₦airaland Forum

bentenny:
This confirms my suspicion about you having comprehension issues with your posts.
This was your first post forcing a man to take care of a child that is not his....



Now read your subsequent post...


If the second post was your initial inclination,nobody would have bothered prolonging this thread.

Wow, you really do have comprehension issues

Please HOW exactly does the first post force a man to take care of a child that is not his??

How does anyone know the child is not his withour DNA??

QuinQ:
Wow, you really do have comprehension issues

Please HOW exactly does the first post force a man to take care of a child that is not his??

On the contrary you are the one with comprehension issues.

Since you are trying your best to wringle out of the mess you found yourself let me ask you.....
What does the following imply according to you?
'It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!'

Your reply will definitely expose you.

How does anyone know the child is not his withour DNA??

😂😂😂
Your second question makes a total mockery of this thread!
Nice one.😊✌️

QuinQQ:
You are the one myopic and needs come to your senses. Can't you people just see that a child you've raised from infancy to teenage years IS YOUR CHILD?! Can't you see that it is pure insanity for a Nigerian man to spend 100's of thousands on DNA for such child?? Are you people okay at all?

The suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help you do what you ought normally do - which is save your money and focus on raising your precious child!

You are not OK. People have pointed out to you all sorts of valid reasons why DNA testing may be required you are still here capping nonsense. Asking the state to curtail people's legal rights because you want to play ostrich. Abegi spare us your nonsense.

bentenny:
On the contrary you are the one with comprehension issues.

Since you are trying your best to wringle out of the mess you found yourself let me ask you.....
What does the following imply according to you?
'It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!'

Your reply will definitely expose you.


😂😂😂
Your second question makes a total mockery of this thread!
Nice one.😊✌️

What this teaches me.is that you have to be VERY, VERY, VERY CAREFUL how you WRITE anything, because some people are not able to fill in the gaps you assume they'll fill in.

My dear, I thought it was obvious what I meant was "We don't know, but even if it turns out he indeed wasn't the father, it is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!"

It is not the first time I've been taught this lesson but I always forget and also in writing you're rushing and at same time.trying to be as brief as possible but you forget that unless you spell EVERYTHING out clearly, there are people like you who will misunderstand.

But again, what I still don’t understand is, how will.we know it was not his child without DNA test? Is there anywhere it is implied a DNA test took place? So, I still don't know how you could have.misunderstood!

QuinQ:
What this teaches me.is that you have to be VERY, VERY, VERY CAREFUL how you WRITE anything, because some people are not able to fill in the gaps you assume they'll fill in.

My dear, I thought it was obvious what I meant was "We don't know, but even if it turns out he indeed wasn't the father, it is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!"

It is not the first time I've been taught this lesson but I always forget and also in writing you're rushing and at same time.trying to be as brief as possible but you forget that unless you spell EVERYTHING out clearly, there are people like you who will misunderstand.

But again, what I still don’t understand is, how will.we know it was not his child without DNA test? Is there anywhere it is implied a DNA test took place? So, I still don't know how you could have.misunderstood!

Guy stop prevaricating and changing the goalpost.

You can't run away from it 😀
There is nothing wrong with admitting your initial post was premised on obligation.

Like I said on my previous comments,if your initial post was about men being given the choice to accept a child despite knowing that their child wasn't biologically theirs,this thread would not have gotten to this length!

Trying to make it seem like you were misunderstood only makes you look ridiculous and hilarious.

QuinQ:
I am not contradicting myself at all. You the one don't know what you talking about.
Of course it benefits the state nothing except the possibility of being saddled with another fatherless almajiri!

Maybe you are the fifth generation of an outside conception that happened long ago. What difference has it made that your ancestors are not yiur biological ancestors??

You'd never see DNA of any kids I may have unless they grow up and do it themselves. Once I accept a child as mine, he stays mine forever!

You are the one who do not know what you are talking about. Are you an African because your ancestors are Caucasians?

Maybe you are Nigerian because your grandfather was born in The Gambia.

Government requires DNA tests during immigration for a reason, but you are calling men doing it even before migration, for example, unwarranted "DNA fishing".

Let's even assume you and I were the fifth generation of men who accepted paternity frauds. Why should I keep making the same mistake my forefathers make? What is the essence of science, technology and development if I keep making the mistake my forefathers make?

Why do people use the same DNA test to search for their ancestry? They should not do that now since it is unwarranted and descendants of Shaka Zulu, Martin Luther, or even Bob Marley and Fela Anikulapo Kuti are useless and lost in history.

Maybe you think men will be daft enough to allow women to keep sleeping around and giving children of one man to the other, but i tell you today, this does not even happen in the animal kingdom — check out the lions. Like I posited earlier, I know you are just here to type bollocks.

bentenny:
Guy stop prevaricating and changing the goalpost.

You can't run away from it 😀
There is nothing wrong with admitting your initial post was premised on obligation.

Like I said on my previous comments,if your initial post was about men being given the choice to accept a child despite knowing that their child wasn't biologically theirs,this thread would not have gotten to this length!

Trying to make it seem like you were misunderstood only makes you look ridiculous and hilarious.

You know, I find this really amazing. I will try my best to always remember people like you exist.
HOW DOES THE GUY KNOW THE CHILD IS NOT HIS WITHOUT DNA TEST??!!!

Besides, did you read any of my subsequent posts? How many times did I subsequently make it clear that this thread is NOT about adultery, parternity fraud, or mother's accountability. I made it clear the thread is about the govt recognizing that once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising that precious child to maturity rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on DNA tests. The thread is about the govt making laws encouraging him to do just that instead of spending scarce resources pursuing unwarranted DNA fishing expeditions!

QuinQ:
You know, I find this really amazing. I will try my best to always remember people like you exist.
HOW DOES THE GUY KNOW THE CHILD IS NOT HIS WITHOUT DNA TEST??!!!

Besides, did you read any of my subsequent posts? How many times did I subsequently make it clear that this thread is NOT about adultery, parternity fraud, or mother's accountability. I made it clear the thread is about the govt recognizing that once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising that precious child to maturity rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on DNA tests. The thread is about the govt making laws encouraging him to do just that instead of spending scarce resources pursuing unwarranted DNA fishing expeditions!

Guy stop trying fruitlessly to clean up your initial mess.
Admit you goofed and close this boring, unproductive and unintelligent thread.

tundebasic:
You are the one who do not know what you are talking about. Are you an African because your ancestors are Caucasians?

Maybe you are Nigerian because your grandfather was born in The Gambia.

Government requires DNA tests during immigration for a reason, but you are calling men doing it even before migration, for example, unwarranted "DNA fishing".

Let's even assume you and I were the fifth generation of men who accepted paternity frauds. Why should I keep making the same mistake my forefathers make? What is the essence of science, technology and development if I keep making the mistake my forefathers make?

Why do people use the same DNA test to search for their ancestry? They should not do that now since it is unwarranted and descendants of Shaka Zulu, Martin Luther, or even Bob Marley and Fela Anikulapo Kuti are useless and lost in history.

Maybe you think men will be daft enough to allow women to keep sleeping around and giving children of one man to the other, but i tell you today, this does not even happen in the animal kingdom — check out the lions. Like I posited earlier, I know you are just here to type bollocks.

How many times have I make it clear that this thread is NOT about adultery, parternity fraud, mother's accountability and such, How many timed have I made it clear that the thread is about the govt recognizing that once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising that precious child to maturity rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on DNA tests. I made it clear the thread is about the govt making laws encouraging him to do just that instead of spending scarce resources pursuing UNWARRANTED DNA FISHIING ECOEDITIONS! Read my posts!
We are NOT talking about DNA tests for immigration or ancestry and such, we are talking about wasting money on sudden DNA tests on a teenager you've raised and loved since infancy!

QuinQ:
But this thresd has nothing to do with parternal fraud because it is NOT concerned with wether there has been adultery or not. It's very likely that the child is indeed the man's biological child!

Keep on dodging, goodluck in raising someone else's child till DNA reveals the truth and the child maybe female, tells you she cannot afford to allow you yake her down the isle, she would prefer her biological father not you anymorw.

QuinQ:
How many times have I make it clear that this thread is NOT about adultery, parternity fraud, mother's accountability and such, How many timed have I made it clear that the thread is about the govt recognizing that once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising that precious child to maturity rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on DNA tests. I made it clear the thread is about the govt making laws encouraging him to do just that instead of spending scarce resources pursuing UNWARRANTED DNA FISHIING ECOEDITIONS! Read my posts!
We are NOT talking about DNA tests for immigration or ancestry and such, we are talking about wasting money on sudden DNA tests on a teenager you've raised and loved since infancy!

What business is it of the government how I legally spend my money? It is even to the benefit of the state for me to do that DNA test because they will collect revenue from that payment.

Bro you are too myopic for this discussion. Best you shelve it and think of something more productive. This is not going well for you.

QuinQQ:
What is fraud?

You are a coward for advising men not to do dna and accept bastards. A fool is a man that lived all his live an never knew if he was sold truth or lies.

QuinQ:
How many times have I make it clear that this thread is NOT about adultery, parternity fraud, mother's accountability and such, How many timed have I made it clear that the thread is about the govt recognizing that once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising that precious child to maturity rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on DNA tests. I made it clear the thread is about the govt making laws encouraging him to do just that instead of spending scarce resources pursuing UNWARRANTED DNA FISHIING ECOEDITIONS! Read my posts!
We are NOT talking about DNA tests for immigration or ancestry and such, we are talking about wasting money on sudden DNA tests on a teenager you've raised and loved since infancy!

How many times do I tell you that a man who accepted another man's child knowingly would not need to do DNA test?

How many times do I have to tell you that men who accepted other men's children unknowingly were deceived by their supposed spouses and that constitutes paternity fraud ?

How many times do I have to tell you that there are different reasons why men do DNA tests, and if a man would need to do DNA test to determine if a child he thought was his, is no longer his constitute infidelity, cheating, deception, unfaithfulness on the part of the spouse?

What you are saying in essence is that people should stop swearing by any means while getting wedded. Whether it is the Bible, or even Ifa since all of us will be going into marriage to take care of other people's seed. No need for commitment then.

There is a reason people kings, monarchs, rulers (Africans, Caucasians, Saudis) do not make bastards their heirs or princes. Go and find out why.

This your idea about government enforcing it is what I call bollocks and you yourself knows that you are typing jargons.

Josbreed:
Keep on dodging, goodluck in raising someone else's child till DNA reveals the truth and the child maybe female, tells you she cannot afford to allow you yake her down the isle, she would prefer her biological father not you anymorw.

Unless there's enmity people never behave such. Good old dad they've been through all sorts of changes with since infancy can never be in competition with some stranger introduced as the sperm donor

bentenny:
Guy stop trying fruitlessly to clean up your initial mess.
Admit you goofed and close this boring, unproductive and unintelligent thread.

I must make it a point to always remember that people like you exist. People capable of misunderstanding anything unless it is totally spelled out in detail.

Don't you wonder how other people on this thread understand exactly what I meant except you? I don't understand how people like you think.
What is the purpose of the thread if it had been determined at birth that the child was not the man's biological child? What then have we been discussing? Why are we discussing banning teenage DNA tests if it had already been determined at birth that the child did not belong to the man??
People like you eh!

LordReed:
What business is it of the government how I legally spend my money? It is even to the benefit of the state for me to do that DNA test because they will collect revenue from that payment.

Bro you are too myopic for this discussion. Best you shelve it and think of something more productive. This is not going well for you.

What a question! Talk about being totally myopic. So broken homes should not concern the govt? Potentially destabilizing a setteled family unit is not the govt's biz. If the man walks away who'd his obligation to that child fall on? Is it not society and govt? How do fatherless children generally turn out?
Bros you did not think this one through. Think more about it before responding

QuinQ:
Long read.
So "the test will confirm paternity and the family continues normally". How about trust for your wife. What does it say about your trust for you wife spending all that money- money u don't have - on a goose chase?

I never said I was against birth DNA test. You made that one up.

Can't you people just see that a child you've raised from infancy to teenage years IS YOUR CHILD?! Can't you see that it is pure insanity for a Nigerian man to spend 100's of thousands on DNA for such child?? Are you people okay at all?This thread's suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help the man do what he ought normally do - which is save his money and focus on raising his precious child the best he can!

You keep changing the goalpost. First it was that biology does not matter. Then it became protecting a settled family. Then it became saving money. Now it is suddenly about trust for the wife.

Trust is not proof. A wife may trust her husband and still want access to his phone or social media for reassurance. The government may trust you, yet still demand proof of identity. An employer may trust you, yet still verify your qualifications and right to work. Banks, courts and immigration authorities all require evidence when important claims are involved.

DNA evidence may also be requested in matters involving immigration, inheritance, child maintenance, custody or disputed parentage. Why does the wife not complain that she is being distrusted when DNA evidence benefits her or the child?

Yet when a man asks for certainty about paternity, suddenly verification becomes an insult, a waste of money and an attack on the family.

An innocent woman may initially feel hurt by the request, but trying to block the test through threats, tears, shame or emotional blackmail only creates more suspicion. If the child is his, the result settles the matter permanently.

Paternity is too important to be based solely on “trust me”. Important claims require proof, and no man should be bullied for asking for it.

And this money you claim you want to save is not your money. You did not earn it for him, so why are you more concerned about how he spends it than he is?

The same man could spend 100s of thousands on alcohol, betting, parties, gadgets or an investment that later crashes, and the government would not ban him from doing so. But once he chooses to spend his own money confirming whether a child is biologically his, you suddenly want the state to protect him from himself. That makes no sense.

Whether the test is expensive or unnecessary is for the man paying for it to decide. It is his money, his responsibility and his life. The government has no right to deny him access to the truth simply because you believe he should spend his money differently.

tundebasic:
How many times do I tell you that a man who accepted another man's child knowingly would not need to do DNA test?

How many times do I have to tell you that men who accepted other men's children unknowingly were deceived by their supposed spouses and that constitutes paternity fraud ?

How many times do I have to tell you that there are different reasons why men do DNA tests, and if a man would need to do DNA test to determine if a child he thought was his, is no longer his constitute infidelity, cheating, deception, unfaithfulness on the part of the spouse?

What you are saying in essence is that people should stop swearing by any means while getting wedded. Whether it is the Bible, or even Ifa since all of us will be going into marriage to take care of other people's seed. No need for commitment then.

There is a reason people kings, monarchs, rulers (Africans, Caucasians, Saudis) do not make bastards their heirs or princes. Go and find out why.

This your idea about government enforcing it is what I call bollocks and you yourself knows that you are typing jargons.

See reasoning o! Emphatically, we don't know whether there's been infidelity. But that's NOT the concern here. Our concern is prevention of potentially destabilizing a settled family unit which will likely produce fatherless children and menace to society! If the man walks away who'd fill his obligation to that child? Is it not society and govt? How do fatherless children generally turn out? And even if the DNA proves the child is his what does that say about his trust for his wife that he spent scarce resources pursuing DNA? Will the home survive it? Are broken homes what we want??

addictiv:
You keep changing the goalpost. First it was that biology does not matter. Then it became protecting a settled family. Then it became saving money. Now it is suddenly about trust for the wife.

Trust is not proof. A wife may trust her husband and still want access to his phone or social media for reassurance. The government may trust you, yet still demand proof of identity. An employer may trust you, yet still verify your qualifications and right to work. Banks, courts and immigration authorities all require evidence when important claims are involved.

DNA evidence may also be requested in matters involving immigration, inheritance, child maintenance, custody or disputed parentage. Why does the wife not complain that she is being distrusted when DNA evidence benefits her or the child?

Yet when a man asks for certainty about paternity, suddenly verification becomes an insult, a waste of money and an attack on the family.

An innocent woman may initially feel hurt by the request, but trying to block the test through threats, tears, shame or emotional blackmail only creates more suspicion. If the child is his, the result settles the matter permanently.

Paternity is too important to be based solely on “trust me”. Important claims require proof, and no man should be bullied for asking for it.

And this money you claim you want to save is not your money. You did not earn it for him, so why are you more concerned about how he spends it than he is?

The same man could spend 100s of thousands on alcohol, betting, parties, gadgets or an investment that later crashes, and the government would not ban him from doing so. But once he chooses to spend his own money confirming whether a child is biologically his, you suddenly want the state to protect him from himself. That makes no sense.

Whether the test is expensive or unnecessary is for the man paying for it to decide. It is his money, his responsibility and his life. The government has no right to deny him access to the truth simply because you believe he should spend his money differently.

Changing what goal post? The discussion is about all that. What it is NOT about is infidelity, paternity fraud, and such
And why are you only focused on money which is only a small part of it. The main concern is to prevent potentially destabilizing a settled family unit which will likely produce fatherless children and menace to society! If the man walks away who'd fill his obligation to that child? Is it not society and govt? ? The main aim is to prevent broken homes and allow children be raised with a father in their lives!

QuinQ:
See reasoning o! Emphatically, we don't know whether there's been infidelity. But that's NOT the concern here. Our concern is prevention of potentially destabilizing a setteed family unit which will likely produce fatherless children and menace to society! If the man walks away who'd fill his obligation to that child? Is it not society and govt? How do fatherless children generally turn out? And even if the DNA proves the child is his what does that say about his trust for his wife that he spent scarce resources pursuing DNA? Will the home survive it? Are broken homes what we want??

You do not know what you are yearning about. How are the children fatherless? They dropped from the skies?

How is the family settled when the wife believes her husband's manhood is not enough for her and she has to go collect another man's sperm and give someone stupid enough to be her husband the seed of another man? What constitutes a settled family?

Tell me if your fiancé slept with her boyfriend some days to your wedding, she got pregnant, and you cared for her, nurtured her, even paid her hospital bills during pregnancy. You got wedded. Then after giving birth, while still in the hospital, a man showed up and told you he is the father of the baby and he wants his child back immediately. Would you claim the child is your own? How would you prove it? Also, does this mean your family is settled even if you are finding this out 30 years later?

LordReed:
You are not OK. People have pointed out to you all sorts of valid reasons why DNA testing may be required you are still here capping nonsense. Asking the state to curtail people's legal rights because you want to play ostrich. Abegi spare us your nonsense.

And what are the reasons? Can you please state them and say how they justify SUDDEN UNWARRANTED DNA FISHING EXPEDITIONS? Tell us how they justify costly DNA on a teenager by the only father he knows who had raised him from infancy!

QuinQQ:
So men get pregnant in your area. Hmm
Neve mind all that, just tell us how DNA fishing expedition benefits a settled, happy family or society

DNA exposes unfaithful and disloyal women
So yeah better be unhappy knowing the truth than live a life built on lies

And for a man not getting pregnant well
If you're immasculated your estrogen levels would be high so technically u become a woman 😏

You're just a joke

QuinQQ:
Ok, you're 40 years old and some stranger is introduced to you as your sperm donor. How is he dad? How does he compare to dad - the man you've known as your father from infancy??



At least you didn't call me madam. Thanks for that

Men with some dx conditions can have positive pregnancy test

Just saying 🥱

Low testosterone and high estrogen can make a man talk the way u do

slimik:
You are a coward for advising men not to do dna and accept bastards. A fool is a man that lived all his live an never knew if he was sold truth or lies.

You are the coward for not realizing that the main concern ought be to prevent potentially destabilizing a settled family unit which will likely produce fatherless children and menace to society! If the man walks away who'd fill his obligation to that child? Is it not society and govt? ? The main aim is to prevent broken homes and allow children be raised with a father in their lives! You're a coward for not realizing that a man who has raised a child from infancy to teenage years is his father, for not realizing that unwarranted DNA fishing expeditions will only destroy ta family or destroy trust within the family!

Chris225:
Men with some dx conditions can have positive pregnancy test

Just saying 🥱

Low testosterone and high estrogen can make a man talk the way u do

Never mind all that, just enumerate for us the benefits of unwarranted DNA fishing expedition on a teenager - by the only father he knows and who has raised him from infancy.
I can tell you some disadvantages - broken homes, fatherless children, and lack of trust within the home

Why discourage DNA if one sense foul play? Please on what ground did the man accept the child in the first place? Are you encouraging "bonding and settled family " on false pretence? Isn't it fair for him to know the truth and do whatever he's doing with his full knowledge and awareness?

QuinQQ:
It is entirely up to the man to decide if he'd accept the child. But once he accepts the child and bonds with the child and have a settled family, he can't come out years later to start screaming DNA.
The state's concern is to discourage such uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions and have the man save his money and focuse on raising a child that knows him as his only father, a child that is almost cerrainly his biological child!

QuinQ:
I must make it a point to always remember that people like you exist. People capable of misunderstanding anything unless it is totally spelled out in detail.

Don't you wonder how other people on this thread understand exactly what I meant except you? I don't understand how people like you think.
What is the purpose of the thread if it had been determined at birth that the child was not the man's biological child? What then have we been discussing? Why are we discussing banning teenage DNA tests if it had already been determined at birth that the child did not belong to the man??
People like you eh!

Bro or lady.
The more you keep typing epistles the more you keep making a mockery of yourself.
Threads are suppose to engage and challenge the audience not bore them.
You cannot be approbating and reprobating at the same time.
I have pointed out where you goofed.
If you can't see it clearly,then that's your future burden to bear.

QuinQ:
What a question! Talk about being totally myopic. So broken homes should not concern the govt? Potentially destabilizing a setteled family unit is not the govt's biz. If the man walks away who'd his obligation to that child fall on? Is it not society and govt? How do fatherless children generally turn out?
Bros you did not think this one through. Think more about it before responding

Bro you have no clue about how myopic you are that is why you still making this puerile argument.

The fact that there are 1001 things that are currently plaguing families that the government is not doing anything about while you are busy capping nonsense about DNA just shows how thoroughly disengaged from reality you are.

bentenny:
Bro or lady.
The more you keep typing epistles the more you keep making a mockery of yourself.
Threads are suppose to engage and challenge the audience not bore them.
You cannot be approbating and reprobating at the same time.
I have pointed out where you goofed.
If you can't see it clearly,then that's your future burden to bear.

The guy is astoundingly clueless.

QuinQ:
Changing what goal post? The discussion is about all that. What it is NOT about is infidelity, paternity fraud, and such
And why are you only focused on money which is only a small part of it. The main concern is to prevent potentially destabilizing a settled family unit which will likely produce fatherless children and menace to society! If the man walks away who'd fill his obligation to that child? Is it not society and govt? ? The main aim is to prevent broken homes and allow children be raised with a father in their lives!

We are going round in circles because you keep dressing up injustice as family protection.

Let us call your position exactly what it is.

You believe that once a man has loved, raised and financially supported a child for long enough, he should be denied the truth because his continued ignorance is useful to the mother, convenient for the government and less disruptive for society.

That is not protecting a family. That is exploiting a man’s love and using his emotional investment as a trap.

You say the child may become fatherless if the man walks away. But a child needing a father does not give the state the right to manufacture one through deception. The solution is to identify the biological father and make him fulfil his responsibilities, not to force an innocent man to carry another man’s obligation because he is already available.

You also cannot declare infidelity and paternity fraud irrelevant. A negative DNA result does not fall from the sky. Either there was a hospital error or another man fathered the child. Those facts are the entire reason the result matters.

You keep calling the family settled. A lie does not become legitimate because it remained hidden for many years. Fraud does not become acceptable because the victim has already invested heavily. In fact, the longer the deception continues, the greater the emotional and financial damage.

If the child is his, the test confirms it and the family continues. If the child is not his, the test did not destroy the family. The deception did. You are blaming the alarm for revealing the fire.

And if your genuine concern is protecting children from the shock of a late discovery, then compulsory DNA testing at birth is the obvious solution. Establish the truth before years of bonding, sacrifice and responsibility. You cannot reject early verification and then use the damage caused by late verification as an excuse to ban the truth entirely.

Your argument reduces the man to a disposable provider. His consent does not matter. His money does not matter. His emotional wellbeing does not matter. His right to know does not matter. All that matters is that he remains in position and continues paying so society does not have to deal with the consequences.

That is not fatherhood. That is forced responsibility through state protected ignorance.

A man may discover that the child is not biologically his and still choose to remain because of the love and bond they share. That would be genuine fatherhood because it would be based on truth and choice.

What you are proposing is not love, choice or family stability. It is deception made convenient.

QuinQQ:
And what are the reasons? Can you please state them and say how they justify SUDDEN UNWARRANTED DNA FISHING EXPEDITIONS? Tell us how they justify costly DNA on a teenager by the only father he knows who had raised him from infancy!

There are now 13 pages of reasons to pack up your weak puerile argument but here you are still demanding a list. Shows you are lost in whatever dreamland you've created for yourself.