Give me one excellent reason why DNA testing isn't standard at birth.

captnaj phd

captnaj phd

1,084
415
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Save the speech about cost, there are much less important procedures and tests that they perform every single time with no consent or any notification besides showing up on your insurance bill.

Save the speech about trust, it doesn't hold up in court.

Save the speech about the woman's rights, a man has a right to know in just as concrete a manner as a woman.

Those speeches saved, anybody got a fresh one?
 
 (if we had a way of confirming this more accurately beyond mere statistics than we can now)

If you knew you'd have a kid that would have a mental handicap or that your kid had all the markers for some rare or devastating disease...would you carry through the pregnancy? 

TL;DR: Dem Ethics 
 
Because then the courts wouldn't be able to prey on men as easily.

They make it as easy as possible to have a man on that birth certificate just in case something goes wrong down the line for profit.

On top of all that society is scare to call out women who sleep with multiple men.
 
Big Meech said:
Because then the courts wouldn't be able to prey on men as easily.

They make it as easy as possible to have a man on that birth certificate just in case something goes wrong down the line for profit.

On top of all that society is scare to call out women who sleep with multiple men.
Click to expand...
ALL OF THIS X2
 
ricky409 said:
ALL OF THIS X2
Click to expand...
the real question also is why are women auto.... given majority rights etc.... i mean i know y. if u think about it... if a person isnt mindful responsible mature enough to follow the guidelines of b.c.... stay within weight, take on time and daily, etc...

But as said earlier its all about profit... i have no doubt in my mind that an effective/safe b.c. for men is available, or at the very least can/could be made.. Its just it would have indirect/direct ramifications and lost, as far as jobs/money for so many professions/facets of govt..  life.
 
FutureMD said:
 (if we had a way of confirming this more accurately beyond mere statistics than we can now)

If you knew you'd have a kid that would have a mental handicap or that your kid had all the markers for some rare or devastating disease...would you carry through the pregnancy? 

TL;DR: Dem Ethics 
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't and can't you do that now? Thought that's what people who carried the Tay Sachs gene did.

The reason why its not done, because it creates an aura of mistrust and immaturity by the potential father.
 
Last edited:
captNaj PhD said:
FutureMD said:
 (if we had a way of confirming this more accurately beyond mere statistics than we can now)

If you knew you'd have a kid that would have a mental handicap or that your kid had all the markers for some rare or devastating disease...would you carry through the pregnancy? 

TL;DR: Dem Ethics 
Click to expand...
Nope. Ctrl+Alt+Delete. Then again, as a man, that's not legally my call to make.

I was more talking about paternity testing, but prenatal defect screening is also an interesting conversation we can fold into this thread.
Click to expand...
Oh...you meant baby daddy testing?

I see.

Well...I don't think its as NECESSARY as the other procedures are. Most people don't get paternity testing and you can't expect that the parties before you to be lying to each other automatically. I'm sure the masses would see it as an affront to their "maturity" or autonomy or what have you. 

Plus, you talk about saving costs so...you sure you want that extra fee? 
 
If people were doing what they were supposed to be doing, this wouldn't even issue.

Why should anyone have cater to sloots and simps???
 
Because DNA tests cost money. Anywhere from like $200-500 each. 4 Million new-borns per year, multiply that number, thats a lot of money. Also, In most child-births, its simply unnecessary. Most women know who the father is, especially if they're married.

Lets say their are plans to do so tho. - If the government is going to spend that type of money for new-born DNA testing; the government will be selective with expenses. Therefor the government would target communities and specific locations where children are being born out of wedlock. In return, those community leaders will get angry and scream "stereotyping" or "racial profiling", then government will get scared and disable the program - so we'd be back where we started.

Plain and simple, it's an unnecessary cost that government should not provide. If the woman is a **** and a man is suspicious - pay for the test yourself and find out. Simple.
 
Big Meech said:
Because then the courts wouldn't be able to prey on men as easily.

They make it as easy as possible to have a man on that birth certificate just in case something goes wrong down the line for profit.

On top of all that society is scare to call out women who sleep with multiple men.
Click to expand...

I honestly wasn't expecting this type of response on here. Completely agree.
 
FutureMD said:
Oh...you meant baby daddy testing?

I see.

Well...I don't think its as NECESSARY as the other procedures are. Most people don't get paternity testing and you can't expect that the parties before you to be lying to each other automatically. I'm sure the masses would see it as an affront to their "maturity" or autonomy or what have you. 

Plus, you talk about saving costs so...you sure you want that extra fee? 
Click to expand...

That would be a perfectly adequate explanation if around 30% of the time the tests were done, it wasn't the expected father. Hell, a recent poll says around 27% of women who were "unsure of their child's paternity" would keep that to themselves. They test for conditions with FAR less frequency of occurence...I heard Tay-Sachs mentioned, that only affects what, 1% of people? Sure, being part of that 1% and not knowing would suck, but so would being a part of either of those 25+%.

It's just a fact of life...women want to be sexually liberated and have multiple partners, and that's whatever...but when the effects start to show up, suddenly everybody's supposed to believe in blanket monogamy. That's ********. Besides, if it was standard, there's nothing to be awkward about.

...and yes, I absolutely would pay that fee. I paid it out of pocket just this year. It was expensive, sure, but so is taking care of somebody else's kid for the next couple of decades. I can't think of many better things to have for $200 than lifetime confirmation that my love, support, and cash is being aimed in the right direction...can you?
 
captNaj PhD said:
FutureMD said:
Oh...you meant baby daddy testing?

I see.

Well...I don't think its as NECESSARY as the other procedures are. Most people don't get paternity testing and you can't expect that the parties before you to be lying to each other automatically. I'm sure the masses would see it as an affront to their "maturity" or autonomy or what have you. 

Plus, you talk about saving costs so...you sure you want that extra fee? 
Click to expand...
That would be a perfectly adequate explanation if around 30% of the time the tests were done, it wasn't the expected father. Hell, a recent poll says around 27% of women who were "unsure of their child's paternity" would keep that to themselves. They test for conditions with FAR less frequency of occurence...I heard Tay-Sachs mentioned, that only affects what, 1% of people? Sure, being part of that 1% and not knowing would suck, but so would being a part of either of those 25+%.

It's just a fact of life...women want to be sexually liberated and have multiple partners, and that's whatever...but when the effects start to show up, suddenly everybody's supposed to believe in blanket monogamy. That's ********. Besides, if it was standard, there's nothing to be awkward about.

...and yes, I absolutely would pay that fee. I paid it out of pocket just this year. It was expensive, sure, but so is taking care of somebody else's kid for the next couple of decades. I can't think of many better things to have for $200 than lifetime confirmation that my love, support, and cash is being aimed in the right direction...can you?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you want this to be standard. 

I'm glad the practice exists. Study those RFLPs. But standard? Nah. 

I mean, I feel like it'd push people away from the medical experience of the hospital...which already scares people. Like what if you get a false positive? 

If you're getting a paternity test after the fact, you're already suspicious. I don't see a need for the hospital to ruin whatever moment exists between her and whoever is her partner while sitting in delivery room. 

And is it really that high? 30% of the time its not the father? and when you say 27% would keep it to themselves, that 73% that wouldn't. I'm just trying to keep things in context.
 
Last edited:
After reading these posts, I'm undecided on this one. Everyone so far has made a points for making or not making pre-birth DNA testing standard. I would like to hope that I can trust the woman I am without having to go through it.
 
FutureMD said:
Yeah, but you want this to be standard. 

I'm glad the practice exists. Study those RFLPs. But standard? Nah. 
Click to expand...

1.6 million men in the US pay child support for children they did not father because they found out too late and support orders can't be overturned in certain jurisdictions once enacted. If that was a city, it would be one of the top 10 largest in the country.

How is that not a complete ******g joke?

We're talking about people's lives here...the 3 people involved deserve to know, and know for a FACT.





Oh, and what's with this implication that only sluts and simps do this? I was and am together and on good terms with the mother of my kid, but damn if I didn't demand that test. I planned to do that before I planned to do her...it's the principle.

The numbers are really this high, and it could happen to you just like it happens to married people, long-term committed folk, and anyone else who the baby didn't actually come out of. Why is this the only area of life where females are afforded TOTAL faith by most people?

Maury ain't raise no fool...**** that.
 
Last edited:
Tr1ll said:
If people were doing what they were supposed to be doing, this wouldn't even issue.
Why should anyone have cater to sloots and simps???
Click to expand...

WORD! Got a problem with how the system is? Follow the rules. Don't want to get some ***** prego? Dont sting it! Some people do not have the issue of "I don't know if Im the father".. If thats a issue you have, spend your own money to get it done. Im already tired of my tax dollars being spent on stupid **** as it is.
 
captNaj PhD said:
FutureMD said:
Yeah, but you want this to be standard. 

I'm glad the practice exists. Study those RFLPs. But standard? Nah. 
Click to expand...
1.6 million men in the US pay child support for children they did not father because they found out too late and support orders can't be overturned in certain jurisdictions once enacted. If that was a city, it would be one of the top 10 largest in the country.

How is that not a complete ******g joke?

We're talking about people's lives here...the 3 people involved deserve to know, and know for a FACT.
Click to expand...
Wait...1.6 MILLION? (mind you, i'm not doubting your numbers, I just wanna see some sources)

Over what period of time? Is this total number of cases to date or is that in the present system? Is this SPECIFICALLY in this case or does that number factor in other nuances of their cases?
 
Last edited:
What exactly happens after a man finds out he has have been paying child support on a kid that isnt his?

Do they get reimbursed for the money they spent on child support ?

Does the mother owe him?

Does the biological father owe him ?

Is it something thats automatically handled by the law or does he have to file suit ?

Or is he just SOL?
 
FutureMD said:
Wait...1.6 MILLION? (mind you, i'm not doubting your numbers, I just wanna see some sources)

Over what period of time? Is this total number of cases to date or is that in the present system? Is this SPECIFICALLY in this case or does that number factor in other nuances of their cases?
Click to expand...


1) I attribute the 30% to the small sample size of 300,000 test per year, but still...that's around 90,000 surprises a year. (source: http://www.dnatestingcentre.com/statistics.htm)

2) I'm not sure, the 1.6 million is probably for cases in the system period over the last 18 years, but still, that's staggering. It's not broken down or anything, just a raw, ubiquitous number. (first source: http://rense.com/general51/chsup.htm)

Further reading:

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/profile/95/13_ps.pdf

dankenstien88 said:
What exactly happens after a man finds out he has have been paying child support on a kid that isnt his?
Do they get reimbursed for the money they spent on child support ?
Does the mother owe him?
Does the biological father owe him ?
Is it something thats automatically handled by the law or does he have to file suit ?
Or is he just SOL?
Click to expand...

In theory, he could try suing for paternity fraud (yes, that's a thing), there are actual laws against it in some states. In practice, he's likely just SOL.


Hope y'all women are as trustworthy as you think. :tongue:
 
Last edited:
dankenstien88 said:
What exactly happens after a man finds out he has have been paying child support on a kid that isnt his?
Do they get reimbursed for the money they spent on child support ?
Does the mother owe him?
Does the biological father owe him ?
Is it something thats automatically handled by the law or does he have to file suit ?
Or is he just SOL?
Click to expand...
in some states they practice this presumption paternity where as regardless if u arent the father... u been the father or playing the role for so long so u have to pay... funny thing is since u r not the biological father u have no rights... therefore u have all liabilities and responsibilities with no rights... some states do reinburse but the process is so long and costly it might be a wash/and it takes YEARS... to get it depending on the amount. And if she etc... is under a certain income which is in most cases.... they may not have to pay it back or they do a payment plan and that is based on what they can afford... so it could take YEARS/DECADES for them to pay u back if they are low income.
 
captNaj PhD said:
1) I attribute the 30% to the small sample size of 300,000 test per year, but still...that's around 90,000 surprises a year. (source: http://www.dnatestingcentre.com/statistics.htm)
2) I'm not sure, the 1.6 million is probably for cases in the system period over the last 18 years, but still, that's staggering. It's not broken down or anything, just a raw, ubiquitous number. (first source: http://rense.com/general51/chsup.htm)
Further reading:
http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/profile/95/13_ps.pdf
In theory, he could try suing for paternity fraud (yes, that's a thing), there are actual laws against it in some states. In practice, he's likely just SOL.
Hope y'all women are as trustworthy as you think.
tongue.gif
Click to expand...
plus it doesnt equate for the large amount of men who r suckers cause they so called imma real man and regardless if she is a **** bucket imma pay anyways because ive been paying so long/developed a love for the child etc .... or they simply cant afford to seek compensation etc... lawyers/time loss from work and what ot. Or some simply just dont care to go thru the hassle so.... those stats are really misconstrude
 
Last edited:
CoupeIt88 said:
Because DNA tests cost money. Anywhere from like $200-500 each. 4 Million new-borns per year, multiply that number, thats a lot of money. Also, In most child-births, its simply unnecessary. Most women know who the father is, especially if they're married.

Lets say their are plans to do so tho. - If the government is going to spend that type of money for new-born DNA testing; the government will be selective with expenses. Therefor the government would target communities and specific locations where children are being born out of wedlock. In return, those community leaders will get angry and scream "stereotyping" or "racial profiling", then government will get scared and disable the program - so we'd be back where we started.

Plain and simple, it's an unnecessary cost that government should not provide. If the woman is a **** and a man is suspicious - pay for the test yourself and find out. Simple.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.

Even if the tests got cheaper, I still see it as a MEDICALLY irrelevant thing. The other tests at least have something to do with the wellbeing of the child. 

Also...I don't think people are aware how the tests are done. There are still better markers that can be implemented to find out with distinct accuracy but they're more expensive. 

Even further, the test doesn't tell you anything. OK. We know who the parents are. Then what? Whats the prescription for that? Do you force them to separate? Does that account for those who already know who the real parents are? 

I mean peep this. In Tennessee this guy wants to force a bill for mandatory testing http://beat-box.com/?url=http://www...ore-birth-certificates-issued?redirected=true

It costs $7 to get a birth certificate but would add $165 dollars to a cost that even with numbers used in this thread ~70%+ of people don't need. 

Then again, you don't want to be like this guy 
grin.gif
:



I get it. $165 is less than the estimated 250K over 18 years it takes to raise a kid...but do you want to be FORCED to take that test? Is it THAT serious?

I don't see why we should legislate against personal stupidity. You gotta do better than that if you're letting your girl run game on you. 

Then again, that introduces the argument that we already have similar legislation against personal irresponsibility so my whole point is that MEDICALLY it doesn't offer any benefit. 
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom