DNA samples taken at birth in US hospitals!

[med_breeder]

I would like to know the most paranoid inducing thoughts and ideas that you have had while enjoying a fine sativa.

What if a dna sample is taken from every child born in the USA. What if these samples are stored at some huge government warehouse?

At the moment with sativa goodness rushing through my brain, I freaked out and thaught that it's at least possible. I wondered why their is such a campaign against Free Birthing (Delivering your baby at home with a mid wife)


What, "What ifs" have freaked you out while enjoying a lovey satty?


peace

 

[CoonLover]

get charged with any felony in california, guilty or not and you get a complementary DNA collection.
Even if charges are dropped, dismissed or your found NOT GUILTY, they still have your sample.

Gezz arrest ANYONE, charge them with felony, collect DNA, then release.

FUCK YOU CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!

 

[Miss Blunted]

Aaahhhhhhh!!!!!

 

[NOKUY]

i could easily see that happen. fukin gov wants all the control they can get.....and not just in the US.

im sure they would "sugar coat" such an intrusion w/ glam words like "research" or "genetic studies".

i remember in 3rd grade the local cops came to our grade school and wanted to fingerprint EVERY student in the school...they sent a note home saying that they were doing it for "our safety" in case we get kidnapped or sum stupid shit.

they were doing it on a friday, and when my dad saw the letter he tore it up and said "we're going fishing friday". (my dad hates that shit as much as i do)

 

[BurmeseDragon]

Fascism is all the rave in legislation, it is really insane to see some of the bills that they pass as laws.

 

[WoW maannnn]

its funny...when i was like 15-19, i had a conversation with someone that stated they had BEEN doing this for a loooong time.

 

[sparkjumper]

Sure would make a good X-Files episode..O wait it already did

 

[Pythagllio]

So does anyone care to postulate why this would be a bad thing? Here are some of the positives I can come up with. Rapists would be caught likely after their first crime. Research is mounting that an awful lot of rapists are serial rapists. Rapes would be prevented as many inclined to commit the crime would never do so knowing their DNA is on file. This also works with murder, to a lesser extent. Perhaps you like the idea of major crimes against innocent people going unsolved/occurring?

OK, your turn. Tell me why in the world this would be a negative thing. BTW the only reason they don't take fingerprints at birth is because they aren't formed yet.

 

[NOKUY]

So does anyone care to postulate why this would be a bad thing? Here are some of the positives I can come up with. Rapists would be caught likely after their first crime. Research is mounting that an awful lot of rapists are serial rapists. Rapes would be prevented as many inclined to commit the crime would never do so knowing their DNA is on file. This also works with murder, to a lesser extent. Perhaps you like the idea of major crimes against innocent people going unsolved/occurring?

OK, your turn. Tell me why in the world this would be a negative thing. BTW the only reason they don't take fingerprints at birth is because they aren't formed yet.

its negative because freedom lovin mo fos wont allow it.

what do they need my prints for?

...sorry i sit at home and smoke weed.....im soooooooooo fukin bad.

 

[LunaShadow]

Tell me why in the world this would be a negative thing. BTW the only reason they don't take fingerprints at birth is because they aren't formed yet.

The presumption of innocence till proven guilty/your freedom?

How would you like a rfid tag? If you're not doing anything wrong then it's no problem eh?

What about a camera in your sitting room or even in your teenager's bedroom to make sure you're/they're not doing anything wrong? What's the problem if you're not doing anything wrong?

Could catch crime yes but at the cost of your freedom!

Tip of the iceburg......

 

[steppinRazor]

So does anyone care to postulate why this would be a bad thing? Here are some of the positives I can come up with. Rapists would be caught likely after their first crime. Research is mounting that an awful lot of rapists are serial rapists. Rapes would be prevented as many inclined to commit the crime would never do so knowing their DNA is on file. This also works with murder, to a lesser extent. Perhaps you like the idea of major crimes against innocent people going unsolved/occurring?

OK, your turn. Tell me why in the world this would be a negative thing. BTW the only reason they don't take fingerprints at birth is because they aren't formed yet.

i see your point exactly.

i think the negative aspect is that we'd be giving up our right to choose.
if we let big government make this decision for us at birth - what else are they going to choose for us??
also the fact babies already die from complications at birth and many through doctor error. drawing blood from an infant (unless absolutely necessary) seems a bit overboard just to obtain personal medical info

 

[Fields_Of_Win]

DNA comes from a lot of fluids (^saliva^) not just blood

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Once I got paranoid I was gonna run out of weed.

 

[Pythagllio]

So the slippery slope into total gov't control is the only thing you can come up with?

RFID tag is additive. Your DNA is already in place. False dichotomy fallacy.

There's no guilt established by taking DNA so the 'innocent until proven guilty' argument is just plain silly.

Not sticking babies with needles unnecessarily is good, but blood is drawn as SOP from infants so no extra sticks needed, even if there weren't ways to collect it without taking blood.

Can anyone come up with a real reason why this is a bad idea?

 

[dude06version]

eugenics..and don't tell me that america doesn't have a long history with eugenics, because we do. it wasnt that long ago that the gov was intentionally sticking black men with syphilis in tuskegee. that was in the 70s... and its not like they stopped because they suddenly developed a heart.they were caught.this went on from 1934 to 1973.they claim it was done because they wanted to know if it was better to leave it untreated seeing how the treatments at the time were very toxic.however in 1947 penicillin became the standard treatment,why didnt they stop in 1947.so its safe to assume they went underground, and im sorry once a government has shown that kind of callus they loose my blind trust. do you know what these eugenicist can do with the populations blood supply..

 

[GMT]

exactly ^

With all the genetic work being conducted now, it is perfectly plausable to create a (lets say flu virus) that has one affect on one gentic group (runniny nose/nothing), and an entirely different effect, (for instance sterilisation/death) on another group. Which group do you think the common worker would fall into once all the underground bunkers are built with their atomic power stations and hydro food farms.


You did say most paranoid.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I thought one time the keebler elves were gonna retire, and I would never be able to get pre packaged grasshoppers again!

 

[T.Baggins]

after a child's born, ask if you can have the after birth.... they wont let you have it..... they need it for "testing"......

 

[SuperConductor]

So does anyone care to postulate why this would be a bad thing? Here are some of the positives I can come up with. Rapists would be caught likely after their first crime. Research is mounting that an awful lot of rapists are serial rapists. Rapes would be prevented as many inclined to commit the crime would never do so knowing their DNA is on file. This also works with murder, to a lesser extent. Perhaps you like the idea of major crimes against innocent people going unsolved/occurring?

OK, your turn. Tell me why in the world this would be a negative thing. BTW the only reason they don't take fingerprints at birth is because they aren't formed yet.

Because it's not as reliable as TV makes it out to be http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/16/ukcrime.forensicscience1

Because such small amounts can be detected, though, it vastly increases the potential for contamination. "The main problem is that if you don't have a visible body stain, you really don't know how it got there or when it got there,"

Npt saying it's no good just saying that convicting people solely on dna evidence is bonkers but it happens often enough.

not to mention the obvious power the owner of the information would have to set up anyone born in the country for any crime they wished and the eugenics side previously mentioned. All in all it's a terrible idea wide open to abuse.

The police in the UK are doing the same thing, anyone arrested goes on the offenders database guilty or not.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I let them have my kids ass print when its born (if ever). If they are like me, then he/she will probably be arrested the first time for streaking, so they will have to take the ass print for evidence anyways.