News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by gmane on Friday March 07, 2025 @07:24AM (#43289591)
I disagree here. Blood tests done at birth are done specifically for the benefit of the child (and with minimal risk to the child). A paternity test has no benefit for the child (it doesn't tell you who the father is, simply who the father isn't) and a ~1% risk of harm to the child.

The period immediately after birth is one of the most dangerous times for children, and we (should) specifically take action to protect them in a moment where they are at risk and have no agency. A paternity test would increase the risk of harm to the child (either through violence, deprivation, or neglect). We didn't even get to the subject of possible violence against the mother either, which is likely.

Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by gggtttkkk88 on Friday March 07, 2025 @07:42AM (#43289701)
Wild comment. It may shock you to learn that men are actually people too.

If someone is a victim of the most cruel, hurtful, selfish, damaging fraud that I can possibly imagine, they have a right to know.

Your lack of empathy is genuinely astounding.

Let's stop interfering with violent wife-beaters too, shall we? After all, we wouldn't want to risk the guy getting hurt by the police during his arrest. And think of the poor children missing their daddy while he's locked up in jail!

Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by gmane on Friday March 07, 2025 @08:02AM (#43289821)
The internet is truly a wild place. You can say something like "We shouldn't do mandatory paternity tests at birth because they bring no benefit to the child" and someone responds with "So you're saying we shouldn't stop wife beaters?"

No bitch, that's a whole different sentence. What the fuck are you talking about.

Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by gggtttkkk88 on Friday March 07, 2025 @08:16AM (#43289910)
No chance, bucko.

The essence of your comment is that paternity testing should be avoided because there is no benefit to children and there is potential harm to women. Your focus was not on the mandatory nature of any such testing.

And I believe you understand my analogy in spite of your faux confusion and outrage.

Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by gmane on Friday March 07, 2025 @08:36AM (#43290030)
That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child. You’re deliberately misreading my point to argue against a straw man.
Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by gggtttkkk88 on Friday March 07, 2025 @11:56AM (#43291804)
Are you gaslighting? Your comment is just above, you can reread it as many times as I have trying to extract any other argument with as little success.

The benefit is to the "father", obviously, in confirming paternity or alerting him of infidelity and fraud. It's either peace of mind or potentially life-changing. The benefit is incalculable.

Your only arguments for why immediately post-birth is a poor time are that it would be convenient for everyone else (including the perpetrator of the fraud) if the victim was unaware and continued to be exploited for some time (how long? when would be a convenient time for the reveal?). That is outrageous.

Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by jorvi on Friday March 07, 2025 @08:22AM (#43289936)
A stronger argument in line with the "benefit of the child" thinking would be that slight domestic violence should no longer be grounds for divorce since divorce rarely benefits the child.

Which is obviously a crazy line of thinking, but so is "let's force a man to (financially) raise a child that isn't his".

Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by gmane on Friday March 07, 2025 @08:35AM (#43290019)
That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child.
Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by jorvi on Friday March 07, 2025 @10:31AM (#43290954)
.. you do realize a paternity test can happen with just a cotton swab? And aside from that, they already get a heel prick / blood spot test to check for a bunch of things. Drawing a tiny bit of extra blood from that in no way presents any extra danger to the baby.
Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by bitshiftfaced on Friday March 07, 2025 @11:11AM (#43291356)
Wouldn't the marginal risk from the blood test be zero, since they do a little blood prick on their foot anyway?

Also, there's a second order effect you're ignoring: a mandated paternity test would change expectant mothers' behavior leading up to the birth. You wouldn't try to dupe someone if you knew you'd be found out. Or, if you weren't sure, you'd more likely be transparent.

Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by mcphage on Friday March 07, 2025 @01:14PM (#43292574)
> Wouldn't the marginal risk from the blood test be zero, since they do a little blood prick on their foot anyway?

The source of risk isn't performing the test, the source of risk is the father getting upset and killing the mother and/or child.

Re:How often are children genetically unrelated to their pre... by bitshiftfaced on Friday March 07, 2025 @01:51PM (#43293011)
I did some looking, and it's so rare that there aren't any go-to statistics to cite. There are some reports of men committing murder after a paternity test, but it's unclear to me how what you're saying is anything more the speculation.

It might actually be that mandatory paternity tests reduces the background rate of familicide. All of the reports that I could find were only after the father had invested considerable time into raising the child as their own. The stakes of the deception are much higher. But if they know the day the baby is born (or earlier), then it's much easier to walk away. It also makes it pointless for the deception to happen in the first place.