Marriage, adoption, surnames, DNA tests, gay marriage

[Raulmarrio2000]

The gay marriage bill  in Argentina is about to be finally rejected. A civil union which would allow all kinds of couples to share social security and inherit one another is likely to be approved instead. I don't oppose it, since it's just a civil economical treaty and I don't mind the reasons of the persons who suscribe it.

However gay couples can already adopt children as indiviuals, even if they live with their partners, just as any single individual is allowed to have or adopt a child, or to use in vitro fertilization with donated sexual cells.
Also, heterosexual singles have children being singles in the same ways.
There are also many cases of adultery in which the child has a mistaken father or no father at all.
Hetersexual married couples can also adpt a child and give him their surnames, ignoring the biological origin. ( the child is allowed by law to enquire about his real origin at a court when he is an adult, but that is not always done, even more, the child may not even know that he was adopted.

My idea is that it should be compulsory to inform the child about his own biological parents and he should have only their surnames. A DNA test should be performed in case of little doubt. A parent, in cases of adultery or single mothers, should be punished with jail if DNA test proves they have given the wrong identity of biological parents whether intentionallly or by omitting to declare about a dubious parentship.

The question is: Should DNA tests be compulsory in order that everyone has the real surmane of biological parents?.

What's your opinion?

[Rubystars]

DNA testing opens up all kinds of bad doors about genetic discrimination by insurance companies, employers, etc.

I actually did a report on this for school a couple of years ago. There was a case where a woman had a fetus that tested positive for a genetic disease. The insurance company told the mother it would pay for an abortion but would not help pay for the baby's birth or medical care once the baby was born. The woman successfully fought the insurance company, but there are a lot of other people who have been pressured by doctors or insurance companies into aborting their babies because of this kind of stuff.

I could see a situation, under an un-just government, where newly born babies have genetic profiles run and are killed if they test positive for a suspected disease (some of them aren't readily apparent at birth).

This could be a problem for people who carry certain genes that pre-dispose them to cancer or heart disease too, because the insurance company might say they won't cover them even though they are still young and healthy and have not developed a disease (and lifestyle may still be able to influence the outcome).

[Raulmarrio2000]

I only meant a DNA test to assure correct biological parenthood.

[Rubystars]

I only meant a DNA test to assure correct biological parenthood.

It wouldn't stop there though. They'd want everyone's full DNA profile for criminal background checks, etc. and as I mentioned in my last post it's a really big privacy issue too.

[Raulmarrio2000]

Rubystars, in many countries, it's forbidden to test people for HIV. However everyones goes to a state lab to get tested for other reasons and I haven't heard about even one case in which their blood was tested for HIV without their consent. Why would a parenthood DNA test would be illegally used to test for any other thing?

[Rubystars]

The DNA test might go on their regular medical file, and sometimes this information can be leaked to insurance companies. I saw a cable show one time where a woman got turned down for insurance because she had once had a yeast infection. That's how crazy this stuff can get.

[Zelhar]

DNA tests should never be compulsory. To many people DNA doesn't matter and it is wrong to force you idea on them. But in case of adoption it may be reasonable to make it mandatory to notify the child that he is adopted when he gets to a certain age.