Paternity tests are accurate, but they are not 100% accurate. Firstly, there's simple incorrect calls. Then, there's a variety of conditions (for example mosaicism) that could cause a man's blood cells to have a different DNA pattern than his skin cells.

Finally, paternity tests are useless in the presence of identical twin men. A twin is not responsible legally for the children of his twin brother. What matters is who had sex with the mother. Any system needs to have ways to solve this.

Personally, I think we should look towards the most well-tested paternity system -- marriage (and the accompanying social stigma of adultery) -- for advice on how to move forward. Paternity tests can be a part of that, but they are not the panacea you make them out to be, including relatively common situations.

>> Paternity fraud could be solved easily by mandatory paternity tests upon birth.

> Paternity tests are accurate, but they are not 100% accurate.

I think most people would consider the problem solved if they were 99% accurate. Also, like all medical tests, a adverse result would require further follow up for confirmation to rule out potentially confounding factors.

I think there's a major issue in normalizing this after birth. If taken to its logical extreme, no man would have immediate absolute indisputable parental rights upon birth. That seems unfair too.

Sure, paternity testing has edge cases. But if the father disputes paternity and the DNA tests repeatedly comes back with no hereditary relationship between the alleged father and child that should be at least grounds to halt child support payments.

Nor is marriage, unfortunately.

I never claimed marriage was perfect. Merely that it's a model that's worked for many years and is more battle tested than medical paternity testing.

I understand. My point is that you basically need both.