Pages
▼
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
The Why of DNA
I had a comment from one of my regular visitors asking what I have against universal DNA sampling as opposed to restricting it to actual criminals. I toyed with a number of elegant and subtle arguments, but I believe that this sums it up best.
2 comments:
Rules for submitting comments:
1. No profanity. I maintain the pretense that this is a family-friendly site.
2. Stay on topic. A bit of straying and off-hand commenting is okay, but hijacking the discussion is right out.
3. No ad hominem attacks. Attack the subject, not the other person on the thread and keep the discussion civil.
4. No spamming or commercial endorsements. These get deleted immediately.
Tip: Beware of putting hyperlinks in your comments–especially at the end. For some reason, Blogger interprets these as spam.
Note: Due to the recent spate of anonymous spamming, registration for comments is now required.
Let me first say: Woo!
ReplyDeleteI'm officially a regular reader! Hooray! Yah boo to you, eldias; did you ever inspire an article? :P
Anyway. I wasn't trying to push the idea of DNA testing, so I'm sorry if that how it came across; I was only questioning. Thank you for your understandable (if very slightly cliched) explanation.
Truthfully, I wouldn't trust this government to store and use the data with any degree of security or competence. Plus "Gattaca", etc.
(But I DO support taking the DNA of confirmed criminals. You committed a crime? Then you forfeited your right to complain.)
'Course I have!
ReplyDelete*looks around shiftedly*
Anyhoo, some guy said "innocence before guilt"; I agree with him.