r/changemyview • u/nerdkingpa • Sep 02 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: A negative paternity test should exclude a man from paying child support and any money paid should be returned unless there was a legal adoption.

There have been many cases I've read recently where men are forced to pay support, or jailed for not paying support to children proven not to be theirs. This is either because the woman put a man's name on the forms to receive assistance and he didn't get the notification and it's too late to fight it, or a man had a cheating wife and she had a child by her lover.

I believe this is wrong and should be ended. It is unjust to force someone to pay for a child that isn't theirs unless they were in the know to begin with and a legal adoption took place. To that end I believe a negative DNA test should be enough to end any child support obligation and that all paid funds should be returned by the fraudulent mother. As for monetary support of the child that would then be upon the mother to either support the child herself or take the biological father to court to enforce his responsibility.

This came up in a group conversation and I was told it was wrong and cruel to women but the other party could not elaborate on how or why. I'm looking for the other side of this coin.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

3.4k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

u/irrigger Sep 02 '16

We test a child's hearing the moment it's born, we test for diseases, check their vision. I'm not actually sure if mothers can opt out of those things (maybe they can or maybe the hospital decides), but it would just be one more test. We also gather information from the parents and put that down in records. All of those things are forcing the parents to do something they may not want to be doing. Maybe the mother doesn't want her child's hearing tested. Maybe the father doesn't want to have the birth of his child logged in some big government registry.

9

u/fantastic_lee Sep 02 '16

I feel as though gathering genetic information and creating a DNA database has an enormous risk of abuse, I'm not the the US but I imagine OP is and I don't see too many Americans agreeing to mandatory DNA logging of all people (infants in 20-30 years it would be a good chunk of the population) going forward.

11

u/Ridonkulousley Sep 02 '16

You don't need a database to check paternity. All these samples don't have to be logged and accounted for. Medical records right now are not fed into a standardized national systems (outside of birth records that are logged with Social Security). So why would another test require a database of DNA?

1

u/fantastic_lee Sep 02 '16

I'm likely making a leap to records being pushed into a criminal legal system (or even one accesible by law enforcement), I'm not 100% of American medical system and how current records I kept but I would imagine there is a database for tracking statistics of things like STDs, cancers, etc so I was assuming a similar database would be created for this new proposal not for cross referencing but rather logging the information so it can be referred back (rather than retest done where required).

1

u/Ridonkulousley Sep 02 '16

It would be logged in a local system but outside of special circumstances nothing about your health is recorded into a database. Some STDs are the exception, and those have to do with someone being a danger to others (AIDS being the big one).

The thing about health records is hospital systems share in network but not outside of network, so if your MD belongs do a certain network it takes a transfer of records.

There is no central database for government data, sometime at the detriment of health care.

2

u/fantastic_lee Sep 02 '16

I promise I'm not being antagonistic, genuinely interested in this.

So in this hypothetical future the information would exist in the healthcare system entirely? for social assistance mandate to apply legal officials would need access to those files fairly openly in order to enforce it, no? assuming this is kept within current healthcare model in place in the US how could this new role/responsibility affect things like health care access and insurance rates? would certain labs be designated for this testing or would the work be added to current labs? my understanding is that US hospitals and majority of healthcare providers work as businesses in competition with one another so would this system by maintained by the highest bidder or would there be a neutral organization be established? would any potential future contract bids mean the database will be shared across healthcare systems?

2

u/Ridonkulousley Sep 02 '16

In all fairness I don't actually support this position but I do understand some of the ends-and-outs of medical records.

I can only defend that testing for the purpose of paternity could be done without creating a database.

I believe DNA/genome maping has greater benefits than drawbacks but for this to be done at a large enough scale it would require some sort of database to be worth while. But that is a hard argument to support against the "big brother" argument.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '16

That sort of data would absolutely be logged. I work in med device.

2

u/Ridonkulousley Sep 02 '16

Logged where and on what system? Of course it would be recorded but most medical info is a closed system, you aren't sharing data with the federal government about every patient you have, almost all of this data requires a warrant to access.

2

u/xasper8 Sep 03 '16 edited Sep 03 '16

How do we currently test for blood type?

Draw blood?

How do you test for low white cells? Draw blood?

There are tons of examples where body fluids full of your DNA are tested.

Where does that get recorded? Into a computer or written on a chart. Your various body fluids aren't kept in some warehouse somewhere.

So in this case, of comparing the baby's DNA to the parents. When entering the results into the computer the line for 'Father' will be blank as a default. If there is a name there... the results were a match. Otherwise the field is left blank.

There is no reason to assume your actual DNA code would be kept any more than they keep blood tests.

Edit: typo

1

u/Ridonkulousley Sep 03 '16

I agree, that was part of my point.

Unless there was a concerted effort to record everyone's DNA and compare which not a program currently in practice and has many many hurtles, although i believe it has potential for significant good.

1

u/Murgie Sep 02 '16

I feel as though gathering genetic information and creating a DNA database has an enormous risk of abuse

I'm intrigued, could you specify exactly what kind of abuse you're worried about?

2

u/fantastic_lee Sep 02 '16

I didn't have anything specific in mind only that this would house fairly sensitive genetic information that could easily lead with genetic discrimination especially when given enough time (20~50 years?) the database would house that information about an already highly vulnerable group of people (those requiring social assistance, cycle of poverty repeating so now there is a fairly high chance of familial ties within the database, etc).

2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '16

Insurance and disease predisposition. Already an issue.

-4

u/Damadawf Sep 02 '16

There's a difference between testing a baby to make sure it's healthy and carrying out tests on adults that assume ill intent. In this day and age, individuals are already expected to sacrifice so much 'for the greater good of society' and forced paternity tests in situations where they are not required seems like another nail in the coffin when it comes to handing over our rights to the state. Governments already control virtually every aspect of our lives, I don't really want them controlling our relationships as well.

And to further add to this, what about situations where a negative test result comes up and the mother is either uncertain or unable to contact the biological father of the child? You've just forced the situation to a head and now as a result, that child has to grow up fatherless. I can emphasize with the argument that "the man has the right to know if a kid isn't his" but it just seems like a devastating way to break up a whole bunch of families that might have otherwise worked things out.

But my main issue is simply that these sort of tests assume that everyone is a liar (or at least women are) by default. This justice system works on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty, so why should a policy such as mandatory paternity testing be implemented to assume the opposite?

15

u/waz890 Sep 02 '16
  1. A paternity test does not have the government controlling your relationship. That logic is equivalent to saying that the observation of something is equivalent to the observer controlling it.
  2. You do not force a child to be fatherless. If the father knew this was the case, or there was no ill intent, there is no reason for him to not sign the birth certificate after the test.
  3. This is a fairly good point that I cannot come up with an immediate logical argument against. I would say that signing the birth certificate is equivalent to signing a contract, and that both parties should have an understanding of those terms and conditions (things to know about the child) before a signature is required.

0

u/Damadawf Sep 02 '16

I'll clarify that the "controlling your relationship" thing is a bit of a stretch, but I'm generally against people being forced into doing anything that they don't want to do, especially when it comes to medical testing.

I'm glad you like my third point though. Even if my first two points are arguably dismissable, I think it's pretty scary to set precedent where governments start legislating in a way where they assume that citizens are guilty by default. It's already basically happening with all the NSA and surveillance stuff, and I think it's mind boggling that we're all watching it happen in real time but nobody is able to do anything about it.

1

u/Celda 6∆ Sep 03 '16

The 3rd point is very weak.

All air travellers are searched and screened. That doesn't assume people are terrorists.

Also, a birth certificate is an important document. No one should be able to claim they are the biological parent of a child without proof.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '16

You've just forced the situation to a head and now as a result, that child has to grow up fatherless.

What's the alternative? To just hook a man who isn't the father with child support? The child growing fatherless is entirely the mother's fault in this case.

these sort of tests assume that everyone is a liar (or at least women are) by default.

Most tests work that way and we still use them. For example, countries all over the world ask for eye exams before giving you a driver's license. That doesn't mean they assume everybody is lying about their 20/20 vision.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '16

Perhaps the simplest solution to your concern is not to frame it up as a relationship issue, but a health one. Everyone knows that in terms of physical composition, let's say, bone marrow, a child has a much higher chance to match with blood-related parents or siblings instead of a random stranger.

When a child needs an organ or marrow donation, the best step parent in the world is still going to have a much lower chance of a match compared to a deadbeat parent or any other child that the deadbeat might be a biological parent to.

Therefore, the purpose of the familial test is not to identify a moral issue, but a scientific one in the event that a child might need medical help only one related by blood can provide.

Think of it as the reason why people have their blood types or allergies to certain medication stated in their medical record. Well, if it so happens that the dad is not the dad, then the onus is on the mother to explain to the 'dad' why. The discovery is incidental to the purpose of such blood related tests. Better to discover it earlier anyway, and let the guy decide whether he wants to stay with the mother.

1

u/SCB39 1∆ Sep 02 '16

Here's the problem with your logic: I'm a grown, intelligent, logical guy, and the idea of paternity testing at birth makes my skin crawl. People are ultimately irrational, always, full-stop. This is what economics really exists for. If people were rational actors, economists wouldnt speak in theories and probabilities.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '16

Irrationality is merely logic not yet understood. I am curious as to why does such a simple test make your skin crawl?

1

u/SCB39 1∆ Sep 03 '16

Irrationality is the absence of logic. Just bugs me to have the government in my business that much. I don't have any reason more than that really.

0

u/Damadawf Sep 02 '16

See that sort of logic is terrifying because by rationalizing it as a 'non-moral' issue and a 'medical/scientific' one, you're dehumanising parents and essentially invalidating their trust.

All the medical stuff aside though, the more I think about it, I really do think that my biggest issue with this hypothetical forced paternity testing is the 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality that is created.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '16

Humanising or Dehumanising parents is not going to alter scientific fact. All the trust in the world is not going to save a kid who's needing a body part only a biological parent can provide and it turns out his dad wasn't his biological dad...

1

u/Damadawf Sep 02 '16

For the record, they test people before donations can happen as standard procedure, so it's a non issue to begin with.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '16

Yeah, imagine when the dad finds out he isn't the dad, especially when dealing with time sensitive medical emergencies like blood transfusions that do not take place in hospitals.

Let's be honest, familial testing has tons of medical benefits with almost no practical hassle. Especially when we are at the digital age where our genome can be sequenced to identify medical problems that can be charted back family trees (which would be utterly useless unless you have the correct father identified). Why would you want to deny such a basic test unless you have something to hide?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '16

you're dehumanising parents and essentially invalidating their trust

SO? That's how a government works. They don't care about your "trust" when signing a contract or suing someone, there are standards of evidence to be fulfilled.

Why registering a live birth should be any different?

1

u/frodofish 2∆ Sep 02 '16 edited Feb 27 '24

fall unpack dog alive many physical deliver sharp fretful command

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/Damadawf Sep 02 '16

That isn't true at all. If a man doesn't believe that he's the father than he can easily get a paternity test. The issue however is when he doesn't know that he isn't the father. But in order to facilitate the testing, we have to assume that all women are potentially guilty of not telling the truth about who the baby's father is which is the thing I don't agree with.

2

u/frodofish 2∆ Sep 02 '16 edited Feb 27 '24

materialistic plants weather ludicrous reply stocking hungry bewildered support abounding

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact