See there is the difference we have I do NOT see it as lying.

Investigations are done everyday w/o the people being investigated knowledge, are all the investigators lairs?

He has a very real question.

I noticed you didn't comment on the FACT the mother refused a medical test needed by the child to see if it had a hereditary disease.

If lying is immoral surely deigning a child a needed medical test is too.

Giving even more reason to for him to question paternity.

So the argument of the DNA test being wanted only because of a old mobility test won't hold water anymore. As the FACT she is refusing the child a needed medical test is also very suspect.

You truly are grasping at straws now to defend your position. Are you seriously trying to compare an investigation of say the police of someone to a husband going behind his wife's back to do a DNA test? Honestly if you are that clueless to not see the massive difference in those two thing's then debating you is quite pointless.

Difference of opinion. I simply stated MINE, whereby it is, because FOR ME, lying by omission is still lying.

Investigators don't have a personal relationship with the people they're investigating whereby there is an expectation of trust. I don't expect strangers to trust me, but I DO expect someone I'm in a relationship to.

I think it depends on what the disease is. I personally don't want to live my life with the spectre of the possibility of getting a disease hanging over my head, so I would refuse the tests MYSELF. I feel that what happens, happens.

We don't know what kind of medical test is being talked about here or what disease is being tested for, NOR do we know the mother's PERSONAL beliefs. Some religious groups do not believe in blood transfusions, EVEN though, in some cases, someone may die without one. I personally do not hold this belief, but what right do I have to infringe on someone else's right to it? For some it may be immoral to deny the child the test, for others it may not, but we do not have enough information about the situation to make any sort of a judgement call on it.

Again, he has every right to get a paternity test done IF HE WANTS, but that doesn't mean he should lie to his wife about it.

There are MANY reasons someone may refuse a test besides infidelity and without knowing this woman's reasons/beliefs, I don't feel there's enough info there to make a judgement call.

If this man wants the test, GET ONE DONE! Who here has said he shouldn't? No one disagrees with his right to have one, but we do disagree with the method. TO SOME OF US, lying to one's SO and going behind their backs to "test" their fidelity is immoral.

MY morals dictate that lying to your SO is wrong, YOURS obviously do not.

That isn't true and I've stated repeatedly that I, personally, would tell my wife. I don't agree with you that he is lying by not telling his wife. I don't agree that it's a lie of omission, either. If he doesn't think his wife is entitled to know, he isn't omitting anything.

The law says it is within the bounds of morality

The law says no such thing. Don't confuse legality with morality.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.

Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

Just as accusing someone of any of it because of something you made up in your head is reprehensible.

Who do you think hires the investigators?

You have to be joking! ..........Ever heard of neglect?
How you could hold such high standards of lying and yet support deigning a child needed medical help is mind boggling.

The OPie said that the others in the family needed prescriptions to control the disease!
Does the mothers personal beliefs trump the fathers?

He doesn't have to lie just get a test.

Yet you feel comfortable in judging the husbands actions......Interesting!

Funny relationships are based on "testing" we look at photos on the net to "test" if they are attractive enough.....We go on first dates to "test" to see if they are compatible enough to go further....... We date and become exclusive to "test" if we want to live with/marry someone..........Tell me when does the "testing" become immoral?

Why would you tell your wife if she isn't entitled to know?

It is not illegal to not test for genetic diseases. YOUR morality deems it immoral, but other people's morality may not. SOME people have RELIGIOUS reasons to, it doesn't make their reasons any less valid TO THEM than your reasons are TO YOU.

I may not agree with their beliefs, but I do agree with their right to hold them.

This is where knowing what disease is being discussed here would be helpful. We could be talking about a disease whereby they all have an allergy to soap that causes rashes or we could be talking about cancer. Whatever this mother's reasons for not wanting the test, we don't know here and so you can only guess that they are nefarious.

Lying by omission is still lying. So would you say it's okay for a woman to go to a strip club and get a lap dance from a male stripper whereby he's rubbing himself all over her, but it doesn't matter so long as she doesn't tell her partner?

Or how about, she reads your email/text messages to check and see if you've been cheating, but it's okay so long as she doesn't tell you? After all, so long as you don't know, it's okay!

Different situation. Op asked whether or not we think the "friend" should go behind the wife's back to get a paternity test. We've been given the information about the situation there and the man's thoughts on it. We have not been given information on the woman's beliefs/thoughts on the test.

You are overreaching the definition of testing here.

Here is what jumped out to me on her refusing the medical test for the child........She is either putting the health of her child in danger or knows the disease is not present.

Either way the presumed father should take the child for the medical test with or without the mothers knowledge or consent!

The law disagrees.......To knowing withhold medical treatment is a crime.....She knows the family has this disease and needs medicine to control it. That is neglect!

So you see it as moral to deign a child medical attention but immoral to test it for DNA.

Yet we do know that there are other people in the family that needs medication for the same disease. I would say that the disease is bad enough to warrant medical attention.

The only thing I would be upset about is not being able to watch!...lol
That would be fine by me....maybe she would get hot and bothered and come home and take it out on me!

If she figures out my password she deserves to read it!........No this would not bother me at all......because I am honest and have nothing to hide.........

Yes lets look at the information shall we?
He had a mobility test that showed his swimmers are duds........

This was backed up by years of not being able to produce a child......though he tried with more than one woman...........

He decided to quit trying......she said she wanted a child no matter the cost...........

She has said child

and is refusing the child a needed medical test to check for a condition that the child would need treatment for.......... WHY?.......

Seems she is afraid of what the test may show.......What other rational reason would you say there is to not test for a hereditary disease?

I posted this in a above post...............seems the information points to way more reason for the test than a old mobility test..........

BTW the religious reason is not rational to me ..........or the law.

Really?....................So you have "tested" people you dated and or lived with/married in this manner w/o their knowledge then?.........Isn't that lying by omission?

Here is what jumped out to me on her refusing the medical test for the child........She is either putting the health of her child in danger or knows the disease is not present.
Either way the presumed father should take the child for the medical test with or without the mothers knowledge or consent!

If this woman was sexually active with her husband and some other guy, all the woman could KNOW is that there is a CHANCE that the other guy is the bio father.

If this woman was sexually active with her husband and some other guy, all the woman could KNOW is that there is a CHANCE that the other guy is the bio father.

The point being what? It's a paternity test.

She's not witholding medical treatment, she is choosing not to do genetic testing on her child. The law does not deem this a neglectful.

Parents may refuse medical care for their children for different reasons religious beliefs, fear or anxiety about a medical condition or treatment, or financial issues. Child protective services agencies generally will intervene when:

Medical neglect

Medical neglect is the failure to provide appropriate health care for a child (although financially able to do so), thus placing the child at risk of being seriously disabled or disfigured or dying. According to NCANDS, in 2005, 2 percent of children (17,637 children) in the United States were victims of medical neglect (USDHHS, 2007). Concern is warranted not only when a parent refuses medical care for a child in an emergency or for an acute illness, but also when a parent ignores medical recommendations for a child with a treatable chronic disease or disability, resulting in frequent hospitalizations or significant deterioration.

Even in non-emergency situations, medical neglect can result in poor overall health and compounded medical problems.

Parents may refuse medical care for their children for different reasons religious beliefs, fear or anxiety about a medical condition or treatment, or financial issues. Child protective services agencies generally will intervene when:


* Medical treatment is needed in an acute emergency (e.g., a child needs a blood transfusion to treat shock);
* A child with a life-threatening chronic disease is not receiving needed medical treatment (e.g., a child with diabetes is not receiving medication); or
* A child has a chronic disease that can cause disability or disfigurement if left untreated (e.g., a child with congenital cataracts needs surgery to prevent blindness).

In these cases, child protection services agencies may seek a court order for medical treatment to save the child’s life or prevent life-threatening injury, disability or disfigurement.

Although medical neglect is highly correlated with poverty, there is a distinction between a caregiver’s inability to provide the needed care based on cultural norms or the lack of financial resources and a caregiver’s knowing reluctance or refusal to provide care. Children and their families may be in need of services even though the parent may not be intentionally neglectful. When poverty limits a parent’s resources to adequately provide necessities for the child, services may be offered to help families provide for their children.
What Can You Do?

If you suspect child neglect is occurring, first report it to the local child protective services agency (often called “social services” or “human services”) in your county or state.

Professionals who work with children are required by law to report reasonable suspicion of abuse and neglect. Furthermore, in 20 states, citizens who suspect abuse or neglect are required to report it. “Reasonable suspicion” based on objective evidence, which could be firsthand observation or statements made by a parent or child, is all that is needed to report.

What about a couple years ago when my daughter lost 1/2 the hair on her head (yep, went completely bald on one side)? After being diagnosed with alopecia, am I neglectful because I didn't do more to test her genetics and chose to deal with it as it comes? (Oh, and no one in my family has ever had it, and seeings how I haven't seen hide nor hair of her father since she was a few months old, I was SOMEHOW irresponsible in not knowing about this rare genetic disease from his side!

Again, people seek medical attention for many diseases/conditions that are not serious. The eczema I get usually presents itself after I've been in the sun (I've been told it's a minor sun allergy). I've gotten this every summer since I was 5 years old and been to many doctors about it (including some specialists). Would I consider an itchy rash to be serious? Hell no. But it's certainly uncomfortable and unsightly enough for me to get medical help for it. Without information as to what disease this family has, you are ASSuming a lot.

It's not a matter of having something to hide, it's a matter of going behind one's SO's back. If my SO asked to look at my email, I'd have nothing to hide either, so he'd be welcome to it, but I expect him to RESPECT me and my privacy enough that he'd ask before looking.

No, it showed he was UNLIKELY to father a child, not that it was IMPOSSIBLE.

And as has been stated before, fertility issues can CHANGE.

And perhaps to her, it meant she'd be willing to adopt. Fact is, YOU don't know what she meant by this statement, and it is not proof at all that she'd be willing to go behind her husband's back to get pregnant.

Last I checked, having a baby doesn't mean one cheated on their SO.

We've already listed a few.

Just because YOU may not think religion is rational doesn't mean it's not rational or reason enough FOR THEM. In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as is entrenched in our Constitution GUARANTEES freedom of religion and belief. The government itself, without amending the Constitution CANNOT create a law that denies these rights.

As has been stated MANY times above, this man has every right to get a paternity test done, and should get it done. That does NOT, however, mean that he should do so behind his wife's back. If he has a question, he should have the balls to ask it!

Where have I EVER stated that I condone testing one's SO? I said the examples you gave of "testing" aren't testing at all. There is a difference.

You have no idea if the child is in danger BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DISEASE IS!

We have been given NO information-ZERO! that would indicate that the OPs' friend was not having sex with the child's mother in the time frame where conception occurred.

I am becoming increasingly concerned with the child in this ridiculous scenario

Seems as you are the one ASSuming it is NOT a disease that could be dangerous..........I guess it is in the best interest of the child to wait until it presents?

Wow I'm glad you were not my mother or the mother of my children!

Show me where I said it was impossible!.

CAN not always do......Hence the need for the test.

And it is not proof that she wouldn't.......Your point is?.........

I said rational.

However they can and have intervened when a child needs medical attention!

Or he could exercise his RIGHT to do it w/o her knowledge.

I didn't say you condone anything........I see it as the same a test is a test.

And you don't know that it is not dangerous.......Which is more prudent to wait to see if the disease presents or check the child and be ahead of the disease?

I can't imagine a parent NOT checking for any disease dangerous or not, in their child if they know it is even remotely possible!

This is from YOUR post. In cases where the three instances above ARE NOT an issue, the government WILL NOT step in. As I've said before, Op has given us no information as to WHAT the disease is, or IF any of the above scenarios would be applicable here.

I am not assuming anything at all. I am saying without MORE information about what the disease is, NO ONE here can make a judgement call on her reasons for not wanting the test. I am saying that there is a POSSIBILITY that it may not be a life-threatening disease or it may be, but without more information, any judgements people make on her decisions are uninformed.

And we are supposed to interpret your comments about his sperm being duds as something otherwise?

Just because YOU don't agree with it doesn't make it irrational.

However, we don't know whether or not the medical issue here is life threatening or not. Just as it MAY be, it MAY NOT be. Point is, YOU DON'T KNOW enough information here to make any sort of judgement on the medical situation of this child.

My sister has PCOS. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent it (and yes, it is genetic). Should she take her newborn daughter to find out if she inherited that gene when there's NOTHING the doctors can do until the child is past puberty anyway (and that's when it becomes an issue)? Maybe you want that spectre hanging over your child's head, but I do not. When my child passes puberty, and IF she gets symptoms of it, THEN I will be able to give her doctor that information so they can make a speedier diagnosis, but until then, there's no point in worrying about what MIGHT happen.

Researchers discovered a link between Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome and other metabolic conditions such as obesity, high blood pressure and high levels of LDL "bad" cholesterol, all of which are risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Studies have also shown an increased link between PCOS and atherosclerosis, which occurs when fatty deposits called plaque cling to the interior walls of the arteries, leading to blockages that can cause heart attacks or stroke. Not only do PCOS sufferers have higher rates of plaque buildup but those over 45 have thicker deposits of plaque.