comment: >
  
  You're assuming that said father would reject the child.
  What worries you the most? That a child doesn't share your DNA or that your partner cheated on you?
  Let's say your partner doesn't cheat on you yet your child does not share your genes, would that offend you? In case your might weasel of the question, think about it and ask it as is.
  Or, imagine your partner cheats on you but the child has your genes? Does it offend you less?
  Actually, imagine you had sex with your partner AND you know she cheated on you a few hours later or before.
  And you know she's pregnant. Why would you want to make sure the child has your genes before knowing how you would treat them?
  I would say this has nothing to do with the child but your ego.
context: /u/sqeeky_wheelz (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Legally, they're two different things.
  A prenup is designed to protect past assets i.e. pre-matrimonial assets.
  A paternity test is just whether you pay child maintenance or not. Bear in mind I'm English law based so if you can show the kid isn't yours you don't have to pay. It doesn't determine anything else. 
  When it comes to validity of prenups, if there's no mention/provision for the kid (or child of the family, if not bio kid) then the pre nup may come up for challenge. >
  
  My post isn’t that they are the same. My point is that 1) everyone should have a prenup 2) every child should have factually proven paternity. 
  If the assumed father is not the biological father 2 things should happen 1) the biological father should have a right to their child’s life. 2) the assumed father should not be held liable for child support (unless they so choose to support/care for the child) >
  
  The existence of divorce laws renders prenups useless and a waste of money for the vast majority of first marriages where neither party has a pot to piss in. 
  Why the hell should everybody get a prenup when most people do not have assets until long after they are married? >
  
  Why we got a prenup: 
  Scenario: one party stays home to take care of the kids at the sacrifice of their career and the other works hard at building a career (because the other spouse has stayed home to run the household). 
  Fast forward 25 years: kids are grown and the marriage has fallen apart. Because of any of the following: cheating, been lazy, been rude, simply drifted apart, one realized they were gay, etc etc etc. 
  The stay at home parent has: no career history, no pension, no savings/emergency fund. Other than shared assets (home, cars) the stay at home parent is now 45-60 and has no financial security. They will divorce and hopefully some of the working spouses money will be split equitably - but sometimes this does not happen. Depending on local laws any company retirement meat solely be theirs. Maybe they have other ways of “hiding” assets. 
  Having a prenup agreeing that the working spouse is required to pay them alimony or other “allowances/protections” to ensure that the stay at home spouse is not destitute. 
  A colleague of mine recently divorced. After lawyer fees she ended up with $5K to her name. She is living on her own with her 2 kids (shared custody) with no alimony. At 47 she is back in the work force for… ever probably. Hopefully her kids will be successful enough for her to live with them in her old age.
  Edit to add: if you have a good lawyer make your prenup, it should NOT be rendered useless. In my country they definitely hold up. >
  
  It seems like your country’s laws are very different then the state where I got married, which had laws that covered many of these issues for first marriages that a prenup can’t contradict. That said, I can see how your kind of prenup could help make a divorce less acrimonious by prearranging financial responsibilities. 
  Perhaps your saying that a paternity test will similarly reduce the risk of any ugly surprises if a divorce occurs. I didn’t get a paternity test because I would like paternal rights if a divorce occurred, which in my country, I would have even if I’m not the biological father.  Paternal rights extend beyond paying child support and includes visitation and say over important decisions for the child. Mothers don’t magically get the kids and fathers have to pay them to take care of them. >
  
  Yes! Absolutely. I don’t think I’ve explained myself very well in my post, as people have been quiet hostile, attacking my character and marriage. But, such is the internet. 
  Imagine a man who’s child was raised by someone else - he tried to challenge paternity but the mother would not do a dna test. He had to watch someone else raise (what later turned out to be) his kid. Heart breaking! She could have prevented it, but spitefully didn’t. 
  I heard of this happening through the grapevine so I posted here - also because I do love a debate. >
  
  There is one main difference. A prenup is insurance for the future, but a DNA test is insurance on the present.
  Prenups make sense because no matter how much you trust a person now, things can change. Many people get divorced not because they were incompatible when they got married, but because the events of life made them incompatible later on. It is impossible to predict those things or even prevent them from happening. They just happen. Maybe one of the spouses gets fired from their local job, and gets an offer in a different city in a different state/province, or even country. When you married that person 10 years ago, you didn't think that moving away from your friends and family would become necessary. So, even if you trust your partner 100% in the present, a prenup is perfect sensible because you cannot guarantee that this trust will remain through all the hurdles of life
  A DNA test is different because it doubts the current state of the relationship. You are not thinking about what might happen in the unforeseen future, you are directly challenging your partner for their present actions. This means that you presently doubt your partner, which is a bit problomatic. If you don't trust your partner at present, maybe you should not be in the present relationship.
  Now, I am not saying that you should blindly trust people, and don't think a DNA test is necessarily a bad idea. However, your argument isn't that DNA tests are good, but that they are no different than prenups. If your argument is mostly about both these measure being the same, then I refute that by saying the big difference is what type of trust is being challenged. Prenups challenge the unpredictable trust that nobody know how will develop in the future. DNA tests challenge the current trust a couple has. I would say that challenging the future is more sensible than challenging the present, and certainly less abrasive in a relationship.
  EDIT: Also, prenups are even-sided, while DNA tests are one sided. If the husband asks the wife for a prenup, it is not just doubting the wife, but also doubting him. If the husband asks the wife for a DNA test, he doubts her 100%. Again, this does not mean to say they are good or bad, only that these function in a fundamentally different way. >
  
  Finally! Okay this is the kind of debate I posted for. 
  Yes the future vs present perspective is a good one, !delta 
  Possibly every prenup should include a clause that a paternity test will be done? Then it’s both I suppose. >
  
  
  Possibly every prenup should include a clause that a paternity test will be done?
  
  That's a sensible compromise. You trust her getting pregnant now, but who knows about her getting pregnant ten years from now. >
  
  I'm seeing prices around $1600. Go for it if you want to, no one is stopping you. Seems like it is like a prenup in that only those with money will be doing it. >
  
  This mindset would be indicative of paranoia or mistrust, which would be a deal-breaker in a potential partner for me. For those that don’t care about these things, sure.  It’s a fine system. >
  
  Babies aren’t always made with romantic or trust partners though. Lots of people are doing the fwb thing without commitment. >
  
  And they are free to order DNA testing in any children they are required to support.
  Leave the rest of us out of these shitty relationships, please. >
  
  
  NOT all children come from happily married wives and husbands.
  
  Likewise,  NOT all people need a paternity test.
  
  LOTS of babies are made outside of our sacred vows and two people assume paternity
  
  LOTS more aren't.
  
  Our system has room for improvement.
  
  If you want or feel the need for a paternity test, then get one.   That's not a 'system'. >
  
  Who will shoulder the cost of routine paternity testing? In my country, we have national health care which is free at the point of use, and they definitely won't pay for unnecessary tests.
  I admit I am not overly familiar with American health care, however is there a risk that only well off partners will get paternity tests and normalising it will create another divide between rich and poor? Would insurance companies pay?
  If the parents have to pay out of pocket, why would they pay extra for something they don't think they need? It's not like a house fire or robbery where you don't know what will happen in the future; the mother is already pregnant. If you aren't sure because one night stand, get the test like people already do. >
  
  I would see it very differently. A prenup is in the case of future, unpredictable, and uncertain changes in the relationship. We can never know what will change in the future and it makes sense to protect against it. 
  On the other hand, a paternity test is about the past. It’s to make sure there was no past breach of fidelity. I, as the woman, know I did not cheat. I trust that my partner has not cheated. Asking me to get a paternity test would be tantamount to saying you don’t trust me. If my partner insisted, I would acquiesce to the request but I’d also end the relationship because I won’t be with someone who wrongly suspects me of cheating. >
  
  This is very similar to the comment I have a delta to earlier, so yes here you are !delta 
  This is an actual distinction between the two. I was actually never thinking of married children when I posted - I think there’s way more children that come from homes that get together because of the pregnancy if that makes sense, so that’s more what I was thinking of. 
  As a married woman I wouldn’t object to a pat test if I had a kid, just as I don’t object to my dr screening for STI’s at my pap smear, but from the very emotional backlash I’ve gotten here today I see I’m the minority in the “happily married” camp that doesn’t care if a pat test is don’t because it’ll just prove what I know (and who doesn’t like a little validation now and then?) 
  I put the important part in ***’s because I’m tired of being told I’m psychotic for not caring. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/angstyaspen (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  They are similar but I can maybe see some good reasons for a paternity test (but not within a good marriage), on the other hand prenups are a bad idea. 
  If you need a prenup, you shouldn't be getting married. >
  
  Most men who were victims of paternity fraud trusted their wives. Stop blaming men for wanting to protect themselves. >
  
  Previously, you couldn't do a DNA test on a fetus without an amniocentesis, which carries some level of risk (for mother and fetus). 
  I've heard there's a maternal blood test that can determine paternity now, though I'm not sure how available it is.
  What level of risk do you think is acceptable for a prenatal DNA test? 
  Anyway, as to the original point, it seems kind of rude to assume this is necessary if you're in a committed relationship. >
  
  Right, I will edit to add the part about the non-invasive blood draw. It is not that expensive either (at least in my country) 
  I’m not worried about being “rude”. You know what else is rude? Allowing a man to be emotionally attached to and fiscally responsible for a child that is not his. 
  Would the heartbreak of learning the small person you loved is the product of betrayal not be bad enough? Every child support payment would be salt in the wound.