Should paternity testing be mandatory? 1 in 25 fathers not biological parent

JMNolan

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed but its deception with a gain for one party like in the case of fraud.

So your claim is it can't be deception for gain?

eviltwin

JMNolan wrote: »

No, it's about proving that the man named as the father is not the father. You must understand that surely, it's only purpose is to prove who isn't the father.

If you find the partner isn't the father wouldn't the next step be to identify who is? What not use it to prove parenthood? All this seems to be is a tool to control one party while the other can spawn children and get away with it. I'd imagine that women would to know if their spouse had secret kids they knew nothing about.

Adamocovic

Cleopatra_ wrote: »

I'd have an issue with paternity fraud being a criminal offence (are we going to make adultery a criminal offence next?) but I wouldn't have an issue with a man seeking financial compensation for a child that wasn't his that he unknowingly raised.

Exactly. I hope no one is suggesting it should be a criminal offence. The way it works in the UK is pretty much how you stated above. Used for paying damages if it is proven fraud was committed.

I just brought it up as I saw a debate about legislating a lie. When fraud is deception and there is actually Paternity Fraud in other regions (not too sure about here). Hopefully it ends the debate on whether it is possible or not. :pac:

Ush1

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed it is, now try to prove to the level required in court that the lie was intentional for the financial gain of the mother which would be required to prove fraud.


When I say "just a lie" im talking legally obviously, to the people involved its much more than a lie but when talking in the sense of the original poster who wanted to criminalise it then it is "just a lie" and how do your criminalise a lie where its virtually impossible to prove knowledge of or intent for financial gain which would be required in the case of fraud?

Erm, okay. I think there is often proof that would hold up. Infidelity, she may have told other people etc..

zapitastas

eviltwin wrote: »

If you find the partner isn't the father wouldn't the next step be to identify who is? What not use it to prove parenthood? All this seems to be is a tool to control one party while the other can spawn children and get away with it. I'd imagine that women would to know if their spouse had secret kids they knew nothing about.

Surely the woman would have a good idea who the real father was. Or maybe not but that would be her problem.

JMNolan

eviltwin wrote: »

If you find the partner isn't the father wouldn't the next step be to identify who is?

How do you propose doing that? Test every man on the planet?

_Brian

eviltwin wrote: »

So it's not about identifying the biological parent? Then it just becomes an exercise in shaming women.

Possibly so.

I’m really baffled as to what exactly is going on at the moment.

Recently we have seen a upsurge in the reporting and conviction of men for sexual harassment and abuse of women which is a good thing without any shred of doubt, it’s challenging an old social norm where it was buried and used as a form of power over women.
We see the recent vote on the 8th and the obvious changes that will bring for women and their choices.

The odd thing is there seems to be an alarming cohort of men that see these things and want something too. I see men posting vehemently that they want an option out of parenthood, for compulsory paternity testing. Threads whining that they feel their masculinity is somehow being eroded by these changes.

I’m not young, married with kids and can’t fathom what is happening to men that they feel so threatened by the changes we’re seeing in society. Many are fighting changes as if it somehow makes them less of a man. Excusing behaviour of obvious sexual harassment as “banter” and “laddish”.

It’s a bizarre situation and many “men” are embarrassing themselves by resisting more equality for women.

VinLieger

JMNolan wrote: »

So your claim is it can't be deception for gain?

No im saying a lie without financal gain or loss legally not fraud and that is the closest version of a current law to what you are suggesting.

VinLieger

JMNolan wrote: »

How do you propose doing that? Test every man on the planet?

Ahh so your okay with holding women accountable but when it comes to holding men accountable for their actions it suddenly becomes not that big a deal?



Hilarious double standard

Adamocovic

JMNolan wrote: »

How do you propose doing that? Test every man on the planet?

They already have Reverse Paternity DNA testing for finding out who the father is when he is unavailable. For this to work however the person would need an idea of who the likely person or persons may be.

If it's a case of a one night stand and no information of the individual or way of finding out I'm not sure what would be done.

OscarBluth

It seems odd how the assumption is the mother must be lying - obviously, if the father isn't who she said/thought, she was clearly also having sex with someone else around the time of conception. But that doesn't mean she would be sure of who the father was, and it doesn't always even mean she was lying to the father - as in the example given above, where a woman broke up with her ex then quickly got pregnant with a new partner: The new partner/father obviously knows the timeline and is happy enough to take his chances, so there's no deception there.

Unless the law changed to make infidelity a crime (which is a fairly terrifying prospect), I don't see how women could be prosecuted as I imagine in most cases they don't know for sure and don't want to know for sure.

Also - given that genetic data is likely to become increasingly valuable, a situation where most people of childbearing age and all new babies have their genetic information entered into a database..... I see that as being much more problematic than the vanishingly small % where it uncovers a paternity mistake that was covered up. (I also think the methodology is flawed)

valoren

If there is any suspicion on the fathers part as to paternity then there is a fundamental distrust in the relationship to begin with, it not being as solid as you'd like to believe.

There is also the situation where the child is legitimately 100% the father's and in whose going about getting a paternity test induces a mistrust with his partner. What woman would want their integrity questioned so to speak? It would open up a can of worms.

Unless the kid bore a stark resemblance to a swarthy, far too gorgeous, sweaty, hairy milkman and then I guess you just assume it's your child and trust your partner.

Ush1

I dunno, my wife had a very hairy baby...

JMNolan

valoren wrote: »

If there is any suspicion on the fathers part as to paternity then there is a fundamental distrust in the relationship to begin with, it not being as solid as you'd like to believe.

There is also the situation where the child is legitimately 100% the father's and in whose going about getting a paternity test induces a mistrust with his partner. What woman would want their integrity questioned so to speak? It would open up a can of worms.

Unless the kid bore a stark resemblance to a swarthy, far too gorgeous, sweaty, hairy milkman and then I guess you just assume it's your child and trust your partner.

There is no distrust if the test is mandatory.

WarpAsylum

eviltwin wrote: »

So it's not about identifying the biological parent? Then it just becomes an exercise in shaming women.

Not necessarily.
It could be an exercise in affording the man the same certainty a woman has.
Equality.

Dyr

_Brian wrote: »

Possibly so.

I’m really baffled as to what exactly is going on at the moment.
.

So am I given that you managed to write about 5 paragraphs that have nothing to do with paternity testing

Are you in the right thread?

One eyed Jack

JMNolan wrote: »

There is no distrust if the test is mandatory.

The main argument for it to be made mandatory in the first place is because it's suggested that women cannot be trusted. The cost to the State of having to outsource such a service by far outweighs any potential benefit to society, so if men wanted DNA tests done, they're more than welcome to pay for them privately.

Akrasia

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't see this taking off. What if I admit to having a fling and name someone other than my husband as the father? Will we test every single man named? Seems this idea is more about shaming people, namely women, for extra curricular sex.

But isn't 'extra curricular sex' a shameful thing to be doing?
I've no problem with people having adventurous sex lives as long as it's all consenting adults, but when one or both parties are in a committed relationship then this is a pretty shameful thing to do to the partner who is being cheated on.

Akrasia

valoren wrote: »

If there is any suspicion on the fathers part as to paternity then there is a fundamental distrust in the relationship to begin with, it not being as solid as you'd like to believe.

There is also the situation where the child is legitimately 100% the father's and in whose going about getting a paternity test induces a mistrust with his partner. What woman would want their integrity questioned so to speak? It would open up a can of worms.

Unless the kid bore a stark resemblance to a swarthy, far too gorgeous, sweaty, hairy milkman and then I guess you just assume it's your child and trust your partner.

This thread is about the x number of cuckolded men who never mistrusted their wives/partners but have been betrayed sexually, and then further betrayed by being lied to about the paternity of the children in the family.

It's suggesting that the paternity test should be mandatory so that the man doesn't have to suspect or accuse the woman of cheating in order to be certain of the paternity of his children.

Adamocovic

OscarBluth wrote: »

It seems odd how the assumption is the mother must be lying - obviously, if the father isn't who she said/thought, she was clearly also having sex with someone else around the time of conception. But that doesn't mean she would be sure of who the father was, and it doesn't always even mean she was lying to the father - as in the example given above, where a woman broke up with her ex then quickly got pregnant with a new partner: The new partner/father obviously knows the timeline and is happy enough to take his chances, so there's no deception there.

Unless the law changed to make infidelity a crime (which is a fairly terrifying prospect), I don't see how women could be prosecuted as I imagine in most cases they don't know for sure and don't want to know for sure.

While I'm on the side of not making it mandatory across the board (I don't see how that would work) I can't say I agree with everything you've said here.

No one is suggesting to make infidelity a crime and it will never be suggested in Europe. However I'm sure you're aware Adultery, while rarely punished, is still a crime in many states in America, ending with fines or jail time. Now obviously don't condone it, and America have a lot of backwards and outdated laws but thought it was worth noting after the "fairly terrifying prospect" comment.

In regards to Paternity Fraud I've tried to cover it as much as possible as people seem to be misrepresenting or understanding it. While a birth certificate is a legal requirement a mother is not required to state the name of the father if they are not sure it is correct.

The name of the father can be added later. So it should be really made clear that if the woman is not 100% sure do not take the risk in opening themselves up to a misattributed paternity case. I know this is a difficult thing to do but can avoid a mess down the line.

Now your final paragraph. Saying you don't see how anyone could be charged for fraud because you think most of the time they don't know for sure seems strange to me. Like above, don't know for sure there is a quick way to save yourself.

Also I don't agree with the idea that you can't see how they can be prosecuted. The whole reason we have court systems in place is to determine someone's guilt or not. And that's exactly what they do in this position. If there is sufficient proof that they knowingly mislead the father they will be charged. And again not a criminal offence but damages related to child support. Paternity Fraud is usually financially driven.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The main argument for it to be made mandatory in the first place is because it's suggested that women cannot be trusted. The cost to the State of having to outsource such a service by far outweighs any potential benefit to society, so if men wanted DNA tests done, they're more than welcome to pay for them privately.

Clearly some women cannot be trusted, because women, just like men, occasionally cheat on their partners. The difference between men and women is that a woman may not be certain who the father is, but she knows that she is the mother. A man has to go on trust that the baby is his, or else he has to openly accuse his wife/partner of cheating thereby damaging their relationship (regardless of the result of the test, if the baby is his, she hates him for accusing her of cheating, if the baby is someone else, he hates her for cheating and lying to him)

VinLieger

Akrasia wrote: »

This thread is about the x number of cuckolded men who never mistrusted their wives/partners but have been betrayed sexually, and then further betrayed by being lied to about the paternity of the children in the family.

It's suggesting that the paternity test should be mandatory so that the man doesn't have to suspect or accuse the woman of cheating in order to be certain of the paternity of his children.

But why not do it the other way too and have all men submit mandatory DNA samples that could then be tested against any babies whose mothers are shown to have been unfaithful to their husbands or partners?

Do all women not have the same right to know if their husbands or partners have cheated and fathered a child with another woman?

Dyr

VinLieger wrote: »

But why not do it the other way too and have all men submit mandatory DNA samples that could then be tested against any babies whose mothers are shown to have been unfaithful to their husbands or partners?

Do all women not have the same right to know if their husbands or partners have cheated and fathered a child with another woman?

Because one method is the logical way to ascertain a claim of parenthood and the other is an hysterical over-reaction to to said method?

Dyr

There's a fairly obvious solution to this, if a father wants his name on the birth cert then he takes a paternity test. Important official document is now 100% accurate.

Bish bash bosh.

VinLieger

Bambi wrote: »

Because one method is the logical way to ascertain a claim of parenthood and the other is an hysterical over-reaction to to said method?

It's not an hysterical over reaction if the reason being put forward for mandatory paternity testing is to reinforce the trust between partners in a relationship as it has been by several posters.


Its a disgusting double standard that some people would suggest only women need to have their faithfulness to their partners put through a mandatory test.

hatrickpatrick

Nobody should be named on a birth cert without being certified DNA-wise as the biological parent of a child.

I'd apply that to things like surrogacy as well, by the way. Given that a human being is literally created by fusing two sets of DNA together, I honestly believe that no matter what the circumstances, a person has the absolute right to know what his or her DNA history is. People can say "oh, the real parenthood is the emotional bond" yadda yadda yadda, but if this was the case then no kid would ever have been upset to find out they were adopted. Genetic lineage matters to many - not all, but many - humans on a very instinctive level.
Similarly, from the father's point of view, it's many peoples' life goal to pass on their own genes and thus die one day knowing that they've successfully accomplished what can arguably be said to be the most fundamental purpose of life - creating new life. For someone to be led to believe that they have accomplished a life goal in this manner when they really haven't, is utterly repulsive, and the people who do it are vile, vile human beings.

Essentially: DNA matters to a lot of people on a very deep philosophical level, and to deny people knowledge of their DNA heritage and legacy is fundamentally wrong.

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

Clearly some women cannot be trusted, because women, just like men, occasionally cheat on their partners. The difference between men and women is that a woman may not be certain who the father is, but she knows that she is the mother. A man has to go on trust that the baby is his, or else he has to openly accuse his wife/partner of cheating thereby damaging their relationship (regardless of the result of the test, if the baby is his, she hates him for accusing her of cheating, if the baby is someone else, he hates her for cheating and lying to him)

The point you appear to be making is that mandatory testing would mean that men who are suspicious of paternity could avoid the awkwardness of having to outright accuse their partner of cheating on them. To those men I would suggest they grow a pair of metaphorical testicles rather than expect that the State should do their dirty work for them, so they don't have to.

Relationships are based upon trust, and the State shouldn't be expected to accommodate men who simply don't trust their partners, by introducing a blanket mandatory paternity test on everyone else. That's just spreading the cost of their suspicions onto everyone else so they don't have to pay any price for it themselves. If you accuse someone of wrongdoing, then the onus is on you to come up with the proof, and until you do, they maintain the presumption of innocence.

mrslancaster

JMNolan wrote: »

No, it's about proving that the man named as the father is not the father. You must understand that surely, it's only purpose is to prove who isn't the father or to confirm who is. Surely the child is entitled to know this information?

This is the most important reason that testing might be done - the child is entitled to know who it's parents are and has a right to know their origins and as another poster said their medical history etc. Any mother who denies that to her child :mad: well that's just shameful IMO. If there are other reasons whether its financial or otherwise that is between the adults and should be sorted out between them or else by a judge.

seamus

Bambi wrote: »

There's a fairly obvious solution to this, if a father wants his name on the birth cert then he takes a paternity test. Important official document is now 100% accurate.

Bish bash bosh.

That's worse in many ways. If someone does not agree with taking a paternity test, they are denied the right to be their child's legal father?

I have to ask again about what this is seeking to achieve. It's currently possible to get a paternity test. If a man suspects an issue, he can get one, and he can do it anonymously.
We probably need some more robust legislation around being able to assert men's parental rights (i.e. get added to birth certs) or to dispute parentage.

But I don't see what benefit there is in mandatory testing; directly or indirectly through measures like the above.

Anyone?

hatrickpatrick

VinLieger wrote: »

It's not an hysterical over reaction if the reason being put forward for mandatory paternity testing is to reinforce the trust between partners in a relationship as it has been by several posters.


Its a disgusting double standard that some people would suggest only women need to have their faithfulness to their partners put through a mandatory test.

You realise that it would be the same for men though, right? As in, if a guy has cheated on his partner and secretly had a kid with someone else, that would equally come out in the wash with routine DNA testing?

This for me is about the kids moreso than the father. As a human, I'd be utterly devastated if I discovered that the bloodline I thought I came from was completely unrelated to me. I think about these things a lot philosophically, about the meaning of life, and the idea that if there is no God or spiritual existence, then the meaning of life is fundamentally tied to where your genes originated.

I don't think it's right that children be in any doubt about this, if it's possible to give them absolute certainty.

VinLieger

mrslancaster wrote: »

This is the most important reason that testing might be done - the child is entitled to know who it's parents are and has a right to know their origins and as another poster said their medical history etc. Any mother who denies that to her child :mad: well that's just shameful IMO. If there are other reasons whether its financial or otherwise that is between the adults and should be sorted out between them or else by a judge.

Indeed so the only solution is to have a mandatory DNA database to test all babies against if it turns out their mother was unfaithful.

/s

Obviously thats not the solution, mandatory testing of any kind in this case is ridiculous however making it mandatory to prove or disprove only the mothers unfaithfulness is a disgusting level of sexism.

If a father thinks his child's mother was unfaithful, as others have said, its his responsibility to do something about it.

Dyr

VinLieger wrote: »

It's not an hysterical over reaction if the reason being put forward for mandatory paternity testing is to reinforce the trust between partners in a relationship as it has been by several posters.

Its a disgusting double standard that some people would suggest only women need to have their faithfulness to their partners put through a mandatory test.

The reason for testing is that its now very easy to ascertain any claims to parenthood so it should be done.

If it saves some poor sap who's putting his hand up for a kid that's not his then all the better.

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You realise that it would be the same for men though, right? As in, if a guy has cheated on his partner and secretly had a kid with someone else, that would equally come out in the wash with routine DNA testing?

This for me is about the kids moreso than the father. As a human, I'd be utterly devastated if I discovered that the bloodline I thought I came from was completely unrelated to me. I think about these things a lot philosophically, about the meaning of life, and the idea that if there is no God or spiritual existence, then the meaning of life is fundamentally tied to where your genes originated.

I don't think it's right that children be in any doubt about this, if it's possible to give them absolute certainty.

And when they turn 18, if they wish to explore this, they can.

I'm not sure I'd be quite so affected if my bloodline turned out to be different. It's all just random chance anyway. I come from a line of beings that have successfully reproduced, all the way back to the first amoebas 4 billion years ago. If my father was someone else, that fact doesn't change, it's just a different line.

mrslancaster

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed so the only solution is to have a mandatory DNA database to test all babies against if it turns out their mother was unfaithful.

/s

Obviously thats not the solution, mandatory testing of any kind in this case is ridiculous however making it mandatory to prove or disprove only the mothers unfaithfulness is a disgusting level of sexism.

If a father thinks his child's mother was unfaithful, as others have said, its his responsibility to do something about it.

Nothing to do with a mother's unfaithfulness - the proof is for the child's benefit as they have a right to know their parentage.

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

And when they turn 18, if they wish to explore this, they can.

That's not good enough. They should have a right to know from birth. Waiting until they're 18 means that they've spent their lives building up an extreme emotional bond to the bloodline they thought they were part of, finding out at that age that it was all invalid would be devastating.

I'm not sure I'd be quite so affected if my bloodline turned out to be different. It's all just random chance anyway. I come from a line of beings that have successfully reproduced, all the way back to the first amoebas 4 billion years ago. If my father was someone else, that fact doesn't change, it's just a different line.

That's your point of view, but it's not mine and I suspect there are many others who'd agree. Again, ask yourself, if yours is the majority view, then why is it so difficult for some children emotionally and psychologically when they find out that they were adopted?

EDIT: I'd apply this to adoption as well by the way. People should be educated as to this fact literally from the moment they're capable of cognition, so that there's never a moment of shock "revelation" of it. It should be a fact that people grow up with and aren't told after years of being misled.

Dyr

seamus wrote: »

That's worse in many ways. If someone does not agree with taking a paternity test, they are denied the right to be their child's legal father?

You can leave the father's name blank on a birth cert. You can still legally be the father but you might have to be honest with the kid. What a terrible vista. :eek:

VinLieger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You realise that it would be the same for men though, right? As in, if a guy has cheated on his partner and secretly had a kid with someone else, that would equally come out in the wash with routine DNA testing?

Thats the point im trying to make, many on here are suggesting that it should only be a test for if the father is or is not the biological father and anything beyond that to find out who the real biological father is would be a waste of time and money, again which I say is a massive double standard especially when they are proposing the test under the guise of strengthening trust in a relationship.

However i think any mandatory testing like this would be an obscene step towards a big brother society.

I would potentially be okay with the mother being legally compelled to reveal who potentially is a childs father and then have DNA testing done to show that in any case where it is proven to not be the husband/partner as I agree with you that DNA history from a health perspective is far more important than many people understand

goat2

Putting ourselves in the situation , if we were reared believing that we are biologically related to our father, and years down the line finding out that we are not, does this not keep us from finding out about our real father and if he has gone on to have a family which would be half siblings, I most certainly would not like to be duped into thinking that situation, would rather know the truth

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nobody should be named on a birth cert without being certified DNA-wise as the biological parent of a child.

I'd apply that to things like surrogacy as well, by the way.

How would you apply it to surrogacy when the birth certificate is solely to provide a record of the individuals birth? The woman who gives birth to the child is recorded on the birth certificate. Where's the problem? We also issue new birth certificates to adults who do not identify as the sex they were recorded on their birth certificate. The birth certificate itself while it is indeed an official legal document, is literally just a record of the circumstances of one's birth, and if the assumed parents already agree that they are the parents, then there's no need for any extra expense on testing that is likely to confirm the bloody obvious in the vast majority of cases.

VinLieger

mrslancaster wrote: »

Nothing to do with a mother's unfaithfulness - the proof is for the child's benefit as they have a right to know their parentage.

I agree except many in this thread have been proposing it for that very purpose, in essence to shame women who are unfaithful but then stated they don't care about men being unfaithful or who the real father might be

manonboard

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

It feels like there’s a certain cohort of posters that have issues with trusting women.

Just to play a slight bit of devils advocate regards this and the OP.. If 1 in 25 are not the biological parent.. then 4% of women in these particular situations are indeed not to be trusted. That's kinda substantial i feel when it comes to something as large as signing a person who to a life long role without informed consent.
Infidelity must be even higher if i understand the numbers (which i may not, i find this stuff nuanced and tricky).

I'm very very surprised the numbers are that high. I would of thought it was something like 1 in 500 maybe..


Same applies to men of course.

manonboard

My friend recently found her biological father. When she was pre teen, someone said something about looking not like the father. Father took a swab.. and that was that. Gone like the wind. Devastating of course.

My friend just a couple months ago found her father, 2 brothers and a sister They have massive medical issues in theirs so she may have saved some lives too Big shock for everyone, but going really well.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How would you apply it to surrogacy when the birth certificate is solely to provide a record of the individuals birth? The woman who gives birth to the child is recorded on the birth certificate. Where's the problem?

The child is not genetically related to her. That child has a right to know, quite literally, where they came from. It shouldn't actually be legal to deny this knowledge to an individual of any age.

We also issue new birth certificates to adults who do not identify as the sex they were recorded on their birth certificate. The birth certificate itself while it is indeed an official legal document, is literally just a record of the circumstances of one's birth, and if the assumed parents already agree that they are the parents, then there's no need for any extra expense on testing that is likely to confirm the bloody obvious in the vast majority of cases.

Again, the adults are irrelevant. A child has the right to know which two humans they are literally made of, and it should be mandatory that all steps be taken to prove this before telling a child "this is where you came from".

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's not good enough. They should have a right to know from birth. Waiting until they're 18 means that they've spent their lives building up an extreme emotional bond to the bloodline they thought they were part of, finding out at that age that it was all invalid would be devastating.

So, adoptive parents should be obliged to inform their adoptive children of their parentage?

That seems to me to be awfully interfering. Shouldn't it be up to the parents to decide when is the most appropriate time to tell them? Biology doesn't make you someone's parent.

I came from a funeral this morning where an adoptive son as burying his father, and much of the congregation was a bit stunned to hear it. The bond between him and his adoptive father was as strong as any father-son bond I've ever seen. The man is devastated.

My point being that you imply that building a parental bond with someone who's not your biological parent is some kind of waste of time. That "bloodline" has some ethereal property to it. It doesn't. If you died without ever knowing that your bloodline was different, it would make no difference to you.

Bambi wrote: »

You can leave the father's name blank on a birth cert. You can still legally be the father but you might have to be honest with the kid. What a terrible vista. :eek:

How can you legally be the father if your name isn't on the birth cert?

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

So, adoptive parents should be obliged to inform their adoptive children of their parentage?

Absolutely. 100%.

That seems to me to be awfully interfering. Shouldn't it be up to the parents to decide when is the most appropriate time to tell them?

No. Parents shouldn't have the right to deny this knowledge to their children even for a day, let alone many years.

Biology doesn't make you someone's parent.

That's your own opinion. In my opinion, it fundamentally does.

I came from a funeral this morning where an adoptive son as burying his father, and much of the congregation was a bit stunned to hear it. The bond between him and his adoptive father was as strong as any father-son bond I've ever seen. The man is devastated.

That's not the point - the point is that he knows he was adopted. You can still have a bond, it's ridiculous to suggest that you can't - if that was the case, then nobody would ever have a loving relationship with a step-parent, which is clearly untrue. But it would have been fundamentally wrong to deny that knowledge to the kid.

My point being that you imply that building a parental bond with someone who's not your biological parent is some kind of waste of time. That "bloodline" has some ethereal property to it. It doesn't. If you died without ever knowing that your bloodline was different, it would make no difference to you.

It's a waste of time for some people, but not to others. To me, it's literally the meaning of life. If I died never knowing that my bloodline was different, I would have died being the victim of an absolutely evil and monstrous lie, and I'm certainly not ok with that possibility.

mrslancaster

seamus wrote: »

...So, adoptive parents should be obliged to inform their adoptive children of their parentage?

An adopted child or a child of surrogacy has as much right to know their origins as any other child.

Adoptive parents make a decision to adopt and raise a child which is usually made for the parents benefit - mostly if they are unable to have their own biological children. That does not negate the child's rights. IMO it is a disgrace that there are tens of thousands of adopted Irish citizens who have no right to access this basic information about themselves. Maybe there should be a change to the law about that.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The child is not genetically related to her. That child has a right to know, quite literally, where they came from. It shouldn't actually be legal to deny this knowledge to an individual of any age.

This is why I asked specifically in relation to surrogacy - you want an accurate reflection of biology on the birth certificate, then the woman who gives birth goes on the birth certificate. Of course the child has a right to know their biological parents, I agree with you, but I would go further and say that determinations like that should be made in the best interests of the child, and in some cases, it isn't in the childs best interests that they are made aware of their biological parents.

Again, the adults are irrelevant. A child has the right to know which two humans they are literally made of, and it should be mandatory that all steps be taken to prove this before telling a child "this is where you came from".

That's going to put a dent in the number of donors who contribute their genetic material on condition of anonymity. Again you're arguing from the traditional family structure of man + woman = children, but we've come a long way in terms of reproductive technology where we don't need to concern ourselves with the biological shenanigans, what appears to be more important in terms of healthy child development is stability.

Dyr

VinLieger wrote: »

I agree except many in this thread have been proposing it for that very purpose, in essence to shame women who are unfaithful but then stated they don't care about men being unfaithful or who the real father might be

Was it not to "shame" women who'll let some poor bastard take the hit for a kid that's not his rather than just being unfaithful?

Either way it's disgraceful, shaming people with the truth :mad:

lawred2

Bria Dry Sideline wrote: »

Depending on the statistics you read, rates of
One in 25 fathers is not biological parent



If these rates are to believed and DNA testing so cheap now(around €100) should mandatory measures be introduced? or should men create a culture that makes paternity testing a social norm

A guardian UK article from 2005

What a joke of an OP.

Anything Irish and from this decade?

lawred2

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Sounds like you have doubts...

I personally think that yes, it should be mandatory. Someone I know recently had a kid with a woman who he knew for barely a few weeks. She had broken up with a boyfriend not too long before they met and slept together at a get together. (I don't know if it was a wedding, a birthday party or work thing-hence my vagueness).

The close proximity of her dumping her ex, and then getting pregnant, makes me think the kid isn't his.

Mandatory?

How would you achieve that exactly?