100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: mandatory DNA testing | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't know if anyone else has suggested this as far as up in government before, so don't think I am quoting an article or anything here. I just have an opinion on something and want to know what your ideas are.
I believe that all children when they are born should be required to have their dna tested, and databased. This is for several reasons too. 1. It would help increase the likelihood of finding something wrong (like parkinsons disease, or leukemia, etc) sooner, thus having a better chance of resolving the problem. 2. It will take some time, but after so long, when children are born and have their dna registered, if the father ran away during the pregnancy, the dna can be matched against the database (just like fingerprinting in crimes) and the father can be identified, and thus made to pay child support. In the case of pregnancies by rape, this could also be an effective tool, as not only would they have the name of the father, but obviously they would have the rapist as well. 3. If for some reason you are in an accident, and unconcious, the hospital can run a dna check on you, and find out who you are and let your family know. There are several more good reasons for this to be done, but I am going to wait and see how much people come in and start bashing my head against the wall fro even considering the idea of a national registry, which would be a restriction against their personal freedoms and such. Even though you are required to have a blood test done at birth now in order to get your blood type. I just ask one simple consideration folks. If you can not come in and remain calm and rational, please do not post. There is no need for ranting or crying out servitude, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay the number 2 one presents issues because forcing someone in the life of a child who does not want to be there is just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if anyone else has suggested this as far as up in government before, so don't think I am quoting an article or anything here. I just have an opinion on something and want to know what your ideas are. I believe that all children when they are born should be required to have their dna tested, and databased. This is for several reasons too. 1. It would help increase the likelihood of finding something wrong (like parkinsons disease, or leukemia, etc) sooner, thus having a better chance of resolving the problem. 2. It will take some time, but after so long, when children are born and have their dna registered, if the father ran away during the pregnancy, the dna can be matched against the database (just like fingerprinting in crimes) and the father can be identified, and thus made to pay child support. In the case of pregnancies by rape, this could also be an effective tool, as not only would they have the name of the father, but obviously they would have the rapist as well. 3. If for some reason you are in an accident, and unconcious, the hospital can run a dna check on you, and find out who you are and let your family know. There are several more good reasons for this to be done, but I am going to wait and see how much people come in and start bashing my head against the wall fro even considering the idea of a national registry, which would be a restriction against their personal freedoms and such. Even though you are required to have a blood test done at birth now in order to get your blood type. I just ask one simple consideration folks. If you can not come in and remain calm and rational, please do not post. There is no need for ranting or crying out servitude, etc. You know, I don't really mind the idea of the DNA testing at birth for rare diseases and things of the sort. Although the problem with that is you can be a carrier of a disease and never have it surface. So I don't know how much good it would do and it would cost lots of money to the hospital which is why they don't do that now. And it is not something that I think the parents or insurance should be required to pay for as it's not a necessary procedure in most cases. Although where I don't like the idea is where you go into the DNA then being put on file outside of the hospital. Patient records are confidential and can't be used without the patients permission anyway. We can't allow hospitals to start doing DNA tests and then handing the results over to police databases on the grounds that we will have it if the person ever decides to break a law in the future. I see where you are going with it and can see some benefits but the cons definately outweight the pros. I feel that a system like that would be too easy to abuse and too cost effective to the hospitals (Since obviously they should be picking up the charges on any procedure the patient doesn't want.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay the number 2 one presents issues because forcing someone in the life of a child who does not want to be there is just wrong. And along with that, what if the baby was born from a sperm donor? The sperm donor would automatically lose his rights to anonymity. Also too, with the way things are going with the government and the Patriot Act and things of that nature, I'm not willing to give them any more ammunition to infringe on my civil liberties or that of my child. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay the number 2 one presents issues because forcing someone in the life of a child who does not want to be there is just wrong. I did not say force the would be parent into the childs life. I said collect the child support they should be paying due to the fact that they are a parent. I am sorry if you find that offensive, but the child in question has teh RIGHT to expect you as their parent (any parent not you personally) to step forward and represent their legal interests towards the child support, even if all you do is place it in savings for them when they grow older. My wife ran away when the youngest was 2. doing the math for her 88 dollars a month over 15 years is almost 8,000 dollars per child if saved. Thats before interest and whatnot. Might not seem like much, but it is a good start on a college education if ntohing else. So yes, dna testing so that all indigent parents can be found and made to pay support is a very good reason. And remember just because you have to pay support, does nto garuntee you have contact witht he child. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if anyone else has suggested this as far as up in government before, so don't think I am quoting an article or anything here. I just have an opinion on something and want to know what your ideas are. I believe that all children when they are born should be required to have their dna tested, and databased. This is for several reasons too. 1. It would help increase the likelihood of finding something wrong (like parkinsons disease, or leukemia, etc) sooner, thus having a better chance of resolving the problem. 2. It will take some time, but after so long, when children are born and have their dna registered, if the father ran away during the pregnancy, the dna can be matched against the database (just like fingerprinting in crimes) and the father can be identified, and thus made to pay child support. In the case of pregnancies by rape, this could also be an effective tool, as not only would they have the name of the father, but obviously they would have the rapist as well. 3. If for some reason you are in an accident, and unconcious, the hospital can run a dna check on you, and find out who you are and let your family know. There are several more good reasons for this to be done, but I am going to wait and see how much people come in and start bashing my head against the wall fro even considering the idea of a national registry, which would be a restriction against their personal freedoms and such. Even though you are required to have a blood test done at birth now in order to get your blood type. I just ask one simple consideration folks. If you can not come in and remain calm and rational, please do not post. There is no need for ranting or crying out servitude, etc. You know, I don't really mind the idea of the DNA testing at birth for rare diseases and things of the sort. Although the problem with that is you can be a carrier of a disease and never have it surface. So I don't know how much good it would do and it would cost lots of money to the hospital which is why they don't do that now. And it is not something that I think the parents or insurance should be required to pay for as it's not a necessary procedure in most cases. Although where I don't like the idea is where you go into the DNA then being put on file outside of the hospital. Patient records are confidential and can't be used without the patients permission anyway. We can't allow hospitals to start doing DNA tests and then handing the results over to police databases on the grounds that we will have it if the person ever decides to break a law in the future. I see where you are going with it and can see some benefits but the cons definately outweight the pros. I feel that a system like that would be too easy to abuse and too cost effective to the hospitals (Since obviously they should be picking up the charges on any procedure the patient doesn't want.) blood testing for the blood type is not a neccesary issue either, yet it is required, and the parents have to pay for that (if their insurance does not cover the pregnancy to begin with). The dna could almost definitely be taken from the same drop or two of blood they get for the blood testing. And I agree the information would not be automatically released on the basis you might become a criminal some day. it should be stored just like your blood test is. BUT like your footprints and fingerprints, it should be accessable in so far as searching for a match if something comes up. Not a case of typing in john doe and getting their information. You plug the dna into the system (just like a fingerprint) and the computer looks for a match. The searching person(s) never sees anything except the match. Same procedure as when I fingerprint is taken from a crime scene. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch the movie Gattaca .....it will open you eyes to dna testing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay the number 2 one presents issues because forcing someone in the life of a child who does not want to be there is just wrong. And along with that, what if the baby was born from a sperm donor? The sperm donor would automatically lose his rights to anonymity. Also too, with the way things are going with the government and the Patriot Act and things of that nature, I'm not willing to give them any more ammunition to infringe on my civil liberties or that of my child. Thats just it, this is not a civil liberties issue. Not any more than blood testing at birth, or footprint registering is. Also, in the case of a sperm donor, if you receive donated sperm, then you have to sign paperwork to that affect which would nullify the donors responsibility. So no infringement on his rights there. And int he case of adoptions it would be the same as a donor, with the sole exception that any known medical condition from the biological family would be made available to the child and their parents. Not the name of the biological parents, just the medical background (for example if cancer runs int he family). The child has the right to know whether or not they have a risk for certain things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch the movie Gattaca .....it will open you eyes to dna testing I dont base anything off of hollywood. Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes you are
Watch the movie Gattaca .....it will open you eyes to dna testing I dont base anything off of hollywood. Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eugenics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes you are Watch the movie Gattaca .....it will open you eyes to dna testing I dont base anything off of hollywood. Sorry. No I am not, and I will ask you once not to come in here and claim you know what I am thinking or doing again. If you have a legitimate opinion about the subject of dna testing at birth, feel free to state it. But do not come in here and cause trouble please. And again, I would like to hear YOUR opinion, not some hollywood script. Thank You. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
try to get health insurance if you are tested at birth and have a genetic predisposition to any disease/cancer/etc.
try to get a well paying prestigious job if your genetic make-up indicates you have a limited mental capacity.... i can comment in any forum at any time..whether or not i am on subject... you said you were sorry...i agreed with you...what is the problem |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eugenics The idea of trying to help make sure people don't have to suffer any more than necesarry, yes that would be one result. And you not I said suffer. I am not talking about cleaning the human gene pool, or making a stronger, better human population. I am talking about finding a cure for cancer, or for M.D., and being able to offer children the chance to not have to suffer through either of those conditions (not to mention the suffering a parent goes through when their child has cancer). I am also talking about getting a handle on indigent parents and making them support their children. Again the key word is indigent. If you were a sperm donor, or you gave your child up for adoption, then you are not indigent. BUT, if you ran away cause you didn't wanna be a parent, or you don't pay support cause you would rather have the extra money for Friday night, then hell yes you are an indigent parent. I am not talking about Hollywodds "judge doom with sylvester stalone" (I think thats the right movie, lol) where your information is on file, and a copmuyter determines if you are likely to commit a crime. O r another movie out there where cops go back in time and imprison you BEFORE you commit the crime, in order to prevent it from happening. That is all hollywood action and drama. I am talking about realistic science and helping stop certain problems and medical conditions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
try to get health insurance if you are tested at birth and have a genetic predisposition to any disease/cancer/etc. try to get a well paying prestigious job if your genetic make-up indicates you have a limited mental capacity.... i can comment in any forum at any time..whether or not i am on subject... you said you were sorry...i agreed with you...what is the problem ok you have two valid considerations there. except for one thing. You are assuming the information is available to the public (hence insurance agencies or employers). It would not be. It would be completely confidential, and only accessable if the dna matched against someone elses in a dna search (as in looking for an indigent parent). As far as commenting on any subject whether you stay on topic or not, go back and read the rules of the forums again. If you are going to comment, then you need to stay on topic. This is explicitly stated in the rules. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh....yes confidential...just like the credit card numbers at tjmaxx...DSW...Data Processors international....hotels.com......
Shall I go on....... i think that you are talking about jsh rules in a dna testing forum....that is off topic!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay the number 2 one presents issues because forcing someone in the life of a child who does not want to be there is just wrong. I did not say force the would be parent into the childs life. I said collect the child support they should be paying due to the fact that they are a parent. I am sorry if you find that offensive, but the child in question has teh RIGHT to expect you as their parent (any parent not you personally) to step forward and represent their legal interests towards the child support, even if all you do is place it in savings for them when they grow older. My wife ran away when the youngest was 2. doing the math for her 88 dollars a month over 15 years is almost 8,000 dollars per child if saved. Thats before interest and whatnot. Might not seem like much, but it is a good start on a college education if ntohing else. So yes, dna testing so that all indigent parents can be found and made to pay support is a very good reason. And remember just because you have to pay support, does nto garuntee you have contact witht he child. Excuse me. Most guys equate paying money to the right to pop in and out of the childs life when ever they want. No offense but HELL NO. Trust me, it would be best to be poor than the emotional damage that does trust me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay the number 2 one presents issues because forcing someone in the life of a child who does not want to be there is just wrong. I did not say force the would be parent into the childs life. I said collect the child support they should be paying due to the fact that they are a parent. I am sorry if you find that offensive, but the child in question has teh RIGHT to expect you as their parent (any parent not you personally) to step forward and represent their legal interests towards the child support, even if all you do is place it in savings for them when they grow older. My wife ran away when the youngest was 2. doing the math for her 88 dollars a month over 15 years is almost 8,000 dollars per child if saved. Thats before interest and whatnot. Might not seem like much, but it is a good start on a college education if ntohing else. So yes, dna testing so that all indigent parents can be found and made to pay support is a very good reason. And remember just because you have to pay support, does nto garuntee you have contact witht he child. Excuse me. Most guys equate paying money to the right to pop in and out of the childs life when ever they want. No offense but HELL NO. Trust me, it would be best to be poor than the emotional damage that does trust me. most women think the same thing when it is them that pay the support. But guess what hun? Their opinion doesn't matter, it is what you and the courts decide. If you do not want them in the child's life, and have valid reasoning not to let them in, then you go to the court and the court orders no contact, while still paying support. However, if you do not have a valid reason for denying contact, then yes the other parent DOES have the right to pop in if they want to. Nothing you can do about it. SO by all means, that being the way it is, again, you should be willing to do what it takes to secure your child the money that they have a legal right to. And DNA testing is one way to doso. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
franshade
on
Wed 06/11/08 08:56 AM
|
|
I don't know if anyone else has suggested this as far as up in government before, so don't think I am quoting an article or anything here. I just have an opinion on something and want to know what your ideas are. I believe that all children when they are born should be required to have their dna tested, and databased. This is for several reasons too. I strongly disagree 1. It would help increase the likelihood of finding something wrong (like parkinsons disease, or leukemia, etc) sooner, thus having a better chance of resolving the problem. There are tests available now which does not include being profiled nor data based. Also, to finding something wrong does not mean you will find a cure or resolve the problem any better. 2. It will take some time, but after so long, when children are born and have their dna registered, if the father ran away during the pregnancy, the dna can be matched against the database (just like fingerprinting in crimes) and the father can be identified, and thus made to pay child support. In the case of pregnancies by rape, this could also be an effective tool, as not only would they have the name of the father, but obviously they would have the rapist as well. 3. If for some reason you are in an accident, and unconcious, the hospital can run a dna check on you, and find out who you are and let your family know.  ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
daniel48706
on
Wed 06/11/08 09:03 AM
|
|
There is no way to force payment from a slacker, regardless of whether you can find him/her or not. In reference to rape, it may or may not work. There will always be the question on percentage of match if not 100%. No there is no way to force someone to pay their child support. However there is plenty of room in the jail house for those that refuse to follow a court order. Ask my ex, she missed visiting one by two days for not paying her child support. She thought she could get away with not working, and thus claim she could not pay the support due to lack of income. Michigan's courts turned that thinking process around real fast. So I still say, get the dna testing done. Find the parent and make them either pay their support or go to jail. I garuntee most parents will choose to pay, if jail time starts getting enforced, rather than spend the rest of their lives in jail. lol about the underwear too. But seriously though, what if your mugged, and thus your purse/wallet etc is stolen? |
|
|
|
|
