100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: mandatory DNA testing | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Thank you adj. I stated that several times now, and your the first one I have seen pick up on it (or mentionthemselves as well). All this fus about what woud happen when it became public. It wont become public, just like your blood type (which is a mandatory test in all fifty states) wont become public BEACUASE IT IS MEDICAL INFORMATION. So please, everyone, take off the tinfoil hats, and put hte macaroni strainers back in the cupboard where they belong. This is nt a conspiracy issue. AGAIN I'LL ASK HOW MY PREVIOUS CAR INSURANCE COMPANY FOUND OUT I WAS DIABETIC??? It is entirely naive to think that at some point it won't or at least couldn't become public record. When did blood type become a mandatory test??? Where is that law? Your facts on this are flawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Where did I compair you to Hitler???? I said the powers that be..... If you chose not to have children, that is YOUR choice, my point was that the government could sterilize people based on thier DNA, hence taking THEIR choice away. However i would like to see the "dumb" have their reproduction card taken away." Wow didn't know you were beliver of force sterilization of the "dumb." To chose not to have kids is one thing but to be force not to have kids is another thing in entirely. But maybe your right. Did you know that people with lower IQ's reproduce faster that people with higher IQ's. Who will decide which people are "dumb"? Will they decide that someone who is mentally retarded or just slow in school can't reproduce? After that, it's a ethical slippery slope, one that I think we already have with euthanasia and genetic tinkering. Next is forced sterilization, which they used to do a lot of a few decades ago. I belive this topic has spun it away from the orginal post which was national DNA data base not genetic tinkering, not euthanasia or sterilization. I just used those as examples of the ethical slippery slope we're on when we decide who can procreate and who can't. And again, whats that to do witht he subject of the post? The question was do you believe dna shuld be mandatorially collected at birht, in order (as an example) be able to track down deadbeat parents and make them pay child support; learn what ou might be susceptable to health wise (say you are adopted and have no idea that your blood parents family has all died prior to age 60 because of heart trouble). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.  NO WAY  It criminalizes parenthood and how do you come to the conclusion that it criminalizes parenthood? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And again, whats that to do witht he subject of the post? The question was do you believe dna shuld be mandatorially collected at birht, in order (as an example) be able to track down deadbeat parents and make them pay child support; learn what ou might be susceptable to health wise (say you are adopted and have no idea that your blood parents family has all died prior to age 60 because of heart trouble). Let me answer in the most simple form that I possibly can for such a complex question. No, DNA testing should not be mandatory, the negatives out weigh the postitives. It is an invasion of privacy, if somone wants to have their DNA tested to see if they might possibly at some point ever in their life get some rare disease there is no cure for, it is THEIR choice, and should not be mandatory and take the choice away from the person. The more civil liberties we take the more we live in an Orwellian society. 1984... Read it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you adj. I stated that several times now, and your the first one I have seen pick up on it (or mentionthemselves as well). All this fus about what woud happen when it became public. It wont become public, just like your blood type (which is a mandatory test in all fifty states) wont become public BEACUASE IT IS MEDICAL INFORMATION. So please, everyone, take off the tinfoil hats, and put hte macaroni strainers back in the cupboard where they belong. This is nt a conspiracy issue. AGAIN I'LL ASK HOW MY PREVIOUS CAR INSURANCE COMPANY FOUND OUT I WAS DIABETIC??? It is entirely naive to think that at some point it won't or at least couldn't become public record. When did blood type become a mandatory test??? Where is that law? Your facts on this are flawed. when a child is born in the united states, it is mandatory that a blood sample be taken, and the child's blood type tested and recorded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when a child is born in the united states, it is mandatory that a blood sample be taken, and the child's blood type tested and recorded. I'm sorry that is not a mandatory test in all states, and what about home births? If DNA banks are implimented there will be more home births, and more risk of serious injury to the mother and child. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when a child is born in the united states, it is mandatory that a blood sample be taken, and the child's blood type tested and recorded. I'm sorry that is not a mandatory test in all states, and what about home births? If DNA banks are implimented there will be more home births, and more risk of serious injury to the mother and child. insert thumbs up emoticon here lily i finally agree with ya on something  
|
|
|
|
|
