close
    Should DNA be taken at birth?

    If a sample of DNA was taken at birth and put on file, that would reduce crime owing to the likelihood of conviction.


    How do you feel about this?

    +2  Views: 721 Answers: 6 Posted: 12 years ago
    Shootah

    What makes you think it wouldn't make people more ruthless in making sure they destroyed potential DNA? If the death penalty doesn't impact crime, what would make that any different? There are factors in the commision of crimes, that many people are oblivious to, and they exist outside the normal logic of the everyday person. It wouldn't change anything...take a look at Texas, and tell me why the death penalty hasn't been more succesful in being a deterent to crime there!

    6 Answers

    So long as it has its safeguards against it being abused. Unfortunately,  there is a huge, but unseen or realized danger in giving government that much control over an individual. Look at our government and tell me it doesn't pander to the lobbyist of big companies. What makes you think they'd protect you against insurance companies genetically seeing what kind of risk you are as a policy holder? The government doesn't even do anything about these big companies getting your credit card numbers and automatically billing you for services you requested have stopped. Look at how many people are without a job, who now have credit card debt they can't pay off...and that debt is exempt from bankruptcy because the companies lobbied for it to be. Look at them...they can't even come together enough to put a comprehensive and meaningfull jobs bill together without acting like little kids having a tantrum. I certainly don't trust those people to have control of any more of my life than they already do.


    Look at how very little the government does to protect you against false advertising. I could go on and on, and on...and I definitely don't want them to have the option of selling me out to some big company

    I would have grave concerns over the privacy issue.DNA sampling is voluntary.New born babies have no chance to refuse the taking of a sample.To many things happen to babies already that they have no say in. For instance:- nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be circumcised nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be baptised in a christian church.Regardless of how I may feel about these proceedures now I think I should have been given the right of refusal.I'm sorry bit I think it would be just another way for "BIG BROTHER" to look over our shoulder for the rest of our lives.

    It should be voluntary. What should happen is every year kids from 6 th grade to 12 th should have their rights read to them. Make them understand about crime and what will happen to them when they break the law.

    Good idea

    Yes if it could be determined that you could be saved from something (disease) that might develop in your body later.  Otherwise probably not.

    No. Absolutely not see Tommy and zorro's answer for starters. Tabber has a point I think but usually hereditary diseases are known from the family history. Babies are also checked for certain things at birth if there is something amiss - i.e. differential diagnosis of cretinism is down's syndrome and it is a disaster if the correct diagnosis is not made as a cretin at birth very rarely seen nowadays, because of testing (lacking in thyroxine) can be treated if not results in severe mental and physical retardation.



    Top contributors in Law & Ethics category

     
    ROMOS
    Answers: 163 / Questions: 0
    Karma: 10440
     
    Colleen
    Answers: 312 / Questions: 0
    Karma: 8825
     
    Benthere
    Answers: 10 / Questions: 0
    Karma: 8505
     
    jhharlan
    Answers: 114 / Questions: 0
    Karma: 6735
    > Top contributors chart
    452745
    questions
    719880
    answers
    755920
    users