Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think all babies should be DNA tested at birth

314 replies

ohagape · 04/12/2015 10:25

After reading that awful thread in step parenting where the poor guy wasn't even his 'sons' father and handed loads of money over to the horrible sounding mother, I really think all babies should be DNA tested as soon as they are born with the potential father/s, whether from a good relationship or not.

It would save a lot of heartbreak and wasted time and money. It can easily be told by blood types. My whole life my mum told me I had a different blood type. Then when I found out at my booking bloods and told her she got really confused about my dad's blood type. I really thought my dad wasn't my dad so he went and did a DNA test to reassure me. AIBU to think this should be a routine thing at all births and father's name shouldn't be on the birth certificate until it's done?

OP posts:
squoosh · 04/12/2015 13:30

How do you make that crying face?!

squoosh · 04/12/2015 13:31

Riffraff1 Flowers

That shows exactly what an awful idea this would be.

sunny74 · 04/12/2015 13:31

As a society we can either work with the assumption that a child is born to the father the mother states (even though we know for a small number of people that won't be true), or we have to treat every single pregnant woman like an untrustworthy female cat who may have escaped while on heat and got herself knocked up by the one of the neighbourhood toms. So regardless of what she's sitting there saying, we treat her as if she's lying or mentally incompetent. There isn't really a middle ground.

It's probably less harmful overall to assume all children have the fathers they appear to have than to discover at birth the tiny number who don't. It's a tiny uncertainty I think men have to live with (and in fact all of us have to live when we think we know our family history).

Either that or we move on as a society to a stage where we tolerate infidelity in a different way, or we test for it and police it equally for men and women. DNA testing of babies exposes women's infidelity only, not men's, but men's infidelity can be going on just as much and have a catastrophic effect on women who have made huge physical, emotional and financial investments in the family only to end up abandoned.

squoosh · 04/12/2015 13:32

Very well said sunny.

PerspicaciaTick · 04/12/2015 13:33

almond, I can't think of a single reason why national compulsory testing would be desirable or warranted.

dratsea · 04/12/2015 13:35

Squoosh and brokenwardrobe It was a study into genetics of a haemoglobinopathy, I think sickle cell disease. The finding of 25% was incidental, specifically for second child and completely unexpected and as per the wiki ref above dates back to pre-pill days.

But in answer to OP, YABU but alas I fear a future where we will all be DNA tested at birth and groomed from birth on the basis of that DNA test and eventually children will be born only to those with the best DNA.

BeyondThirty · 04/12/2015 13:41

Tell you what we could do, we could harvest all eggs at birth and women have to apply to get their own egg IVFed by their chosen father, at such a point that they want to be pregnant. No need for a dna test then :)

(Ps squoosh, the 😂 face is an emoji, you can do them on iDevices, dunno about other phones/tablets)

wasonthelist · 04/12/2015 13:43

Sunny74 said what I tried to say before, only much better.

almondpudding · 04/12/2015 13:44

PT, neither can I.

But I would like to know how people who think paternity testing should be compulsory intend to enforce it.

regenerationfez · 04/12/2015 13:47

No way are 25% of second babies not the children of the peole on their birth certificate. that's a nonsense statistic, probably put out by F4J. Who can possibly prove that?
Maybe 25% of children DNA tested, which is a self selecting group, because the father had suspicions in the first place, so requested DNA testing. The fact that 75% of men who were suspicious were proved wrong shows that the actual numbers are miniscule!

lighteningirl · 04/12/2015 13:49

I actually agree with this, we had a very close male friend conned for years it could be done at the same time as the prick heel test (do they still do that?). I get that it has ramifications but I would be fine with it.

Riffraff1 · 04/12/2015 13:53

Thanks squoosh Smile

squoosh · 04/12/2015 13:54

'As a society we can either work with the assumption that a child is born to the father the mother states (even though we know for a small number of people that won't be true), or we have to treat every single pregnant woman like an untrustworthy female cat who may have escaped while on heat and got herself knocked up by the one of the neighbourhood toms.'

I think what sunny says here just about sums it up. And that's just the moral aspect.

Financially it's a nonsensical suggestion. And the NHS deal with health issues, they aren't keepers of society's morals.

mamaneedsamojito · 04/12/2015 13:56

YAB beyond Unreasonable, bordering on the ridiculous.

MoriartyIsMyAngel · 04/12/2015 13:57

Massive waste of money! Couples lie to each other about all sorts of things. Should married couples be forced to take annual polygraphs too? The suspicious and the perma-paranoid can pay for their own tests.

SoupDragon · 04/12/2015 14:00

it could be done at the same time as the prick heel test

Where is the money to do the tests coming from?

BarbarianMum · 04/12/2015 14:02

Whilst I don't support mandatory paternity testing, telling your husband/partner he is the father of your child when you know he isn't or are not sure is hardly on a parr with lying about how much your shoes cost or whose turn it is to change the baby's nappy. Hmm It is a terrible thing to do. Luckily it is not very common.

Gileswithachainsaw · 04/12/2015 14:03

I also think that any unnecessary procedures or manhandling by any extra staff than necessary shouldn't ne allowed.

infections spread like no one's business in hospitals I'd not want anyone who didn't need to be or did not have an actual medical purpose near me or my baby.

WeirdCatLadyIsFeelingFestive · 04/12/2015 14:09

Loving the emojis 😍🎅🏻🎄😏🍾🍷😇

reni2 · 04/12/2015 14:09

Ignoring the questions of consent and funding...

Who wouldn't be happy for the state to have a full database of the DNA of everyone born after a certain date and both their parents. It's not like the state has ever lost any sensitive data. Oh wait...

DrDreReturns · 04/12/2015 14:11

I also think that any unnecessary procedures or manhandling by any extra staff than necessary shouldn't ne allowed.

I agree with you, but a DNA test is a non invasive procedure, it is just a mouth swab.

swiggityswoogity · 04/12/2015 14:11

Too much protesting me thinks, no doubt those ladies would be equally blasé to find out their children are not theirs and were switched at birth.

Quietlifenotonyournelly · 04/12/2015 14:14

Yabvu, it's all very 👁👁

mrsjanedoe · 04/12/2015 14:14

re swiggityswoogity comment

please everybody, ignore and don't feed the troll.

Marynary · 04/12/2015 14:14

I actually agree with this, we had a very close male friend conned for years it could be done at the same time as the prick heel test (do they still do that?).

So because your friend's girlfriend lied to him, the NHS should spend less money on treating the sick so it can pay for paternity tests?

Swipe left for the next trending thread