Yes, I believe it should be mandatory.

A woman has NO doubt the child she has just given birth to is HERS. A man has to rely on blind trust. And WE all know where blind trust got us. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> Here at MB <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Knowing what I know today, if I were a male and my W giving birth, I would request a DNA as part of the routine tests a newborn receives. And, as a W, would I be insulted or hurt by that request? Not at all. My word is not enough to avoid the newborn being tested for illegal drug usage by the mother during pregnancy. We don't object to that. Why should a DNA be any different?

Coffeeman,

You will be amused to know that mandatory DNA testing has been suggested. Do you know who the biggest opponent is?? Why it is NOW of course. National Organization of Women, is very much against it. I wonder why?? :roll eyes"

Nerly it seems you are NOT with the "program", <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> , but I think your thinking is dead on.

JL

Ya know, this is a toughy! I know that we have never done a DNA with Abbi, and don't ever plan to. Of course, we knew of the possibilities and such during the pregnancy, and Sailorman had made his choice. I don't know that I would ever want to know, honestly! It doesn't matter to Sailorman(after the forgiveness of course) but I can see how it would help for many cases if DNA is done at birth. Then, you wouldn't have these massive arrearages(sp) from years of not knowing until the DNA is done! So, I think that it could go either way! Maybe it should be offered as a normal test for everyone giving birth, with the option to have it done or not.

Oh well, that's JMVHO

Tigger

Jl

Why is NOW against mandatory DNA testing...I would think they would be all for it.

Just because "big brother" is already in our lives, doesn't mean we have to idly stand by and watch "him" seep in even more.

The issue of a mandatory paternity test for reasons of CS is of course a no brainer, it must be done.

How about making it legal that a man could request a DNA test upon birth whether he had the consent of his W/SO or not? This seems more practical to me, as it is a private issue, affecting only those involved, not the State. Also, make it so the requesting party would have to pay for it. Mandatory testing for everyone, even when they don't need it, smacks of more government spending which equals even more taxes. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

I can see N.O.W. being against it, they probably see it as something that would hurt a woman. However, sadly, "women's rights" seem to be more protected than the men's in the US. In some states a woman can go get an abortion without any permission/consent from the father of her C, but a man CANNOT have a vasectomy without the consent of his W. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> That just seems crazy to me!

TMCM, I understand your concern of the 15-20%, I just don't think this law would stop those numbers from rising. If I thought such a law would keep women faithful to their H's, and keep them from producing an OC I might could be persuaded. Isn't that the outcome we're looking for by having such a law? To reduce the number of OC's that women are passing off as their H? It's a moral issue, and I don't believe a law nor the government will be able to change our hearts when we seek to do wrong.

Again, great topic!

Take good care.
~aut

ps. I am doing well, and so is my family. Things are peaceful. Thanks for asking. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Cat,

I don't know the answer but I think AD probably is right. Anything that could cause an inconvenience to women they are against, especially if that inconvenience is having to tell the truth or face the truth of their actions. I doubt seriously if there is a more onesided organization in the country especially when it comes to the subject of humans.

AD you are right. In CA a man must get his W's permission to have a vasectomy I was shocked to hear this, but you know women don't have to discuss having an abortion with anyone much less get their permission.

Frankly, since most men don't know, and would assume the best of their W's, the only way to address this is by mandatory DNA testing. As for who pays? Who pays for the delivery? I would suggest that the insurance companies pay it, they won't mind. All they will do is raise the premiums. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

I think as the statistics about children by other men becomes more well known, that DNA testing will be pushed and pushed hard. Knowing what I know now, I would strongly counsel my sons to have it done when they become fathers. I have no reason to doubt my W but the reality is I don't know if they are my children or not. Now it is too late to do such a test, but with DNA testing there is no reason for a man to ever again wonder: "Is that my child?"

I will say that I found myself asking that question and from informal discussions I do think most men ask themselves that question at least once. You must understand for men, a woman getting pregnant is the same as if she doesn't as far as our contribution to this is concerned. Our real role starts later with financial support, helping raise the children. But unlike women we don't feel any different if conception occurs or it does not.

Just as men cannot really understand what it is like to be pregnant, women cannot understand how out of the loop men are with regard to pregnancy. There is sort of an emptiness there until the child arrives, hence the data that shows most men don't bond to a child under it is born.

That is why I really do think DNA testing should be mandatory. Finally, technology puts us on even footing with women in this small measure. She always knows the child his hers, now men can know that the child is his as well.

Very interesting discussion, I look forward to other responses.

God Bless,

JL

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by autumnday:
<strong> Mandatory testing for everyone, even when they don't need it, smacks of more government spending which equals even more taxes. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Isn't that the outcome we're looking for by having such a law? To reduce the number of OC's that women are passing off as their H? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think in the long run, mandatory testing may save money, as the government can make sure the responsible father is paying child support from day one, ensuring the government does not have too. Also, I agree, the reason for such a law would be to make sure a woman cannot fraudulently pass of a child as the husbands. If a couple is not married, that legal assumption is not made.


Very good discussion.


Michael

<small>[ November 17, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: MichaelinDallas ]</small>

Cat, I couldn't say for sure, but my guess is it goes something like this for N.O.W....If it benifits a woman and her child to have a DNA test in terms of establishing CS, fine and dandy, but if it's to reveal that the father is not whom she claims him to be, forget it.

JL~ I too would be interested in hearing their actual verbiage on the topic though.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by autumnday:
<strong> Cat, I couldn't say for sure, but my guess is it goes something like this for N.O.W....If it benifits a woman and her child to have a DNA test in terms of establishing CS, fine and dandy, but if it's to reveal that the father is not whom she claims him to be, forget it.

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Autumnday,
I tend to agree with what you said. Out of curiosity, why do you think NOW would be against testing if it reveals that a claimed father is not in fact the father? By that I mean, if the tested father is not proven to be the real father, could the woman then not test any other potential father? In other words, I don't see how testing would mean that a child is not provided for, just that the child is provided for by the real father. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Michael

JL,

Yes, I am not only "not with the program",,,, I don't even have any idea what channel I'm on!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

It's a darn good thing I wasn't born male. I would be out there demonstrating, burning jock straps until I got a NOM (National Organization for Men) started. So many unfair issues and in this day and age, it's amazing they still occur.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Just Learning:

"In CA a man must get his W's permission to have a vasectomy I was shocked to hear this, but you know women don't have to discuss having an abortion with anyone much less get their permission."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's news to me because I live in CA and when I had my vasectomy in 1992 (after my 2nd child turned one), my urologist never mentioned that I had to have my XWW's permission to have it, and I doubt that he would have risked his very lucrative practice to indulge my need to have it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Autumnday:

"If I thought such a law would keep women faithful to their H's, and keep them from producing an OC I might could be persuaded."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree with you that NO law (not even the death penalty) can prevent a man OR woman from being unfaithful BUT a mandatory law would prevent any woman pregnant by an OM to pass it off as her H's without his knowledge and thus commit a horrible injustice not only to her BH but to the innocent OC as well. It would force her to confess prior to the birth and thus give the BH a chance to decide to forgive her and accept paternity of the OC or divorce her.

I know that it is hard for many women to comprehend the male point of view but imagine for a moment that the doctors delivering your baby decided to switch your child for another and you raised the child beleiving it was your own, and then years later find out that the child was not biologically yours. Wouldn't you be horrified by such a scenario, and more so if the law did nothing to punish such actions?

Michael~

I was trying to get in the mindset of NOW. The way I see it, they are only looking out for women, at any cost. If they thought DNA testing would hurt a woman, by revealing the lie she is trying to keep secret, I don't think NOW would be for it. If the law meant only "good" things for women, I'm sure they'd be all for it. I truly believe NOW would only like DNA testing when a woman is trying to seek provision for her child, but not when it would "intrude" on her privacy.

I guess my thoughts were more along the line that most WW's who are lying about the paternity of their OC aren't doing so because they want their H to be financially responsible instead of the OM, but because they want to hide the truth of what they've done from everyone including their H.

As you said, if H isn't the father, then someone is, and that someone can easily be made to pay CS, so a WW wouldn't have to fear for non provision of her child. However, she may feel she has much to fear if the truth be known. I think this may be where NOW would take issue...don't want to do anything that might hinder a woman's right to "privacy", even at the cost of hurting a man!!...arrrgh.

JL~

I agree, every H should have the right to know he is the bio father of the child his W is carrying. I just don't think it's the State's position to tell him he HAS to know. That's why I suggested it should be legal for a man to seek paternity testing if he so desires even when it goes against the will of his W. Again, I don't believe in this case it's up to the gov't to decide what's best for us.

~aut

edited to hopefully make my point to michael more clear, not sure if i did though <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

<small>[ November 17, 2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: autumnday ]</small>

TMCM~

Oh my goodness, I think I'm getting a taste of what it's like to be a "regular" over on Recovery, GQ, JFO, etc...I can't keep up, especially with an always hungry baby! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Ok, I agree with you in terms of the law causing WW's to reveal the truth of the OC to their unknowing H long before the delivery. I question how many women it would prevent from carrying on with the lie till the bitter end anyway? Like the blonde/blue eyed woman w/ blonde/blue eyed H, Pep mentioned, having a 1/2 Hispanic baby. If knowing her secret would be obvious as soon as the baby was born, didn't prevent the woman from keeping up the lie, would this law?

Yes at the very least this law would cause the H to find out the truth even when his W isn't capable of it. But again I ask, why should it be the State's position to tell him he HAS to know the truth? Why can't it be the man's personal decision to seek a DNA test, or not seek a DNA test?

The H could even tell his W early on her P, he is planning to have DNA testing done upon birth. If the man was protected by the law, stating he could indeed have DNA testing even without her consent, wouldn't this also help to make the W to fess up?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I know that it is hard for many women to comprehend the male point of view but imagine for a moment that the doctors delivering your baby decided to switch your child for another and you raised the child beleiving it was your own, and then years later find out that the child was not biologically yours. Wouldn't you be horrified by such a scenario, and more so if the law did nothing to punish such actions?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's a pretty good analogy, and yes of course I would be horrified if such a thing happened and there wasn't punishment provided by the law. However, what punishment could the gov't itself impose on a lying W?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by autumnday:
TMCM~

Ok, I agree with you in terms of the law causing WW's to reveal the truth of the OC to their unknowing H long before the delivery. I question how many women it would prevent from carrying on with the lie till the bitter end anyway? Like the blonde/blue eyed woman w/ blonde/blue eyed H, Pep mentioned, having a 1/2 Hispanic baby. If knowing her secret would be obvious as soon as the baby was born, didn't prevent the woman from keeping up the lie, would this law?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Because the woman in Pepperband's post knew that the baby MAY not come out with dark skin and brown eyes and so she gambled that she could get away with fooling her H because there would be no DNA test that could tell her H that the baby was not biologically his. You see having a baby with a hispanic parent's DNA is not the same as having a baby with an African-American parent's DNA. Being a hispanic I can tell you that hispanics outward range of appearance is NOT as universal as Pepperband's post may have inadvertently made it out to be. I am light brown skinned with brown eyes and yet I have first cousins that are blue eyed blond. There are certain regions of Latin America that were heavily colonized by Europeans and have a heavy European gene pool which means that their inhabitants have plenty of blue eyed blond members among their population.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But again I ask, why should it be the State's position to tell him he HAS to know the truth? Why can't it be the man's personal decision to seek a DNA test, or not seek a DNA test?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Because like many other BS he may not be aware that his W had an affair that included sexual intercourse with another man. His W may realize that she made a terrible choice in having an affair but does not have it in her to tell him that and that the child she is carrying might not be his.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The H could even tell his W early on her P, he is planning to have DNA testing done upon birth. If the man was protected by the law, stating he could indeed have DNA testing even without her consent, wouldn't this also help to make the W to fess up?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes but ONLY if the H has plenty of good evidence that she was unfaithful to him and that the child she is carrying may not be his.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I know that it is hard for many women to comprehend the male point of view but imagine for a moment that the doctors delivering your baby decided to switch your child for another and you raised the child beleiving it was your own, and then years later find out that the child was not biologically yours. Wouldn't you be horrified by such a scenario, and more so if the law did nothing to punish such actions?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's a pretty good analogy, and yes of course I would be horrified if such a thing happened and there wasn't punishment provided by the law. However, what punishment could the gov't itself impose on a lying W?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm NOT for punishing the lying W but I am for preventing a time bomb that will explode in the future and leave not only the BH devastated, but the OC and the FWW as well.

There was a BH on this forum with the username of usedlongago whose FWW had a 25 year affair with an OM (who died just 2 years ago) and bore the child from the OM (unbeknownst to her BH and children), and it wasn't until by accident that the truth came out and the OC ended up so devastated that he totally severed all contact with his mother. Isn't it sad that something that could have been resolved so long ago was left to fester until it finally exploded leaving devastation for everybody involved? Such tragedies could be averted if they are handled before they have a chance to be compounded with time. Can you imagine being in that woman's shoes?

AD I wish all FWW's that were pregnant by an OM like you and E29, amethyst, tigger4jdt would be so courageous and loving in telling their BH's the truth because then we wouldn't need a mandatory DNA test law to be passed but sadly I'm afraid that you folks are the exception and not the rule.

P.S. If my W were to be in your shoes and as remorseful, I would have absolutely no doubt in forgiving her and accepting the OC as my own. Why am I so certain? Because I simply adore babies and would instantly fall in love with the child no matter if his DNA was not mine. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

As a woman I think this is a fantastic idea. Granted the idea of allowing "big brother" into our lives is a little uncomfortable, but I think to protect all the men and children in this country it would be more then reasonable.

If I were pregnant, and my husband asked for a DNA test I would cringe a little, if it were simply a matter of course it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. He should be protected, but as it is now, for him to actually be protected, he would have to ask something of me that would make me doubt whether or not he trusted me. I do think though given what we've been through, if I ever do have a baby I would bring it up first and have it done for his sake. But, for families that have never dealt with infidelity it's not something I think most would either do, or react to well if they were asked to.

Given our situation, and the fact that his OW is pregnant, I am extremely concerned he won't ask her for a DNA test, simply because he knows it will hurt her feelings. On the other hand he also has a valid medical reason to believe he might not be able to have children. If it were simply something that was done before the father's name was put on the birth certificate it would alleviate a lot of the stress he is going through and will continue to go through.

I would prefer that we lived in a perfect world, where such things never occured. We don't though, and as unfortunate as it is, the fact that "family" is being destroyed in this country affects all of us, every facet of our lives is being affected by families being torn apart, single parents, deadbeat dads, you name it, we all have to pay for it. I'm not really thrilled at the idea of government shoving it's nose into our personal lives, but at the same time when is enough enough? This is tearing our country apart and from the looks of it if nothing is done will continue to tear the country apart.

There was a story a few years back that a man who's wife (or SO I don't remember all the details) had a child and he signed the birth certificate and was raising the child as his own. Later their relationship ended and it turned out that child wasn't his. His ex still wanted him to pay CS, and it became this huge debate, should he pay CS? It's not his child but since he had accepted the child as his own and signed the birth certificate there were people arguing that he should have to, because "well if he doesn't who will? we have to put the child first in this matter". I'm not sure how it ended up and have no idea where to look to get more details on the story but my god...is this what we've come too? What about that poor man? Women hate being looked at (in terms of having children, abortion etc) as "incubators". But it's okay to look at a man as a walking wallet? Ugh.

afterreading thru this thread i have toadmit my opinion has changed. my first gut reaction was that of autumns, against it. and for the same reasons that she stated, big brother.

giving second thought to this made me agree that yes it should be not only required but the results should be revealed. to both parents or just the father i haven't decided.

the thing that swayed my decision was that fact that the presumed father may never kno until it is to late for him.

the reason for this is that the h always should have the right to know the truth.

in our case even though i had a vasectomy and knew fh was pregnant as she was having morning sickness. she continued to deny her pregnancy. if it weren't for the fact of my vasectomy she would have been able to pass grace off as one of my bio children. grace does not have those stereo typical hispanic features. there are some traits that she obviously got from her father but at the same time she resembles our other daughters vey strongly. there are pictures of her and her sisters that are easily confused.

and yes when our second child was born sigt wise i had very serious concerns thatfh had had an A.

tmcm,,,,, we live in ca and it must depnd on the indivdual urologist's policy. because even though my 8 yerar old was my 7th child and i was referred by fh's gyno (easily checked as they were in the same building) and our ages (fh 39 & me 43) at the time he still insisted on a counseling season before he would agree to the procedure.

from calling different urologists at the time that was standard procedure here no mtter who i went to. the only way to have gotten around it was to lie and say i wasn't married but then they would have probably wanted a counseling season with my mom.

so although i am not in favor of more government involvement in our personal lives and i do not agree that mandatory testing will in anyway change infidelity, i have to say that i am for it. in my opinion the right of the h to know the truth out ways the right of the w to conceal a lie. the h can always refuse the information if he chooses.

the other reason that mandatory testing would be a possitive is that when our 2nd was born and i strongly felt he was not mine at 1st. had i demanded dna testing fh would have been very hurt by my mistrust of her. which would have been understandable in that case. this could have caused a huge riff in our marriage that would have been uncalled for at that time. with dna testing there would never had been any doubt.

<small>[ November 18, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: pops ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

Originally posted by T00MuchCoffeeMan:

Because the woman in Pepperband's post knew that the baby MAY not come out with dark skin and brown eyes and so she gambled that she could get away with fooling her H because there would be no DNA test that could tell her H that the baby was not biologically his. You see having a baby with a hispanic parent's DNA is not the same as having a baby with an African-American parent's DNA. Being a hispanic I can tell you that hispanics outward range of appearance is NOT as universal as Pepperband's post may have inadvertently made it out to be. I am light brown skinned with brown eyes and yet I have first cousins that are blue eyed blond. There are certain regions of Latin America that were heavily colonized by Europeans and have a heavy European gene pool which means that their inhabitants have plenty of blue eyed blond members among their population.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree with your points about the range of Hispanic DNA possibilities. My spouse is Hispanic. So are our (adopted) kids. One looks more Irish (like me) and one is the spitting image of Mr. Pepper.

The couple in the delivery room were very Nortic in appearance. Nothing flat about their features. This was a very obvious "oops" .... and was impressive enough for me to remember after all these years. That child must be over 20 years old by now.

I do disagree with the African-American DNA issue, however. Many a time,I had discussions with a very dark skinned African American father who was shocked and dismayed to have a very pink baby with blue eyes (usually a premie) thrust into his arms and was told, "Here's your beautiful baby!" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> Black babies can appear caucasian upon delivery, especially if born a few weeks early.

TMCM ..... what about manditory lie detector tests and drug screening to obtain a marriage license? As long as we're going in that direction? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Pep

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Pepperband:

TMCM ..... what about manditory lie detector tests and drug screening to obtain a marriage license? As long as we're going in that direction? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Pep</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Unlike DNA testing, polygraphs are rarely admissible in court. New Mexico is the only state in the United States that allows for open admissibility of polygraph exam results. Every other state requires some type of stipulation to be met prior to admitting polygraph exams into record. In most cases, both sides of a legal case have to agree prior to the trial that they will allow polygraphs to be admitted. On the federal level, the admissibility criteria are much more vague and admission typically depends on the approval of the judge. Besides, even if a fiance(e) tells the truth and passes the polygraph, that doesn't mean that he or she won't lie in the future, does it?

As far as mandatory drug screening prior to marriage, you might want to read the following and you be the judge:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Drug Testing Has No Impact on Student Drug Use, Study Finds 5/23/03
While the US Supreme Court has twice okayed the drug testing of school kids on the grounds that the invasion of their privacy is offset by the role of drug testing in preventing drug use, the first major study of the efficacy of drug testing in schools has found that it just isn't so. In fact, the study found that drug use is as frequent in schools with testing as in schools without it. The findings, which every activist faced with a proposal to institute school drug testing should have in hand, are a serious blow to the rationale behind school drug testing.

The federally-financed survey of 76,000 students and 891 schools across the country, conducted by the social scientists at the University of Michigan who do the Monitoring the Future surveys of student drug use, came up with only statistically insignificant differences between schools which subject their students to drug testing and those that don't. Among 12th graders, for example, 37% reported having smoked pot at schools that tested, while 36% reported doing so at schools that didn't. Similarly, 21% reported having used other drugs at schools that tested, while 19% reported doing so at schools that didn't. The findings hold true with other grades as well, the researchers reported.

The survey represents the only large or nationally representative sample of schools that has ever been used to evaluate the effectiveness of school drug testing.

"It suggests that there really isn't an impact from drug testing as practiced," said lead researcher Lloyd Johnston in announcing the study results. "We think the reason so few schools test their students for drugs is that it is an expensive undertaking. Schools are very pressed for funds, and I would say that the results of our investigation raise a serious question of whether drug testing is a wise investment of their resources. It's also very controversial with a lot of students and parents," Johnston added.

"The way that drug testing in the schools has been carried out looks very unpromising. I have no doubt one could design drug testing programs that could deter teen drug use, but at what monetary cost and what cost in terms of the intrusion into the privacy of our young people?" Johnston asked.


Some 19% of schools nationwide had some sort of drug testing program in place, the study found, but of those, the vast majority tested only "on suspicion," that is, when a student was already suspected of using drugs. Only 5% of schools test student athletes and only 4% test students involved in extracurricular activities, the two groups singled out by the Supreme Court for special attention. Another 4% of schools test students who volunteer to be tested. (Many of the schools that test athletes also test students in extracurricular activities or who volunteer, suggesting that rigorous drug testing programs are probably underway in less than 10% of all schools.)

The results of the study could put a damper on the use of drug testing in the schools, according to one attorney who has played a lead role in litigating school drug testing cases. "Now there should be no reason for a school to impose an intrusive or even insulting drug test when it's not going to do anything about student drug use," said Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Policy Litigation Project, who argued the case against drug testing before the Supreme Court last year.

While the Supreme Court, in its two rulings allowing drug testing of student athletes (1995) and students involved in extracurricular activities (2002), may have allowed ideology to trump science in finding that drug testing prevents teen drug use, now the science is available to rebut that presumption. Battles to block student drug testing may have been lost at the high court, but this study provides powerful ammunition to win them at the school district level.

The full study, "The relationship between student illicit drug use and school drug-testing policies," published in the Journal of School Health, can be found at

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No mandatory dna testing law on newborns will ever stop infidelity, but it will uncover the truth and force a resolution between the spouses that otherwise would have much more devastating effects years hence.

I just thought of something. We've been talking about a mandatory dna test because it woul help BH discover if their children are biologically theirs and also if their W have been unfaithful, BUT we have totally ignored the BW and their WH who have an OC with OW, who equally deserve to know if their H have fathered an OC and thus been unfaithful. How could such a law help in those situations? Anybody have any ideas?

Coffeeman and All,

The real reason I think that DNA testing should be mandatory is because the government is already in your life and making strange decisions. You see it on this board. Let me offer you an example from a story (real story) that was in my W's Good Housekeeping Oh! about a year ago.

I believe the man was in OH. His W died in a car accident. Leaving him with older children and a new baby. He raised the child for a few years (I believe) and he was served with a law suit. It seems the child was not his but from an affair she had. The Bio father was suing for custody of the child. If I recall correctly, the two men now share custody of the child.

Now this is a horror story on several levels, but it is the ability of the courts to intervene in very unpredictable ways, that makes even a naive father not protected. You see it is very likely that man would have still raised and loved that child, although it biologically wasn't his, but he had that chance removed AFTER he had bonded with the child and was raising it.

Now this is NOT a common occurance and one could argue that you don't change everything just to solve an isolated problem, but you see Big Brother is intruding in our lives via many court decisions and of course via support laws.

I think the point that several raised about the strees created in a marriage if a man asks for a DNA test now. I know I would not have the guts to unless I had strong suspicions, which I didn't and don't. If one wanted flexiblity I would offer that a law would mandate the test, unless BOTH H and W chose to not have it.

The discussion about genes and apprearances is very true, but in this country there is more genetic mixing than you find in others. Even within the european linage. So appearance is NOT a really good way to determine linage. Within my family and extended relatives, there have been some amazing similarities in appearance between family members related only by marriage and coming from various parts of the world. Gone are the days were the genetic mixing was within one village and the surrounding villages.

Still it is interesting to hear everyone's views of this really controversial topic. I suspect what makes it interesting and probably more relavent is the context of this particular portion of the MB site.

I look forward to hearing more.

God Bless,

JL

PS: Coach posted this over on GQ. I thought it interesting in light of this discussion and something I did NOT know. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> just as a historical side note, understand that in the jewish religion, (and what is being discussed is really a question of jewish history and culture) infidelity on the female side is considerd much worse because a jew can only be a jew if born to a jewish woman...(because one never really knows who the real father is!) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">