₦airaland Forum

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!

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!

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??

Josbreed:
I understand you perfectly, but the thing is a crime has been committed, PATERNAL FRAUD. It is a serious crime. So the state cannot step in to support a crime IRRESPECTIVE of the depth of the bond.

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!

Abufo:
What this man is saying is 100 % proven science but the satanic world media will never air such !

What he's saying is 100% pure nonsense. A recesive characteristic in your ancestral DNA can manifest in a child. It has absolutely nothing to do with who she slept with before!

Isobug:
Before nko? Are you a doctor?
He's saying the genelogical truth and you're here disputing him with your esoteric knowledge

He's talking nonsense. He doesn't understand genetics

Secretbloodline:
You forget the French freed and married those women who are my maternal grandmothers. You keep the lie going that the French is white because you're working for the invisible white power structure. Any man of color involved with Freemasonry swears an oath to the crown of England. Sodomy rites are apart of the initiation into all Freemasonry this is how the Anglos Saxons conjure up Odin the father of Gods. The Prince Hall switch the deity to Osiris because their myth is they once ruled Egypt and Freemasonry came from Egypt. Prince Hall Freemasons and Greek organizations formed at university including Nigeria, all share the same homosexual rites to belong and appease the spirits. They all have myths and made up genealogies because they're essentially low born men and women looking to change their stars or destiny. But there's no way destiny can be altered so they become haters trying to steal the destinies of others. That's why you're promoting men accepting bastards because a low born like yourself seeks to rob another houses place, esteem and wealth. You feel it's okay for a woman to cheat on a man and have that man duped into raising his enemies offspring. Pure destiny swapping.

How can they free and marry your grandmothers under Code Noir that expressly forbade interracial marriage??

The problem with your talk on Freemason and homosexuality is that we know many comfirmed free masons who were presidents of US and non of them was anything near gay. So once again this is a case if creatung naratives in yiur head.

Even if I was low born (quite the opposite), so what? Please how is it my fault how I was born??

bentenny:
Yes you are not just missing something,you are also confusing yourself!
Your first post is an obligation to whether or not the child is biologically yours.
Your subsequent post which I showed you clearly stated that the man has the choice to accept the child if it's not biologically his.
If you had started with the latter,nobody would have had this lengthy,boring and unproductive argument with you.

I HONESTLY don’t know what you're talking about. I suspect you are misreading what I wrote.
Please post the statements you're referring to and I will patiently explain everything to you

bentenny:
Was the man aware that was his biological child before accepting?
If he was aware that wasn't his biological child but still went on to accept,that's a totally different thing which doesn't align with your first post where you insisted that

if you've had a child since infancy, he is your child and you're his father and you're obligated to take care of that child till age of maturity. That's how Nature intended it.
'It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!'


These were your words.

Am I missing something here? Of course those are my words and they align with everything I've said. We don't know werher there have been infidelity or not, all we know is that he accepted this child and has raised him since infancy. Our position is that he can't suddenly screaming DNA years later The suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help him do what he ought normally do - which is save his money and focus on raising his precious child!

Secretbloodline:
English is weaker than French but a bastard is still a bastard.


Historically, a child born to parents who were not married to each other—including children born from an adulterous relationship—was legally and socially referred to as a bastard.While this word was once a technical legal term, it is now considered an offensive slur and is no longer used in modern legal or social settings.Historical Legal DifferencesHistorically, old English common law drew a sharp distinction between different types of non-marital births:Bastard / Illegitimate Child: A general term for any child born outside of a lawful marriage.Adulterine Bastard: A specific historical legal term for a child born to a married woman, but fathered by a man other than her husband.Under ancient laws, these children were considered filius nullius (the child of no one). They had no legal right to inherit property, bear their father's name, or receive financial support.

But you just described your own people, Louisiana Creoles. They came up mixed when mixed marriages were NOT allowed. But to me that makes them mixed race, not bastards. No human being is a bastard

bentenny:
DNA testing exposes fraud.
DNA testing makes mothers accountable.

Accepting a baby is by choice not deception!

If a man must father a child no matter the age,it must be by his own volition not through compulsion or guilt tripping!

But this is NOT about fraud or mother's accountability. This is about the state 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 a DNA test!

Josbreed:
You have not answered, will tou refuse to carry DNA test if you CLEARLY have doubts about the children your wife claim to be yours?

Ok, you don't understand. What we are discussing is a man who accepted a child and has bonded with him for several years! Our take is that that's his child and no DNA can change that. The suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help him do what he ought normally do - which is save his DNA money and focus on raising his precious child!

CoolUsername:
Notice how I never said anything negative about adoption? That is because in the case of adoption or where a sperm donor is used, the parents KNOW and CONSENT to what is going on. In case of paternal fraud, they can be LED ASTRAY based on familial medical history because they have FALSELY ASSUMED that the child is related to the father.

Do you understand now?

But we don't know wether thete is parternal fraud or adultery. What we have is a man bonded with a child from infancy to teenage years still wanting to spend 100's of thousands on DNA. Our take is that the govrt ought discourage him from doing that and encourage him to instead focus on raising his precious child to maturity!

addictiv:
You are still avoiding the central issue. You say nobody is hiding anything, but that is exactly what the DNA test is meant to establish. If nobody is hiding anything, the test will confirm paternity and the family continues normally. You cannot assume there is no deception and then use that assumption as the reason why nobody should be allowed to verify it.

Even the state does not simply accept your word when identity, money, citizenship, employment or legal responsibility is involved. It asks for passports, birth certificates, bank statements, biometric checks and other evidence. That is not because everyone is automatically considered dishonest. It is because important claims require proof.And what claim is more important than being told that a child is yours and that you must carry the emotional, financial and legal responsibility for that child for life?

Your comparison with asking whether you exist or whether I am dreaming is just a distraction. Paternity is not a philosophical question. It is a specific biological fact that can be tested accurately and has direct emotional, medical, legal and financial consequences.

You also asked why a man should seek certainty about something that could disrupt a child’s life. The answer is simple. The test does not create the problem. The conduct that produced the false paternity created the problem. You keep blaming the discovery instead of the deception.

That is like saying a woman should never check her husband’s phone because discovering his affairs could destroy the marriage. By that logic, the cheating is not the problem. The discovery is.

You also keep claiming that no benefits were given, even after they were clearly explained. Confirmed paternity gives the child an accurate family and medical history. It gives the man certainty before committing decades of emotional and financial responsibility. It protects an innocent mother from years of suspicion. It can also reveal that the presumed father is not the biological father, allowing the truth to be investigated.

Of course a basic paternity test does not magically identify the biological father if his DNA is unavailable. Nobody claimed it would. It establishes whether the tested man is the biological father. That information alone is important. Once non paternity is established, a maternity test can be considered and if positive, the mother would be in the best position to explain who else could be responsible.

You ask whether people who do not know their biological fathers have all died. That is another weak argument. People have survived without knowing their medical history, without education and without modern medicine. Survival does not mean the missing information has no value.

And nobody is saying a man should suddenly wake up after thirteen years and casually destroy his family for entertainment. My position is the opposite. DNA testing should be compulsory at birth precisely so that this issue is settled before years of bonding, sacrifice and emotional attachment.

You oppose testing at birth, then complain that testing after thirteen years could destabilise the child. That contradiction is exactly why routine testing at birth makes sense.

Your suggestion that a man should simply look at the child is also ridiculous. Children do not always resemble their fathers. Some look more like their mothers, grandparents or other relatives. A child can look like a man and still not be biologically his. Physical appearance is not a scientific paternity test.

Telling a man to wait until the child turns eighteen is even worse. You want him to spend eighteen years providing emotionally, financially and legally before he is allowed to know whether the basic information used to place him in that role was true.

Why eighteen? Does the truth suddenly become harmless on the child’s eighteenth birthday? Would discovering the deception after eighteen years not be even more devastating for the father and child?

The state should protect children, but protecting children does not require protecting deception or forcing adults to live in ignorance. The better solution is early testing, counselling, responsible handling of results and legal protection for the child.

Like I have always maintained, a man may still choose to raise a child who is not biologically his. That can be a powerful expression of love. But the decision must belong to him.

You cannot secretly remove the choice, call the resulting ignorance a happy family and then blame the truth when the lie is finally exposed.

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!

TrainPark:
I thought it is "infidelity, adultery, sex, and such" in your so-called "settled families" that lead to the need for DNA?
Why should a government force a man to accept a child that does not belong to him?

You are only pretending not to understand.
The govt is not forcing anybody to accept anything. The govt is simply saying: "If you've accepted and raised a child from infancy, you can't suddenly years later start screaming DNA"

correctguy101:
Truly, the quoted is important but do you believe any man today with the awareness of what's what with most women would truly live a fulfilled and satisfying life if there's that doubt within his heart?

And come on. Lions don't do that from pure bestial instinct. There are many cases where the lion welcomes his estranged lioness with another lion's cub.

It's just man thinking himself too wise to always use their own human matric to judge everything. All species develop in different ways, because the human way is different from others does not mean they're entirely hopeless in their way of existence. I prefer to just call it "different" and not advanced or civilized. Who's to say we're not seen as total hateful barbarians by other animals? Lols

You live a fulfilled, satisfying life to the extent you can. The important thing is, try not to be ruled by instincts like lower animals. Use your God-given brain.

Man is not thinking himself wise. He is indeed too wise compared to lower animals. Animals don't even know they are naked. Nor can they think conceptually. They follow instinct not thought. We shouldn't also be like that as humans!

tundebasic:
You are just contradicting yourself. It benefits the state nothing, but the state should be involved by banning it. Pray you take care of children that are not your own and this happens till your fifth generation.

You want to force your opinion on the state.

I will only take you seriously if you share DNA test results of at least two children that your wife birth out of wedlock. Must be your legally married wife. Till that time, all you have here are bollocks.

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!

addictiv:
First of all, you keep calling it “unwarranted DNA testing” as though a man wanting to confirm the paternity of the children he is raising is some criminal activity.
A settled family is only truly settled when it is built on truth. If one person is happily raising a child only because another person successfully hid important information from him, that is not genuine peace. That is ignorance being presented as happiness.

You asked about the benefits. The benefits are obvious. The child has an accurate identity and medical history. The biological father can be identified and held responsible. The man raising the child has certainty. The mother is protected from false accusations. Inheritance and legal issues are clearer. Most importantly, nobody has to discover the truth after ten or twenty years.

This is exactly why DNA testing should be compulsory at birth. There would be no sudden fishing expedition after a family has bonded. There would be no accusations, suspicion or emotional blackmail. It would simply be a routine test done at birth for everyone.

You also said we do not know whether there was infidelity. You actually made my point for me, of course we do not know. That is the entire point of testing. You cannot say a man must first prove infidelity before he is allowed to use the test that could establish whether deception occurred.

And the Davido example does not prove that DNA testing is useless. Anybody can allege bribery or manipulation after receiving a result they dislike. The answer is proper sample collection, accredited laboratories, independent testing and repeat tests where necessary. We do not ban medical testing simply because somebody may dispute the result.

Your hospital swap argument also supports my position. Whether the woman chooses the child she raised, her biological child or wants both is not the main point. The main point is that she would want to know the truth. She would not accept the government banning DNA tests because discovering the swap might disturb her settled family.

She would demand answers. She would want to know where her biological child is. She would want to know how the swap happened. Even if she continues loving and raising the child she breastfed, she would still insist on knowing the truth.

So why should a man be denied the same truth?

Like I said earlier, a man may discover that a child is not biologically his and still choose to remain the father because of the love and bond they share. That is his decision to make. But it must be remain an informed decision, not a decision manufactured through deception.

Your argument about some king impregnating people’s grandmothers is irrelevant. The fact that people could not confirm paternity hundreds of years ago does not mean men today should be legally forced to remain ignorant when reliable technology exists.
We also did not have cars, phones, blood tests, modern medicine or computers in the past. That does not mean we should reject them today because our ancestors survived without them.

And distant ancestry is not the same as a man being expected to spend his life emotionally, financially and legally responsible for a child under false information. No woman and no government has the right to decide that a man is better off living a lie. Trust is not proof.

You keep conflating things. We're NOT talking of anybody hiding anything. We simply know is that a family is together, bonded, raising their kids for years. All of a sudden you want "to confirm", you want "certainty", you want "truth". Why don't you ask for certainty as to whether I exist or entirely in your head or whether you are dreaming all these? Why is it only in something that can massively upend a developing child's world that you want certainty? What do you have certainty about in this world? Is everything not approximate?

You were asked to say the benefits and you really didn't say anything. Have all these people who don't know their biological fathers died?How will DNA identify the biological father without having his DNA? If the test turns out negative all you have done is upend a functioning family unit - because you want "certainty". Will you take over the care of the child? The state's business is to make it very difficult for families to suddenly start DNA fishing expeditions on a whim.

Birth DNA testing is good if you can afford it and think you need it, otherwise look at your child. If she looks like you, take her home. If she looks Chinese, reject her! Don't wait 13 years then start screaming DNA. You can do it when she turns 18!

RightChannel:
How will you overwhelmed when you are also decreasing in millions or you don't look it from that perspective too?

I.hope you're not pretending to be dumb. The increase is NET increase - after everything has been taken into account

socoharley:
I am an African man and my standards emanate from the conservative African norms.

Claiming African man doesn't give you any right to insult rather than present your points!

TrainPark:
Oga, not everyone comes from a place where women have the morals of hoes and bring children out of wedlock into matrimonial homes such that you are insisting men must accept. I don't know where you come from to insist on this weird and immoral behavior.

It is ok if you are not sure of your lineage, but normal human beings don't behave like wayward wild animals going around to impregnate women with wanton abandon. Your situation is a unique, extreme edge case, which would have been OK if you were not here insisting that the government should enforce your rather strange situation on the sane majority.

I hear some cultures tolerate polyamory, but most cultures frown at it and punish any such with as much as capital punishment even before European civilization.

Out of curiosity, why are you insisting that such a way of life as yours must also be enforced on others to the point of asking the government to enforce such weird, disgusting, and outlandish, beastly practice? Why should a man have to accept and cater for a bastard child even against his wish?
So a man that wants to perpetuate his own lineage must now be forced to cater for anything a woman brings into his home?

You are within your rights to permit your own wife to go and get pregnant outside the marriage and bring them home to you to raise and cater for. That is perfectly Ok and your own choice, but don't insist to the point of using government power to enforce your chosen situation on the rest of sane humanity.

All you are saying are outside the purview of this discussion. This discussion is not about infidelity, adultry, sex, and such.
This discussion is about the state's responsibility to discourage unwarranted DNA fishing expeditiond of settled families - because it benefits the family nothing and benefits the state nothing.
Rmember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child since childhood.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions" is years later, suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The govt's concern should be to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!

RightChannel:
You are increasing in number through birth but by conversion, you are in millions decreasing. I saw one picture here where it was posted that 6millions Muslims abandoned islam for Christianity in Africa annually!

My friend if I'm increasing 70% every year (by whatever means) and you're increasing 30%, one day I'll overwhelm you with numbers. Simple.

correctguy101:
I disagree with this.

And even the talk of instinct. Whoever says humans are without it. I would have to ask you to elaborate what you mean by instinct in animals and I could argue that humans do have same, only that it's been numbed down... If you were to look at the ways of cave living humans or happen to go to villages very deep in the bushes, you'd understand this. I have been to enough to know this. Humans too have instincts like other animals, our difference comes from the different way our brains developed after long periods. Even animals have their own communities and rules they live by in said community.

I kid you not, in the animal kingdom, females select as do males. Why? They are always looking for a "suitable" mating partne....

Personally, the issue of DNA testing stems from the lies and deceit associated with giving another man's child to another. Most lions in the wild would kill that cub, go check.... Let alone a human.

we have men who get married to single mothers and took care of both mother and child, even children. But the main issue is the deceitful way most females do this thing. Some men would accept the young one unconditionally but why do you people continue to try and force this on everyone? Let those who accept and those who don't accept breath abeg...

I personally go out with a single mother, I'm a single father too. We take care of ourselves the best we can and given my character, I don't discriminate against her kids. And I expect her to accept mine too. But if she wer now to get pregnant and the child isn't mine, that I won't ever accept... That's my own bottom line...

Well done still.

Yes a lion would kill a non-offspring cub by pure instinct. But we humans have brains and should be able to logically override such instintlcts.

As for the rest, remember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions" is suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The govt's concern should be to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child! Also, sometimes DNA doesn't settle anything (amidst allegations of bribery and manipulated results and the woman ready to swear at any oracle that she had never slept with anyone else!)

correctguy101:
I disagree with this.

And even the talk of instinct. Whoever says humans are without it. I would have to ask you to elaborate what you mean by instinct in animals and I could argue that humans do have same, only that it's been numbed down... If you were to look at the ways of cave living humans or happen to go to villages very deep in the bushes, you'd understand this. I have been to enough to know this. Humans too have instincts like other animals, our difference comes from the different way our brains developed after long periods. Even animals have their own communities and rules they live by in said community.

I kid you not, in the animal kingdom, females select as do males. Why? They are always looking for a "suitable" mating partne....

Personally, the issue of DNA testing stems from the lies and deceit associated with giving another man's child to another. Most lions in the wild would kill that cub, go check.... Let alone a human.

we have men who get married to single mothers and took care of both mother and child, even children. But the main issue is the deceitful way most females do this thing. Some men would accept the young one unconditionally but why do you people continue to try and force this on everyone? Let those who accept and those who don't accept breath abeg...

I personally go out with a single mother, I'm a single father too. We take care of ourselves the best we can and given my character, I don't discriminate against her kids. And I expect her to accept mine too. But if she wer now to get pregnant and the child isn't mine, that I won't ever accept... That's my own bottom line...

Well done still.

You've just shown me a flaw in how I put my words together. I thought by "amimals" people will understand I include humans.
Here's what I meant to write below. I'd respond to rest of your post later.

Nature gave WE animals an extremely strong instinct to have OUR genes survive and most of our actions are dictated by that instinct. But as humans with brains why must we be exactly like lower animals?? We ought USE OUR BRAINS to see that survival of our particular genes benefits us NOTHING! What is important is that we live a fulfilled, satisfying life that includes as much of life as possible, including fatherhood!

RightChannel:
Define growth and tell us if any growth can take place in almost Muslims dominated areas where there is conflicts!

Increase in number is growth. If I keep growing at 70% and you at 30% onr day I'd conquer you by numbers

socoharley:
go and marry first and stop making noise. When your wife births a child that resembles your best friend please don't do DNA test inugo... nshi aķpànà

That's the point! If the child resembles my best friend I won't accept the child until that is resolved! What we are talking about is a man accepting a child from infancy, bonding with the child, then years later start screaming DNA.

The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as father and is very likely his biological child!

socoharley:
Rubbish!!

Try to state your points. That's what a civilized person does

Ishilove:
Knowing the true paternity of the children he sired doesn't do the individual any good? He can should live out his life in blissful ignorance of the betrayal his partner meted out on him?

Kindly expatiate on what you mean by "uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions", please.

How are you sure king of your village or some rich or powerful guy did not impregnate your grandma or great grandma etc, as kings were wont to do those days?? In other words, how are you sure your ancestors are your biological ancestors? What difference has it made??

About "uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions",
remember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions" is suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!
Also, remember Davido and that woman. The case is still not settled despite DNA. The woman was alleging bribery and manipulated tests. You avoid all that, save your money, and raise what is truly your child and your child alone.

addictiv:
Saying we survived before DNA testing is like saying we survived before blood tests, scans and modern medicine. The fact that people lived without a way of discovering the truth does not mean ignorance was better. So that argument does not make sense.

You are also presenting the DNA test as the thing destroying the family. It is not. The betrayal is what destroyed the family. The test only revealed it.
A happy family built on deception is not truly settled. It is only settled because one person has been denied important information about his own life. You cannot protect a family by protecting a lie and preventing the victim from discovering it.

And what exactly is a DNA fishing expedition? A man confirming whether the children he is raising are biologically his? Women investigate men’s phones, messages, locations and friendships because they want to know whether they are being cheated on. Nobody suggests banning phones so women will not be tempted to discover adultery.

The government cannot not ban the truth to discourage people from finding it. That is simply government protected paternity fraud.

The man saying he has loved, suffered, laughed and bonded with the children, therefore he does not want to know whether they are his. That is his personal choice. Nobody is forcing him to take a test. He is free to remain ignorant.
But he has no right to demand that every other man must also remain ignorant.

And let us reverse the situation. A woman raises a child from pregnancy to adulthood and later discovers that the baby was swapped at the hospital. Will anybody tell her not to investigate because she has already loved and bonded with the child? Will the government ban DNA testing so that she is not tempted to disrupt her happy family? Of course not. People will say she deserves the truth and has the right to know what happened to her biological child.

So why is truth important when a woman’s maternity is questioned, but suddenly dangerous when a man’s paternity is questioned?

Love can make someone a parent, but love does not make deception acceptable. A man may discover that a child is not biologically his and still decide to remain the child’s father because of the bond they share. That would be his informed decision.

But forcing him to continue under a lie is not love. It is fraud. The truth does not destroy families. The actions that made the truth painful are what destroyed them.

First of all, all the things you mentioned are beneficial to the society and families. Please tell us the benefits of unwarranted DNA testing of a settled bonded family happily raising their kids!

Also, remember that we don't know that there had been infidelity. The state's concern is to discourage a settled family suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature). Note the case of Davido. That DNA is still not settled because woman was alleging bribery and manipulated tests. You avoid all that, save your money, and simply and happily raise a child that knows only you as farher and is very likely your biological child!

Actually you are wrong. Women find it extremely difficult to let go of a child they breastfed and deeply bonded with. If babies were swapped at birth a woman would not swap her daughter she breastfed and raised for a "strange" child. She'd want both but if she could have only one she'd choose her daughter, not the "strange" child.

Finally, how are you sure king of your village or some rich or powerful dude did not impregnate your grandma or great grandma etc,, as kings were wont to do those days?? How are you sure you are biological descendant of your ancestors? What difference has it made??

correctguy101:
This can not be anymore wrong. Ya point seems valid but have you bothered to ask yaselves why some very powerful families are particular about who their descendants marry and have children with?

As a human, you're no animal, you should be different from animals, hence the need of genetic preservation through a specific line. Animals do as you recommend, they just simply increase population.

You're in effect asking humans to be like animals. If you insist humans should ignore matters like that.

If I want to raise another man's child, I'd best adopt instead of having myself played. That's human if you ask me. The option of not minding is exactly how mindless animals do their thing and if you're one like that, a pity..
Smh

Quite the opposite. Here's what I wrote earlier:

Nature gave animals an extremely strong instinct to have their genes survive and most of their actions are dictated by that instinct. That's why men want to sleep with as many women as possible, that's why a mother gizelle would give her life for survival of her baby. But as humans with brains why must we be exactly like animals?? We ought USE OUR GOD-GIVEN BRAINS to see that survival of our particular genes benefits us NOTHING! What is important is that we live a fulfilled, satisfying life that includes as much of life as possible, including fatherhood!
iWe are not lower animals. We are humans!. God gave us brains and we can and ought use it to override base animal instincts!

bentenny:
If a mother can reject a baby that is not hers in the hospital why can't a man reject a baby that is not his own no matter the age?

That's the point - we don't know the baby is not his. But once he accepts the child and they’re bonded, state's concern is to discourage the settled family suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature). Note that Davido DNA is still not settled because woman was alleging they manipulated the test. You avoid all that and simply and happily raise a child that only knows you as farher! Can you please say how DNA testing at that point benefits the family or siciety?

TrainPark:
Just because your father took you in when your Mum brought you to him as a product of her polyamory does not mean normal human beings behave in such a morally reckless manner. I am 100% sure my father is my father because my Mum is monogamous with my Dad and did not play Russian roulette with her morals. Secondly, where I was given birth to, DNA is administered at birth as a prevention for potential hereditary medical conditions. So by the most advanced scientific investigation known to human beings, I am a confirmed biological son of my own father, 100%.
It must be really painful to live a life with the possibility that anybody in the community can be your father. Really sad for you, and I see the reason why this absurdity even makes sense to you. Kpelee.

By the way, how is a family where a woman is promiscuous to the extent of bringing bastard children into a home and living with paternity secrets a happy one? How can that exist as a truly happy family? I am now tempted to check the definition of happiness. Well, please go ahead and enjoy your happy family. Peace and love!

Ok, how are you sure king of your village did not impregnate you grandma or great grandma etc, as kings were wont to do those days??
Also, remember, we don't know that there had been infidelity. That's not the issue here. The govt's concern is to discourage a settled family unit with bonded members suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature) -because it benefits the family and society nothing. Also allegations of manipulated tests, bribery, etc. You avoid all that, save your money, and simply and happily raise a child that only knows you as farher!