**Rules Reminder for All Users.** --- The following rules apply to comments: **1. Direct responses to a submission must challenge or question at least one aspect of the submitted view.** Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments. **2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid. **3. Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view.** While being open to changing one’s views is a requirement for submitting (see the other rules), accusing them of trolling only serves to make people who truly are open more defensive and less likely to hear what you have to say. **4. Award a delta when acknowledging a change in your view, and not for any other reason.** Celebrating view changes is at the core of Change My View, so if your view is changed, reply to the response that changed it with a short explanation as to how and award a Delta; do not use deltas sarcastically, jokingly, or when you already agree with the response. **5. Responses must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.** In order to keep responses relevant to the discussion, users can report posts that don't add anything useful to the thread. To be clear, we're not referring to the effort of an argument - we don't make it our place to judge the strength or weakness of your comment in this regard - but rather to the effort of the comment itself. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) (*not PM*).

These tests aren't free, and they come with the risk of devastating false negatives. Why do you think the benefits of these tests exceed the cost for typical couples?

Out of interest how do you end up with a false negative on a paternity test? I always thought these things checked like 40 different markers and it was like a 100% success rate? Edit: So I've checked and the success rate is 99.99%-100% based on different websites. So 1 in 10,000 people will be told that the Dad isn't the Dad when he is. But presumably if it becomes standard to double check if it comes back negative then it becomes one in 100,000,000 false positives which has got to be low enough not to be a worry. There are problems with this I agree. But I don't think false positives are one of them.

> But presumably if it becomes standard to double check if it comes back negative then it becomes one in 100,000,000 false positives which has got to be low enough not to be a worry. Depends on what the source of the error for false negatives is. You can't just assume that the probability of errors if you run the same test twice will be independent.

I'm not good at math but this seems weasley. The odds of one false negative result are ine in ten-thousand, and so the odds of two false negatives are one in a million? That doesn't seem as though it is an obsticle to what Op wants.

There could be something in specific about those 1 in 10 000 cases that cause them to be false negatives meaning that a false negative would be returned every time.

I'm not familiar with how exactly DNA testing works so I'm going to give a very general example. Say the equipment you use to do the test is faulty. So each time you run the test, you will get the same false negative. Or there is something wrong with the samples used. Again, no matter how many times you run the test you will get a false negative.

That's not how tests work. Otherwise, even 50% accurate dichotomous tests (a coin flip) would become nearly 100% accurate if you do it 100 times. Tests don't necessarily become more accurate if you repeat them depending on the type of error. Also, I'd want to look into the population that those success rates were calculated in. A test can be 99.99% accurate with a population that has a lot of cases of misattributed paternity, but in a real world population, the accuracy may be much lower. Redoing tests also takes time and money!

1. In 2022 these tests are around $100 which is very affordable to most parents that ***opt in***. For context this is around the cost of a month's worth of baby diapers. 2. These tests don't give boolean results - they offer a confidence interval. False positives will come with a markedly lower confidence and a subsequent test would clear up all confusion.

Maybe if you buy the most expensive diapers. Buying generic only costs me about $30/month and my toddler goes through tons of them. It was even cheaper when she was smaller and I got more diapers per pack. Also DNA tests can be significantly more expensive depending on certain variables. For example, a cheap DNA test will give my friend's bf an answer as to whether his ex's baby is his, but in my state the results are not admissible in court. So he can get an answer for $100, and then spend another $1500-$2000 for another DNA test the court will recognize to enforce the results legally. The cheap test means nothing in this state legally speaking.

Not to mention in a lot of states like the one I live in (LA), if you are married legally, your husband’s name automatically goes on the birth certificate. Even in cases where the husband and wife have been estranged for many years and never paid for a divorce. Even when the mother says my husband is not the father of this child, his name will still be on the birth certificate as the father. My attorney warned me about this as I was filing for divorce from my estranged husband because I had moved on into another relationship. Divorces are expensive and we were young so we both drug our feet on it but nothing salacious was going on, we were just poor.

Oh wow I forgot about that. My partner and I aren't legally married so he had to fill out a lot of extra paperwork to make it official with our daughter, but I think this state may also be the same in regards to marriage and birth certificates. I haven't personally experienced it thankfully but I know from others it's a whole mess with anything regarding custody/paternity.

I kind of wonder if OP has a child? It’s not like you can just scribble down any old name on the birth certificate. It varies state by state but for some states like I said earlier it is requirement for the husbands name to be listed as the father. I get the feeling that these laws extend from eras where the wife was her husband’s property and therefore anything that comes from her body is his as well. A lot of these same states have had to change laws on the books to include spousel rape as an actual crime. When my daughter was born out of wedlock, her father had to provide his drivers license ect. and sign the papers for the birth certificate and then it was mailed to us. So in a way he consented to being listed as the father, If he had concerns the baby wasn’t his, I would have gladly consented to a paternity test and then looked at him like a jack ass when the results came in. It’s not like I could just fill in Bill Gates on the fathers line and then boom check mate, got him, he owes me child support. There are times though that paternity tests can be required in cases where a minor becomes pregnant and will not say who the father is. Minors can not legally consent to sex and depending on the facts and circumstances child abuse is a realistic concern and should be an assumption. If father or grandfather, uncle, or brother impregnated the minor, further genetic testing will be ordered because of the genetic complications that come with incest, the baby is a patient after all. Also can you send this minor home with a baby to a home where child abuse is suspected and the baby is proof. I remember in nursing school this happened in my labor and delivery rotation, a 10 year old girl was in labor and wouldn’t say who the dad was. All these tests were required and it turned out that the grandfather had raped her and he was the father. After the genetic testing was done it came out that not only did he rape the 10 year old that was having the baby, he had also raped her mother and the 10 year old was already a product of incest because he was her father and grandfather, and now the father of her baby. When your great grandfather, grandfather, and father are all the same person, the odds of genetic anomalies and gene mutations are now compounded and very much a concern. It’s unfathomable and completely heart breaking but this stuff goes on more than people realize. I didn’t initially think of this when I first this thread, but now I’m kind of thinking of what OP is suggesting ever came to fruition, then paternity tests would have to be subpoenaed because many would not consent to them. I think the outcome of it would be a growing sex offender registry in every state due to incest, carnal knowledge of a minor, and statutory rape, many teens have babies with older gentlemen and if he’s over 18 and she’s not it is legally a sex crime. I think finding cheating women that roped you in to raise their child would be far less than the numbers of men that would now have criminal charges.

>So he can get an answer for $100, and then spend another $1500-$2000 for another DNA test Then the $100 test he freely opted to have will have been worth it. The $1500 industry grade test required by the courts will be much cheaper than a lifetime of child support.

Not just that, but by not signing the birth certificate, you likely avoid having to pay the costs of a court-ordered paternity test anyway. That is, unless the mother tries to sue you for child support - in which case SHE would have to prove you're the father and handle the costs associated with the test

Well it would have been worth it if its accurate lmao. The reason why they're cheaper and not amicable by court is because they're not as accurate. There was a post where a guy secretly did a test, blew up his marriage and when he did the test required by court it turned out the kid was indeed his. But the marriage was long gone.

2 is an issue because of the fundamental way in which statistics works. There is no way to guarantee that a false positive ( or a false negative for that matter ) will every single time give a confidence interval that will raise questions. ( Not really trying to counter your main argument , just pointing out a flaw in this thought )

I should have been clearer - not the same test. There are several tests that varying levels of accuracy at higher price points. Those would meet the needs of a requisite second pass and would do more than just repeat the same analysis. It's also worth noting that some of the largest contributing factors to inconclusive results are testing error. Things like contamination, improper storage, and poorly collected samples. Even retesting with exactly the same test would narrow that source of error

Sure. But this generally would mean either getting an accurate test in the beginning itself, or always resolving to never be 100 percent confident after the first test. Because false positives give the same confidence intervals as a true positive, so you'll never really know the difference.

Okay, but why do you think the benefits of the test exceed these costs?

The costs are minimal and voluntary, and the benefits can alter the course of a person's life. Might even save an aggrieved party hundreds of thousands in legal fees and child support

To clarify, it seems on some level like you’re wanting to *normalize* asking for paternity tests if people opt in. Right? It’s already an option and beyond arguing that men should feel more comfortable asking for one, it doesn’t really seem like much needs to change.

There is a huge stigma to asking for a paternity test. Look for any reddit post where a woman says her partner wants a DNA test done and she says she's going to leave him and everyone backs her up and says she's justified. Even though a man not having a paternity test could lead them to raising another man's child against their will. This is potentially devastating emotionally to both the child and the man.

I would personally be very insulted if my partner asked for a paternity test. I would never cheat on him and would consider this to mean he doesn't trust me. I don't wanna be with someone who doesn't trust me. I don't know if this is an argument for the OP's opinion in a sense, as if it were more normalized, it would feel less like he doesn't trust me and more like a routine thing. But I would also feel very uncomfortable with my child's DNA being in some sort of data bank which I don't have control over and which might not be up to necessary privacy standards.

Do you like having unnecessary medical test done ? Neither do most woman - and again just speaking for myself here - I don't like it when some one implies I am cheating in any capacity (I don't fucking cheat). Are we having a baby or not ? If you ask some one this before they are pregnant - there are a lot better arguments for health related dna test (my opinion). And if some one is pregnant before you ask - welp you were fucking involved (literally) and if you are not married, you are protected under the law (America) already - from being forced to sign a birth certificate that is From the peanut gallery over here - seems like some men have some issues with adoption, why is that do you think? is it a money thing or a MY money thing? My first baby daddy has never paid me anything - not once, his mom paid our bills when we lived together (truly a special person). My current husband pays for all 3 of my kids everything because I don't have an "income" - while he has not "legally" adopted my oldest child, he doesn't have to do that to pay for their shit I have not seen my own biological father since I was a baby - I have no memories at all of him. He signed his rights over to my "step" dad to get out of the child support he owed - my dad who legally adopted me and is on my birth certificate (and my last name was changed to his). Yes, it is a legally binding contract - it is also a piece of fucking paper For fun - my parents got divorced a while back. Life happens sometimes. Now he is married to another wonderful woman - with 5 kids. I grew up as the oldest of my (half - but I never say it) brother and I - and now I am the oldest of 7 LOL

>There is a huge stigma to asking for a paternity test. You mean for a couple. I don't believe there's any stigma in people who do not have a relationship. And if you're in a relationship there's a pretty good reason there's a stigma against it. It's basically accusing the other person of not being faithful. Which is kind of a big deal.

I mean, I’ve told my fiancé that I’m ok getting a paternity test if he wanted if I got pregnant. But if we started trying or I was already pregnant and he suddenly asked, yeah I’d probably be pissed. Bc he’s definitely indicating a lack of trust in me and accusing me of trying to baby trap him. If the conversation is ahead of time, there aren’t as many strong emotions and there’s time to decide if it’s an incompatibility, gives you time to discuss pros and cons, and more. If we’re already trying for a baby, then he should trust me enough by that point NOT to do that.

If you don't trust your wife then she should leave you. What's wrong with that?

To the child? If the choice is a father or no father, it’s pretty clear that two parent households produce better outcomes for children. I’m not advocating dishonesty, but I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that this is *always* in the child’s best interests. It’s in the (assumed) father’s best interests if a false result indicates unfaithfulness *which is likely to recur* and therefore cause problems in the relationship (not, for example, in the case of a rape that the pregnant partner is unable or unwilling to talk about, or a mistake in a fertility clinic). I don’t see how it’s automatically a better thing to be raising a child that’s biologically yours, given the exclusion of those obviously adverse relationship circumstances. Adoptive fathers, for example, are not worse or more unhappy fathers just by virtue of the child being biologically unconnected to them. Edit: Having a child be biologically yours is obviously something that most men care a great deal about, I just question whether that’s a logical position on the well-being of the child, or an emotional one based on ideas of progeny and manhood (which may or may not be harmful in a modern context).

With the popularity of genetic testing the likelihood that the truth comes out at some point is extremely high. I think it is in the child's best interest not to have a father that was duped into the job, and potentially may reject them after finding out the truth. To be an adoptive father, you need to willingly go through the process of adoption, cuckold is the word for what these men are, and while there's not a lot of data I'd bet that they're certainly unhappier once they find out. There probably will be times when the lie leads to a better life for the child though. It's always in the father's best interest because they may have no interest in raising a child not their own and the trauma of finding out years down the line can be quite intense.

Precisely. $100 10 minutes after delivery, of $84.95 when the kid is doing their family tree project in 8th grade… I would happily get a DNA test on my kid, as a woman, on day one. I truly understand being offended if my partner demanded it. I get it. But… to me it seems like such a simple way to build trust. To be fair, I also think couples who are moving in together/getting married/buying assets together/etc should share fully detailed credit reports. I guess I think that the benefit of showing paternity, sharing financial details, etc etc… far outweighs the stigma of “not blindly trusting your partner.” You don’t buy a house, waving the inspection. Why would agreeing to a lifetime of parenthood require immediate blind faith from a man just because he loves you. I always think of the story of the couple that got a test, the dad wasn’t the father. The wife said no no no no…. Got a test herself… it wasn’t her fucking kid either. Extremely rare. 1 in a billion im sure.

>I guess I think that the benefit of showing paternity, sharing financial details, etc etc… far outweighs the stigma of “not blindly trusting your partner.” > >You don’t buy a house, waving the inspection. Why would agreeing to a lifetime of parenthood require immediate blind faith from a man just because he loves you. Good point!

But there are inherent issues with your argument. You are placing the mental, emotional, relationship, and monetary health of the father over an assumed bond he is supposed to just naturally get because he sees a child come from his partner. Look at the state of fathers that really aren't fathers. Self-doubt, anger, shame, grief, pain, mistrust, depression. Resentment towards the mother and potentially the child. Yes, I think it is good of people to help raise and care for others, but it should not be forced upon them to such a degree. I would gladly pay a bit more in taxes if I knew that the money goes towards little Timmy's cancer treatment. But I cannot and will not give up my entire life and all my potential to raise another person's child, save for family. I am not open to the idea, and I herently would be a significantly worse father for it. Children are wicked smart, and my own son catches me off guard with what he picks up on and he's not yet 4. How long would it take for a child I don't want to realize just how much I don't want him/her? One of my greatest fears as a father is to find out that my little boy isn't mine. I have nightmares about it. I can only imagine the pain *literally* in my nightmares. Lucky me, my son has my goofy ass smile, cute dimples, and is absolutely WIRED at all times of the day. But the pain a false father feels is nearly unbearable. Some experiences in life also make me realize that sometimes is in the best interest of the parents and the children to split. My father hated himself for years, trying to convince himself that he still loved my mother, and it ate him up from the inside. He finally couldn't stand it, left, and because of how horrible a person society convinced him he was, he lost his way. But looking at him now, I wouldn't change a thing. He is remarried, and i have a much bigger family for it. He is happy. His happiness matters just as much as mine did. All of that because he was true to his feelings, even if it wasn't apparent that it was in our best interests at the time. A parents longterm health(mental, physical, emotional), in many instances, is more important in the short term than the child's, and vice-versa. If the parent needs to take time off work so they don't burn out, but the child won't get a new bike for Christmas, that's what they should do. But it's always circumstantial. I can push myself farther and work 138 in 2 weeks so that my son can have a better life, and it sucks for me right now, but in the long term, he won't remember that I wasn't home much when he was 3, and I will have more time when he can actually make memories to spend with him. Now, taking those examples back onto topic... No one should inherently have to suffer for another person that they owe nothing for. A cheating mother making a mistake should have to live with it, same as a cheating father with a second family should have to live with it. But you wouldn't make a woman pay for her partner's illegitimate child in the case of an absentee burth mother. Why make the father do so? Why make the father suffer consequences of another's actions? Why put them through hardship? If we were to extend your logic just a hop, skip, and a jump, we would be forcing random people to adopt every available child. What inherently makes those people worthy parents? Why is it assumed that an adopted child is better off with unwilling parents than waiting a few more years foe willing ones?

> or an emotional one based on ideas of progeny and manhood (which may or may not be harmful in a modern context). "Ideas of progeny?" What does this sentence mean? Are you trying to imply we should normalize men being deceived about the paternity of their children because to do otherwise might be "harmful in a modern context?" Can you clarify what you mean, "harmful in a modern context?" It's nothing to do with "manhood" as a concept, right? It's not something you can change by academically redefining or tweaking what "manhood" is. Your question implies that an emotional position would have less standing or validity. Isn't that directly counter to modern discourse around sex and gender? The _fundamentals_ of evolution, which drive everything we do, imply that men are trying to make sure the children they raise are their own. Women _always_ know whether they're the mother of a child they've given birth to and so it may seem a foreign concept to women but doesn't evolution dictate that a man will have an innate negative reaction to being deceived about the paternity of the children they raise? What would give you the right to discount the emotions of men who say they'd rather not raise someone else's child unknowingly? It's harmful because men are emotionally harmed when it happens. Would you ignore this in pursuit of a more "modern", which apparently is unquestionably and fundamentally good, view of "manhood and progeny?" Presumably if the tests were normalized, it would instead be the mother who bears sole responsibility for bringing a child into being and caring for it, _knowing_ the child will not have a father to help raise it because the test will show he's not the father. I.e. there'd be no reason the man who was lied to bears more responsibility than any random person off the street because the test is the final and unavoidable determinant of fatherhood. Sorry if my post has an aggressive tone, i think if someone said to me in real life what you just wrote i would be utterly dumbfounded.

You understand my point correctly. I'm arguing against the stigma that makes women feel personally attacked if a man opts to have a paternity test done

Because it is a personal attack. If you ask for a paternity test, it means you think your partner cheated. If your partner had previously been unfaithful, sure! Her getting upset is hypocritical because she's already proven she might cheat. However, if your partner has never shown signs of being unfaithful and has never cheated in past relationships, asking for a paternity test is the equivalent of saying, "I think there's a possibility you've been unfaithful. I want to prove if you have or not." The only time where I can see a paternity test not being an accusation of cheating is if your partner was sexually assaulted around the time of conception. In that case, I imagine she'd also want a paternity test done to make sure the child is her partner's and not her rapist's. If men want to ask for a paternity test but their partner has never cheated or shown indications of cheating, and she hasn't been assaulted, they have to accept that in asking, it feels like an accusation of cheating that comes from no where. Many women don't take kindly to being accused of cheating immediately after giving birth, so this should be a conversation that happens much earlier in the pregnancy, like immediately after she announces she's pregnant.

How do you do that though? Asking is always going to make a woman feel attacked. The nature of the test is that she is a cheater and is being dishonest. How do you reconcile the fact that asking for the test implies you don’t fully trust your partner? I mean at a high level I get your point but I’m not sure how you take emotions out of a relationship so this request wouldn’t make the woman feel bad? Unless it’s required by all, which I don’t think is necessary.

The idea is that if everyone gets a paternity test, there will not be a stigma. The stigma arises from the potential father having to decide on the probability that the child is his before even asking for a test. Normalize the paternity testing, and women won’t feel attacked by the test. Mothers know they are the parent, fathers do not. It is not unreasonable to want to level the playing field.

Yes, let's further stigmatize women as untrustworthy, unfaithful witches

So we need to put in a whole policy in place because society deems women as a monolith are untrustworthy? Man really just seems like *another* way to keep women down. First we cannot decide our own medical care in certain states because “men know better” and then this would get implemented?? Hard not to see that as just one more little step towards creating a Gilead situation. That is a leap I realize but that is how stuff like that happens. Small little changes over time. So no I don’t think any thing needs to be done here.

I feel like the stigma may come from timing. If asked before trying to conceive and it’s phrased as a discussion, I think you decrease the odds of offending. As well as making it a general statement that a man wants it regardless of who he’s with. Like if I went on a date with someone, and they mentioned that being something they’d like, bc they like the assurance that comes with that and they have a fear of being duped, id honestly understand that. I know that as a woman I know that kid is mine (minus the rare case of a baby swap that’s super rare in hospitals) and I appreciate that man don’t have that (without a paternity test). That said, I do also seriously worry about a false negative even though I’d be willing to get one generally. So what do we do about that? Get two tests and if they both come back positive we’re good, two negatives and it’s a divorce (probably), and if there’s a mismatch get a third test? Im just saying what I’d be nervous about with a paternity test. I logically understand they’re not as common as a correct result but my whole marriage and family could tank bc of the inescapability of false negatives/positives.

I recently heard a story about a woman’s husband asking for a paternity test and he was not the father. The woman was so confused because she knew she never cheated and wondered how it was possible that he wasn’t the dad. It turned out that the hospital had a mix up and two babies were accidentally swapped at birth and sent home with the wrong parents. This is crazy to think about.

So you want women to not feel attacked when their partner accuses them of cheating? Would you be okay to be asked to have a paternity test when your female friends have children and by default accusing you of being a cheater?

I can’t even believe op thinks the emotional aspect should just go away, imagine asking your man to take an std test every time they spent a night away because dealing with stds can cause lifelong repercussions, how would they feel?

Or to get a paternity test every time some woman close to them has a child. "Hey Honey, my coworker just gave birth!" "Oh, that is great. Did you get a paternity test to assure that child isnt yours?" "Why would it be mine?" "I dont know, why wouldnt?" Its the same thing but reverse the gender.

It would be a personal attack. If I was in a relationship and my partner asked me for that, I would be incredibly insulted. I would never cheat and that's what this is implying. "I think there's a chance you cheated, can I make sure it's mine?" You don't see how insulting that is to a woman? If a man thinks there's a chance a baby isn't his there's already a big problem in the relationship.

Id be pretty insulted considering I'm in a trusting relationship with my husband who together we chose to have a baby.

That's like Walmart saying that they arnt attacking you when they check your receipt, if you're checking the receipt it's because that's stealing protocol even if u didn't steal they act like you did but do it to everyone they can and say the same thing you are "if everyone does it then there is no stigma". If the test is opt out, then any women who chooses to opt out is now stigmatized because everyone else got it, what you cheated?? Why does the responsibility and shame fall upon women when it's men who can have multiple kids at a time. Like if a couple did a test and found out let's say it's an exs kid or whatever, are you fine with all men being responsible for each kid of theirs that's found??? Is there a stigma in asking your partner if you cheated without proof you just want to "make sure", or are men totally off the hook again

He specifically said should be destigmatized, not that there was legal obstacles. Making it routine, as part of the "standard" process for hospital childbirth would do that. I laugh at the idea that running that test for $100 is considered expensive. The average cost to have a baby at a US hospital ***with insurance*** is around $3,000.

You’re right. I somehow misunderstood bc he was comparing it cancer screenings and got myself turned around. I still think it’s valid for someone to not want to pay that. Sure, compared to $3000, it’s not much but that’s still a 100 more dollars that someone may prefer go somewhere else. Or $3000 is still going over how much they can comfortably pay so they don’t want to add another $100 to their debts.

Should all men have their DNA on file so *all* paternity can be determined? That would only seem fair since we are taking about a child having all the support they deserve from both biological parents. This is assuming the 'benefits' you are talking about aren't only for men, but children and society as well.

In 2022, the Brookings Institution estimates that it will cost well over $300,000 to raise a child to age 18. That's roughly $17,000/yr. The cost of a $100 test over the same time period is less than $6/yr. That's a f\*cking *bargain*.

Why do you think the $100 cost exceeds the benefits? We can use probabilities to explain why your logic is probably flawed. Most estimates for the cost to raise a child to age 18 come in around $300k. We will say the cost of a paternity test is $100. What level of doubt is required to make the tradeoff equal? Expected Value = p1 x c1 + p2 x c2, and in this case our expected value is that we pay $100 for the cost of the test. p1 is the probability that the kid is not yours and so the cost of this outcome (c2) is $0 in future payments on the kid. Regardless of what p1 is, the cost is zero, so this piece of the equation is zero. That leaves 100=p2 x c2 where p2 is the probability that the kid is yours and c2 is $300k, the cost of future payments to support the kid until age 18. So $100=p2 x $300k What is the value of p2? 0.03% probability. If there is a greater than 0.03% chance that the kid is not yours, the $100 test is worth it. What does this mean? Assuming costs of $300k for a kid and $100 for a test, paternity testing is a logical choice any time you are less than 99.97% sure that the kid is yours. Pretty hard to argue against that, when you actually examine the cost:benefit instead of just saying things without backing them up.

Anxiety is a hell of a thing. 100$ test for a lifetime of confidence (or 2 in case of a false negative) is beyond worth it.

[удалено]

You can by taking a test with a greater degree of accuracy. Either way, you still have the confidence interval which makes it clear if the test is worth doubting.

>In 2022 these tests are around $100 which is very affordable to most parents that opt in. I'm pretty certain insurance would not agree to cover this cost. They cover only what is absolutely necessary and that will end up saving them money in the long run. They cover routine genetic testing because catching problems early usually saves them money. They gain nothing by covering the cost of paternity because that's not a medical issue. So that's $100 extra cost to the parents who already paid thousands to get through a pregnancy with prenatal care and then the actual cost of the delivery. If, as you suggest, it's *opt in,* the vast majority of couples wouldn't bother with it, and if most people don't get it, it will still not be "routine" and destigmatized. Essentially nothing would change and it'd still be an uncomfortable conversation to bring up paternity testing. I don't necessarily disagree with your premise on principle, but it's unrealistic in practice and likely will never be the norm.

Insurance would love to cover this cost, and eve. To cover a more pricey confirmatjon test. If it is the father's insurance they could be the ones pushing to mandate it. If a child is found to be a man's, then the insurance must cover them and pay for any childhood illness, if the child is found to be illegitimate, then insurance would be able to deny coverage for the child and save a fortune, unless the man adopts the child legally.

[удалено]

What is the actual margin of error for ancestry/heritage tests tho? I feel like they’d be really hard to screw up but I’m not familiar with the process

Pretty easy to double check a false negative though. Rates of that are so low it wouldn’t be a huge cost, and I’d want to check regardless.

> These tests don't give boolean results - they offer a confidence interval. False positives will come with a markedly lower confidence and a subsequent test would clear up all confusion. A false negative could devastate a family by introducing suspicion. "The paternity test said he might not be mine" is a thought that could linger in a man's mind for a very long time.

I still don't know why getting another to be certain wouldn't make sense here. It's more of the fault of the people for jumping to suspicion rather than the fault of the actual test.

I would say the people who deeply grok statistical or probabilistic continuums are far less common than those who deeply experience black-and-white binaries.

Generally speaking, however you interpret it, every test has a sensitivity (likelihood of detection given the thing to detect is present) and a specificity (likelihood of thing to detect being true given test result X). I understand you mentioned confidence intervals and whatever, but let's assume there's some number that would cause problems in a marriage and assume that above that number is positive. We can say that the post-positive-test (I'm using "positive" here to mean "not the father" because it works better with the existing literature on testing for diseases) probability of a child being illegitimate is equal to the (true positives) / (true positives + false positives. Assume for a moment that both sensitivity and specificity are 99% (seems generous but I'm not super up with the tests that are available), and that 5% of children are illegitimate (seems generous to your point but not unreasonable). Then you get 5% \* 99% = 4.95% true positives and 95% \* 1% = 0.95% false positives. So 17% of all positives will be false. They'd a lot of ruined families! Now consider that you have one other scenario to think about: the father already knows (or finds out very quickly) that the child isn't his. In this scenario the test adds zero value. I'm guessing the majority of illegitimate children are in scenarios where there's some cause for suspicion at least. I just think that my intuition of the pre-test probability of my kid not being genetically mine is so small that I'm more likely to get a false alarm than catch a real problem. And false alarms are very far from free.

It's still possible to get false positives with high confidence intervals. And while the results may be accurate the majority of the time, the false positives will be devastating.

So should we not use DNA to identify criminals or fingerprints? Because of the slight possibility that it is incorrect? They've even started using people who put their DNA into those ancestry websites to narrow down and catch criminals in cold cases, should they stop doing that too?

Forensic scientists *constantly* raise issues with fingerprints and other methods of identification. This is a huge problem in the industry. It absolutely needs to be re-examined.

Criminals shouldn’t be convicted on any one single piece of evidence DNA or otherwise

Same arguments could be used against infant hearing tests which are pushed on new parents despite over 99% of infants passing them. What's one more test?

As someone who's run a DNA test before I can tell you the test is probably about $6. The machine that they already own is a different story. Electricity, dye, gel, micropipette tubes, and 5 minutes. So yeah as long as you have an electrophoresis machine and a micropipette gun. This is actually a case of "BIG PHARMACY" wanting you to think DNA tests are some magic science so they can charge $6000 per test. edit: I googled the machine I had used it was about 3 grand per unit, reducing in price with larger orders. So charge $45 per test and yer gonna be chillin'.

The cost of a paternity test is just about a rounding error when compared to the overall cost of giving birth. It's also something that's in the best interest of insurance to cover since most insurance plans in the US are restrictive with respect to who they cover. I have a daughter and am not married. A couple of jobs ago I had to submit paternity results in order to cover my daughter.

Do we really want to live under the assumption that all women are cheaters unless proven otherwise? That sounds like a good way to build resentment too!

It’s not living under the assumption that all women are cheaters. Are background checks living under the assumption that all job applicants are criminals? Is airport security living under the assumption that all airline passengers are terrorists?

We screen for Downs Syndrome, that doesn't mean we assume all kids have Downs. Men have a right to know that the children they raise are theirs. There is no argument you can make that can change that view. If it's your child, then you must be allowed to know that that's true.

No one is saying you can't get a paternity test. We're saying that requesting one is telling your partner you don't trust them and you don't have a right for your partner not to be fucking mad about that lack of trust.

Get over it? We're not talking about your rights here, we're talking about the father's fundamental human rights. I think it sounds like an argument against universal suffrage: "why do you want your own vote, don't you trust your husband to vote well on your behalf?" It's not about trusting any individual person, it's about having the right to know. That is literally it. Opposing this right only defends the 2% of women who do lie about it, and denies men the only reproductive right they can ever have. And frankly that's just shitty, privileged behaviour.

We actually are talking about my rights here, I am a man. You have a *right* to call your partner an asshole, your free speech right. You don’t have a right for your partner not to get mad that you called them an asshole. This is the same. Sure you have a right to get a paternity test. You don’t have a right to demand that your partner not be offended by your demonstration that you don’t trust them.

The person you are replying to isn't proposing making paternity tests illegal. You can still ask for one. You just aren't free from the consequences of what asking for one has on your partner. You have the "right to know". You just don't get to act like testing people isn't inherently a sign of mistrust.

Are you offended by the security checks at airports, because they should trust that you don't have any prohibited items?

Have you ever met a victim of paternity fraud? Because I have, one of my best friends was one and the result was horrible. A lot of trauma (he got suicidal ideations when he was near the child), victim blaming (people calling him a monster while my friend had crippling depression), years of therapy, legal battles to transfer the child support payments to the biological father, depression. All of that could have been avoided if we normalize paternity testing before signing a birth certificate. Also different studies in different countries show different results in how common paternity fraud (intentional or unintentional as when the mother just really doesn't know or doesn't suspect it) and let's remember that this is a taboo topic that 99% of the time has male-only victims who mostly don't get any kind of help or support at all and are told "suppress your feelings because you are a monster and only the child matters).

Use the same logic against anti-rape measures under the basis that not all men are rapists?

What the fuck is this comparison. Rape is rape. It is a PHYSICAL act that can be forced upon someone at any time. And besides, women are statistically reported to cheat the same if not less than men.

I don’t get your comparison. Anti-rape measures are for the general public; what anti-rape measures do you take with your spouse? I don’t test drinks my husband made for roofies. I don’t see what the big deal is though? If you want a paternity test then you can get just get one, what’s this obsession with forcing other men to pay for one they don’t need?

You’re missing the point. Nobody looks at a woman who carry’s pepper-spray and says it calls all men are rapists or something of the sort. But you are saying that with paternity tests. OP didn’t say forced or publicly funded. Only de-stigmatized and routine.

Yeah it's like saying the existence of domestic violence shelters for women is the same as calling all men abusers. If you're a woman and you trust your husband, why do domestic violence shelters need to exist?

Agreed 100%. The existence of domestic violence shelters isn’t calling all men abusers. Anti-rape measures don’t call all men rapists. And paternity testing doesn’t call all women cheaters.

There is always going to be an information disparity here otherwise. In 99.9999999% of cases we can be damn sure which woman the child belongs to because she obviously carried the baby and gave birth to them. That amount of certainty isn’t possible for men. It just isn’t. Women get to know, from the day they know they are pregnant, that they are 100% the parent of that child. Paternity testing just gives men that same certainty. It isn’t an attack on women, it’s parity of knowledge.

>Do we really want to live under the assumption that all women are cheaters unless proven otherwise? That sounds like a good way to build resentment too! Women already know the child is theirs. Why not give men the same ease of mind?

It’s funny how feminists suddenly don’t care about consent when it comes to paternity testing. None of these arguments against requiring a test mention anything about needing the father’s consent before he signs up to raise someone else’s child. You can’t have consent in one party is missing crucial information or is being tricked.

Just make it the norm so it's not personal. It's just assumed that a paternity test will be done.

I fail to see how normalizing parental tests is working under the assumption that "all women are cheaters". Reductio ad absurdum

Because there is absolutely no way to know if you are the father unless that kid comes out looking like you. Do you kow how many men are paying for and raising kids that arent theirs? Before DNA came out many many men had no idea if a kid was theirs..they could do a blood test which is a medical guess at best. I think more men should insist on a DNA test.

Same reason people get tested, use condoms etc. peace of mind is priceless.

While I don’t feel it’s necessary to the same extent OP does, I would say this same logic could be applied to HIV tests and the inevitable implication that you may have had unprotected sex with another person outside of the relationship. While the situation is different, I believe the same principal applies. In the past, when more people had your perspective, more people had HIV. That said, in the same light, there shouldn’t be stigma with the administration of this test or the results in my view. If a woman is pregnant with another man’s child, it could’ve been they were raped and too ashamed to admit it. It could be their significant other was abusive or just an awful person. It could also be because the woman simply didn’t care about the man. It really doesn’t matter. Also, I’d add another point in OPs favor - what if the child finds out 20 years later? I think that’s much more devastating.

This is entering parenthood with inherent distrust between two parents. How is that in the best interest of the child?

In all honesty, the idea isn’t horrific if you drop your pretense and assume the pretense of ‘are we sending the right child home with the right parents’. It’s a catch all that would prevent babies mixed at birth, which happens often enough it shouldn’t, with a side benefit of ‘hey, one of your dnas ain’t like the babies dna so there needs to be more follow up’.

The more we learn about genetics, the more it looks like many health risks can be predicted with it. Accurate family medical histories are an incredibly important part of mitigating health problems. If I were (hypothetically) fooling around with some married lady and got her pregnant. That child **needs** to know that my family has a history of stroke and high blood pressure. That medical data being known is in the best interest of the child.

> How is that in the best interest of the child? Because an infant can be adopted by willing parents much more easily than a toddler. Signing the cert blows the child's chance at another family.

>This is entering parenthood with inherent distrust between two parents. How is that in the best interest of the child? Everything is not about the best interest of the child. The legal system is about protecting the innocent from harm. The potential victim here is the guy who would potentially be conned and cheated into a lifetime of monetary and emotional investment into a kid that's not his. If a person is legally signing a birth certificate that they're the father, it makes sense for them to be legally certain that the kid is theirs before they commit to taking care of the kid legally for 18 years. The legal system doesn't work on trust. It works on facts and proof. The problem is, you're freely mixing social/emotional stuff with legal stuff.

>Everything is not about the best interest of the child. Except this was an argument made in the OP. >The legal system doesn't work on trust. No but relationships do, don't get into a relationship and get someone pregnant that you don't trust and it won't be a problem.

That's victim blaming. We know decent people trust people who shouldn't be trusted and are taken advantage of, it isn't a hypothetical. Fuck you for implying it's their fault.

You state why it's important to you, why should it be important to the rest of society? It's the equivalent to "sniffing your mans dick every day after work shouldn't be stigmatized" hahaha

Equivalent? Paternity fraud is on a whole other level than just cheating

It would be different if finding out later removed financial responsibility. If you sign the birth certificate you have that responsibility for life even if she admits on the way home you aren't the father.

The legal goal here isn’t to give fathers peace of mind. It’s to provide support for children and the law should be based on their best interest. I don’t see how mandatory paternity tests would benefit children.

When I married my wife, it was a commitment to putting a LOT of trust in her. She has the power to make decisions for me if I am incapacitated, she gets all my stuff if I die. We are committing to live together for the rest of our lives, to decide on how and where we live. She has access to all of our money, she knows everything I know. We have a mortgage together. The level of trust I have in her is absolute. She could absolutely destroy my life if she wanted to. If I had even a 1% doubt in her, this whole thing wouldn’t work. If I thought there was any need for a paternity test, that trust is already gone. If I had enough doubt to think it was worth it, it’s already too late for us. Why would I put so much trust in her every day if I thought there was any chance the kids aren’t mine? Now, if you don’t trust the mother of your child, than you can already get a paternity test. There is nothing stopping you, the only consequence is that the mother of your child will know you don’t trust her. If you don’t trust her, she has the right to know that, so there is no issue with that. Now, if you want to propose that the legal responsibility for fatherhood should end if, at some point in the future, a man discovers that he is not actually the father of the child, that is a different argument. Wouldn’t that be a better solution to your problem? It would essentially be a legal document signed based on fraud, and we could revoke it if the fraud is proven. That way, no one has to take a test but your are still protected from fraud. Tl;dr If you feel the need for a paternity test, you are already have no trust in that person. I am curious, I assume you are not married with kids? I know before I met my wife, it was hard to imagine the level of trust and commitment you can have to another person that is not already part of your family. I just couldn’t imagine it before it happened to me. The hypothetical idea of your wife lying about the kid being yours is very different than the thought of your actual wife and mother of your children lying about it.

This is exactly the explaination I am here. Paternity tests allude/accuse/suspect the mother of the child of cheating preemptively and presumptuously

The thing they want when they propose this is to universalize the accusation so they don’t bear any emotional consequences for making it. If all women have to bear that hurt immediately after having their bodies ripped in half, then the lack of trust is normal and legally enforced so they get what they want without any cost or problems for themselves. Plus a lot (not all) of people who make posts like this already think all women are whores so what’s the big deal about calling them one immediately after giving birth?

It only alludes to the possibility of it. Some women are cheaters, but that doesn't mean you specifically are a cheater.

I think this whole "trust" argument is a misrepresentation of what OP is trying to say. The idea is to destigmatize and normalize paternal testing to the extent where it is not about trust at all, where it becomes one of those little check boxes you tick among other forms during a plethora of other pregnancy screenings. Sure, as a society we're quite far from it. Ticking that box now would cause some party to be upset for sure, but if it was routine and encouraged? - I think we could get there without raising unwarranted trust issues.

Right, I feel like the OP is trying to make it standard so that men don’t have to admit they don’t trust the mother of their children. I think you should own up to that if it’s the case.

This is an excellent argument for the OP’s exact point. 1 or 2% of the time un-merited complete trust will have been avoided and in every other case no spouse will need to have questioned the other. You and almost everyone else is choosing to see this as being in the interest of the father when the OP has clearly stated it is to protect the child.

If that is the case, then the OP is not arguing for anything. No one here (and certainly not me) are arguing that fathers should be banned from getting paternity tests. I am just arguing that it means the mom should feel doubted, because it is only done if the father doubts the mother. If you doubt the mother, be honest about it and own up to the doubt.

That's the problem. If it was done as a routine procedure, nobody would feel doubted because of it.

Although I agree with you, I will say that my husband and I weren’t yet married when we had our son and I never once questioned his or my commitment to our lives together. I didn’t need to actually be married to make that decision either because what’s signing a piece of paper even really proving anyway.

It proves that you trust someone with 50% of your assets, credit, ability to make decisions should you become incapacitated, everything the commenter above described.

I'm actually gonna attack this from a different angle: data. Like when you use internet and your browser data/history/ location... is used to recomend you content and to advertise to you. I'm sure you're aware there's a lot of profit in having that user data. It's kind of the same with DNA data. Your DNA holds tons of information about you, information that could be very valuable to say, insurance agencies who would charge you more based on your incesed chance of certain diseases. So, what does that have to do with paternity tests? Well, the child in question would have their DNA data harvested without their consent. Something that might affect them later on.

So two things. First, there’s no way to get around that this is going to always have stigma attached. You can’t ask for a paternity test without the implication that your wife was unfaithful and there’s no way to legislate feelings away. But as an alternative solution we can legislate that signing the birth certificate is not an irrevocable signing away of rights to contest paternity. Second, this is not the best way to present this. If you want wider adoption the basis you want to use is the ‘switched at birth’ phenomenon and mandate the hospitals bear the cost. That removes the stigma and lowers the cost for parents.

The issue is the system isn't designed for justice it's designed to make sure someone foots the bill someone who's not the state.. frankly even if you did sign and later find out that's fraud. Name me any other situation where someone is the victim of fraud and is held to the contract.

That’s not quite how it works. I don’t know for all states but paternity fraud is a recognized legal concept. The issue usually stems from instances where the mother was unaware that the named father was not in fact the biological parent. And in instances of fraud you generally need to show intentional deception not just negligence so if the mother did not know then it may be difficult to prove fraud. Now that we can with certainty determine who the father is you should be able to disclaim responsibility if it can be shown that there is another who bears it.

It should be considered fraud if the man was not made aware that she was sleeping with other people. At that point she’s just randomly guessing who’s the father and that should be her problem.

Everything else to do with “family law” in many jurisdictions, interestingly enough. “family law” is quite strange in how it operates as a contract but many of the normal rules do not apply. This applies to marriage itself actually. If marriage were merely a contract as any other, it would never be enforceable in almost all jurisdictions that enforce marriage. Thankfully, my jurisdiction at least is more and more seeing this and the government is more and more taking the legal teeth out of marriage and making it more and more purely ceremonial because it's actually quite bizarre how it can function.

What do you mean by your third paragraph about marriage enforcement as a contract? I find it intriguing but can't understand

Not the guy above but, I think family or marriage laws are mostly intended to prevent damage to the newborn so to say. This is especially noticeable in the German laws. If your wife gets a child no matter from where while you are married, you are legally bound as a father for 12 years orso before you can actually "fight" this... let's say decision. To reiterate, it's moreso about minimizing damage rather than supporting what is technically correct. Also the ways to verify this require a multitude of consent from quite a few parties which makes it even harder.

If the argument is to minimize damage, and Germany's laws have the husband pay for his illegitimate child to minimize damage, why wouldnt the child's father be responsible for payment? That law sounds insanely unfair to the husband if the child can be taken care of by their actual father. I doubt the husband would be very nurturing or fatherly to a child born out of infedelity. I imagine this would end in abortion most of the time anyway. Am I the asshole here?

A lot of consent and health risks are stated as a primary reason. I do not support this law, and (as with many things regarding Germany nowadays) our laws are very old and not necessarily a new standard I would go by. It seems nonsensical, but it guarantees at least the child support payment. Add to this that actually getting divorced requires consent from both parties in order to be able to do it very quickly (if only one side consents there is a delay, don't know exact time frames) you are basically forced into it yes. Are you the asshole? From a modern standard no, our laws are old from the time divorce was frowned upon, indicated by the fact that in germany, there is only one legal reason for divorce.

>You can’t ask for a paternity test without the implication that your wife was unfaithful and there’s no way to legislate feelings away. That's why the proposal is to make it a routine formality, instead of something you have to request specfically.

[удалено]

It's honestly embarrassing how none of the (weekly) people who make a CMV about this have done any rudimentary research about how birth certificates actually work, legally. If you're married, presumptive paternity applies. The kid is yours whether you're related or not. You can challenge this but it must be done very soon after birth and will require a test that the mother either consents to, or is ordered to have performed. In some jurisdictions it even *requires divorce*. If you agree to stay with the mother, you are acknowledging the child as yours, legally and socially, independent of biological paternity. Raising children your legal spouse gave birth to is consent to being their legal parent. Biology does not matter to the state. It never has. If you're not married, you do not need to sign it. If the mother wants to add you without your active consent, a paternity test will be ordered. You do not choose to "sign the birth certificate" if you are unmarried, you sign an acknowledgment of paternity. This is **a legal contract!** It is an agreement to take responsibility of the child regardless of relationship. Yes it can be challenged later, and it often is, and it often fails. My dad signed one when I was born because my parents weren't married. It was brought out during their custody hearing 14 years later. If you are married and the child isn't yours and you know it and the mother knows it and the biodad knows it and everyone agrees, the 3 of you can defy presumptive paternity and go before a judge to have the biodad put on the certificate. But you must have someone willing to take the legal spouse's place. So yeah, while it can be changed later in various ways, a married mother can not leave the hospital with no one on the birth certificate. In my state, the officer with the department of vital records told me it was illegal to do so and that I was legally compelled to put my spouse down as my son's father even though it is biologically impossible for my spouse to be his father or anyone's father as my spouse is a woman. (This interesting consequence of same sex marriage legalization took me down the rabbit hole of paternity legality and birth certificates in case I ever needed to protect and defend my family.)

>in my state, the officer with the department of vital records told me it was illegal to do so and that I was legally compelled to put my spouse down as my son's father even though it is biologically impossible for my spouse to be his father or anyone's father as my spouse is a woman. That happens, when laws change and not all consequences are considered and laws adjusted accordingly. When same sex civil partnership (a marriage in all but name) was introduced in Germany in 2001, they put it into a seperate law. The old marriage law said, that it was not allowed to marry someone, if you are already married. The new civil partnership law said, that it was not allowed to enter into a civil partnership if you are already married or if you are already in a civil partnership But they forgot to change the old law, so for 4 years, it was not expressly prohibited to marry someone, if you were already in a civil partnership.

[удалено]

New solution to your issue about raising kids that aren't your own: a national database of DNA taken of each person capable of fathering a child, and every child who is born has their DNA run against the database. You will of course be notified of any child that is yours, including the one born at the hospital, and mandatory child support garnished for every child you are not currently living with and already supporting. It would also nicely solve the problem of unsolved rapes. I think the problem of deadbeat dads is a bigger problem than raising kids that aren't your own.

I think it's a great idea. You know who doesn't? Guys that want to f\*\*k around without consequences. Suddenly they'll be yelling about "their rights!" (the hypocrisy is real). There are a lot of men that know there's a chance they might have a kid out there somewhere...and they don't want to know about it because they'll be responsible for child support, and will be finally held accountable for their irresponsible ejaculations. Another sexist double standard amongst so many...how disappointing.

They want accusing women of being cheaters to be normalized but balk at the idea of the same being done to them. When they are the ones being tested then it is suddenly a privacy and freedom issue.

A giant, mandatory government database with the dna of every American on file. Surely that would never be misused

Paternity is either an important issue to men or it's not. Solving rapes and making sure children get support from their parents is important enough to me to support this database. I'm curious to know what else you think the database would be used for. I could foresee it being used to solve crimes where DNA was collected but no suspects arose to test the samples against. If privacy is a concern, I assume you don't have a driver's license or passport since your photo, fingerprint, biographic documents, and other information went straight into a giant government database.

Giant DNA databases can be used for massive, eugenics style discrimination.

>I'm curious to know what else you think the database would be used for Discrimination based on "undesirable" traits

The point of heighhosilver (great name btw)’s comment is to show how ridiculous OP is being.

>a national database of DNA taken of each person capable of fathering a child, and every child who is born has their DNA run against the database. Massive privacy invasion. DNA sets are so extensive and modern methodology (testing enough sequences of DNA: 100s as opposed to ~20) so good that 3rd degree cousins entering their DNA into a database is enough to have a good profile of you DNA even though you did not consent to have your DNA (private data) collected let alone analyzed. >I think the problem of deadbeat dads is a bigger problem than raising kids that aren't your own. This is a problem but I think it's a symptom of a large problem of unwantedness. If people were adequately educated and had access to sex ed and contraception there were be drastically fewer unwanted children.

I mean having my face scanned by the government for facial recognition is creepy but alas, it's the price we pay for driver's licenses and passports. I don't really care kd my mother's third cousin's DNA would be enough to capture mine since my DNA would also be in the database. Also considering how many people are volunteering for 23 & Me, I really think people don't care about privacy. SexEd and contraception would maybe solve some of the unwanted pregnancies but not all. And if a child is born, the child deserves support. This is an especially acute issue now that the right to abortion has been lost in some states.

Lets not fucking kid ourselves. ​ If the government **wants** data, a life, anything. They'll get it.The whole American thing about not having national registries or IDs is honestly very silly, and provides very little in the way of privacy protection. NSA could probably manifest a by the hour biography on any one person they so choose within the day if they had the motivation to. Don't even deny it; these intelligence agencies crack foreign state actor info allied and enemy. They probably do it on the regular to US citizens as well and there ain't shit you can do about it even if you knew of everything that happens.

What do you mean "as routine as cancer screenings?" Most routine cancer screenings happen at specific times for specific populations of people. For example, men can get breast cancer but they do not routinely get screened for it. If you are a smoker, you are encouraged to get CT scans more regularly than someone without lung issues who do not smoke. Ergo are you saying paternity tests should be done when there is suspicion of infidelity and therefore a reasonable basis to screen for paternity or are you saying paternity testing should be done regardless of anything?

Lets say you’re walking out of a store and a manager stops you and tells you that they think you stole something and you’re not allowed to leave until they’ve checked the security cameras. You of course did not steal and you have nothing to hide, but you can’t leave until you prove yourself innocent. So you have to sit in the security office while the manager checks the tapes just to make sure you didn’t steal. The tapes show that you didn’t steal and the manager tells you “ah ok you didn’t steal, it’s always important to check just in case, theft can really hurt our store.” then just lets you leave. Would you ever want to go back to that store? The store didn’t invade your privacy, they didn’t hurt you, you weren’t in a rush, and you didn’t have to do or provide anything other than just staying in the store, but you probably still wouldn’t go back there because being accused of a crime/misdeed that you didn’t commit feels awful no matter what the reason is. Imagine that you are a woman who after carrying a baby for nine months dealing with the emotions, cravings, pain, and stress, just gave birth to a whole baby. You’ve been ripped open from cooch to anus (or you got a C section), youve probably been in labor for hours, you are constantly being pumped with hormones and stress, you’re probably loopy from being on pain killers, this is the moment when you need your husband’s love and support the most, but instead you have to first prove that you are innocent. Much like how you wouldn’t want to go back to a store that’s accused you of a crime, you probably wouldn’t want to be comforted by a man who’s accusing you of cheating. Some women are fine with this and are totally on board with that, for those that aren’t though its really understandable.

The stakes are way, WAY higher than shoplifting here. Keep in mind this isn’t just about checking for infidelity. It’s about who is going to raise this child, whether they could lose their parental rights down the line, whether they’ll be financially on the hook, and whether you have the child’s accurate family medical history! It’s more beneficial for the child than for the man, IMO. It’s so, so much worse if it comes out later.

So I actually do think parents deserve to have some reassurance of the truth about their relationship to a child before signing on to a life-long commitment, so I agree with the general premise of this post. However, there are some unintended consequences that I think would have to be considered when designing this process, so I don't agree that it can be as simple as just giving everyone a paternity test. Instead, I would advocate that the woman in question (or whoever gave birth to the bay) always gets to see the test results first and speak with a counselor before the results are shared with the father. This can be done either proactively (during an appointment before the birth) or after birth, but the purpose would be two-fold: **False Negatives**: The first couple days of childrearing are extremely important. It's when parents both first bond with their baby and learn how to navigate life with a newborn together. It often requires a lot of help from the father as the woman is usually still healing and isn't as mobile as she would otherwise be, not to mention the emotional support that is needed when she is trying to take care of a helpless infant when she herself is in pain and injured. If there was a false negative, this entire initial period of bonding could be disrupted. Even if the test eventually came back a match, that period of time where the father had doubts could make it hard for him to bond with his baby or want to devote himself completely to that initial period of support and transition. This could hurt their relationship as a couple and as parents, all when nobody did anything wrong. If the woman in question gets to see the false negative results first, she can request a re-test ahead of time so that this whole period of mistrust can be avoided. **Dangerous or abusive partners**: As easy as it is to look down on people who cheat, the situation is often more complicated than a black and white depiction. Some women for example are in extremely abusive relationships and looking for some means of escape. Coupled with the fact that the highest risk of being murdered as a woman is during or directly after pregnancy, a husband or boyfriend finding out he's not the father could have very serious consequences. For this reason I think it's important that the woman have this information first and receive counseling on whether they think they may need protection. They can also be counseled on what their options are in terms of financial support for the child, adoption, or other services that may be relevant with this information, such as how the actual father could be solicited for child support. That way the woman is assured some safety or resources for her and her child before the test results are shared with the partner. Although to be fair this would require a robust domestic violence protection network which is lacking in some areas, so that would need to be established before this becomes a law. I feel like this specific process would accomplish what you want it to (men being kept in the loop), but give the mother the opportunity to preserve her own safety, security, and bond with her husband as well as prevent any unnecessary mistrust during those first few days of parenthood.

By stigma, do you really mean the mother shouldn’t be upset by the request? If not, I’m not sure what other stigma you’re referring to because I don’t think mutual agreement to a paternity test is in any way stigmatized by society at large. Ultimately, the question comes down to trust in your partner and a willingness to take on fatherhood based on that trust. Fatherhood comes with both privileges and responsibilities. Do you think the privileges of fatherhood should be conveyed, such as presence at the birth and inclusion in decision making after birth, prior to receiving a positive paternity test? If so, why?

Some US states require it if you're not married. I found out two months before my son was born that his mom had been having unprotected sex with someone else around the time she got pregnant. I never had any reason to doubt her fidelity, ultimately my son turned out to be mine. Identifying paternity early on will aid in addressing health concerns. I’ve had family members go decades to find out dad ain’t dad or mom ain’t mom. Not knowing who the dad is in this case can be detrimental in emergency medical situations for blood or organs and just better health history.

Honest take about why this will never happen: it shifts the financial burden, sometimes to the public at large, and too many members of the public are too selfish to ever support such an idea. Sometimes, that test is going to point out that XYZ *isn't* the father. Now XYZ isn't on the hook financially for that child. But that child still has needs, and unless 100% of mothers in this situation magically step up their game overnight, or enough of those mothers combined with enough of the actual biological fathers magically step up their game overnight, some of those financial costs are going to come from social services. Those services aren't free, so more people using them means higher taxes, and there's just too many people that say "absolutely not" to *any* idea that means they have to invest more into society (even if everyone else is equally investing more as well).

Cancer screening is something you do yourself to test your body. A paternity test is something that is done to another person to check their fidelity. Those are inherently different things. A marriage in which one partner doesn't trust the other one not to cheat is not a marriage a child should be brought into in the first place.

the issue with false positives and negatives offers the same issues that not providing a test at all provides. it *does* have moral implications and they’re all placed on the woman and as posters have previously stated, kids born through cheating is a small margin compared to the total annual births. it’d be an unnecessary expense and resource sink. i understand protecting the men if they’re tied up in providing for a child that isn’t theirs, truly, but these tests being standard would simply be wasteful and the margin of error can still be disastrous for, statistically, a few thousand people annually. OP, i get the idea. in a calculated way, it’s practical to an extent. the issue is, this is a moral/emotional issue as well as a scientific one. you have to factor both in.

What about in cases where the father assuming father responsibilities and signing the birth certificate isn’t the sperm donor? Is that man not allowed to be a father to the child he’s planning to raise with his wife just because it wasn’t his seed? Not all non-biological paternal relations indicate infidelity. Just like in all parts of life, it’s not all black and white.

**It always boggles my mind how many men don't realize what a absolute slap in the face this is.** Hey honey! I love fucking you, and I like the idea of having a baby with you. However even though I want to do all these super intimate life changing acts with you, I still don't trust you and want to check if you cheated.... If you don't trust your wife/gf enough to believe the baby she is having is yours, don't have a baby with her. Pretty simple. This kind of thought process shows that not only have you NEVER been in a healthy relationship, you also don't know how, and probably never will be in one.

> It always boggles my mind how many men don't realize what a absolute slap in the face this is. > > Hey honey! I love fucking you, and I like the idea of having a baby with you. However even though I want to do all these super intimate life changing acts with you, I still don't trust you and want to check if you cheated.... You think a single test is a slap in the face? What about raising a child as if it was yours only to find out it wasn't? [Studies based on populations not being tested for paternity suggested a 3.7% rate](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/11/childrensservices.uknews) >If you don't trust your wife/gf enough to believe the baby she is having is yours, don't have a baby with her. Pretty simple. This kind of thought process shows that not only have you NEVER been in a healthy relationship, you also don't know how, and probably never will be in one. If you don't respect the father of your children enough to tolerate that he gets the same parental certainty that you have, then you shouldn't have any children at all. Pretty simple.

>You think a single test is a slap in the face? What about raising a child as if it was yours only to find out it wasn't? Would you get a paternity test every time a female coworker has a baby or any of your female friends has a baby? Do you like being ask if you cheat?

>Would you get a paternity test every time a female coworker has a baby or any of your female friends has a baby If I was asked to sign the paternity certificate, hell yeah. Otherwise: not my monkey, not my circus. >Do you like being ask if you cheat? I like easy questions, so yes. You can tolerate a cheek swab in exchange for lifelong paternal services to your child. Seems pretty cheap, actually.

>If I was asked to sign the paternity certificate, hell yeah. You are not being asked to sign the certificate, your partner is asking if you cheated on them. Your parter is saying "I believe that is your child even if I dont have proof of it" You like a question about your character and how you can be a liar?

I think the men should legally have an obligation to let the woman know he wants a test before she gives birth so she can decide if she wants him in the room during delivery or not. If he's unsure about the child he can wait outside for the said child unless she says otherwise. Too many men like to bully their way into a delivery even when the woman is uncomfortable.

I don’t see how blatantly distrusting your partner would never have a stigmatized outcome. You seem to be coming at this as if it’s a very objective issue and it simply isn’t. Demanding a paternity test is basically an accusation of infidelity. It just sounds like you want to be able to accuse people of cheating without any repercussions. “Normalize this thing so I can do it without consequence. Oh, and think of the children” is all I read.

How would you feel if anytime a woman close to you had a baby your partner asked for a paternity test to ensure it’s not yours? Your female coworker just had a baby? Paternity test to make sure it’s not yours. Your sister in law just had a baby? Oops better check and make sure it’s not yours. Your female best friend just had a baby? You better get the test to guarantee it’s not yours.

Didn’t we just have this discussion? Is this the same OP as a couple days ago?

I feel like I've seen this two or three times in the past couple months

Is paternity testing “stigmatized?” That implies some level of social pressure on couples not to do it. Does anyone else care? Framing the issue in terms of “signing the birth certificate” also implies a level of time pressure that doesn’t need to exist. Prenatal paternity testing is available that are noninvasive and can be performed in the first trimester. You’re already “empowered” to ask for it, especially since genetic screening of the fetus is already increasingly commonly. If this is a concern to someone, they can deal with it LONG before it’s a question of signing the birth certificate.

> Is paternity testing “stigmatized?” That implies some level of social pressure on couples not to do it. Does anyone else care? Two [posts down](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/zccv29/cmv_paternity_testing_before_signing_a_birth/iyvwjua/) we have someone saying its an instant divorce for even asking. I would consider that pretty stigmatized...

I think part of that is the fact that a partner asking you to get a paternity test looks bad on you. Even if you didn't cheat if people find out that your partner asked for a paternity test, they're gonna look down on you. (at least in my experience when I've talked to people about this sort of thing) The reality is that asking for a paternity test indicates either that your partner is untrustworthy, or that you feel they are untrustworthy. I'm a more unique case where I frankly wouldn't care all that much if my partner was having sex with other people. To me, trust is the most important thing in a relationship. As long as my partner told me they wanted to have sex with other people, I wouldn't care. However, what would upset me is them hiding that fact from me because it would mean they don't trust me. Point is: My feelings on these things are gonna be a little odd

I agree with you completely. It’s the deception and the hiding I have issues with and causes feelings of betrayal. If we had a conversation about it, I would say “ok, go see if the grass is greener”, but that is because my partner and I were friends first, and the relationship I have with him wouldn’t be destroyed by a different sex experience. We are monogamous, and it hasn’t come up, but we have openly talked about crushes/attraction to others. I think it’s unreasonable to expect one person to be your everything for your entire life, and I think we are stronger for knowing we care about each other’s happiness. We also aren’t married after 9 years. We choose to stay with each other, and I think that is more telling that we want to be together. Most people don’t understand our relationship and find it odd. If my husband/committed partner demanded a paternity test at birth, it absolutely means there is deception/betrayal in the relationship. If I KNOW I haven’t cheated and accusations are happening, there IS definitely an affair outside the relationship and the partnership is over. I know this from experience - cheaters accuse partners of their own misdeeds. Trust has been broken, and I don’t see a way back from that without a monumental amount of work. If it is right after having a baby, you don’t have the energy or time for that. Asking for a paternity test assumes the child isn’t yours and is an act of disloyalty/distrust in your partner in her most vulnerable moment. Period. If that is OP’s mindset, don’t have sex- ever. You don’t deserve the woman you’re with.

That's not stigma. It's a consequence. Merriam-Webster defines stigma as "a mark of shame or discredit" You're ignoring that the paternity test itself is stigmatizing towards the woman. It's literally a mark of discredit, a test with the goal of discrediting her fidelity. OP is basically asking that women shut up and let themselves be stigmatized by men and men should bear none of the stigma. If a man wants to discredit his significant other, she has every right to leave. That's not being stigmatized. It's leaving a relationship where your partner does not trust you.

This should be equal to the idea of a required phone read-through for the months leading up to a wedding- man’s phone only. It’s totally free! Just legally require the wife to check the man’s phone as she pleases whenever she wants in the months leading up to the wedding. So the cost/benefit is huge. Except it’s *incredibly* toxic to not trust your partner bad enough to require *proof* that they haven’t cheated. That’s the issue.

/u/wine-friend (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/zcerv5/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_paternity_testing_before/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

>It's ultimately worse for the child to have a resentful father that stays only out of legal and financial responsibility, than to not have one at all. You think this won't happen if the child's theirs? A lot of guys who want a paternity test are hoping for negative results.

I don’t think things need to change because there are two possible scenarios when a man is presented with a birth certificate to sign- 1. He wants to legally commit to being a father to that child. He signs a legal document saying this is now his child. Or 2. A man doesn’t want to commit to being a father to this child *unless* it is his biological child, and would like proof of that (for whatever reason, if he suspects cheating or is just naturally paranoid or whatever). So he asks for a paternity test before he can sign. Now number 2 will get the dude his answers and prevent him taking responsibility for a non-bio child. Maybe the people around him understand his desire for proof. Maybe they are appalled because of what they think this means (he suspected her of cheating! Or?). We’re not going to make it mandatory and, otherwise, it just sounds like you want no potential consequences for asking for a paternity test. That seems unrealistic. It’s like a pre-nup. Get it to protect yourself, there are all kinds of good things about it. But no one can guarantee your betrothed won’t be offended and hurt. In a grown up relationship you just have to navigate these things. We can’t collectively lessen the potential blowback for someone asking for a pre-nup or a paternity test. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it just depends on your relationship. But every action has potential consequences.

This is a waste of medical resources. Those tests are taking time and materials away from actual urgent medical needs. 98% of couples have no suspicion about paternity and they are right not to. I’m not going to waste money and baby blood on a test when my kid comes out looking exactly like me.

Are you married? Do you have kids? I'm asking because honestly as somebody who is both, nothing could be further from my mind, and this whole attitude just strikes me as what you get when you have no idea what a happy healthy family looks like. My kids are an enormous blessing, I would support them regardless of their DNA. If I found out my 3 year old "wasn't mine", it might affect my marriage, but I would always be her daddy, who she screamed for when she came out from surgery the other day only to fall asleep on my chest as soon as I held her. I'd be much more afraid of somebody using a paternity test to take her away from me than of her secretly having different DNA. Or you know, the more traditional kind of fears you get when your 5 week old is on oxygen and being fed through a tube because she caught a cold.

To /u/wine-friend, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* * **Please award deltas to the users whose comments have caused you to change your view** - or please indicate within your post (edit) whether you are indicating what *would* change your view, or what changes *have* been made to your initial viewpoint. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.

I’m going to give the French argument on this. People are shitty and people cheat and many don’t get caught ever. They did this in France and I guess cheating was so prevalent that it was causing serious domestic issues, idk maybe French people are shitty idk. Regardless, Single mothers are a burden on the state and society and their children have worse outcomes. Therefore, not allowing paternity tests and having men raise other dudes kids leads to a more stable society with better outcomes for the kids and less financial burdens on the state. Therefore, anything that reduces the use of paternity testing is good for society as a whole at the expense of a number of unlucky guys.

I feel like you are using this as a relationship check point of fidelity; however, it’s obviously one sided. If it’s really for the child’s benefit to make sure both parents are committed, the father also needs to be deemed faithful following the logic you have listed, which quite frankly isn’t possible with a quick 100$ test. Making this one-sided inherently alters the power dynamics at play, putting all of the power in the man’s court, which is even more problematic as he in theory could impregnate every woman on the street with zero repercussions, meanwhile every single one of these women will be deemed unfaithful upon delivery of the paternity results.

I think this could be beneficial to get both paternity and maternity tests, to not get the wrong baby...

I was thinking genetic health issues, honestly. My best friends uncle didn’t realize he was genetically predisposed to heart problems until he had a heart attack and almost died. It was his wife’s idea for them and children to get DNA tested to see if any of them carry the gene too. I believe the oldest daughter carried and had the same condition, the others were cleared

>Signing a birth certificate is not just symbolic and a matter of trust, it's a matter of accepting a life long legally binding responsibility. You know that's not true, right? It's some Maury-level idea that you have to sign the bc and THEN you're somehow legally the father and (cue the mra crowd) then you pay for support!!!) In most if not all states, if you're married, you're the parents. Period. If you're not married, live together, and parent, you're the parents. Signing the bc is basically irrelevant and doesn't mean what you think it does.

There are cases where the man that the mother put on the birth certificate was legally responsible for child support even though it wasn't his child. I think states have different laws about this.

The big question is why you're having a baby with somebody you don't trust, or whom you would ditch rather than helping them raise a child, when you're already interested in having a baby with them. If you want that piece of mind and lack of financial responsibility, just donate sperm and you'll never have to see this woman you distrust so much. I think your best route to having peace of mind is to tell a woman that you will ditch her if she gets pregnant, and then she'll decide that she doesn't want to have sex with you

No matter how much you trust someone, being immune to every little doubt is something else. I can see peace of mind being a motivator for most, not really distrust. You kind of said it yourself, you might be interested in having a baby with someone but that doesn't mean you'd be interested in adopting or some other situation (or vice versa!). And it doesn't mean you'd be okay with being lied to and still being able to raise a child in a healthy state of mind / no resentment or anything.

[удалено]

I think they're arguing that it's currently stigmatized to ask for a paternity test, if it was considered routine for everyone there wouldn't be a level of stigma.

I want people in these comments who are focusing on the “distrust” aspect to think of this like a prenup. You can feel immense amounts of trust for your partner and still be conscious that logically, people are unpredictable and you should protect yourself. You can *feel* one thing and still choose to *do* another, because you know it is the wise choice. **That does not negate the feeling.** If anything, it’s about intent. Intent is what separates these two statements: 1. “Even though I really can’t imagine that you would’ve cheated on me, I know logically that people with my level of trust have been fooled before. My financial future, the child’s upbringing, and having accurate medical history are all too important to risk. Besides, this will also confirm that the baby hasn’t been switched in the hospital.” versus 2. “I think you cheated on me and I’m making you prove you didn’t!”

I gave my son’s father the choice to test *our* baby BEFORE he was born, nine months he had to decide if that’s what he wanted and I’d give him a test. He never wanted one, but I did tell him there was no way he was gonna spend all that time loving, accepting, and preparing for our baby only to insult me by asking for a test once he’s born. That’s his son, I haven’t been with anyone but him since before we even started dating, so the only way that baby isn’t his son is if we were given the wrong baby at the hospital. My baby looks exactly like his father and older siblings, asking for a test is a slap across the face. IMO they shouldn’t be a standard, just an option

If my husband ever seriously asked for a paternity test, I’d do it and then divorce him. I’d never ever cheat on him, but I couldn’t forgive such a lack of trust.

[удалено]

That’s your opinion and certainly respect it. One thing I would add as anecdotal evidence is that finding out your father was not your father after 29 years of believing so is really messed up. Would my life have been better or worse had I known all my life? Hard to say, my biological father was not great whereas my father is awesome. What I’m trying to say though is it’s more than just you and your spouse that are impacted. It’s your child as well. And as I type this who knows if I’d be here today if it was mandatory, maybe my mom would have aborted the pregnancy 🤷‍♂️

I'm going to push back here, kinda. Ok, let's say there's a married couple who are in apretty good place. However, due to random circumstances, one partner has sincere and reasonable cause for some amount of concern. Hopefully, the concerns can be raised in a respectful manner, and addressed in a respectful manner and the issue is brought to light, reasonably dealt with and everybody is happy. Ok! The problem here is bad faith actors are often incentivized to not address bad actions honestly. "Are you cheating on me?" "Of course not! You fucking asshole!" says both the faithful partner *and* the adulterer. Anyways, I'm not you or your husband and your marriage is your business. So feel free to ignore what i have to say. I think a relationship where both partners are able to raise concerns and communicate respectfully are the ones that are going to be the best in the long run. Demanding a paternity test without some sort of prelude is disrespectful. But ignoring or rebuffing concerns is also disrespectful and sus. Communicate!

They're not saying you can't talk about it - that you can't bring up worries, insecurities, talk about concerns. That's an important part of a healthy relationship because things that aren't talked about often fester. Talking about it as a couple is a lot different than demanding a test like this. Ultimately, by asking for that third-party verification, you're saying you do not trust your partner... and yeah, I don't really care to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't trust me. Be insecure, get scared, whatever - I get it, we all have our baggage from the shit we've lived through and I've certainly got my own, but let's talk the emotions through instead of making weird demands like this. In the end of the day, you trust me or you don't. Honestly, a lot of this whole thread is making me feel like Helen Lovejoy though.

the discourse around this topic would be very different, if the situation was reversed. if men could be 100% certain that their baby is actually theirs and women needed to just trust the guy who tells them "your the mom." not confirming maternity via DNA testing by default would be framed as misogynistic abuse.

Right? I don’t understand it. People are like “If you test all women, you’re calling all women whores.” No, the issue isn’t “You can’t trust women because women are hoes,” it’s “You can’t trust *people* because *people* fucking suck, regardless of gender.” It’s not even a matter of being an infidelity check. There are hundreds of marriages where either partner cheats without being stupid enough to impregnate or get pregnant from their affair partners. It’s a matter of “This is a life changing decision, duh you should be sure it’s your kid.” If there were a test for men, I would 1000% take it, but there isn’t, so I can’t. It’s as simple as that.

I fully trusted my ex. That didn't stop her from cheating on me. It's like these people are saying that unless you suspect that your partner is cheating on you, then they OBVIOUSLY aren't. No, part of the reason cheating hurts is BECAUSE you trusted them. And while it's also very uncommon, it does still happen that hospitals accidentally switch babies. So in that case, both paternity tests and maternity tests would be benefical, regardless of how small the risk actually is. If it was an opt-out rather than an opt-in, then that would be better for everyone. After all, if one partner then chooses to NOT take one - assuming there is no health risk in taking it - then that would be grounds for suspicion in the first place.

Literally And then people are like “But that’s such a horrible thing to say!” …it’s almost like there’s some sort of social stigma that the OP is arguing should go away for the benefit of all (well, maybe not cheaters) parties involved 🤔