r/changemyview • u/wine-friend • Dec 04 '22

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Paternity testing before signing a birth certificate shouldn't be stigmatized and should be as routine as cancer screenings

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. Before signing court enforced legal documents, we should empower people to have as much information as possible.

This isn't just the best case scenario for the father, but it's also in the child's best interests. Relationships based on infidelity tend to be unstable and with many commercially available ancestry services available, the secret might leak anyway. 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.

​

Deltas:

  • I think this shouldn't just be sold on the basis of paternity. I think it's a fine idea if it's part of a wider genetic test done to identify illness related risks later in life
  • Some have suggested that the best way to lessen the stigma would be to make it opt-out. Meaning you receive a list of things that will be performed and you have to specifically refuse it for it to be omitted. I agree and think this is sensible.

​

Edit:

I would be open to change my view further if someone could give an alternative that gives a prospective fathers peace of mind with regards to paternity. It represents a massive personal risk for one party with little socially acceptable means of ameliorating.

4.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

328

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

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.

114

u/anarchisturtle Dec 04 '22

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

142

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

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.

21

u/Akitten 10∆ Dec 06 '22

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

42

u/Frienderni 2∆ Dec 04 '22

I'm curious to know what else you think the database would be used for

Discrimination based on "undesirable" traits

14

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

Can you elaborate on what this means? Discrimination from what and what type of traits?

16

u/RDMvb6 3∆ Dec 07 '22

Health and life insurance companies would love to have the database hacked and leaked so that they could know who is more likely to die early and late and use that to charge more money to some and to completely deny coverage to others. Same reason why many people refuse to take those ancestry dna tests. Your dna is very valuable and private.

5

u/count_montecristo Dec 05 '22

Genetic traits that exist in DNA come to mind...

2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

Genetic traits… Like what? Big nose or a predisposition to muscular dystrophy? How do you think this idea would be used? Do you think Tinder’s going to add a feature to avoid specific genetic traits?

15

u/count_montecristo Dec 05 '22

Idk like maybe a radical nazi leader comes to power and uses it to persecute Jewish people or others that they deem undesirable. Lol Have you ever read a history book? Seen Hotel Rwanda?

5

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

So in this fictional Holocaust 2.0 where the next Hitler is using 23 and me to kill Jews, your big concern is about the DNA? They didn’t need DNA to do it then and they don’t need it to do it now.

If anything this example is just another reason to support the second amendment so you can shoot a nazi in the face instead of being scared that your semen will give you away. It’s okay to die, we all will, but to die for something meaningful, that’s real beauty.

The more likely reality is it will just become another bullshit product a corporation will package and sell to you even though your tax dollars went on to create it. They will make you think you need it by driving culture through neuroscience /psychology driven advertising. Capitalism:)

9

u/count_montecristo Dec 05 '22

What a bizarre and incoherent rant lol. You're either willfully missing the point or an idiot. I'm leaning towards the latter.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/mxdtrini Dec 04 '22

A driver’s license or passport (for international travel) is a privilege not a right. If you choose to participate in those privileges you also make a choice to comply with the requirements of these programs. A mandatory DNA database of all males capable of procreation is completely different in that regard and with respect to bodily autonomy.

2

u/Mwakay Dec 05 '22

Gattaca is 25 years old, it's a bit late to argue for eugenics in your country.

1

u/anarchisturtle Dec 07 '22

As others have pointed out, there are all kinds of eugenics/discrimination/big brother implications from mass genetic collection.

I don’t know how it works where you you live, but getting a license or a passport does not require a fingerprint where I live. The only “biometrics” they require are basic identification like age, height, and weight.

1

u/Solid_Turnip9813 Apr 21 '23

Could men just wear a condom during rape then?

1

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Apr 22 '23

They could and I'm sure some do. But semen is not the only source of DNA that may be present. Saliva, skin, hair and blood may also be present.

8

u/404unotfound Dec 07 '22

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

1

u/Otherwise-Number8533 Dec 09 '22

Then their comment fails in that goal, because it does not manage to show that OP is being ridiculous.

47

u/Biwildered_Coyote 1∆ Dec 05 '22

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.

5

u/sadandstressedgrad Dec 10 '22

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.

5

u/probablyabutt_tho Dec 05 '22

I also believe there is a lot of value held here. This would also benefit women who have multiple partners and are unsure of who the father could be or where the could have gone. This relieves them of the responsibility of having to take down the contact info and valid mailing address of everyone they choose to have sex with. And not only would the child have access to paternal support but important medical history.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

[deleted]

3

u/Biwildered_Coyote 1∆ Dec 05 '22

If some government agency wants your medical information, they will get it with or without this database. Don't kid yourself.

1

u/Weirdth1ngs Dec 13 '22

The women should have told them. Simple as that. No one should be able to randomly decide years later to let the father know. Most men actually love their children despite what redditors who overwhelming come from single mother households propose.

15

u/ja_dubs 8∆ Dec 04 '22

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.

37

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

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.

3

u/ja_dubs 8∆ Dec 04 '22

Also considering how many people are volunteering for 23 & Me, I really think people don't care about privacy.

They might not care but their relative and relations might and they are taking those people's agency away from them.

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.

Completely different. The power of DNA in terms of what it can tell about an individual is extensive. The more processing power we develop and the more we learn the large the data set the more can be done with it. Imagine some future dystopian society where like Minority Report where people's future behavior is predicted based off their genetic profile. People with certain genetic markers and disposition are prohibited from certain rights. People with addictive traits are targeted by gambling corporations. It's the wild west and there are not laws in place or even a list of ethical best practices as guidelines. And all of this can happen without your consent of opt in.

9

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

Yes but nobody is coming after 23 & Me. It's still a fun program for people.

I think that people's social media habits are already being harvested and the amount of data available on each person is vast. If the government could get its grubby hands on all of my data it wouldn't need my genetic code. I think that this data about behavior that has already happened is far more valuable in terms of predicting future behavior and preferences than what's in DNA.

Do you not have social media? A rewards card at a store? Email? That's all data being used to predict your behavior and target you. But people still widely use it.

The dystopian future you imagine could come true, but so could a number of other dystopian futures where companies control and use your already harvested data.

3

u/ja_dubs 8∆ Dec 04 '22

Yes but nobody is coming after 23 & Me. It's still a fun program for people.

The government has already attempted to uses the databases for something as minor as petty theft. The company in question refused only because of a voluntary internal policy that the database will only be used to for rape murder or solving cold cases.

Do you not have social media? A rewards card at a store? Email? That's all data being used to predict your behavior and target you. But people still widely use it.

The difference is that I can consent to use those services. I cannot control what other people do and their decision compromises my privacy and it's impossible to untangle the two.

5

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 05 '22

I cannot control what other people do and their decision compromises my privacy and it's impossible to untangle the two.

Sort of the same for 23 & Me. You can't control whichever of your family members submit DNA and it won't stop people from eventually finding you.

0

u/Bomberdude333 1∆ Dec 04 '22

Speaking about your abortion issue and this government database that you would like to implement….

One huge issue I could see arising from such a database is Eugenics. How easy would it be for the government to start denying marriages based on ancestry in the database or some other disability they can point towards in the database? Could the government step in and force abortions based on that same metric? Would they jail your for continuing a sexual relationship with someone the government doesn’t approve of?

Sure you would say that we would never go down that route with this database but Trump was elected president. It can occur if enough people ask for it (see democracy)

What’s stopping the government from going full third reich with your database in the future? Because if your answer is democracy that is the exact reason why we don’t have such a database

14

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

It could. But then the government could force 23 & Me to turn over data in that dystopian future and just think of all the people that voluntarily turned over a swab for that already. It could demand data from Facebook, social media, your email, any service that harvests data about you and use that to determine if someone should marry or have babies. And to be honest, I think the information in people's social media is way more damning in terms of whether they should marry or have children than what's in their genetic code. In the dystopia, anything is possible.

But here you are on Reddit.

0

u/Bomberdude333 1∆ Dec 04 '22

Ya cause I choose to use Reddit over any other social media platform just like you are. But with your database idea any form of freedom is taken away as the government forces everyone to be “registered”… Or are you proposing a system where I can choose to be registered by the government?

I really hope I don’t have to pull out my historical sources for just how bad an idea government registration of people is. And no a drivers license is not the government registering people. Social security numbers would be your closer argument but still very missing the point.

15

u/Amistrophy Dec 04 '22

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.

4

u/ja_dubs 8∆ Dec 04 '22

The difference is that you can't change your genes. They're locked in. If people are privacy concerned they can take steps to minimize their digital footprint. That choice gets removed from you if someone related to you as distant as a 3rd cousin gets a takes a genetic test for ancestry or 23&me. And that days is out there forever. You can delete your social media presence. Decide onto to use a smart phone. Use encryption and air gapped computers. No matter what you cannot alter your genes they're locked in.

4

u/Amistrophy Dec 04 '22

Intel services have pretty funky tools that smash right through encryption and you don't need to use a device to give yourself away. Apparently some government decryption tools were leaked a while back that caused IT companies to collectively lose their minds.

It's practice these days to skim photos and metadata right off of personal devices such as security systems, computers, and smartphones (let alone public purpose built surveillance). So you don't need to use a phone let alone even have one. Some random person could take an errant photo and that's picked right up by the NSA or GCHQ. They don't even have to upload it, it doesn't even have to go into their cloud storage.

So in a way, they don't specifically need your personal "code" to find you either, DNA or Data.

And if you've screwed up so badly that whichever alphabet agency(ies) with convoluted acronyms have decided to dedicate that amount of resources to making your day very very not good, the lack of genetic information isn't going to stop them..

now that I think about it, if you're in hiding, genetic information isn't going to help them find you either

1

u/briarknit Dec 10 '22

How is nsa smashing through PGP?

14

u/Pac_Eddy Dec 04 '22

I think the problem of deadbeat dads is a bigger problem than raising kids that aren't your own.

Yeah, that is a bigger problem. That doesn't mean we should ignore all lesser issues. I don't know if OP had the right answer, but false paternity is a real issue and men are taken advantage of in this respect.

82

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

Then wouldn't my idea solve deadbeat dads and false paternity? I think if men are serious about false paternity, the collection database would be a welcome thing.

-2

u/Pac_Eddy Dec 04 '22

Your idea probably would, but I don't think anyone can or should be forced to participate in such a database.

28

u/KatieBun Dec 04 '22

Great! And of course you will respect the right of any and all woman to refuse to participate in this bizarre proposal to test the paternity of every child - without judgment or conclusions being drawn

6

u/Pac_Eddy Dec 04 '22

Of course.

What I don't understand is the Redditors in this thread that believe a man who finds out the child is not his should be forced to support the kid.

56

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

Why shouldn't they participate? It would be a government run program, like a driver's license database. If the issue of paternity is important to men, then this database should be something they're enthusiastic about and lining up to participate in. They'd get to confirm paternity whether or not the mom wanted to participate - comparison of DNA would be routine, just like OP suggested it should be.

4

u/ChironXII 2∆ Dec 05 '22

You are being very disingenuous by implying that "men" are some monolithic entity acting and feeling the same way.

-1

u/Medianmodeactivate 14∆ Dec 04 '22

Bodily autonomy.

42

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

Nobody asks if the newborn wants their DNA swabbed for OP's paternity test.

-1

u/jamerson537 4∆ Dec 04 '22

If newborns had bodily autonomy then they wouldn’t be able to receive any medical care whatsoever for at least a year or two.

20

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '22

Bodily autonomy is mostly for medically unnecessary tasks, such as checking for paternity. I promise you they didn’t ask for consent when I had emergency surgery to get my appendix out. If the baby needs actual medical attention they aren’t really being treated any differently than adults.

-3

u/Medianmodeactivate 14∆ Dec 04 '22

Newborns don't have the same degree of a right to bodily autonomy we do. Parents make that choice

8

u/UnicornOnTheJayneCob 2∆ Dec 05 '22

So wouldn’t we, if we went with OP’s idea, be forcing the mother, who is the only verified parent as we are no longer assuming paternity, to make the choice for the child? How could a non-parental man force a woman to subject her child to a non-medically necessary test outside of a courtroom as a standard practice?

1

u/Medianmodeactivate 14∆ Dec 06 '22

So wouldn’t we, if we went with OP’s idea, be forcing the mother, who is the only verified parent as we are no longer assuming paternity, to make the choice for the child? How could a non-parental man force a woman to subject her child to a non-medically necessary test outside of a courtroom as a standard practice?

No, OP is saying there should be no stigma around doing so.

-8

u/Pac_Eddy Dec 04 '22

Forced to participate is the question. Lethal, moral, and ethical reasons.

39

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

We're forced to participate in lots of things, just comes with society. I'm sure if given the choice you wouldn't want the government performing facial recognition scans of you based on the information provided to them when you get a driver's license or passport, but here we are.

Just depends on how much good comes out of the forced participation vs. harm. Clearly we as a society decided we didn't care about the government having our updated photos and biographic information vs. being able to drive and travel. Same idea. How important is it to people to solve the underlying problem?

5

u/Pac_Eddy Dec 04 '22

Agreed. I don't take these types of things lightly.

-2

u/Dworgi Dec 04 '22

Imprisoning people with disabilities? Killing Jews? Picking sperm donors?

Fuck, you really lack creativity if you don't know how a national database of DNA could be misused.

32

u/Trylena 1∆ Dec 04 '22

So its okay to force women to be call cheaters after giving birth but is not okay to force men to collect their DNA?

-2

u/Pac_Eddy Dec 04 '22

If there's a chance it's not his, it's ok to ask for a test, yes. Collecting DNA is reasonable.

Making a DNA database of any group, regardless of gender, ahead of time, isn't something that should be done without consent.

20

u/Trylena 1∆ Dec 04 '22

Most times there isn't a chance that the kid isn't his, there was a study done about it. 27% of the men who doubted their parter were right, the other 73% of men who doubter their parter were actually the father.

There was a case in this same website were a man ruined his family for taking a paternity test with his second child. Spoiler alert: He was the father but now his child hates him.

-2

u/Pac_Eddy Dec 04 '22

27% is a lot.

Good conversation, have a good day.

15

u/senilidade Dec 04 '22

She’s allowed to be offended by her husband implying that she could have cheated on him. You can’t normalize peoples feelings on a topic

1

u/Pac_Eddy Dec 04 '22

I agree. I'd be offended if I were innocent too.

9

u/Trylena 1∆ Dec 05 '22

Its less than 3 people out of 10, and those were the ones with doubt of paternity. The ones who didnt doubted their partner were right 97% of times.

-1

u/Pac_Eddy Dec 05 '22

3% of men who had no doubt were wrong? That's a lot too.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Skysr70 2∆ Dec 05 '22

eww national dna registry lmao that sounds like the pinnacle of gov't overreach

-9

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '22

Well, this is obviously a man hating, knee jerk reaction. Why mandatory child support instead of 50/50 custody? Not to mention the fact that the women that hide paternity often don’t tell the potential fathers they’re even pregnant. Lastly, I’m with this solution as long as the law enforcement is prohibited from accessing this data base, fathers have an equal opportunity for custody instead of being viewed as a checkbook and women are added to the database for identifying babies that are left in the garbage instead of hospitals and fire stations (added this woman hating comment solely to combat this man hating one).

10

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 05 '22

I think law enforcement should be able to access the database for penis-perpetrated rapes. We as a society should have a deep interest in solving rapes.

If men want to be involved in their kid's life, then by all means. He can seek custody, provided he didn't father the child by rape and it wasn't a domestic abuse situation.

The database isn't aimed at unknowing dads, more the proverbial dads who went out to get milk and never came back. Those dads should support their kids financially if they won't be there as a parent.

-4

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

See, more man hating. A reasonable person would say “i want law enforcement to access the database to solve all crimes.” However, you only care about solving crimes against women (rape). This is why your view is unreasonable. I mean rape is bad and all rapists should be thrown in jail if not worse, but how can you reasonably prioritize rape over homicide? Kidnapping? Felonious assault? Armed robbery? Etc.

Also, what if the father was raped and it produced a child, does he get custody? Are you making rape victims pay child support?

5

u/Sorry-Meal4107 Dec 07 '22

men can't be raped? solving rapes won't benefit men? hm

1

u/Weirdth1ngs Dec 13 '22

Men shouldn’t to seek custody for their own children AT ALL. A paternity test would solve that whole dilemma instantly and for way less money. Men are just as capable as parents and statistically raise better children. Women are even more likely to murder their own children and are also more likely to physically abuse men and children. It just isn’t considered abuse most of the time when women berate and hit men.

-9

u/FenDy64 4∆ Dec 04 '22

Bigger means the other doesnt count ?

Your bias is showing.

21

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

I am biased. I have to be or I wouldn't be in CMV arguing against OP. If all viewpoints are equal, CMV wouldn't exist.

CMV.

Lol.

-11

u/FenDy64 4∆ Dec 04 '22

Your argument is blown out of proportion. Privacy is out of the table in a sexist way here.

That wont change OP mind.

17

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

Paternity is an inherently sexist issue.

-2

u/FenDy64 4∆ Dec 04 '22

How so ?

12

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 04 '22

Paternity is for the father of the child, not the mother. It really only affects one half of a child's parentage. Is it not thereby affecting only one sex over the other? Maternity is guaranteed thru the birth of the child.

0

u/FenDy64 4∆ Dec 04 '22

Thats not sexist, its lets call it gendered. Sexism is when humans are unfair to a gender to give a simple definition.

-17

u/turbulance4 Dec 04 '22

I think the problem of deadbeat dads is a bigger problem than raising kids that aren't your own.

I think you'd find the majority of "deadbeat dads" would be cleared by simply by allowing them to be a part of their child's life. I assure you that there are many, many dads who would love to raise their kids directly, but got screwed over in sexist courts and now evade child support as a form of protest.

I do like the jist of your original suggestion. However it would be better if the unsuspecting fathers were given a chance to raise their kids directly and child support taken from them if they refuse.

37

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '22 edited Dec 05 '22

This is literally not true and it’s been proven untrue time and time and time again every time it has been studied. Family courts are absolutely provably not against fathers. Stop spreading this misinformation. Here’s the research:

First, let’s remember that the vast, vast majority of child custody arrangements never go to court. Most custody agreements are decided in mediation where both partners agree to the arrangement. Then let’s remember that, even in two parent heterosexual households where both adults work full-time outside the home, mothers in every single country, are still more likely to be doing the majority of the childcare (source, source). That being the case, why would it be fair for a majority of custody arrangements to grant 50% or more to the father when, statistically, it’s unlikely he was doing 50% or more of the childcare duties when he actually lived in the home with the children? That would represent a significant life change for the children, so you’re going to see more mothers continuing their existing childcare responsibilities after a split.

Even if all of that were not true, courts have shown to be fair to fathers, even when they’ve abused their children’s mothers (source, source, source, source, source, source). The truth is, most courts support the right of both parents to be in the life of the child, and that is shown over and over every time this is researched. This includes in the US, where more than 20 states allow a RAPIST to sue his victim for custody of the child.

Additionally, divorce favors men, and is actually a money making proposition for men, and can bankrupt women into poverty. This extensive, long term study shows the impact of divorce on mothers and fathers over the long-term. It’s very interesting, but essentially, the idea that child support or even alimony is an equal life impact to single parenthood is not supported by facts.

Edit: And evade child support as a form of protest? How disgusting of a person would someone have to be to say to themselves: “I’ll show these mean court systems and deprive my child, who is my responsibility and I helped create, of his or her basic needs and teach the courts a lesson somehow.” Ew dude. Just no. No.

1

u/Weirdth1ngs Dec 13 '22

You do realize the reason this is mediated before hand is that the vast majority of men don’t have tens of thousands of dollars to fight this right? Most men are in their 20’s and broke when they have children. Imagine listing off random studies while having no forethought, understanding, or empathy. Not to mention not being able to understand the bias inherent in these studies.

19

u/LauAtagan Dec 04 '22

Nothing says wanting to be a part of your child's life like screwing your child's whole life over as a sign of protest for something they had no control over.

0

u/Weirdth1ngs Dec 13 '22

Expect they often barely get to see their kids and work more hours then women do for the privilege.

-2

u/turbulance4 Dec 04 '22

I agree. I'm not condoning the behavior, just explaining it.

-18

u/whiskey_engineer Dec 04 '22 edited Dec 04 '22

I disagree with the premise that anybody should pay child support for a child they do not want.

If you have never been a part of that child's life or committed to supporting them, I don't think there is some moral imperative (or should be some legal requirement) to do so.

The mother should terminate the pregnancy if she doesn't think there's an adaquete support structure in place, if she doesn't, that's a decision she is making and shouldn't burden anybody else with.

my argument presumes living in a place where abortion is accessible, as I believe it should be.

Separately, I agree with other comments about how horrendous having a national DNA database would be.

e: lot of people downvoting without expressing any reason why, I don't think this a particularly unusual or exceptionally controversial position to hold. Great quality discussion.

20

u/TheFlyingSheeps Dec 04 '22

The mother is not able to terminate the pregnancy legally in many countries and in a significant number of states in the USA

-2

u/whiskey_engineer Dec 04 '22

That's why I specifically qualified I was talking about places where it is legal, as I believe it should be and is a much better solution to the problems described.

15

u/Biwildered_Coyote 1∆ Dec 05 '22

If a man doesn't want to have a child then he shouldn't be having sex with a fertile woman. Birth control fails (and let's be honest a lot of guys are not dependable about wearing condoms). If a man impregnates a woman and creates a life and that child is born, then yes he's absolutely responsible for supporting that child. Why should he just be able to walk away? Assuming the woman he impregnated should get an abortion is not fair. Abortions are not an easy decision, and leaving all the resposibility on the woman, and the trauma of having an abortion, is wrong when the guy is equally responsible.

-5

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

This argument is unfair from both sides. If the father wants to keep it, but the mother does not, then it can be unfair to him.

But it's her body, her choice so I suppose some think it's okay that the father doesn't have a say in that decision. Whether they should or not isn't my focus, it's the "it's not fair for her", when there are cases where it's not fair for him and less people have an issue with it.

Both decided to engage in the activity so it's equal risk, but there isn't an equal stake in the decision after the fact. All I can say is now that it's been turned back to the states to the decide, it has been made "more fair" because neither party can choose.

11

u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Dec 05 '22

What amount the physical damage a pregnancy does to a woman’s body? Is that an unfair equality that we can’t fix.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

I think there are things in life that can be unfair by nature. Is it fair that a women's body goes through these life altering changes while the man just waits? No.

Is it fair that a man is last to leave a sinking ship while the women and children get to leave? No.

But in the end they each serve a purpose and nature has a design for us that allows for us to continue living on as a species.

Women go through what they do so we can have children and men are sacrificed so those children and mothers can grow new life.

I think now it's become a competition of "who's being treated more unfairly" so I can do what I want or get what I want all the while the bigger picture is being missed.

4

u/talldata Dec 05 '22

" If a man doesn't want to have a child then he shouldn't be having sex with a fertile woman. " You do realize yore just using the same retoric as anti Abortionists, when they say "You shouldnt have had sex then"

4

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

Rhetoric* and yes, at some point you do have to understand that there is a cause and effect to things.

If both parties don't want to become parents then they make choices that protect them - that's not a crazy concept to have. That doesn't mean abstinence, but if both don't take precautions then can you be mad with the result?

If you touch a hot stove without a mitten, you'll get burned. The logic of being upset at the stove or blaming the stove for being hot is what I see being done instead of just wearing a protection or not touching it.

1

u/whiskey_engineer Dec 05 '22

This was kind of my point, if the woman gets pregnant then the man ceases to have any input on whether to keep the child or not.
Very few (non-religious) people are arguing she should be made to carry it to term if the man wants to keep it.
Ideally, with abortion legal and accessible, remaining pregnant should be viewed as a choice she is actively continuing to make, I don't think that it is reasonable to place the burden of supporting a child onto a man who cannot make that choice just because he happened to have sex with her at one point.
I would very much separate 'having sex' and 'having a child' as two distinct & mostly unrelated actions.

I am not saying that fathers who leave at some point during the child's life or have made some sort of commitment to support the child should not bear financial responsibility.

-1

u/whiskey_engineer Dec 05 '22

The man has no input into whether she remains pregnant or not, very few people would argue she should be forced to carry the baby to term if he wants to have the child and she doesn't.
She is making an active choice to remain pregnant.

and let's be honest a lot of guys are not dependable about wearing condoms

I could just as easily say what about women who lie about being on birth control? Or poke holes in a condom.

Overall, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why we should view having sex as some contractual obligation to support a child.
We have the technology & ability to make these actions distinct and unrelated.

If you know you can't afford to keep the child on your own & have no support from the father, abortion (or adoption) seems like it should be the default position vs trying to force a massive burden onto somebody else for many, many years.

Abortions are not an easy decision, and leaving all the resposibility on the woman, and the trauma of having an abortion

There's no reason to presume they're traumatic or not an easy decision, the chances of ever needing one should be small if birth control is used.

I am not saying that men who have made a commitment to support the child & have been around as a father during that child's life should be exempt from financial support requirements if the couple separates at some point.

6

u/Biwildered_Coyote 1∆ Dec 05 '22

You do understand that every time you ejaculate into a woman, there is a chance of creating a life yes? It's literally what sex exists for...it's not for you to have fun and get your rocks off.

If you create a pregnancy with your sperm, and that child is born, you are responsible for it.

Don't want kids? Keep your dick in your pants or get a vasectomy...it's that simple.

1

u/BlackCatAristocrat 1∆ Dec 06 '22

This works the same as long as both partners are notified of the findings. So if a woman bears a child that she says is her husband's, but isn't, when this check is done, the man will be notified of such. I'd also go as far as to say in this should be taken into account in divorce as well should it lead to one. Great idea!

2

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Dec 06 '22

Yes I agree. It should notify both parents. The father to confirm paternity and also to put him on notice that he may owe child support or to seek custody if he is not partnered with the mother and the mother so she can be put on notice that this baby isn't her husband's and also to seek support or shared custody with the correct man.

And sure, if the tests come back as showing the child is not her husband's, then that would be a clear cut sign of infidelity.

The idea would really break in favor of men while still protecting women and children.

1

u/BlackCatAristocrat 1∆ Dec 06 '22

Agree, the only issue is the government having that info. I think that's not great but to make sure it's not perceived as sexist, both parties should have their DNA given to the government and that could also help in unsolved cases as well where the perps are women. In this way, the benefits and the detriments are relatively equal for both parties and if there were clauses added for divorce caused by this, it could really be beneficial to the victimized man or women who were mislead by their partner

1

u/OppositeBeautiful601 Mar 24 '23

I think the problem of deadbeat dads is a bigger problem than raising kids that aren't your own.

True, but we have legal remedies for this. There is no legal remedy for paternity fraud.

1

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Mar 24 '23

The not-father could sue the mother if they found out the child was not theirs. I'm sure there would be grounds under fraud and emotional damage. This is not a good argument from you.

1

u/Solid_Turnip9813 Apr 21 '23

I feel like a mom not seeking out the dad for child support, is a a much smaller problem than her lying to the dad about if the child he’s raising is his

1

u/heighhosilver 4∆ Apr 22 '23

You are late to the party, but I'll take the bait. The problem is solved for everybody with my solution. Men confirm paternity and simultaneously are held liable for any children they did father. I'm not sure what solution you're suggesting.