₦airaland Forum

DMCA:
u never tire to d copy and paste same reply to everyone over and over?

See delusion. Probably didn't read up to two pages of the thread!

CanadaOrBust:
But who will decide "the best men" and "the best women"? I feel I'm a best man and I'm sure many people feel they're best men too

Who decides everything else in society? Who decided Tinubu will be President? But there'd also be gene selection and gene editing, not that the "best" will be taken without alteration. Also some integration with AI will be added. People will not be banned from having their own babies if they still choose but of course their babies wont be able to compete with these babies.

Pathetic liar

nonny1212:
Nigeria police wey no dey like stress, them go cock gun shoot you ASAP.

And the gun will Jam or hit an innocent person!😅

DeltaBachelor:
Chai….Las Las, he will still be caught, so what’s the need ?

Lol, at least he'll avoid jail for a few days while he gets his affairs in order

LordReed:
Yes it is possible for a man to be aware that a child may not be his and still choose to raise the child. But the issue here is Quin wants the state to curtail the rights of EVERY MAN. Look now he even dreams of a state powered eugenics program. The last time we heard of something like that it was from the Nazis. Basically Quin is dreaming of a fascist state that forces men to father children that are not theirs. Do we need to elaborate all the ways this is a bad idea? After 15 pages of sound arguments to the contrary?

You keep citing 15 pages and labeling things and saying what Nazi's did - without presenting any argument whatsoever!
You write, "The issue here is he wants the state to curtail the rights of EVERY MAN", doesn't the state usually curtail your rights when it is deemed in society's interest? Can you grow and smoke Marijuana in your room? Can you sex or marry a 16 year old? So talkin about the state curtailing rights is no argument.

Like I said, never mind lebels or what Nazi's did, just tell us (without name-calling or insults) why it is bad to try to eliminate bad and disease-prone genes from the human gene pool through gene selection, then tell us how you'd rather do it. Just state your own points as I do, and repeat them if necessary so no one can pretend not to understand - just as I do!

LordReed:
So you just guessed? You didn't look at any actually data, you are just basing your opinion on a guess!

If I talk now you will say I'm insulting you.

And to top it off you want a eugenics program. Do you need me to explain why a eugenics program is a bad idea? Not to talk of why you would choose a program similar to what the Nazi wanted.

Bro you are so full of bad ideas.

I actually didn't just guess. I looked at this statistics shown below (1-4%), then combined it with the one you showed (25%), to arrive at the less than 10%. Common sense.

Never mind lebels or what Nazi's did, just tell us (without name-calling or insults) why it is bad to try to eliminate bad and disease-prone genes from the human gene pool through gene selection, then tell us how you'd rather do it.

correctguy101:
Come on, I've told you before in another way. There's a reason for selective breeding.

And as an animal different from the rest, humans truly have a just cause to do selective breeding.

You can't decide to do it anyhow like common animals. Even in the animal world, some do choose who they mate with. Let alone humans.

Why do you think that happens?

Ya claims are not founded on solid grounds. Sorry...


Lemme share something real personal. But before I choose to have a child with any woman, she must have records that are encouraging even if you check to the third generation... My reason is simple. My Uncle...

The old boy married in the 70s one fine girl. But she has more than one person in her family that has succumbed to madness, and she's showing signs as the years pass. Today, she's semi crazy.

So how I no go wonder the pool I'm mixing my own genes with? That's why all these things gained credibility.

There are stupid women out there who go find and make out with psychopaths and total inhumane animals, whose idiocy springs from defective genes. So make we accept them too?

By my Creator, stop please. You know how many loonies dey outside? then some woman that says she's a wife would now make me take care of the child of a loonie? What if the child inherits the defective genes?

The peace of any man is self given, not even the children he has could make that possible. All they can be is an addition to the peace a man already has.

If not for my privacy I would have posted some pictures. But let's leave it at that.

Lordreed, what do you truly think about this matter our op brought up. I would like to know if it's possible for a man, aware of these possibilities to decide to be ignorant of such an easy matter as this and be happy....

I personally feel it's impossible.

But we're NOT talking of your wife. We're talking of a child you've raised from infancy to about 10, 11, 12, with only about 7 more years left to go!
About your uncle's situation, that can happen regardless of how careful a person is. Something can be so hidden way back in ancestral gene line
that there hasn't been any sign of it for generations only for it to manifest with a child. Hence two white people can have a "black" baby or two black people have a "white" child. The only way to avoid it is scientific gene selection as I was suggesting!

LordReed:
The question is how do you know? Are you just guessing?

Common sense, that's how. Rather obvious.

But never mind all that. what do you think of this below? Don't you think we ought be able to override our animal instinct with reasoning? Why must a person's particular genes survive? How does that benefit the person?? What do you think of this: the best women's eggs are fertilized with the best men's sperm and children mass-produced and distributed? That way evrryone experiences fatherhood and motherhood and all the children have great genes! Just say what's wrong with the plan, don't insult or call me names!

Nature gave we animals an extremely strong instinct to have our genes survive and most of our actions are dictated by that instinct. That's why men want to sleep with as many women as possible and why a mother gazelle
would give her life for her baby. 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!
We are not lower animals. We are humans. God gave us the ability to reason, the ability to think thongs through. We ought be able to use it to override our base animal instincts!

Fiscus105, Jmichael1, Diamond098454, immortalcrown, papiSNEH, Goo0dHardDick, CanadaOrBust, OperationalVehi, DeltaBachelor, Dogalmighty17, LordIsaac, Dghold, motymop:Sonnobax15, franchasng, ogolemati, UkoAnnang, correctguy101, pocohantas, tuoyoojo, judewrites, helinues, mikeapollo, MarketDispatch, Righteousness2, Hezmatosky210, DMCA, ekukeku,
EmmyMaestro, Nicotinekills, Ashirioluwa, Abas01, LordReed, Konijunkie, Lalami3232, Federalofficia, Ishilove, CoolUsername, Secretbloodline, igwethompson854, joseph1832, blaise26abj, Denver88, SMT042, addictiv, DMCA, bentenny, GenFunction, CzarChris, tundebasic
Hmmmmm2024, villagerspeople, echoxyz, Dogalmighty17, Evercurious, Codes151, mamaafrikADUBA1, Cj4charles, WatchYourSix, Exousiang01, Magnetic010, Amovingman, SatanIsAllah, Parachoko, femi4, KIDfurniture, themanderon, tundebasic, obacasmir, harjay1986, alshalz, Iyobaba, Oakenshield, farano, Rocktation, dominique, nlfpmod, seun

DMCA:
If e like make e turn president tomorrow, I no want d bastard associated with me
make e no carry my name

You are calling your president bastard. Until DSS catch you!
Well, everything is being renamed Tinubu, after the "bastard". Deal with it!

.

Now that many people have agreed with me, I want to state some of the points clearly so that (hopefully) everybody will agree with me.

**1) Birth DNA test is best because it makes this debate mute. But unfortunately we don't have that

**2) A man who has raised and loved a child from infancy to teenage IS HIS FATHER and ought focus on properly raising the precious child to maturity, instead of spending scarce resources on UNWARRANTED DNA FISHING EXPEDITIONS!

**3) Nothing wrong in the state enacting laws to encourage him do just that.

**4) 90% of DNA test cases, the husband is the biological. So we're talking about 10%. Different if the tests were free and unobtrusive. But no, they're expensive and involves the children and their mother who now know their father lacks trust in them. And lacks love for them too because if you love someone you won't be out trying to prove they're not your child! Those are enough to break up a home even if it turns out the father is the biological!

**5) Efect on society as a whole ought also be taken into account. Unwarranted DNA fishing expeditions on teenagers raised from birth can only result in possible broken homes, destruction of trust within the home, and fatherless children that'll likely end up menace to society!

**6) Govt's duty to protect life and property is not helped by broken homes and fatherless children. The main aim ought be to prevent destabilization of families and allow children be raised with both a father and a mother.

**7) Assuming test is negative, the biological will not suddenly appear!

**8} Even if you land in the 10% it is not the end of the world. Remember people pay millions for a child and others fight tooth and nail for custody. Getting a healthy child for free is not the worst thing in the world.

**9) Also remembe that throughout human history there had never been DNA tests yet we're still around and kicking. And sometimes, unbeknownst to the father, the most successful of his children is not even his biological child
but he gets all the accolade as his father and the child carries his name and proudly references him as his father. How is sperm more important than that?

**10) If you study the screenshot below you'll know that many people (maybe including you) are NOT biologically related to some of their ancestors. What difference has it made??

**11) The only father who has testified on this thread wrote: "After.after the love and bonding with my children from pregnancy to infancy to adolescence, many times we've shared love, sufferings, laughter, pains and joy together then one idiot from nowhere wants to drag me to go and do DNA, as how naw?"

Hopefully everyone now agrees with me. If you still don't, all I can say is I'm sorry for you!

Fiscus105, Jmichael1, Diamond098454, immortalcrown, papiSNEH, Goo0dHardDick, CanadaOrBust, OperationalVehi, DeltaBachelor, Dogalmighty17, LordIsaac, Dghold, ekukeku, motymop:Sonnobax15, franchasng, ogolemati, UkoAnnang, correctguy101, pocohantas, tuoyoojo, judewrites, helinues, mikeapollo, MarketDispatch, JASONjnr,
EmmyMaestro, Nicotinekills, Ashirioluwa, Abas01, LordReed, Konijunkie, Lalami3232, Federalofficia, Ishilove, DMCA, CoolUsername, Secretbloodline, igwethompson854, joseph1832, blaise26abj, Denver88, SMT042, addictiv, DMCA, bentenny, GenFunction, CzarChris, tundebasic, Hmmmmm2024, villagerspeople, echoxyz, Dogalmighty17, Evercurious, Codes151, mamaafrikADUBA1, Cj4charles, WatchYourSix, Exousiang01, Magnetic010, Amovingman, SatanIsAllah, Parachoko, femi4, KIDfurniture, themanderon, tundebasic, obacasmir, harjay1986, alshalz, Iyobaba, Oakenshield, farano, Rocktation, dominique, nlfpmod, seun

DMCA:
Quin defender of paternity fraud, come an see

Come and see what? You didn’t post any screenshot. And FYI this is not about parternity fraud. This is about discouraging people from going on a wild goose chase that'll likely end up in breaking up a home wether DNA turns out negative or positive!

reservd:
I quite agree with you but what happened to the biological father of the "fatherless" children? We are in a society where the actual father can later come and claim his child unless he's already late. This child we are "protecting here, how will he/she feel finding out the person he has been looking up to isn't his/her biological father. My point in all these is just sincerity from the onset, that's all

I'm also an advocate of DNA test at birth.
For various reasons the biological father (if different) hasn't been in the picture for ten years
and is not likely to suddenly pop back into the picture.
But let's be clear what we are talking about here:
90% of DNA test cases the husband is the biological. So we're talking about 10%. Different if the tests were free and unobtrusive. But no, they're expensive and involves the children and their mother knowing their father lacks trust in them. And love too because if you love someone you won't be out trying to prove they're not your child. That's enough to break up a home even if it turns out the father is the biological!

Also remember, all through history there had never been DNA tests and sometimes, unbeknownst to the father, the most successful of his children is not even his biological child
but he gets all the accolade as his father and the child carries his name and proudly references him as his father.
Can't you see that matters way more than sperm??

Here's what a real father wrote below on this thread. Govt law will be to encourage all fathers of teenagers to be more like that!
Here it is:

But jokes apart, there's elements of truth here o. Because after the love and bond with my children from pregnancy to infancy to adolescent to adult, many times we've shared love, sufferings, laughter, pains and joy together then one idiot from nowhere wants to drag me to go and do DNA, as how naw? The fact is that, I will never ever want to think whether the children are mine or not. Children wey i nurture from pregnancy till now

slimik:
I pour you spit bro you are cursed! 😆

Back to sender.
But never mind about me, simply state your own points as my erudite friend above just did. This is a debate not some sort of a fight!

CoolUsername:
.

You said "His money, his choice". Was pointing out to you, just because it is your money doesn't mean the state can't prevent you from spending it in certain things!

IamAsiri:
Don't care about what the thread is about. Your topic is just wrong, which is what I pointed out.

Well, debates don't work that way. You can't say something is wrong without saying WHY it is wrong. That's not how it works

LibertyRep:
Clarification noted.

But what killed her is the issue at hand.

Plus why second a university staff to the ministry of works and then to the private residence of a minister.

Lots of things to unravel and this should not be swept under the rug.

It WILL be swept under the rug!
And ain't nothing you can do about

Ok, therefore you kill her!

LordReed:
Haa, poor guy, he can't think.

Bwahahahahahaha

LordReed:
Unlike you I don't arrogantly think the ideas I dreamed up while navel gazing are supreme, I can recognise when people have excellent points. Lots of people have given you well thought out and well written rebuttals to anything you have to say and instead of considering it you just repeat your already thoroughly defeated idea.

😅
Poor guy, he can't think of any points to present!😂

CoolUsername:
His money, his choice

Why doesn't he use his money to marry a consenting underage girl? It is his money and the girl is willing

addictiv:
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.

Fairly long one.
(I never said I was against birth DNA)
Ok, let's be clear what we are talking about here:
90% of DNA test cases the husband is the biological. So we're talking about 10%. Different if the tests were free and unobtrusive. But no, they're expensive and involves the children and their mother knowing their father lacks trust in them. And love too because if you love someone you won't be out trying to prove they're not your child. That's enough to break up a home even if it turns out the father is the biological!

Also remember, all through history there had never been DNA tests and sometimes, unbeknownst to the father, the most successful of his children is not even his biological child
but he gets all the accolade as his father and the child carries his name and proudly references him as his father.
Can't you see that matters way more than sperm??

Here's what a real father wrote below on this thread. Govt law will be to encourage all fathers of teenagers to be more like that!
Here it is:

But jokes apart, there's elements of truth here o. Because after the love and bond with my children from pregnancy to infancy to adolescent to adult, many times we've shared love, sufferings, laughter, pains and joy together then one idiot from nowhere wants to drag me to go and do DNA, as how naw? The fact is that, I will never ever want to think whether the children are mine or not. Children wey i nurture from pregnancy till now

CoolUsername:
How does a man end up unwittingly raising a child that isn't his outside of adultery and paternity?

That's the thing, we don't know whether there's been any of that. We do know that about 90% of cases turn out to be the man's biological child.
But that's not our concern here. What we are concerned with is discouraging sudden unwarranted expensive DNA fishing expeditions on teenagers raised from infancy!

LordReed:
I said WE not I, another evidence that you are incapable of being reasonable.

And can you please tell us why you can't stand on your own two feet? Why must you drag "we" into it??
See, you're too adversarial about the whole thing, using words like "clueless",
"myopic", "puerile", "lost in dreamland", instead of simply stating your points! Which is actually a sign of someone with no cogent argument.
This is a discussion, a debate, not some fight. You present your points and if someone doesn't get it or pretend they don't get it, you present it again - exactly what I do!
No need for insulting or adversarial tone!

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!

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??

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

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!

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

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!

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!