm would??
> 
> I sure hope most men don't feel this way.


hmm...there' something missing from your post. But what is it? And where is it? Aha, there it is! 

Its you vilifying the 'mother' for cheating on the 'father' and deceiving both him and the 'son!'

Its the sympathy for the father having been deceived for years and years .

It seems crystal clear to me who you identify with in Juicers post.

And to answer some other sundry posts of yours, Yes, Whose Sperm Does Matter. Why? Because We (Men) say so.
We dont dictate womens choices about whats important to you. you dont discatate ours.

When you say to a man, that it doesn't matter whose sperm a child came from, you are also saying that it doesn't matter if someone cheats and deceives about who is father to that child, and that its ok to defraud someone into paying child support for a child that isn't theirs, and fooling someone into paying alimony to someone that has no right to it. And that you support any and all of these actions.

If your bleeding heart dictates that someone should pay for the child that was brought into being through some skanks deception, might I suggest you pay to raise it.

You said'dont blame the childrens for the sins of the mom,' but I didn't see you blaming the mom. Only the 'father.'

You also said children belong to those who raise them. Theres a reason why you only raise your children and not every single child that needs raised. You only have finite resources right? physical and emotional. Your first priorities are to whats yours - your children. when you are tricked out of your children, your resources are being stolen.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Mandatory paternity testing (and the results) is something you wouldn't have to know about unless you wanted to and is harmless to your child and your husband/self.
> 
> I hope that in the end the majority is with me because I do think men should have an automatic right to know whether or not their child is genetically theirs, especially considering the low cost of the test, the low risk of testing, and the genetic benefit to the child in knowing whether or not the history is correct on both sides.


They have that right now. Nothing is keeping them from getting those tests done. However, there are those of us, men and women alike, who _also_ have the right to _choose_ whether or not they want a paternity test done. 



> I don't really care about any woman's feelings on this.


I'm sure we don't really care about your feelings either.


----------



## larry.gray

sisters359 said:


> So he parented your friend through high school and then just abandoned him. I blame him. What a truly horrible person. Why would you even think that behavior is defensible? He ABANDONED his son. Nearly 18 years of parenting meant NOTHING, but one sperm would??
> 
> I sure hope most men don't feel this way.


Most? Only 99% or so.

As a woman you can't understand what this would be like for a guy. 

A man can openly and willingly raise a step child from birth. He can love that child and provide for that child. But a child that he was tricked into thinking was his? No way. Nearly every man out there will run fast.


----------



## Created2Write

Thundarr said:


> I do CARE what they think. However I still think the husband should be able to find out since he is the one at risk. The thing that sways my opinion is the level of deceit, betrayal and devastation this causes. Not to mention like Trenton said, the child does not have vital information about the biological father's side of the family.
> 
> I care what women think because I would not want to step on their rights gaining this right for men.


Women aren't the only ones whose rights would be trampled on. Couples, including men, that don't want a test done would have their rights trampled on too. And again, there's nothing keeping men from getting paternity tests done if they so desire, so the rights of men aren't even being trampled on now.


----------



## Juicer

Also about the post concerning my high school buddy:

He was 16 when his dad left. We would've been sophomores, so it wasn't after 18 years of parenting. It was 16. 

But I also imagine that adds to the pain. Thinking "How proud I am of my son, this boy I created with my wife," then being told in a moment of anger "That son is from another man!" 
That would hurt quite a lot. Every single happy memory of your son would then forever be tainted. Knowing, "Well, he is good at football. WEll, I sure know he didn't get that from me," or thinking "Well, he has blonde hair. Know he didn't get that from me either cause I got brown," etc. etc. etc. 
I imagine the pain from that, would be immense.

And I have tried tracking him down. No luck sadly. Couldn't find him on facebook, I found his mother and she just showed me an old letter he sent her shortly before joining the army, where he disowned her, and said some very hurtful things, and that is about it. 

I haven't seen him in almost 15 years. He dropped out of high school, unable to live where he was, and I don't know what happened to him. It wasn't as easy to stay in touch back then as it was today.


----------



## larry.gray

sisters359 said:


> I know; what a horrible, horrible thing to love and support a child, and to receive a child's love, when it was not your sperm that created him! My god, what hideous abuse!!! The little bastard deserves to be punished severely.


Civilized society is based on suppressing the primal urges and keeping them in check. But we must remember those primal urges are still under there.

Prior to being civilized, the way a man would deal with a child that was obviously not his would be to murder it. Yep, that urge is still there and is even acted on in some cases. 

A man running away would be better than doing the alternative.


----------



## anonim

Juicer said:


> Also about the post concerning my high school buddy:
> 
> He was 16 when his dad left. We would've been sophomores, so it wasn't after 18 years of parenting. It was 16.
> 
> But I also imagine that adds to the pain. Thinking "How proud I am of my son, this boy I created with my wife," then being told in a moment of anger "That son is from another man!"
> That would hurt quite a lot. Every single happy memory of your son would then forever be tainted. Knowing, "Well, he is good at football. WEll, I sure know he didn't get that from me," or thinking "Well, he has blonde hair. Know he didn't get that from me either cause I got brown," etc. etc. etc.
> I imagine the pain from that, would be immense.
> 
> And I have tried tracking him down. No luck sadly. Couldn't find him on facebook, I found his mother and she just showed me an old letter he sent her shortly before joining the army, where he disowned her, and said some very hurtful things, and that is about it.
> 
> I haven't seen him in almost 15 years. He dropped out of high school, unable to live where he was, and I don't know what happened to him. It wasn't as easy to stay in touch back then as it was today.


Thats got to be every bit as painful for the son too. Why dont the women fess up to creating that pain instead of blaming men?


----------



## larry.gray

tacoma said:


> Utter hypocrisy!
> This is why I have a hard time keeping that misogynist streak at bay.


Shame on the other women of the thread if they don't beat her up for her utter misandry.


----------



## Juicer

Here is a good question:

What should the punishment be for women that commit paternity fraud? Knowingly or unknowingly. 

Because EVERY other type of fraud is punishable by law. Except this one.


----------



## larry.gray

Created2Write said:


> And again, there's nothing keeping men from getting paternity tests done if they so desire, so the rights of men aren't even being trampled on now.


They are so long as the power of the state is being used to extract child support money from men who are not the father. Most states still force the husband to pay after divorce even if he finds out later.


----------



## larry.gray

Juicer said:


> Here is a good question:
> 
> What should the punishment be for women that commit paternity fraud? Knowingly or unknowingly.
> 
> Because EVERY other type of fraud is punishable by law. Except this one.


I would think several years in jail would be appropriate. Enough to actually put fear into women and get them to stop.


----------



## Created2Write

larry.gray said:


> They are so long as the power of the state is being used to extract child support money from men who are not the father. Most states still force the husband to pay after divorce even if he finds out later.


THAT, I do agree, is wrong. Very wrong. However, I don't think it justifies forcing paternity tests onto couples who don't want them. If a man wants one, he should just get one.


----------



## larry.gray

anonim said:


> Thats got to be every bit as painful for the son too. Why dont the women fess up to creating that pain instead of blaming men?


Yep, we have one poster who is appalled at at the behavior of the not-dad but haven't expressed any disdain towards the mom. 

That silence on the second part is very telling.


----------



## larry.gray

Created2Write said:


> THAT, I do agree, is wrong. Very wrong. However, I don't think it justifies forcing paternity tests onto couples who don't want them. If a man wants one, he should just get one.


It is just a question if we should set it up so that a man could get this done without the mother ever knowing.

Many men won't because of the consequences of their wife finding out they did.


----------



## Created2Write

larry.gray said:


> I would think several years in jail would be appropriate. Enough to actually put fear into women and get them to stop.


I definitely think there should be punishments. My only concern, is what would happen to the child/children while the mother is in jail and there isn't a father to provide for it?


----------



## anonim

Juicer said:


> Here is a good question:
> 
> What should the punishment be for women that commit paternity fraud? Knowingly or unknowingly.


that should be a new thread. v good Q though. I dread to think of the misogyny/misandry in that thread though. I might make it anyways if you dont.


----------



## larry.gray

Created2Write said:


> I definitely think there should be punishments. My only concern, is what would happen to the child/children while the mother is in jail and there isn't a father to provide for it?


That isn't an excuse for avoiding putting any other felon in jail. Many people in jail have kids.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> There should be legal retribution to men put in these situations but here we see an example of financial obligation instead. That's not justice and has nothing to do with a man's love for a child (how can he love a child he knows nothing about and how can he be expected to know if he got a woman pregnant if she doesn't tell him?!).


I have maintained all along that if a woman dupes a man in to thinking that the child is his, once found out she should be forced to pay back all monies and face jail time under the laws of fraud and theft. That would certainly make many think twice.


----------



## Created2Write

larry.gray said:


> It is just a question if we should set it up so that a man could get this done without the mother ever knowing.
> 
> Many men won't because of the consequences of their wife finding out they did.


I also agree that they should be able to get a test without the mother knowing. I do agree with that. But I don't think it should be made to be mandatory.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> I definitely think there should be punishments. My only concern, is what would happen to the child/children while the mother is in jail and there isn't a father to provide for it?


same thing as what happens when the father goes to jail. No special allowances.


----------



## Juicer

We are getting off on a tangent here. 

And I will still stand by my statement:

A doctor will privately ask the man (if one is present) if he wants a paternity test, away from the mother and the baby. In a private room, away from all that. 
A doctor should be required, by law, to ask the man that is present (and likely assumed to be the father) if he would like one. 

The man that is present has the option of either saying yes, or no.


----------



## costa200

sisters359 said:


> I know; what a horrible, horrible thing to love and support a child, and to receive a child's love, when it was not your sperm that created him! My god, what hideous abuse!!! The little bastard deserves to be punished severely.


No, but the mother sure does. And in case you have doubts, yes the sperm that gets there surely is a lot more important than you make of it. To clear doubts, i would not support or raise a child that was not mine if i was deceived into doing it. Period. I don't care if you whine and name call or whatever.

I'm not in business to favor cheater genes. I'm all for eliminating them from the population. 

And you cannot judge what you do not know. You are not a man so what do you know about how would you feel if you were on this side?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

chillymorn said:


> all americans are subject to inoculations or they can"t go to public schools.


No, they are not. Exemptions are made for medical, religious and philosophical reasons.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Juicer said:


> We are getting off on a tangent here.
> 
> And I will still stand by my statement:
> 
> A doctor will privately ask the man (if one is present) if he wants a paternity test, away from the mother and the baby. In a private room, away from all that.
> A doctor should be required, by law, to ask the man that is present (and likely assumed to be the father) if he would like one.
> 
> The man that is present has the option of either saying yes, or no.


Exactly. It is a *CHOICE* then.


----------



## Created2Write

larry.gray said:


> That isn't an excuse for avoiding putting any other felon in jail. Many people in jail have kids.


Granted. Well, I'd have to say that I definitely think a woman who has lied about the father of her child/children should be punished. Jail, I think, is an appropriate consequence.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> Shame on the other women of the thread if they don't beat her up for her utter misandry.


Uh, I stepped away to clean my kitchen. My silence wasn't "telling" in any way. You bet I will call that out! To say the man is a horrible human being is insane. I place the blame squarely on the woman who ruined two lives. Period.


----------



## larry.gray

Juicer said:


> We are getting off on a tangent here.
> 
> And I will still stand by my statement:
> 
> A doctor will privately ask the man (if one is present) if he wants a paternity test, away from the mother and the baby. In a private room, away from all that.
> A doctor should be required, by law, to ask the man that is present (and likely assumed to be the father) if he would like one.
> 
> The man that is present has the option of either saying yes, or no.


I don't think it should be the doctor, but whomever handles the birth certificate completion. The way I'm looking at it, the state has an interest in assuring that the legal document is correct. Make it part of the birth certificate process.

Ask the guy - test or no test. If he wants the test, he gets it without the mother ever knowing he asked for it.


----------



## Juicer

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Exactly. It is a *CHOICE* then.


And the choice is the man's to make, away from the wife's, girlfriend's, one-night-stands, whoever. 

It is the man's choice to make, and for the wife to not know if he said yes to the test or not. 
Because you are 100% certain that the baby in your arms (while he is in another room discussing the test) is yours. 
He has only your word to go on. And I don't know about everyone, but after my last spouse's word, I want a test.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Uh, I stepped away to clean my kitchen. My silence wasn't "telling" in any way.


The comment about 'silence' was only directed at one poster who put the disdain at the non-dad but not the mother in the one post. 

I wasn't putting a time frame on the other women 

Speaking of the kitchen, a full dishwasher is calling me and my son's name


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No, they are not. Exemptions are made for medical, religious and philosophical reasons.


medical yes. religious ye. philosophical? i never saw this option on the school forms. maybe it goes by state?


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Uh, I stepped away to clean my kitchen. My silence wasn't "telling" in any way. You bet I will call that out! To say the man is a horrible human being is insane. I place the blame squarely on the woman who ruined two lives. Period.


im not sure he meant you, you have been brusque but reasonable IMO.


----------



## anonim

larry.gray said:


> The comment about 'silence' was only directed at one poster who put the disdain at the non-dad but not the mother in the one post.
> 
> I wasn't putting a time frame on the other women
> 
> Speaking of the kitchen, a full dishwasher is calling me and my son's name


Dishwasher?  but, but, _you're a man_....

...are there no women where you are? 


*I'm just playing!! * cease with the death threats and hatemail!!


----------



## larry.gray

The two daughters went to Alaska with gradma. Wifey just left for a two day business trip. So now it's just me and son.

I do a lot of the cooking and kitchen cleaning anyway though.


----------



## larry.gray

Trenton said:


> I can totally get down with this but what if the charge is seen on the insurance bill and wife gets really upset?


Consider it part of the birth certificate filing process and spread it out into the fees of the birth certificate.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> medical yes. religious ye. philosophical? i never saw this option on the school forms. maybe it goes by state?


Yes it is state by state. Only Mississippi and W. Virginia have medical as the only reason for lack of vaccines and those laws are being challenged. Every other state as medical/religious/philosophical as reasons to reject them. Link below:

State Vaccine Requirements


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Most of it goes towards legal defense for those without money and I don't necessarily think it's a great act to take money from although oh how I could tell you stories; however, I think looking to some type of creative federal funding that does not include taxpayers would be a good alternative.
> 
> Vaccinations are absolutely mandatory in NJ if you want to enroll your child in public school, each state has different laws. You cannot opt out because of philosophy, it has to be religious and it has to be well founded with letters from pastors, preachers, etc. I know because I did not want my child to have the flu shot when he was a baby but in order to place him in preschool he would have had to have it. I tried to look into writing the letter and what I found out was really unnerving. The other opt out is medical but again, this has to be proven.
> 
> When I, as a parent, can't make an educated decision for my child unless I regularly practice a religion or my child is medically incapacitated, that is mandatory.
> 
> Can I just ask you...if it was self funded without cost to taxpayers, what rights would you be giving up?


You still had a choice though. Public schools require them, private don't always or you could home school. Yes, I know that is unreasonable but you still had a choice. I do think that paternity testing and vaccinations are two different things though and whoever brought it up was comparing apples to oranges. One is a matter of public health while the other is not. 

If it was self funded but mandatory? Could never happen. You cannot force someone to undergo a medical test and then stick them with the bill. The two would have to go hand in hand. Let's say however that they could be separate, what right would I give up? Me, none. My husband and sons however would have a right to say no taken away from them.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> Consider it part of the birth certificate filing process and spread it out into the fees of the birth certificate.


Or have a conversation with wifey instead of hiding behind the government apron. :slap:


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You still had a choice though. Public schools require them, private don't always or you could home school. Yes, I know that is unreasonable but you still had a choice. I do think that paternity testing and vaccinations are two different things though and whoever brought it up was comparing apples to oranges. One is a matter of public health while the other is not. *Incorrect. Both are a matter of public health (or maybe pubic health, hur hur.)
> It does no good to society to have kids wandering around not knowing who daddy is, does all sorts of bad things to ones mind. *
> 
> If it was self funded but mandatory? Could never happen. You cannot force someone to undergo a medical test and then stick them with the bill. The two would have to go hand in hand. Let's say however that they could be separate, what right would I give up? Me, none. My husband and sons however would have a right to say no taken away from them.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Or have a conversation with wifey instead of hiding behind the government apron. :slap:


good suggestion until you marry someone who shares Tikiis views. 

Just in case you need a reminder of what they were;

Man : "Honey, can I get a paternit-"

Woman : grabs the kids and disappears in a puff of acrid smoke.

Smokes clears to reveal a paper on the floor - the man picks it up and reads - YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Anonim,
You said "Incorrect. Both are a matter of public health (or maybe pubic health, hur hur.) 
It does no good to society to have kids wandering around not knowing who daddy is, does all sorts of bad things to ones mind". 

In order to ensure that the paternity of the child was known rather than knowing the husband was not the father, we would have to test all men of reproductive age. Is that what you are advocating?

Also, public health is a matter of life or death. Paternity is not. Is it optimal to know who the father is? Yes but forced DNA testing on the presumed father is only going to show that he is either the father, or he is not. It is not going to show who really is, unless you are in favor of testing all men from say the age of maturity. Does that sound palatable to you? It doesn't to me.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Anonim,
> You said "Incorrect. Both are a matter of public health (or maybe pubic health, hur hur.)
> It does no good to society to have kids wandering around not knowing who daddy is, does all sorts of bad things to ones mind".
> 
> In order to ensure that the paternity of the child was known rather than knowing the husband was not the father, we would have to test all men of reproductive age. Is that what you are advocating?


i dont believed i mentioned that, no.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> good suggestion until you marry someone who shares Tikiis views.
> 
> Just in case you need a reminder of what they were;
> 
> Man : "Honey, can I get a paternit-"
> 
> Woman : grabs the kids and disappears in a puff of acrid smoke.
> 
> Smokes clears to reveal a paper on the floor - the man picks it up and reads - YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED


I think she was off but I understand HER being upset about it as she has been going through 5 years of fertility treatments and countless emotional rollercoasters in an effort to get pregnant with her husband. I don't however understand others who were offended by it. If my husband wanted a test, let's roll.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Then you are looking at financial issues which puts an unjust burden on those who do not have the financial means to opt out. Private and home schooling is not a financially viable option for many parents.
> 
> How is whether or not a daughter takes a Gardasil vaccination at age 12 a public health issue? Why is it that the parents can't say...I don't want her to get that vaccination until she is sexually active, or until there is more data about possible side effects, or until it's developed to include more strains of HPV virus so that she doesn't feel falsely protected against cervical cancer as a result of HPV?
> 
> If you admit you won't be giving up any rights can you tell me how your sons/husband are giving up any rights? They do not have to know the results. It can be as if it never existed as far as they are concerned. They still maintain the right to see or not see the results and take action or not take action on those results.
> 
> I have two sons and a husband as well but think very differently than you.


Private and home schooling is still an option, albeit a bad one but nonetheless an option. As for what my husband/sons would be giving up, under what is proposed here, they would be forced to give their DNA sample and have their children tested against their will regardless if they asked to have it done or not. Does it matter if they want to look at the test? 

I think you and I won't agree on this and that's cool. I get what you are saying and I think you get what I am. This is really an interesting discussion though. I like spirited debates.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Or have a conversation with wifey instead of hiding behind the government apron. :slap:


They guys that need this the most are the ones that would have to deal with a crazed woman when they suggest such a thing.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think she was off but I understand HER being upset about it as she has been going through 5 years of fertility treatments and countless emotional rollercoasters in an effort to get pregnant with her husband. I don't however understand others who were offended by it. If my husband wanted a test, let's roll.


Her being 'off' doesnt retract what she has stated, which was if her H asked for a pat. test, she would leave him, take the kids and refuse all DNA tests unless it was court ordered.

And even though you might be far more forgiving than tikii, it wont change the options a man would have if he wound up married to someone who shared her outlook. Heck, someone might get Bait and Switched into such a marriage.


----------



## anonim

Trenton said:


> I wouldn't expect you to so it's not something you have to declare but good to know and who is this "we"?


oh so subtle...I wish i could like this a million times


----------



## MrsKy

When I saw the post stating that a man should have to pay for kids which aren't his, I nearly vomited all over my keyboard. 

As a woman, I feel disgusted when another female advocates such injustice. I don't subscribe to the belief that the woman is always the victim. 

A man forced to support a child that he did not create is court ordered robbery. 

This is going to be a thread that never ends.


----------



## anonim

MrsKy said:


> When I saw the post stating that a man should have to pay for kids which aren't his, I nearly vomited all over my keyboard.
> 
> As a woman, I feel disgusted when another female advocates such injustice. I don't subscribe to the belief that the woman is always the victim.
> 
> A man forced to support a child that he did not create is court ordered robbery.
> 
> This is going to be a thread that never ends.


This will make you vomit: Men are ordered to pay child support for children that are not theirs, that their wives give birth to after affairs. In most states, if your name is on the birth cert. if your are married to the mother, you are on the hook.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> This will make you vomit: Men are ordered to pay child support for children that are not theirs, that their wives give birth to after affairs. In most states, if your name is on the birth cert. if your are married to the mother, you are on the hook.[/QUOTE
> 
> Yes and no. I only know of 3 states where the husband is still on the hook once the child is proven not to be his. I think that is outrageous and we should focus on changing those laws, rather than creating new ones.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Totally, learn so much when spirited, non personal debates get going!
> 
> Besides, we sort of agree. We both agree that it's a man's right to have the test and that women who knowingly tricks a man for financial gains should be a crime. I'm not firm on mandatory, if I be honest, I am firm on standardized and having the man opt out. I get where the government should not be able to DNA test someone against their will. If it were mandatory I wouldn't lose sleep over it or call the ACLU but having spoken with you I can see that it would be a legal battle to get it mandated and one that would probably be lost in court.
> 
> I will say, and I know this is off topic, but wasn't it you who said a government can't mandate a test and then have the person pay for it? If the government won't foot the financial bill for alternative schooling then why should they have the right to mandate the shots? If you can't financially pay for private school or leave your job to home school your child, that leaves the parents with no other options. No financial means = no alternative/no option. So many do not have an option.


You bring up a really interesting topic and something for me to think about. I think that the two are not the same though. Vaccinations for school children are to protect the public moreso than protect the individual child. If a parent opts not to have them, then they have made a choice to find alternatives and part of that choice is bearing the financial burden as unsavory as that sounds. 
DNA testing isn't a public health issue though. The two are vastly different.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> anonim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will make you vomit: Men are ordered to pay child support for children that are not theirs, that their wives give birth to after affairs. In most states, if your name is on the birth cert. if your are married to the mother, you are on the hook.[/QUOTE
> 
> Yes and no. I only know of 3 states where the husband is still on the hook once the child is proven not to be his. I think that is outrageous and we should focus on changing those laws, rather than creating new ones.
> 
> 
> 
> i think you have your info wrong/reversed. where did you see that only 3 states have presumption of paternity without rebuttal?
Click to expand...


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes and no. I only know of 3 states where the husband is still on the hook once the child is proven not to be his. I think that is outrageous and we should focus on changing those laws, rather than creating new ones.


I'll ask you again to cite your source for the list of 3. I think the number is way higher.


----------



## MrsKy

anonim said:


> This will make you vomit: Men are ordered to pay child support for children that are not theirs, that their wives give birth to after affairs. In most states, if your name is on the birth cert. if your are married to the mother, you are on the hook.


:wtf: This shouldn't happen in ANY state! Not even one much less three. Do you have a plastic bowl for me to hurl in? Ewww.

Imagine the situation reversed! Imagine a BW being legally obligated to raise a child that resulted from her husband's affair, because she is married to the father! Nobody would EVER let laws like that pass.

Yet it is legal to rob a man who was the victim of a manipulative liar.  Here is one example of double standards which work against men.


----------



## anonim

MrsKy said:


> :wtf: This shouldn't happen in ANY state! Not even one much less three. Do you have a plastic bowl for me to hurl in? Ewww.
> 
> Imagine the situation reversed! Imagine a BW being legally obligated to raise a child that resulted from her husband's affair, because she is married to the father! Nobody would EVER let laws like that pass.
> 
> Yet it is legal to rob a man who was the victim of a manipulative liar.  Here is one example of double standards which work against men.


There are double standards against men and against women, all should be eliminated IMO.

But your example with the BW being made to raise OW kids is an awesome example that could really make some of the posters here see the other side of the fence. well put.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> Therealbrighteyes said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think you have your info wrong/reversed. where did you see that only 3 states have presumption of paternity without rebuttal?
> 
> 
> 
> I think I wrote that wrong. What I meant is that all states presume the husband is the father. After DNA testing however, three states still keep the husband as the "father" and they are legally obligated to the child. That is an outrage and should be changed immediately.
Click to expand...


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> anonim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I wrote that wrong. What I meant is that all states presume the husband is the father. After DNA testing however, three states still keep the husband as the "father" and they are legally obligated to the child. That is an outrage and should be changed immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> so you have a source?
Click to expand...


----------



## larry.gray

States with absolute presumed paternity*:

Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.

*Meaning that there is no out for the husband, period.


----------



## larry.gray

Many more states have a very short window for the husband to fight it. As an example, Illinois states that the husband must fight it before the child is two years old.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> I wouldn't expect you to so it's not something you have to declare but good to know and who is this "we"?


You "declared" your lack of care for women's feelings on the subject. I merely responded in the same manner. If I didn't need to declare such a thing, then you had no need to either. 

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "we", as I really can't speak on behalf of the entire female population.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> I'll ask you again to cite your source for the list of 3. I think the number is way higher.


I didn't answer before because I was removing myself from the thread. I believe it is PA, FL and UT that even after a husband is ruled not to be the father that he still has a financial obligation to the child.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> States with absolute presumed paternity*:
> 
> Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.
> 
> *Meaning that there is no out for the husband, period.


Where did you get this data from? Nearly all states presume the husband is the father unless proven otherwise. A few don't care even after the testing.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anonim said:


> Therealbrighteyes said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you have a source?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check it out. I had a conversation with a friend over this a few years back and that is when (I think) those states came up. I Googled a bit but it is hard to decipher between states that have "presumed" fatherhood for a husband and once proven otherwise are let off the hook vs. those who presume the husband is the father and once proven otherwise still make him pay. Lot's of fine print to sift through so bear with me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Created2Write

I would like to see sources from both sides, honestly. I don't think it's fair for one side of a discussion to ask for sources over and over and then not provide their own.


----------



## larry.gray

Created2Write said:


> I would like to see sources from both sides, honestly. I don't think it's fair for one side of a discussion to ask for sources over and over and then not provide their own.


I got it from a list that is from an advocate site, so I will trudge through the list to see just how valid the list is. I'd rather see links directly to state statues as my basis for stating it as fact when it does come from an advocate site.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> I got it from a list that is from an advocate site, so I will trudge through the list to see just how valid the list is. I'd rather see links directly to state statues as my basis for stating it as fact when it does come from an advocate site.


This is the statute in Texas, where I live now. All husbands are presumed to be the father but that can be rebutted. Here is a link to the Attorney General's website. Scratch Texas from your list. Let me check out California, where I am from. 

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/cs/attorneys/crimnonsup/crimnonsuphb_ch11.shtml


----------



## larry.gray

Since Alabama was the first on the list:

Alabama Paternity Law - Paternity Laws - Paternity

As of 2008 they have added the ability for the husband to contest. Note that the law includes the verbiage that "if it is not in the best interest of the child the petition may be denied" so a judge can on their own just ignore the paternity test excluding the husband as the father if they feel like it. There's a whole lot there about reasons it may be denied.

Not solidly on the list but not really off it either.


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> This is the statute in Texas, where I live now. All husbands are presumed to be the father but that can be rebutted.
> 
> https://www.oag.state.tx.us/cs/attorneys/crimnonsup/crimnonsuphb_ch11.shtml


He's got 4 years or has got to get the other man to fess up. 

Some men will get out but a whole heck of a lot of them will be on the hook for a child that isn't theirs.



> Rebutting the Presumption
> The presumption of paternity may be rebutted if:
> 
> The presumed father files a denial of paternity along with an acknowledgment of paternity by another man [TFC § 160.204(b)]; or
> A court determines that he is not the father in a suit filed within four years of the child's birth [TFC § 160.607(a)];or
> A court determines that he is not the father, and that he did not cohabitate with or have sexual intercourse with the mother during the time of probable conception, and that he never represented that the child was his own, in a suit filed at any time.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> He's got 4 years or has got to get the other man to fess up.
> 
> Some men will get out but a whole heck of a lot of them will be on the hook for a child that isn't theirs.


I saw that too. You were saying that if he is the husband, he has no legal rights to challenge paternity which is clearly not the case in Texas. A lot of muddied waters and legal mumbo jumbo to sort through. 4 years is still enough time to get a DNA test, although I think it should be requested at birth if so desired. Again, I firmly believe in paternity testing for all who want it but I don't think mandating that it be done is the best course of action.


----------



## larry.gray

Strike Oregon from that list. As of 2009 the husband can contest at any time.


----------



## larry.gray

Yes, I concede that Texas is not on the absolute list, but most certainly belongs among those that further victimize cuckolded men.

The premise of mandatory testing is because it can't be challenged if caught later. That means Texas would still make a man pay when he isn't the father if he has the misfortune to find out four years later.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

larry.gray said:


> Yes, I concede that Texas is not on the absolute list, but most certainly belongs among those that further victimize cuckolded men.
> 
> The premise of mandatory testing is because it can't be challenged if caught later. That means Texas would still make a man pay when he isn't the father if he has the misfortune to find out four years later.


Agreed. See these are the laws we should be working towards changing, not creating a new one that forces medical testing on those who don't want it.
Ugh, the whole thing is so unsettling. On one hand states could force a "father" to financially provide for a child at say 5 years of age even if he is not the father and on the other hand there are those who say mandated testing should be the law to prevent this. This all just leaves a horrible taste in my mouth.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> What if the man does not become aware of the child until the child is five year's old? Should he have any obligation then? Does he legally have any obligation? I'm not sure on the laws.


By the looks of it, it is a state by state case. Larry just mentioned that in Oregon, the father once shown not to be has no legal obligation, yet here in Texas he would if he finds out paternity after the 4 year window. Very unsettling. 
Men really need to ask for a test at birth to protect themselves. It should be their choice though, not the governments.


----------



## Juicer

Trenton said:


> What if the man does not become aware of the child until the child is five year's old? Should he have any obligation then? Does he legally have any obligation? I'm not sure on the laws.


You're on the hook! 
Like my buddy out in California. 
He was hit with 3 years child support, plus interest on that sum! 
Plus to mention it wasn't even his kid...and he can't even see the kid...
So that is Equality! Making men pay for the irresponsible choices they make! (nevermind the irresponsible decisions women make, because they are the victims...) Paying a child support on a kid that isn't his, that he isn't allowed to see, to some woman, with no idea on what she spends it on.



But here is something I found interesting:
There are so many types of fraud. 
Yet, paternity fraud, is the only type, that:
You can't be charged for
And you can actually profit from the crime.


----------



## Thundarr

Therealbrighteyes said:


> By the looks of it, it is a state by state case. Larry just mentioned that in Oregon, the father once shown not to be has no legal obligation, yet here in Texas he would if he finds out paternity after the 4 year window. Very unsettling.
> Men really need to ask for a test at birth to protect themselves. It should be their choice though, not the governments.


It's nice to see the that these state laws seem to be moving in the right direction. I'm on board with Bright, Trent, and Created mostly.

It's a civil rights issue though and these state laws should have to follow a federal protection that a man does not have to support a child not his unless he's agreed to it. Plus federal fraud laws pertain to the mother as well.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> I was speaking in relation to the topic only. I think that since paternity affects a man, it is not something where a woman's feelings should be taken into account.
> 
> For the record, I am a woman and I know I care how I feel!
> 
> I care how you feel as well in a general sense or else I wouldn't be conversing with you, and it's not that I don't care how you feel on this topic either, always willing to read.


I was only responding in relation to the topic as well.


----------



## Created2Write

I'm from Oregon. At least my state has one thing right. lol. The other states need to change these laws, though. They are totally and utterly wrong and unethical. I have a lot of respect for a man that _chooses_ to provide for a child that he knows he isn't the biological father for. I've known one such man, and he he loved the two boys. 

But I have just as much respect for the men who want the real father to pay for the child, and I have absolutely no respect for the women who lie about it and don't have the decency to fess up at the time of the birth.


----------



## Miss Taken

I haven't read all the other posts so am just responding to the original question/post.

I don't sleep around. I am a strictly one-d!ckly (and only in the confines of a LTR or marriage) kind of gal. I would never foresee being in a situation where paternity was even a legitimate question unless I was raped. So, I wouldn't care if paternity testing became standard post-natal procedure. I also think that it could serve to protect your rights (both the man and the woman) in cases where a woman was unfaithful or he was a deadbeat and just didn't want to be responsible for the next 18 years. I do see some people simply not wanting to know though and to go on faith in their partners so I don't think it should be mandatory, just optional.

As an aside, if it was mandatory however, it would have saved my own family a great deal of heartache and torment. Unfortunately, my BIL ended up being in a situation where he thought he was the father but turned out not to be. That little girl is no longer in the family (despite his trying to still be involved) and the void she's left in our hearts has yet to be filled.


----------



## Thundarr

Miss Taken said:


> I haven't read all the other posts so am just responding to the original question/post.
> 
> I don't sleep around. I am a strictly one-d!ckly (and only in the confines of a LTR or marriage) kind of gal. I would never foresee being in a situation where paternity was even a legitimate question unless I was raped. So, I wouldn't care if paternity testing became standard post-natal procedure. I also think that it could serve to protect your rights (both the man and the woman) in cases where a woman was unfaithful or he was a deadbeat and just didn't want to be responsible for the next 18 years. I do see some people simply not wanting to know though and to go on faith in their partners so I don't think it should be mandatory, just optional.
> 
> As an aside, if it was mandatory however, it would have saved my own family a great deal of heartache and torment. Unfortunately, my BIL ended up being in a situation where he thought he was the father but turned out not to be. That little girl is no longer in the family (despite his trying to still be involved) and the void she's left in our hearts has yet to be filled.


Well you came in right off and nailed what took me some time thinking about the issue and some pages of debate to determine.


----------



## chillymorn

Juicer said:


> You're on the hook!
> Like my buddy out in California.
> He was hit with 3 years child support, plus interest on that sum!
> Plus to mention it wasn't even his kid...and he can't even see the kid...
> So that is Equality! Making men pay for the irresponsible choices they make! (nevermind the irresponsible decisions women make, because they are the victims...) Paying a child support on a kid that isn't his, that he isn't allowed to see, to some woman, with no idea on what she spends it on.
> 
> 
> 
> But here is something I found interesting:
> There are so many types of fraud.
> Yet, paternity fraud, is the only type, that:
> You can't be charged for
> And you can actually profit from the crime.


no wonder so many women are aginst it!

crime dose pay in this situation.


----------



## ozymandias

This is some ugly misandry. Serve my hypergamy regardless of the consequences, right sisters?



sisters359 said:


> Yes, God forbid that a man be responsible for keeping track of where his d*ck went.
> 
> This whole thread is making me sick. If a guy wants to know a child is "his" at birth, get testing. Otherwise, suck it up and be a man--which means, being a parent to the children in your household. Don't blame THEM for the sins of their mom. Don't blame the State for refusing to accept "oh, I didn't know," or "Oh, I couldn't find her!" as an excuse ignoring the fact that sex produces children.
> 
> I can only imagine how this same guy would be pumping his fist in victory if he found out he "scored" but didn't get hit with child support b/c he managed to evade legal service for one year, if the child was his but the legal circumstances were different.
> 
> Children belong to the people who raise them. Any so-called man who abandons a child who has already bonded with him is no real man. He is supposed to be the adult, but by cruelly abandoning a child who has no blame in the matter, he is demonstrating he is demonstrating a complete lack of the maturity that characterizes a real man. Same with wanting no responsibility after sex--when he KNOWS he has no control over a woman's body but has sex anyway. You can rant all you want about "well, she has a choice." Yeah, it is HER body. You know that. You don't want to be a father, then don't risk it. Get snipped, and get tested at least every 6 months (only guarantee, b/c spontaneous reversals DO happen).
> 
> Quit whining about being victims. Do the right thing. Take responsibility for the children you have created AND the children you have parented. It isn't their damn fault. Stop fc*king and forgetting if you don't want to get blind-sided later.
> 
> You can be as mad as you want at the woman who involves you in these situations, but that does not justify ignoring your own responsibilities or thinking it is ok to take out your anger on children. Her bad, even immoral behavior is no excuse for yours.


----------



## Thundarr

Ozy. I think sister is confused about the context of this thread or something. It starts off about the guy up and leaving which I also think is messed up but then it's a rant about irresponsible deadbeat dads more than the suckers who have been fooled into thinking the kids are theirs. 

Then again I may not be crazy enough to decipher that stuff. Geez a little logic would help


----------



## Maricha75

I have only been with my husband since the day we met. I have NO problem if it had been mandatory to have paternity tests to prove they were his. He knew they were, I knew they were. The boys look like him. The girl looks like...well, like my paternal grandmother lol. But she also looks like my HUSBAND'S mom.


----------



## DTO

diwali123 said:


> ...so that if a man takes care of a child and then finds out it isn't his he should still get visitation. And if a woman doesn't tell a man until later she doesn't get child support. And if a man pays child support for a child who isn't his, she has to pay him back.


Sounds good in theory, but it is unlikely to ever happen. My take is that the state's interest is in making sure the child is being supported (a noble intent IMO). Such a law would be contrary to that end.

Let's say husband H and wife W marry. W slips,has an ONS with some random dude, and conceives. She never sees that guy again and plays it off like it belongs to H.

At some point H and W divorce. H finds out that the child is not his. With such a law in place, he walks away. W cannot find the actual father. Who supports the kid? The state? Not likely with our economic and political climate. Yet, we will not tolerate a child going without (just like anyone can walk into an ER and get urgent care). So who, by default, gets stuck with the bill?

This is not a new problem. Reports of this have been around for many years and there seems to be no political will to fix it. That alone means that mandatory testing is a good idea.


----------



## Juicer

DTO said:


> This is not a new problem. Reports of this have been around for many years and there seems to be no political will to fix it. That alone means that mandatory testing is a good idea.


But the problem is:
The state will still get hit with the bill. Because she can't find the guy. She was probably drunk, because she had a ONS. (or at least I hope she was drunk)
So the husband doesn't have to provide for it, and the wife can't provide for everything, and she can't find the real daddy, so what do we do?

The state would rather shaft over the husband, because that means it is cheaper for them. 

And paying back child support to a cuckold? 
That will never happen.

Whenever a law comes forward, with some hint about making paternity fraud illegal, feminist come forward, and say that it takes support away from innocent children, and that we can't punish them. 
So instead we punish innocent and devastated men that find out they are a cuckold. 

And let's be honest, everyone on this board, be realistic:

If a law ever came up, talking about paternity like this, it would never get passed. EVen if it just made doctors required to ask if the father would like to test like I suggested. 
Feminist would call it sexist, and whoever voted for something like it would be tied to the stake by feminist and burned. 

And if a law ever came up making paternity fraud illegal, that law would never pass. It would be struck down in its infancy. 

And I am not wanting to sound like a misogynist. I am just being realistic.


----------



## costa200

> Whenever a law comes forward, with some hint about making paternity fraud illegal, feminist come forward, and say that it takes support away from innocent children, and that we can't punish them.


So the enslavement of a guy begins... I wouldn't be there though. There is no way a state on this planet would pin that crap on me. I would rather go to jail than pay for another guy's kid. I would leave the country, go completely dark and incognito, whatever it took. There is no way i would be enslaved like that. 

If the state wants the children taken care off they make a genetic profile of everyone and get the name of the real father. I would never be it.


----------



## hookares

costa200 said:


> So the enslavement of a guy begins... I wouldn't be there though. There is no way a state on this planet would pin that crap on me. I would rather go to jail than pay for another guy's kid. I would leave the country, go completely dark and incognito, whatever it took. There is no way i would be enslaved like that.
> 
> If the state wants the children taken care off they make a genetic profile of everyone and get the name of the real father. I would never be it.


If you make it a point to select the accomplished cheating wife, she will find a way to conceal the fact that you are a "father" only when it comes to finances, and you won't be the wiser.
Mine did and did it twice.


----------



## larry.gray

Some laws do get passed. My state (Oregon) went from one of the most extreme presumed paternity states to one where paternity can be challenged without a time limit. 

A man can't get back child support he's already paid, but he will immediately be removed from having to pay once he's proved through genetic testing that the child isn't his.


----------



## costa200

hookares said:


> If you make it a point to select the accomplished cheating wife, she will find a way to conceal the fact that you are a "father" only when it comes to finances, and you won't be the wiser.
> Mine did and did it twice.


Damn... Sorry for you man. Of course i was talking about the situation where i already knew i was not the father.


----------



## lovelygirl

I wouldn't mind it if my husband asked me for paternity test, especially if I were the cheater. His doubt about the kid would be understandable and expected.


----------



## lovelygirl

costa200 said:


> I'll call bulsh*t on that one. Basically every woman on earth would feel hurt if she hadn't cheated and the husband asked for a test. Even women who would accept it without much problem would be somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that he had to ask.


It would be uncomfortable if he was the only one I had sex with and he still wouldn't believe it.


----------



## tiredwife&sahm

Totally had to respond to this thread.

If we want innocent children to stop being hurt by abrupt abandonment from fathers who have been duped. We are going to have to start making women accountable for what they do. If women who got drunk one night and had sex with that guy knew they couldn't just pin raising their child on someone, you would have a lot more women think twice about those "I was drunk" one night stands. Women in general would be alot more careful because the 'cushion' wouldn't be there anymore. You want equality anyway so why not want accountability for your actions and for not knowing who fathered your child? The issue we are having right now is that women aren't held accountable for things like they should be so they do stupid things like get pregnant by Joe who last name they don't know.No, a man should not have to financially provide for a child that is not his. If he has raised a child from birth until whatever age and then discovers the child is not his, child support should be off the table for the mother. It would be great lesson learned to tell some of these mothers "oh well, since you can't figure out who the father is, you will have to support this child alone until you do". Behavior in our society would change drastically. Plenty of fathers want paternity test, many don't ask because as some have stated "it would be an insult" and they know this. Although I feel that if you have done nothing wrong why feel insulted but that's another topic.


----------



## anonim

had to add this article i found Mobile van giving unsure fathers DNA paternity tests on the streets of New York | Mail Online
I wish there was more services like this. One could make a killing...


----------



## that_girl

Should be a taco truck too. Make more money.


----------



## anonim

no way a taco truck would make more. This guy charges $300+ per test.


----------



## that_girl

I meant have it be a taco truck TOO...as in ALSO. To make more MONEY...together.


----------



## costa200

anonim said:


> had to add this article i found Mobile van giving unsure fathers DNA paternity tests on the streets of New York | Mail Online
> I wish there was more services like this. One could make a killing...


That guy in the truck must be raking in some serious cash. Expanding business that one.


----------



## anonim

that_girl said:


> I meant have it be a taco truck TOO...as in ALSO. To make more MONEY...together.


why would you want to mess with tacos when you could be Maury on wheels?

EDIT; waiting for someone to make a pink taco joke


----------



## larry.gray

Hmm, I always heard of it as "the bearded taco" but with going bare becoming more common, I guess pink taco is a better name.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> That guy in the truck must be raking in some serious cash. Expanding business that one.



The lower East Side has studio apartments that rent for $2500-$6,000. Do you really think some guy paying $100 a sq. foot to live in an up and coming neighborhood, is going to have a DNA test done out of a converted taco truck?! 

If you read the NY Times, he is close to bankrupt. What a business model. I'll take a questionable venue, limited training, horrible conditions and trolls around neighborhoods with a smoggy generator on the bottom of his camper, yet he will provide you with DNA testing?

Costa, you take an "epidemic" that happens to under 3.75% of men in the United States, a country you are not even living in, never been a citizen of and make it sound like a plague to you.


----------



## costa200

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The lower East Side has studio apartments that rent for $2500-$6,000. Do you really think some guy paying $100 a sq. foot to live in an up and coming neighborhood, is going to have a DNA test done out of a converted taco truck?!
> 
> If you read the NY Times, he is close to bankrupt. What a business model. I'll take a questionable venue, limited training, horrible conditions and trolls around neighborhoods with a smoggy generator on the bottom of his camper, yet he will provide you with DNA testing?
> 
> Costa, you take an "epidemic" that happens to under 3.75% of men in the United States, a country you are not even living in, never been a citizen of and make it sound like a plague to you.


Who the hell made this about the US? In case you're wondering there are more countries in the world. I didn't start this discussion making it about the US and i never said is was about the US. You on the other hand seem to have a pretty xenophobic attitude. I'm just discussing this and in no place did i say it was an epidemic. 

Oh, and just to clear things, i never was nor i intend to be a US citizen because *i have no interest in being one*. How about them apples? If i had to leave my country for some reason i can think of at least 20 countries i would rather live in. Nothing against the US itself (just another country with its ups and downs). 

Apparently you don't have any real arguments and have started resorting to making smoke. This discussion was never about the specific case of the US. You're just one country. That's it.

Mandatory paternity tests could be theoretically applied to all sorts of countries.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The lower East Side has studio apartments that rent for $2500-$6,000. Do you really think some guy paying $100 a sq. foot to live in an up and coming neighborhood, is going to have a DNA test done out of a converted taco truck?! If his wife talks divorce every time the Maury show comes on, and then one day a van performing paternity tests for <1/10 of his rent shows up right outside his front door...Yes he will.
> 
> If you read the NY Times, he is close to bankrupt. aren't all new businesses?What a business model. I'll take a questionable venue, (as in 18 years worth of questionable?) limited training Citation needed , horrible conditions Citation needed and trolls around neighborhoods with a smoggy generator on the bottom of his camper, Mobile Lab actually yet he will provide you with DNA testing?Yes He Can. Mothers of children of questionable lineage beware! None of your imagined scenario has anything to do with how capable he is of doing his job.
> 
> Costa, you take an "epidemic" that happens to under 3.75% of men in the United States, a country you are not even living in, never been a citizen of and make it sound like a plague to you. I think you are embellishing _just_ a little. less than 1% of adults globally have AIDS/HIV (Worldwide HIV & AIDS Statistics) and was treated as an epidemic. Being a citizen of any country is irrelevent, i.e. you could be affected regardless of citizenship of w/e country, and you sound very conceited when you assume nationality matters.


----------



## Juicer

Also, it is not 3.75%. 

It is larger than that. But the problem is, we can't be sure. Because how many women will admit to cuckolding their husband? Because that is going to be an EXTREMELY tiny number. 

So we don't have a lot to go off of. 
And current estimates, are as low as 5%-20%!

And that IS a problem!!!
When at least 1 child in 20 is a cuckold child. On the LOW END! Think of your high school class. What was its size?
Mine was 400. That would mean that 20 AT LEAST are cuckolds. At least 20 to 80!!! And husbands spent (according to current estimates) $250,000 for that woman to get away with FRAUD!!! If I committed fraud at my job, I would go to prison, have to pay back all the money that I obtained plus interest, would lose my qualifications and never be allowed to do that job again! 
A woman commits fraud, and she gets away with it!!!
While a man thinks his genes are being carried on when they aren't!!!

Now, for all the women who hate the idea of paternity testing for various reasons:
If you suspected your husband was cheating on you, would you investigate? OF COURSE YOU WOULD!!! The degree to which you investigate might vary depending on how likely you think it is that he cheated though. But if you didn't, I would say you are not in a good marriage!
Well let's say he leaves his email open one day. You haven't read his email in a long time, and you are curious. Would you check it? 

Because I am willing to bet that you would!!!



And that is what a paternity test is for men!
The problem is, you have the ability to hit him back. You can divorce! You can give him a very ugly divorce and settlement battle!!! (if you want)
What does a man have once he finds out you cuckold him? 
My legal recourse is: IF I AM LUCKY, I don't have to pay child support. And that is it. But not in all states. So I may be HITCHED for the bill!!
But I am not allowed to see the kid anymore!!! 

So I get to pay you to raise a kid that I am no longer allowed to see. 

_Paternity fraud; the only fraud that someone can get away with, and still profit from after being caught._

I wonder why the mob hasn't gotten in on that racket yet...You don't even have to worry about the criminals you employ turning and ratting you out!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> Who the hell made this about the US? In case you're wondering there are more countries in the world. I didn't start this discussion making it about the US and i never said is was about the US. You on the other hand seem to have a pretty xenophobic attitude. I'm just discussing this and in no place did i say it was an epidemic.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Um,* you did *when you cited an article written for a *Chicago* blog. Last I checked, Chicago is part of the United States. You always give me a good laugh Costa. Not much else but a laugh is always worth something.


----------



## MrsQualls

I logged on here to post a similar topic, and then I located this discussion. Me and my husband have been married for 8 months. Even before we were married he expressed that he really wanted to have a child. I already have 3 from a previous relationship, and he has 1 as well. I really didn't want anymore children, but I always said the only way I would was if I were married, and my husband wanted one. I simply didn't want to deal with the idea of having multiple fathers. My husband has a daughter, and thought he had a son, only to find that the mother of that child lied to him about being the father. So anyway, we tried to get pregnant and it simply was not happening. We ended up having a very serious disagreement which resulted in us separating and having no contact for nearly a month. During this time I learned that I was 6 weeks pregnant. The pregnancy was actually what made us regain contact, because I had to tell him. At first he was happy, then not so much. He told me he wanted a paternity test and I agreed. I will admit, it did hurt me at first when he asked, but I thought about the situation he had in the past, and I wanted him to be assured that this is in fact his child. You'd think that would be the end of the story, but nope, it's not that simple. I really don't think his family, in particular his mother, believes I am carrying his child, and I really believe she says things to him to influence his beliefs. Like I said one minute he's excited, then the next minute he doesn't think it's his baby. This is really taking a toll on me and making this pregnancy very stressful and lonely. I've even suggested that we get a prenatal paternity test done, because I really want this over with. He won't agree to it. He says he has no problem waiting it out. So in the mean time, I am to be treated like some tramp that's trying to pin a kid on him. This is really destroying me, it almost makes me want to terminate this pregnancy, which is what I would have done if I even thought there was a possibility of the baby not being his. It sounds harsh, but it's the way I feel. Any thoughts on how I should deal with this?


----------



## costa200

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Um,* you did *when you cited an article written for a *Chicago* blog. Last I checked, Chicago is part of the United States. You always give me a good laugh Costa. Not much else but a laugh is always worth something.



You have not been readin the thread. I had already said that this was not about the US as a specific case. What i wrote in the opening post:



> What do you ladies think about this? Do you think it is a good idea? Would you oppose this, would you reject the test if it was offered to you and your husband/BF? If so, please explain why. *I'm trying to understand why this apparently has never come into effect in no country in the world.*


Now, did you get it or are you going to have that "US this and that" moment some 10 pages from now again?



> I really don't think his family, in particular his mother, believes I am carrying his child, and I really believe she says things to him to influence his beliefs. Like I said one minute he's excited, then the next minute he doesn't think it's his baby. This is really taking a toll on me and making this pregnancy very stressful and lonely. I've even suggested that we get a prenatal paternity test done, because I really want this over with. He won't agree to it. He says he has no problem waiting it out. So in the mean time, I am to be treated like some tramp that's trying to pin a kid on him. This is really destroying me, it almost makes me want to terminate this pregnancy, which is what I would have done if I even thought there was a possibility of the baby not being his. It sounds harsh, but it's the way I feel. Any thoughts on how I should deal with this?


You're in a tough spot... Are you being treated poorly by him or only his family? Screw his family. You can rub the results in their faces later.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> You have not been readin the thread. I had already said that this was not about the US as a specific case. What i wrote in the opening post:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, did you get it or are you going to have that "US this and that" moment some 10 pages from now again?
> 
> 
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> You have said plenty about this being a U.S. "case" in your original post, your follow up posts and just about every thing else. I have yet to hear you say a thing about European laws. Again, as the DNA whisperer who can see secondary traits in your own daughter, why is this something that warrants your close sniffing? I have my suspicions.


----------



## costa200

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You have said plenty about this being a U.S. "case" in your original post, your follow up posts and just about every thing else. I have yet to hear you say a thing about European laws. Again, as the DNA whisperer who can see secondary traits in your own daughter, why is this something that warrants your close sniffing? I have my suspicions.


See, now you're just getting ridiculous. I explicitly said, more than once that this wasn't about the US. I keep saying this but apparently you are just trolling the thread.

This warrants my concerns because i worry about the plights of my fellow man. You know, some of us have concerns about things that don't affect us directly because we can see the problems it brings to the ones who are. The world isn't just about ME ME ME...

You have obviously exhausted your flimsy repertoire of arguments and are now moving into ad hominem. And for me that just means you don't have a maturity to discuss this as an adult. So i would ask you to take a step back and stop making that poor display of yourself, since i will not engage in that kind of teenage exchange. Think in ways to answer this in a rational and logical way without trying to get personal in the most childish way or i'll just have to ignore your posts.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> See, now you're just getting ridiculous. I explicitly said, more than once that this wasn't about the US. I keep saying this but apparently you are just trolling the thread.
> 
> This warrants my concerns because i worry about the plights of my fellow man. You know, some of us have concerns about things that don't affect us directly because we can see the problems it brings to the ones who are. The world isn't just about ME ME ME...
> 
> You have obviously exhausted your flimsy repertoire of arguments and are now moving into ad hominem. And for me that just means you don't have a maturity to discuss this as an adult. So i would ask you to take a step back and stop making that poor display of yourself, since i will not engage in that kind of teenage exchange. Think in ways to answer this in a rational and logical way without trying to get personal in the most childish way or i'll just have to ignore your posts.


How interesting that after attacking my husband, a man you have never had the honor to meet, know nothing about nor have any supposed insight to, you now claim that me questioning your motives is a sign of immaturity, lacking in rational or logical behavior and getting personal. Wow. 

As for everything else you said, I have maintained through this entire discussion that I care about mens rights. So much so that I don't want them mandated by the government. You are right, the world isn't about me, me, me and by sanctioning laws to protect under 4% of the population to the detriment of 96%, you are all about me. 

Anything else you care to discuss? Between your "logic" fails and your personal attacks, I would bet the answer is no. Good day.


----------



## Juicer

Therealbrighteyes said:


> As for everything else you said, I have maintained through this entire discussion that I care about mens rights. So much so that I don't want them mandated by the government. You are right, the world isn't about me, me, me and by sanctioning laws to protect *under 4% of the population to the detriment of 96%*, you are all about me.


I am not going to take a side in this little arguement, but that is not right. 
The current estimate is 5% on the conservative end, and 30% on the high end. 

So the middle ground would probably be 12-18% 
And that is a big deal! 
And remember, we are not just talking about married people with kids. We are talking about people that are living together with kids, boyfriend and girlfriends with kids, everyone that kids.


----------



## Juicer

I also would like to poll both sexes here, maybe get some insight about the issue. 

My question for men:
Would you rather find out your wife has been cheating on you for a long time. Like, 3+ years long. But after testing, you know each and every kid(s) you two had, is genetically yours.
Or
Find out that your wife had a short-term affair, maybe only 1 week-3 months, but find out that any and all of your kid(s) are not yours. 

Because I would rather find out my wife had a long-term affair than cuckolded me. Because at least I have something that is still mine. The cuckoldig would just destroy me. So I wonder if I am in the minority in my thinking, or if it is the norm. 

My question for women:
It is a little more open ended. 
What is the absolute WORST thing your husband could do to destroy you? To make you feel smaller than an insect? 
Now, I don't mean like, kill you (because that is a punishable crime) but if he for example, cheated on you with a man, or refused to ever have sex with you. 
I know it is a little more open, but I am curious.


----------



## Thundarr

Juicer said:


> My question for men:
> Would you rather find out your wife has been cheating on you for a long time. Like, 3+ years long. But after testing, you know each and every kid(s) you two had, is genetically yours.
> Or
> Find out that your wife had a short-term affair, maybe only 1 week-3 months, but find out that any and all of your kid(s) are not yours.


HANDS DOWN it would be worse to find out that I've been raising children that were not biologically mine. This is a wrong that not only would affect me but it would affect the most important people in my life. My children.

I would also feel more helpless. I would hate their mother but I don't know if I could bring myself to even tell them. I would have to live my whole life keeping a secret from them and I'm not the "keep secrets from people you love" kind of guy.

If my wife cheated long term or whatever then I would have a choice. If I chose to work it out then looking at her would not be such a reminder because I would remember that I chose to work things out. 

Good question.


----------



## costa200

> How interesting that after attacking my husband, a man you have never had the honor to meet, know nothing about nor have any supposed insight to, you now claim that me questioning your motives is a sign of immaturity, lacking in rational or logical behavior and getting personal. Wow.


Yeah... Only i didn't! It's not my fault that you have the bad habit of reading only half of what other people write. Since attention spawn isn't obviously your strong point i'll sum it up for you. What i said before that you took as "an attack" to your husband was that only idiots don't have doubts (since your husband told you he didn't have doubts you took this as "an attack"). I then told you that i believed he wasn't an idiot and that he was just lying to you in order not to get in trouble. Go back and re-check. I didn't attack your husband. Can you blame him for not being totally disclosing? Just look at how you feel about it. Go back and read it again.

And just to be clear. I really think that people who have no doubts, about everything, not just this subject, are morons. The worse type of the group. People like that make mistakes often and insist on them. If you don't question yourself then you only do things right mostly by accident.



> As for everything else you said, I have maintained through this entire discussion that I care about mens rights. So much so that I don't want them mandated by the government. You are right, the world isn't about me, me, me and by sanctioning laws to protect under 4% of the population to the detriment of 96%,


You're using statistics without actually thinking about what you're writing. That 4% number (that you actually can't really stand on) are the guys being cuckholds. But have you noticed that no man in this thread has spoken against mandatory DNA testing? The interest of this is not limited to the ones who are really victims.

Your argument there is so weak that if we just change it into other situations you would laugh at yourself. If only 4% of the population develops a certain kind of disease should we not worry about it? If only 4% of the people are victims of a certain type of crime should we not worry about it? If only 4% of the people have a certain sexual orientation do they not deserve protection?

We are talking about something here that has severe consequences. If i mug you on the street and take your wallet and cell phone (lets say 1000$ worth) the cops come and take me. If a woman deceives a guy into hundreds of thousands of expenses with a kid that ain't his she has no consequences. Don't you see a problem with this?

I hope the karma bus doesn't knock close to you one of these days. I bet you would not find it remotely amusing.



> Because I would rather find out my wife had a long-term affair than cuckolded me. Because at least I have something that is still mine. The cuckoldig would just destroy me. So I wonder if I am in the minority in my thinking, or if it is the norm.


I agree with you. The wife would be irrelevant once the affair was in the open. I don't care if it's a ONS or a long term thing. For me the result being the same it's pretty clear cut that i don't care either way. But to give love and put my effort into a child that ended up not being mine would hurt a lot more.

I say you make the poll juicer.


----------



## costa200

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Your logic fail begins and ends with comparing this to violent crime and diseases that people suffer. Neither of which are preventable really and there is no test to secure the outcome, unlike what is currently available to ALL men at thousands of clinics across this nation and globally. Also, the 4% I got from one of your own vocal proponents of this mandatory testing. I have no clue what the % is but I do know that every one of them has the legal right under current laws to get the test done. No need to involve my money or trample on rights to do so.



Cuckholding is also not preventable at the moment. Ask every man out there if he wants to be there and he probably will say no. But it happens, because they don't want to offend their parters. 

What if we can devise a way for the guy to opt out of it if he wants it but do it in a way that his partner has no knowledge of his decision? Would you be ok with it then?

I'm thinking about the whole procedure being done with the woman totally unaware of it. Let say genetic material being harvested for every kid born (from the umbilical chord in order not to antagonize paranoid people) and then the man being asked into a room alone where he decides if he wants the test or not. He then gets called a second time (even if he decided not to have it) and gets the results or signs wavers refusing it.

Would this be ok with you? This isn't exactly mandatory but would give every guy a fair chance without having to take hell for "distrusting" his partner.


----------



## that_girl

So...my husband is a cuckhold because he doesn't want to ask for a paternity test? 

:rofl:

Maybe I'm a pushover because I don't go through his phone every night or stalk him when he's not at home.


----------



## costa200

> So...my husband is a cuckhold because he doesn't want to ask for a paternity test?



Huh? Who said that?


----------



## that_girl

I thought you were implying that men become cuckholds because they aren't assertive? They don't want to offend their partners.

Forgive me if i'm wrong. That's what I got from the post above mine.

I will say that my husband would have definitely asked for a test if he thought it wasn't his. He doesn't eff around with what he wants. I mean, he did leave me because I wasn't treating him well. He didn't live like a cuckhold. 

I wish I could post a pic of my girls next to their dads. My genes are sooooo damn weak. holy crap.


----------



## costa200

what i'm trying to say is that the guys who end up being cuckholds don't get the test because they have no reason to up the drama in their relationships. Why would a guy with only a very small doubt antagonize his partner by asking it? He won't. 

This is how guys get in that position. Of course not all men who don't ask for a test end up there. In fact only a minority do. But the consequences for them are very harsh.

Your hubby for example. He trusted you in good measure, and if he had a very small doubt (like most men do) he thought it was safe enough not to get the test. Imagine you were cheating on him! Your trusting hubby, assertive or not, could end up as a cuckhold.




> I wish I could post a pic of my girls next to their dads. My genes are sooooo damn weak. holy crap.


Little kids often look very much like their dads. It has been proven through experiences that people can identify the father of a baby much easier than the mother. It's an evolutionary adaptation to have the dad around to help.


----------



## that_girl

I believe that too, Costa, about the dads and their genetics.

However, my sister and my best friend have children who look EXACTLY like them. It's scary. I always wanted that. A little "Mini-me". Oh well, my girls are gorgeous. lol. Like my ex said to my husband when he saw the baby for the first time, "They come out looking like us, but get much better." LOL!

ETA: My thinking is, if you have to ask for a paternity test, you have some big fundamental relationship problems, imo.


----------



## La Rose Noire

I haven't read the thread beyond the OP, but I absolutely believe mandatory paternity tests should be imposed at birth. 

There are too many men being used as wallets to care for offspring that isn't even theirs, and without their knowledge or consent. That is a terrible crime.


----------



## Thundarr

costa200 said:


> what i'm trying to say is that the guys who end up being cuckholds don't get the test because they have no reason to up the drama in their relationships. Why would a guy with only a very small doubt antagonize his partner by asking it? He won't.
> 
> This is how guys get in that position. Of course not all men who don't ask for a test end up there. In fact only a minority do. But the consequences for them are very harsh.
> 
> Your hubby for example. He trusted you in good measure, and if he had a very small doubt (like most men do) he thought it was safe enough not to get the test. Imagine you were cheating on him! Your trusting hubby, assertive or not, could end up as a cuckhold.
> 
> Little kids often look very much like their dads. It has been proven through experiences that people can identify the father of a baby much easier than the mother. It's an evolutionary adaptation to have the dad around to help.


I had no idea my first wife was the stepping out type. At least not until years after our kids were born. I'm not that type so I projected my values on to her and didn't even think it was a possibility. My kids look and think like me so I think their mine but men never really know. Women always know so and that's why women can not understand how it feels to wonder.


----------



## Thundarr

La Rose Noire said:


> I haven't read the thread beyond the OP, but I absolutely believe mandatory paternity tests should be imposed at birth.
> 
> There are too many men being used as wallets to care for offspring that isn't even theirs, and without their knowledge or consent. That is a terrible crime.


It's fraud and should be treated as such.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> Cuckholding is also not preventable at the moment. Ask every man out there if he wants to be there and he probably will say no. But it happens, because they don't want to offend their parters.
> 
> What if we can devise a way for the guy to opt out of it if he wants it but do it in a way that his partner has no knowledge of his decision? Would you be ok with it then?
> 
> I'm thinking about the whole procedure being done with the woman totally unaware of it. Let say genetic material being harvested for every kid born (from the umbilical chord in order not to antagonize paranoid people) and then the man being asked into a room alone where he decides if he wants the test or not. He then gets called a second time (even if he decided not to have it) and gets the results or signs wavers refusing it.
> 
> Would this be ok with you? This isn't exactly mandatory but would give every guy a fair chance without having to take hell for "distrusting" his partner.


Costa, I think you and I got off on a bad foot. I have NEVER, EVER said that this isn't a terrible thing for a man to endure. Not once did I even come close to saying that. I have two sons, one who is almost 20 and another who is 15 in a few days. I shudder to think if they were suckered in to raising kids that weren't theirs. I am a champion for ALL rights and given that I live with three men, husband and two sons, I am well aware of what men face. 
Having said that, I see no benefit in making a test mandatory and at taxpayer expense, never mind all the logistical worries. In this country, health insurance companies would use this DNA as ammunition to reject patients claims and would cause so much destruction it would be beyond comprehension. With DNA, they could reject payment on claims citing "pre-existing", given their DNA. 
If you think I am making this up Costa, it is only because you live in a country that provides medical care for all. This would/could be a real issue for many here in the U.S. Sadly, we have no universal health care and companies can decide not to pay for any reason, mostly "pre-existing". I think if you framed your question a little different as in "Do you consent to having all children and males tested for DNA knowing your insurance company gets the results".....VERY different outcome. Pretty disgusting but it happens all the time. I don't see the benefit outweighing it. The test is available right now and reasonable in price. Why involve others, especially putting those at risk for health insurance companies?!


----------



## costa200

> In this country, health insurance companies would use this DNA as ammunition to reject patients claims and would cause so much destruction it would be beyond comprehension. With DNA, they could reject payment on claims citing "pre-existing", given their DNA.


Yeah that's F'ed up... But those situations could just be rendered illegal. The DNA testing that checks for paternity isn't relevant for diseases. Only if the material got stored and then re-used could it be a problem. 

Probably the US would have some problems dealing with this because safeguards would have to be put in place to avoid it. Universal healthcare countries wouldn't have this issue.

On a side note, i think it is morally disgusting that a person pays a health insurance for decades just to have huge issues when things go bad and a battle with the insurance company issues. I've heard cases of companies denying terminal cancer patients support over some "pre-existant" family history and, although knowing they are going to lose, they drag it out long enough for the person to die before a decision is reached. That's some sick stuff.


----------



## Caribbean Man

costa200 said:


> Yeah that's F'ed up... But those situations could just be rendered illegal. The DNA testing that checks for paternity isn't relevant for diseases. Only if the material got stored and then re-used could it be a problem.
> 
> *Probably the US would have some problems dealing with this because safeguards would have to be put in place to avoid it. Universal healthcare countries wouldn't have this issue.*
> 
> On a side note, i think it is morally disgusting that a person pays a health insurance for decades just to have huge issues when things go bad and a battle with the insurance company issues. I've heard cases of companies denying terminal cancer patients support over some "pre-existant" family history and, although knowing they are going to lose, they drag it out long enough for the person to die before a decision is reached. That's some sick stuff.


:iagree:

In our country, we have universal health care.
But that problem of guys raising kids that are not their own is so bad that it has reached scandalous proportions. My BIL is an offshore oil worker. Works on a rig about 150 miles out at sea. His wife did that to him. He was totally unconvinced even though I told him the child was not his. But he was young and hooked on the sex. He was in love.
He was only convinced when he caught his wife with the OM.

I know some men that are paying child support of kids that are not theirs.


----------



## momtwo4

If my husband wanted to test our children, I would be hurt. One of our four children looks absolutely nothing like him. My husband will jokingly ask me (in private of course) if he is the mailman's son. But I know he has no doubt. He trusts me. Still, I wouldn't take the kids and walk out if he insisted on a paternity test. I would be concerned about what he thought about ME though. If we don't have trust, what do we have? However, if he insisted on testing for peace-of-mind, fine. He would get the answer he needs and wants, and hopefully we could move forward in a trust-filled relationship. 

However, in NO way, shape, or form, would I support government-mandated testing. Stay out of my personal life thank you very much.


----------



## Thundarr

costa200 said:


> Yeah that's F'ed up... But those situations could just be rendered illegal. The DNA testing that checks for paternity isn't relevant for diseases. Only if the material got stored and then re-used could it be a problem.
> 
> Probably the US would have some problems dealing with this because safeguards would have to be put in place to avoid it. Universal healthcare countries wouldn't have this issue.
> 
> On a side note, i think it is morally disgusting that a person pays a health insurance for decades just to have huge issues when things go bad and a battle with the insurance company issues. I've heard cases of companies denying terminal cancer patients support over some "pre-existant" family history and, although knowing they are going to lose, they drag it out long enough for the person to die before a decision is reached. That's some sick stuff.


It is completely nuts. Every time I tell someone that though all of a sudden I'm a "socialist Nazi who's trying to destroy the nation". 

Dissenting voices on TAM are easier to debate than are dissenting voices in political discussions. Everyone postures and hunkers down.

No wonder I am interested in psychology and human nature. People confuse the crap out of me.


----------



## that_girl

Someone said you are a Nazi? Wow. That's probably the worst insult anyone could give me. That and "you're just like your father".


----------



## Thundarr

that_girl said:


> Someone said you are a Nazi? Wow. That's probably the worst insult anyone could give me. That and "you're just like your father".


Well I'm lucky in the father department. He's was a pretty good dad. Raised us when our mom ran off. Sorry yours is not. Now mom on the other hand. Little bit nuts over the years but we love her in spite of it.


----------



## that_girl

Maybe you should give her a maternity test. :rofl:


----------



## in my tree

Trenton said:


> I think having the test would bring about closer bonding between husband and kids in many cases.


Absolutely!! Every other weekend and on Wednesday nights they would have great bonding time.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

costa200 said:


> Yeah that's F'ed up... But those situations could just be rendered illegal. The DNA testing that checks for paternity isn't relevant for diseases. Only if the material got stored and then re-used could it be a problem.
> 
> Probably the US would have some problems dealing with this because safeguards would have to be put in place to avoid it. Universal healthcare countries wouldn't have this issue.
> 
> On a side note, i think it is morally disgusting that a person pays a health insurance for decades just to have huge issues when things go bad and a battle with the insurance company issues. I've heard cases of companies denying terminal cancer patients support over some "pre-existant" family history and, although knowing they are going to lose, they drag it out long enough for the person to die before a decision is reached. That's some sick stuff.


Costa, I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I too want to protect men. I really do. I have an interest in it, not only for a moral reason but because I have sons. No man should be tricked in to raising a child that isn't theirs. That should be criminal and why it isn't is beyond me. Any other of this type of fraud and theft is a felony in the U.S!

You touched on something that hits really close to home for me. Insurance and denying care. Know it all too well. I really think that as you said, in countries where universal healthcare is the norm, DNA testing would never be an issue. In the U.S. however, this would be a gold mine for denial from the health insurance companies. The brass ring if you will. 

I really really would caution those wanting to put their DNA in some central data bank. It might be all fine and well but would need to be HEAVILY regulated and testing thrown away forever but I still question if it would be a good thing. I frankly don't think that what is already available to all men and at a fairly cheap cost, is worth the risk. I also mentioned rights and that's pretty huge. Not for me but for my sons not to be forced to have their DNA tested against their will.


----------



## Thundarr

that_girl said:


> Maybe you should give her a maternity test. :rofl:


Nope there's no denying me. I have some of her quirky ways. Fortunately not the infidelity part.


----------



## Thundarr

Trenton said:


> I think having the test would bring about closer bonding between husband and kids in many cases.
> 
> 
> 
> in my tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!! Every other weekend and on Wednesday nights they would have great bonding time.
Click to expand...

That's out of context but I give you an A+ for comedy.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thundarr said:


> That's out of context but I give you an A+ for comedy.


I find nothing funny in any of this. I get what Costa is saying and the men here. I hope they also get what I am saying. I can assure you, if you haven't been denied healthcare because of "pre-existing" you cannot see why the thought of DNA testing sends shudders down my spine. Worse, my sons having theirs being taken from them regardless if they want it or not. Horrible and mind blowing.


----------



## Thundarr

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I find nothing funny in any of this. I get what Costa is saying and the men here. I hope they also get what I am saying. I can assure you, if you haven't been denied healthcare because of "pre-existing" you cannot see why the thought of DNA testing sends shudders down my spine. Worse, my sons having theirs being taken from them regardless if they want it or not. Horrible and mind blowing.


That was in response to "in my tree"s response to "Trenton". It seems like you thought it was directed your direction?


----------



## in my tree

Alright - bad joke, sorry. 

After reading good chunks (not all) of this thread AND coming in on it from one woman's pov (we're in the Ladies Lounge, right?), if this were going to become mandatory OR if the father requested a paternity test, I would recommend this to my nieces, nephews and my daughter all of child bearing age: when you have a kid, the woman should not put anyone down as the father on the birth certificate. Then the paternity test could be done. When the results come back and it determines that your husband/SO is the father, put his name on the birth certificate. That way both of them could share in the hurt feelings (not being listed as "father" and having your trustworthiness doubted), if it were determined that he wasn't the father then he could go on his merry way if he chooses to do so and she wouldn't be accused of a felony and be seperated from her child. It would also give her time to "come clean" if she had messed around.

Realistically this will never become mandatory though. I saw that Blanca discussed the inaccuracies and mentioned the cost. Folks - the cost of this test would be a LOT more than a few hundred bucks. I work as a nurse and know that the cost of administering two tylenol is stupid-expensive. To have an IN HOUSE blood test done costs hundred of dollars. To outsource it to other labs would be upwards of $1000. To expect the government and taxpayers to cover this would never happen. I read here that approximately 4,000,000 babies are born/year and that maybe 4% of them are not born to the father listed on the birth certificate. Do you think that the government would justify a $4,000,000,000+ cost a year to taxpayers for 160,000 parents? I don't think so. Not with the deficits that we are running now. 

I am NOT saying that fathers who want the test should not have it. The only way that I see this happening is through open communication between the parents. After some hurt feelings but sensible discussion, perhaps they could get that test from WalMart and have it done - together! I know, I know... I said SENSIBLE discussion and that is hard when we all get emotional. I mean look at my first response - "how DARE he think that I would... I mean, I NEVER!!". Yes, that would be my first response - just being honest. I doubt that I would leave someone that I love over it but yes, I would be hurt at first. Alright. I'm out!


----------



## Hopefull363

Unfortunately for men this will never be mandatory in the US. The way the family court looks at it is if you were born in wedlock then that's your father. The men have a certain amount of years to ask for a paternity test. If they don't do it in that time frame then for support issues they have to pay even if they aren't the father. If the states mandated the testing then I think a lot of fathers would find out they are not fathers. Then a lot of women would be on welfare. In order to save money they stick it to the men and make them pay. Family court here usually is not in the men's favor for anything.

With that being said I would gladly submit to a paternity test for my children if my husband ever asked. I get the privilege that he doesn't have and that is knowing with absolute certainty they are mine. I also think it is fraud when a women lies to a man about this issue. I think they should be able to prosecute. But again then the states would have to support a lot more children.


----------

