Discussing DNA is just arguing about the method of identification. Any other approach will do.
The main point is that the man pays support for 21 years if a woman carries a baby to term, even if the woman does not know who he is. The money goes to the woman or adoptive parents.
A thief who does not get caught is no less of a thief.
In general, I agree with your analysis of taking DNA and the Constitution. Logically, the fourth and fifth amendments would most likely apply, but the court will twist things however they like when there are conflicting rights.
Currently, they take a baby’s footprint in the hospital upon birth. I see no difference between taking DNA at the same time. The usage of that information in the future would be up to the courts to decide.
I have seen a lot of science fiction come true in my life and stand on the last paragraph.
This was a very well thought out response. It, along with your responses to other articles, could themselves stand alone as articles. You should publish them.
I have no pay grade.