comment: >
  
  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.
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.