Foxy I have mixed views on the known at birth issue.
Part of me thinks people should know but I really don't think it's the government's role to provide that service. There would be some obvious benefits for health management to know for sure but other tradeoff's in terms of harm.

Like a lot of things the government might do which seem to make sense we are probably all better off if they don't do so because every little step down that track takes away some of our choice and liberty.

I've noticed in my reading on DV that there is a peak in the rates of serious violence against women when they are pregnant, I suspect largely because of the increased tensions at that time. Adding compuslory paternity testing into the mix could well add to that.

There is not really an appropriate gender parity for this. Believing that a child is your offspring whan they are not is different to not knowing that your partner has a child to someone else. Having said that women don't know about partners having children to other women unless the other women tell or the CSA gets involved.

I think that the harm from compulsory testing at birth is greater than any gain and will remain so for some time.

The point where the government involves itself should be when it chooses to make decisions where paternity is relevant (property division, child support etc). Individuals should have the right to have the tests conducted if they choose and to do so without the other party knowing. Having to have the other party's consent seems like a no-win situation, likely to provoke tension regardless of who did what and as a consequence limiting peoples access to the tests.

R0bert

Dear Robert,

I agree this is a complicated issue - and you've
raised some very valid points that I'll have to
re-think.

However, a national record of DNA would facillitate
in criminal matters, abductions, loss of memory,
hereditary research, and should only be given out
under the strictest control of the courts,
as requested, depending on the circumstances,
and not freely available on anyone's whim.

To date, blood types and finger-prints,
which help identify people,
have been used for that purpose,
not to great effect.

DNA medically would assist in transplants,
bone-marrow and other procedures. For example,
the most recent example, was the HMAS Sydney
sailor, whose remains were tested for DNA and
likely family connection
was not able to be traced.

In future, with a National DNA Record Bank, this
would be instantly found at the touch of a computer key.

But, you're right, I am beginning to see that
this is unlikely to be happening any time soon,
in this country, but with the advances in
science and technology, it could happen within
the next ten years, especially in countries like
the US - where crime fighting is a major conern.

The world of science has perfected the development
of DNA. This should not be abandoned but used
for the greater benefit of our society.

Dear foxy
Here is a simple senario for your consideration.

Take a happy family of say a couple and two kids. Then a third comes along and, unbeknown to the husband it is the result of a one night fling on the wifes part. Now don't get me wrong, I would be livered if that happend to me!

Do you then disrupt the loving caring family unit, turn the other two children's lives upside down because a compulsory dna test showed that the wife had a 'blond moment'.

I say again that all seperated parents should have the right to determine if the child they are about to provide financial support for is actually theirs.

There is no easy answer but why disrupt a caring loving family unit.

Dear rehctub,

Re-read my post.

The only way the father would find out is if the mother
confessed and told him ,or if the third child was
kidnapped and killed and through DNA the police
would trace who the parents were.

Dear examinator,

If compulsory DNA testing was the norm at birth -
the issues that you mention would be dealt with
at the very beginning to be resolved by the parents
instead of placing the burden on the child at a later
age with counseling and therapy.

If the facts are known at birth, no
matter how traumatic they may be for the parents,
it's easier to deal with the matter and move on,
than find out the truth later in life when complications
have set in.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 November 2008 7:59:56 AM

Dear Foxy
This was your post I was reffering to.

Dear me.

For some inexplicable reason, I expected more would prefer truth. The hard reality however, seems to render it incompatible with the best interests of a child. By extension, its mother. Very neat.