Posted on 09/09/2023 3:55:33 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
In recent times, a noteworthy discussion has emerged across various states regarding the implementation of a new law related to paternity DNA testing before a man signs the birth certificate. The central question being asked is whether paternity testing should be mandatory before the birth certificate is signed, immediately upon the birth of a child. This contentious issue has sparked debates about rights, responsibilities, and fairness. In this blog post, we will delve into the arguments for and against this new law, exploring the implications it might have on individuals and families.
The Case for Mandatory Paternity Testing
Advocates of mandatory paternity DNA testing argue that this measure is a necessary step towards ensuring fairness, transparency, and equality for all parties involved. Here are some key points in favor of this perspective:
Equity and Equal Rights: The call for mandatory paternity testing emphasizes the importance of equality between parents. Just as mothers are identified upon birth, fathers should be too. This approach aligns with the principle of equal rights and treatment.
Eliminating Future Disputes: Mandatory testing can preemptively address potential disputes about paternity. By establishing biological parentage at the outset, the likelihood of future conflicts is significantly reduced, saving both emotional distress and legal expenses.
Financial and Emotional Savings: By avoiding situations where men unknowingly provide financial support for children who are not biologically theirs, families can be spared significant financial and emotional turmoil.
Timely Resolution: Immediate testing upon birth provides a clear path for legal proceedings, if necessary, allowing for a swift resolution of custody and support matters.
Comprehensive Information: Having accurate paternity information on record from the very beginning could positively impact the child's medical history, inheritance rights, and familial relationships.
Counterarguments Against Mandatory Testing
Opponents of mandatory paternity DNA testing offer differing perspectives that warrant consideration:
Privacy Concerns: Mandatory testing may infringe upon the privacy of families. Some argue that paternity matters should remain a private affair, decided upon mutual agreement rather than mandated by law.
Potential for Stigmatization: For some families, mandatory testing might inadvertently create a stigma around paternity issues, raising unnecessary doubts and causing discomfort.
Overreach of Government: Critics of mandatory testing contend that such legislation could be seen as an overreach of government power into personal matters, potentially setting a precedent for increased interference in individual lives.
Cost and Logistics: Implementing mandatory testing could come with financial and logistical challenges. Questions arise about who would bear the cost of testing and how it would be administered efficiently.
Conclusion: Striking a Balance
The debate on mandatory paternity DNA testing before signing a birth certificate reflects the complex interplay between rights, responsibilities, and personal autonomy. Proponents argue that it promotes transparency and equity, while opponents emphasize the importance of privacy and individual choice. Striking a balance between these perspectives will likely require careful consideration of legal, ethical, and practical implications.
As this debate continues to unfold, it is evident that conversations about paternity testing are evolving in response to societal changes and advancements in technology. Whether mandatory testing becomes a widespread practice or not, the ultimate goal remains clear: ensuring the best possible outcomes for families and children in a rapidly changing world.
This is typical coverup with lofty words and aims crafted to disguise the real intent and the true pro and con. Just as we refused to have our kindergartener exposed to a program of puppets like Reggie the recovering addict and Wanda the sexually abused wombat, this DNA database is wrong on so many levels. In our son's case 30 years ago we argued that he deserved to have a childhood where he could feel safe and as though the world was good. The inner strength of that idealized world allows people to act to make that belief true with their actions and conduct later in life even as they learn and experience the darker side of life.
Stealing or destroying that inner peace is abuse. When life brings conflict, sadness or evil into a child's life that is very sad. Those children deserve & need help in understanding the situations they find themselves. They deserve not to feel alone. BUT the welfare of all children does not need to be sacrificed to help those individuals.
This situation appears very similar. Throughout history humans have known that fatherhood is mysterious. Many societies developed as matriarchal to allow for this fact. Human relationships are complex and fragile. To legislate this kind of knowledge is intrusive and will have unintended side effects many of which will be detrimental to all involved.
If the issue is that men should not be forced to support children not their own, depending on the circumstances I agree. It is certainly a deeper betrayal on top of the betrayal of divorce. At that point DNA testing has a valid role to play. The proposed universal testing plays into intrusive Government hands and is a further assault on the institution of marriage. Abuse of that DNA database is very likely and should be an overriding concern in applying a policy across the board needlessly.
Blacks are group most affected and soon there will thousands of step daddy’s, mother’s brothers and all those other “unknown” fathers will be found in the home.
We are near the point where DNA testing becomes a misnomer. The child’s DNA is most likely collected and databased at birth, just like blood type. Which means there is a good chance so is the fathers. DNA collection is required of all military. And DNA is probably collected along with finger printing.
If the DNA of the child and “father” is in a database, determination of paternity is a computer match away.
So mandatory DNA testing may not be necessary as the DNA data is already available to compare.
Where do you think “Home” boys comes from... Step dad, moms brother. Drugs and alcohol results in more people inside the HOME taking advantage of young girls. Why else do 70% of black females not tell who the daddy is, because HE lives there. Dirty little secret.
Home birth. That’s what we chose for all 4 children.
This is a perfect of example of:
“Should the government...”
“Nope”.
I can’t believe “conservative” people would support this. There’s a lot of people who should evaluate their political perspectives to see if they are really where they think they are.
The government needs to stop incest thru testing. Hold the responsible men accountable financially or jail time.
IQs can improve.
Young women or girls may be raped at home less and less.
No. if a man thinks his child may not be his then he should be able to go to court and get a mandatory DNA test.
The government doesn’t need this all on file.
What the heck is wrong with people?
How did we ever live and take care of these matters before DNA testing?
This is insanity
Not true
I oppose it because we don’t need the govt involved in one more thing
In a legal setting, DNA testing is the only way to verify paternity. But using this method as standard operating procedure for all births will end up being problematic, not to mention expensive.
Once the waiver is signed, that genetic information is no longer theirs, and the third and fourth parties having access to it will have some abilities beyond just identifying paternity.
Possibly cross-matching to criminal DNA databases, as the government just won’t be able to help itself.
Terms and Conditions of the waivers will be interesting to see.
————
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
————
Liberty - earned with the blood of patriots - and people just give it away.
Courts have shown otherwise.
Where does it stop? There is always another virtuous sounding reason for Government inference.
Courts need to be reined in.
If a law is passed clearly saying X, then a judge can’t say Y.
Some things you just don't want to know -- at least not in the maternity room.
No, it should be mandatory.
Otherwise he'll be hearing; "If you really loved me..." until he signs.
Problem there is if the kid turns out to be his, he probably just blew up the marriage and will be paying child support.
Well if it is his kid he should be paying support or else learn to keep his pants zipped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.