June 5, 2013

"If states are using DNA to verify paternity on births to underage women..."

"... why not use it to verify paternity on all births?"

54 comments:

KJE said...

There is no rational reason not to, particularly if you want to ensure that the correct father is supporting their child.

And presently, we presume that this man is also the woman's husband...

Mark O said...

Because, that might trouble the payment of welfare to certain mothers.

Renee said...

Sperm donors.... would be revealed.

Renee said...

I believe in identity rights. Every person has a right to know both maternal and paternal kin.

Rae said...

Because that's racist, duh.

Skeptical Voter said...

Ah why the heck not; after all the rationale in King vs. Maryland was that DNA testing was needed to "identify the suspect". Scalia's dissent made scrap out of that specious rationale. But now that we're all in the "DNA is wonderful" rationale, why not identify everybody? You may as well include the boyfriend who slept with the cheating wife. We'll wind up making bastards out of some children---but with the great increase in the number of children born out of wedlock, what's a few more little bastards in the pool?

Renee said...

Rae, the opposite. Affluent white people seek out donors.

BarrySanders20 said...

Married women would never lie about cheating on their husbands. So there is no need for paternity testing for married women at least.

Only married men cheat, so the partenity tests are reserved for them.

Rae said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
X said...

because althouse, if the actual father was identified, the state would have to go after him instead of innocent taxpayers. willie sutton can explain the rest.

James Pawlak said...

Because engendering a child on an adult female is NOT a crime.

edutcher said...

The law assumes the issue of a marriage is the result of the parents' intercourse.

True?

bpm4532 said...

O boy! Another "required" medical expense to be covered by Obamacare for something that is largely unnecessary.

SteveR said...

I was clearly told by many people yesterday that we should not allow the government to get our DNA profile, period. So I've converted. No, not for all births, no, not for underage. No Even if you solve rapes, murders, etc. No The thought is scary, in 10 years they will be able to relate you to a pedophile and ruin your life. Its theorectically possible.

MadisonMan said...

Presumably no crime has been committed with live births in women who are of legal age. That's why.

Renee said...

Edutcher.... I know. Crazy.

jimbino said...

It is no crime to have THC in your blood in Texas. Texas would have to prove you smoked grass in Texas as opposed to, say, Washington or Colorado or Amsterdam.

Likewise, it is no crime when your DNA is found in the fetus of an underage girl in Texas. The state has to prove the illicit intercourse happened in Texas.

There are lots of places not so uptight about sex as parts of Amerika.

Methadras said...

Maybe we can start attaching DNA to voters.

Larry J said...

"Mama's baby. Papa's maybe."

There's evidence that a significant percentage of all children were conceived by a cheating wife. The law in most states presumes that all children born during a marriage are the offspring of the husband so he gets hit with child support payments when his wife files for divorce (~70% of all divorces are initiated by the wives). Why should a man have to pay child support for a child that isn't his?

JAL said...

@ MadisonMan -- yes.

Because the assumption is that consenting adults (<--- remember!!) have a right to privacy (<--- whoo hoo!) have the right to their own relationship without the Federal Government peering not only into their bedroom, but into their genetic code.

If one isn't consenting -- then you have a crime, perhaps. Different scenario.

DNA could be used in cases where the woman lies or is confused (!) about who the biological father is and the child should be supported by the father.

"Routine" DNA tests are violations. SCOTUS blew this.

Mitchell the Bat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skyler said...

Because it will cause too many divorces?

Skyler said...

Because it will cause too many divorces?

Dante said...

Because the government has proven it is not a trustworthy custodian of sensitive information.

Also, knowledge is power, it's a lot of knowledge hence a lot of power, and power corrupts.

madAsHell said...

I dunno.

The wife of a close friend became pregnant by the wrong man. He accepted the child as his own.

Of course, it was years before the truth was revealed. A DNA test would have forced his hand. Instead, we all wondered why he didn't resemble his father.

Mitchell the Bat said...

One of the nice things about being so very, very ugly is I'm sure my kids are really mine.

Scott M said...

The wife of a close friend became pregnant by the wrong man. He accepted the child as his own. .

Short of violence, the worst thing a man can do to another man is to screw his wife.

The worst thing a woman can do to a man is to screw the other man and tell her husband the child is his.

Aside from the fundamental breach of trust involved, now you're emotionally attached/bonded to a child that isn't yours and it goes without saying it would take the patience of Job to stay married to the kid's worthless POS mother.

rhhardin said...

Stanley Cavell traces male philosophical skepticism, and women's lack of interest in philosophy, to never knowing it's your child, if you're a man.

This could end philosophy.

Rabel said...

Althouse and Instapundit come together to conceive a pageview.

DADvocate said...

Pandora's Box for women. I've seen estimates as high as 25% or so that a child isn't the offspring of a woman's husband.

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse and Instapundit come together to conceive a pageview."

Illegitimate!

deborah said...

I feel, therefore I am.

Sigivald said...

... or at least for every child support claim?

(Also, contra Skeptical, we won't "make bastards" out of any children.

We'll just know they're bastards; they already are, after all.

These days, without primogeniture, "bastard" means almost nothing, and that's mostly good.)

jr565 said...

Wait, so is this an example of usage of DNA without permission we're supposed to get behind?

Rabel said...

If Insty puts up a link to this post, the circle will be complete. This could, however, break the internet.

cubanbob said...

It's a great idea. The father should be incontrovertibly identified. If the girl is under aged then there is the statutory rape issue to be dealt with.Start nailing guys for this in a big way and most guys will triple check the age before taking a chance with jail-bait.

As for over the age of consent, well if woman get caught in a lie then so be it. Let the real dad pay and not the poor schnook who got cuckolded.

Tibore said...

The whole problem I have with this is the "If states" part. There's no reasonable issue I can see with DNA identification of parentage becoming a common occurrence. What bothers me is the notion that the state should be allowed to compel it.

And yes, I did read the requisite links; I do realize that the issue is that it's already being done in Mississippi for underage mothers giving birth. I still don't like the expansion of governmental powers, and I say that on principle alone, even though it's just extending something that's already been OK'd by the Supreme Court. Government doing anything is always a living example of unexpected consequences occurring despite the best of intentions, and again, just out of principal, I'd require a damn good explanation for why a power is expanded. It's got to be better than just saying "If we do it for one case, why not all of them?"

That said, knowing Insty, I'd bet that's his exact reason for posting it himself: As a sort of Socratic Method Teaching Moment question.

Anyway, the principle of limited government is not simply to restrict something unless it makes sense. It's to restrict an ability unless it's demonstrably needed and government is the only good recourse. Many proposals make sense, but that doesn't mean you use governmental powers to bring it into existence.

deborah said...

How soon before DNA tests are done routinely newborns?

madAsHell said...

patience of Job to stay married to the kid's worthless POS mother

He hung on for 25 years. When his parents died, he inherited a nice chunk of change. He put the money into his property management company. She demanded the money, or else she would divorce him. Yeah.....that was the end.

I tell ya', it's a war on womyn!!

Peter said...

'Larry' said, "Why should a man have to pay child support for a child that isn't his?"

Because sometimes it's convenient, and besides it often meets the "best interests of the child" standard. And there's some precedent for considering all children born to a man's wife to be his.

So sorrybut, when it comes to children very few care much about what's fair to men.

Which means, you'll be portrayed as a monster if you tried to do something like this.

Larry J said...

Peter said...
'Larry' said, "Why should a man have to pay child support for a child that isn't his?"

Because sometimes it's convenient, and besides it often meets the "best interests of the child" standard. And there's some precedent for considering all children born to a man's wife to be his.


If the mother gave a damn about the "best interests of the child", she wouldn't be screwing around. Just because something is the law, it doesn't make it right.

hombre said...

DNA testing has been used in child support enforcement cases for many, many years.

Big Mike said...

Time for an interesting gedanken experiment.* If we extended this to all unmarried mothers, would that cause theout of wedlock birthrate to go down? Suppose some guy knew that the government might be able to establish paternity and come after him for child support? Might he be more inclined to use a condom?
__________________
* Look it up on wikipedia.

Big Mike said...

@Larry J, as Charles Dickens wrote ...

Larry J said...

hombre said...
DNA testing has been used in child support enforcement cases for many, many years.


And yet, in many if not most states, DNA proof that a child isn't his is not sufficient grounds for a man to avoid paying child support in a divorce.

Presumption of paternity, just another way guys get screwed by the law.

glenn said...

Two ears and a tail for X. Willie Sutton?

Marshal said...

'Larry' said, "Why should a man have to pay child support for a child that isn't his?"

Because sometimes it's convenient, and besides it often meets the "best interests of the child" standard.


I'm looking forward to the day an attorney points out it would be in child's best interest that the judge pay child support.

Gene said...

Ten years ago I read about a study in England that found that 20% of all children were fathered by someone other than the woman's husband.

Marie said...

What I dislike is the insistence that children are only a financial matter and the guy who has to pay is the loser.

As for that War on Women I keep hearing about: The only time I have seen references to the War on Women is places like here, where people make arguments against it. Maybe I don't read the same stuff everyone else reads, but where are the arguments that there really is a War on Women?

That's a serious question, not a snarky pro-woman/anti-man jab.
Tibore said something important:
...the principle of limited government is not simply to restrict something unless it makes sense. It's to restrict an ability unless it's demonstrably needed and government is the only good recourse. Many proposals make sense, but that doesn't mean you use governmental powers to bring it into existence.

Gene said...

It is hard to see how this sort of law would ever get wide support given the racial implications. The national out of wedlock birth rate for blacks is above 70%. If we were to prosecute all the men who impregnated girls under 18, we would end up jailing most of the young men in most inner cities.

What's the alternative? Changing the Great Society laws so that young girls can't get a monthly stipend and free apartment just by getting pregnant.

victoria said...

It just doesn't sound right.


Vicki from Pasadena

cubanbob said...

Gene said...
It is hard to see how this sort of law would ever get wide support given the racial implications. The national out of wedlock birth rate for blacks is above 70%. If we were to prosecute all the men who impregnated girls under 18, we would end up jailing most of the young men in most inner cities.

What's the alternative? Changing the Great Society laws so that young girls can't get a monthly stipend and free apartment just by getting pregnant.

6/5/13, 3:00 PM

No welfare without a proven daddy. And dad gets no welfare or other 'needs based' funding if garnishment of the paycheck is insufficient. Throw in only one kid gets welfare per household. That will curb the problem fast.

The Godfather said...

I've read all the comments, and I don't see much about love. Your wife gives birth to a child, a healthy child. You lucky son of a bitch! You can now have the joy of fatherhood for the rest of your life (or the life of the child if he/she should tragically predecease you). You want to spoil that by demanding a DNA test?

You're a fool.

Nomennovum said...

Your wife gives birth to a child, a healthy child. You lucky son of a bitch! You can now have the joy of fatherhood for the rest of your life (or the life of the child if he/she should tragically predecease you). You want to spoil that by demanding a DNA test?

There's a decent chance it's someone else's child. If it is, why should I raise it?

Note: Ha ha. This is a rhetorical question. Feminism will never allow such a thing to come to be. Paternity obligations are never restricted. They are imposed, not released.