100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: mandatory DNA testing | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
sounds like discrimination what company do i knot want to use you should call the i-team and get them on the news It was LaGrange Insurance... and it happened when I was 20 or so. I have State Farm now... 
well lagrange is now on my black list --insert thumbs up emoticon here-- |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fitnessfanatic
on
Fri 06/13/08 12:58 PM
|
|
"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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds like something that would make Dr. Josef Mengel happy, and that is no world i wanna live in, Im sick of this Big Brother crap as it is, i think its time to kick Big Brothers ass and put him in his place, Hell we (as TAX PAYING CITIZENS) pay the bill around here as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mnhiker
on
Fri 06/13/08 01:38 PM
|
|
Why don't we inseret computer chips in our heads so if we get lost we can easily be found like a GPS or something? why don't we tatoo babies at birth that say "Property of..." Why don't we leave all of our private matters to the government, they do such a great job with the economy. Do we see where we are going with this? You wouldn't need to tattoo babies, just have a doctor inject one of those RFID chips under the skin. They're about the size of a grain of rice and are frequently used to keep track of lost pets. Or they can put a RFID band around the baby's foot. More info: http://www.verichipcorp.com/content/company/rfidtags |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mnhiker
on
Fri 06/13/08 01:58 PM
|
|
"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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fitnessfanatic
on
Fri 06/13/08 02:12 PM
|
|
"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. What I mean to say is that I got so into defending my arugment that I lost sight my point. Did you know that the longer the agrument is, no matter the topic, the more likely the word Hilter/ Nazi pops up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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. What I mean to say is that I got so into defending my arugment that I lost sight my point. Did you know that the longer the agrument is, no matter the topic, the more likely the word Hilter/ Nazi pops up. I didn't even mention Hitler on this particular thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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. Had my entire quote been quoted and not misrepresented there was a wink emoticon to denote it was a joke, you know humor, as in I am the judge and jury of who is and is not dumb.... Trying to lighten the mood here.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't we inseret computer chips in our heads so if we get lost we can easily be found like a GPS or something? why don't we tatoo babies at birth that say "Property of..." Why don't we leave all of our private matters to the government, they do such a great job with the economy. Do we see where we are going with this? You wouldn't need to tattoo babies, just have a doctor inject one of those RFID chips under the skin. They're about the size of a grain of rice and are frequently used to keep track of lost pets. Or they can put a RFID band around the baby's foot. More info: http://www.verichipcorp.com/content/company/rfidtags I'm well aware of what it is and what it does and what it is capable of. and think it is a sign of the apocolypse... and should be fought tooth and nail, why would anyone want that kind of information available to ANYONE who may come into power at a later time??? Let's think about the future here people... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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. Had my entire quote been quoted and not misrepresented there was a wink emoticon to denote it was a joke, you know humor, as in I am the judge and jury of who is and is not dumb.... Trying to lighten the mood here....
I second that opinion. Of course if they keep it up maybe we can sterilize them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. It did not spin away, it is a logical step to take from DNA data banks to genetic "tinkering" There is a coheasive line between the two, and allowing the DNA databank opens up the door to genetic "tinkering" hence and therefore, I am opposed to the DNA data bank. My point AGAINST DNA databanks stemed from the probability of DNA "tinkering". Which may or may not be high, but any percentage to me is unacceptable. Did I explain?? If not please let me know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Why would anyone want to bring a child into a world like this one ?
Whats next? Mandatory jail for parents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
katiekat83
on
Fri 06/13/08 06:52 PM
|
|
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 I think this may be one of the wrongest ideas I've ever heard, in my personal opinion. First of all, you know damn well that eventually there would be some kind of national registry, or this information would automatically be released to SOMEONE, even if that wasn't the intent when it was first implemented. But that's not even my big issue. One of the diseases you mention, Parkinsons, doesn't even have a cure...so how would knowing that the kid will more than likely develop it later in life be a help to them? Yes, there are tests for these diseases now...but people get to CHOOSE whether or not to have them. It's like the breast cancer genes; if so many people in your family have been diagnosed with cancer it's highly likely that this gene is in your family. But that doesn't automatically guarantee that you're one of them. So you can CHOOSE to be tested, or you can CHOOSE not to be (while hopefully still being vigilant with self-exams and whatnot). But it is your CHOICE. As far as I'm concerned no one has the right to take that choice away from someone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok I'll play devil's advocate, a DNA is no different from from say finger prints. Suppose a criminal kills someone, is cut in the stuggle and leaves his DNA on the scene. Well with a DNA data base you easliy find out who the murder and quickly form a manhunt. Plus DNA is exonerates innocent people of wrongful accusation in death-row cases. With a DNA evidence you can make sure the that the people on death-row are guilty of the crime in question. This strengthens the case for capital pushishment by eliminating the argument that people can executed but later found innocent after the all. In other words a DNA data base would be a not only for disease monitoring, and but also for criminal investigation as well. police already do dna tersting in criminal cases, the problem is not everyone is required to provide it, and for police to get it they have to have a warrant showing they have just cause to believe you might be guilty. But as you said, it can be used to eliminate as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why would anyone want to bring a child into a world like this one ?
Whats next? Mandatory jail for parents?
exactly i am glad i am closer to dieing than being born what a mess this world is --- and getting worse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe a mortgage company wont sell you a house or charges you a higher interest rate, because they have access to the DNA data base and consider there is a 60% chance you wont live past 45! What are the chances that you get into a car accident and die at the age of 38. What would a mortgage company do then? That's an accident. It couldn't be predicted from DNA... since when did medical records become public domain dna test would be a medical record 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe a mortgage company wont sell you a house or charges you a higher interest rate, because they have access to the DNA data base and consider there is a 60% chance you wont live past 45! What are the chances that you get into a car accident and die at the age of 38. What would a mortgage company do then? That's an accident. It couldn't be predicted from DNA... since when did medical records become public domain dna test would be a medical record 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. yes it is a conspiracy
no doubt about it and an idea i disagree with because any info can be gotten if you know how to get it just like phone calls are supposed to be private
|
|
|
|
|
