Should the state take DNA samples of newborns?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-l...ual-31725.jpeg

Should the state take DNA samples of newborns?

The debate over civil liberties and the reach of the state is a complex on, with those favouring the current drift towards the pretext of security over liberty saying that we have nothing to fear from western-styled government and that in an increasingly global age it is a mere natural process that the state will accumilate more power and will need to in order to protect its subjects (UK) or citizens (US). A much floated idea by those who favour state power is that newborns ought to have DNA samples taken and listed on a record so that in the future, if any crimes are committed they will be easily trackable and crime should therefore fall/be easy to solve.

The opponents of this idea say that our liberties are precious and that an all-powerful state is a utopian idea that only the gulliable would believe in. Opponents would also say that the sort of mass DNA-taking by the government for our 'ultimate safety' would go completely against the grain of our English (later British) style liberty - something that the US Constitution was founded on. Finally opponents would argue that the biggest danger to your safety and wellbeing doesn't come from criminality but rather a criminal state which would have near complete control.

Here is a famous quote on the topic to open it up to you...

Quote:

---

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

---

So what do you think? should newborns have painless DNA samples taken at birth? or is that a sign of the state overstepping its remit. Debate away!

Quote:

---

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

---

The debate is open to you.

I guess I'll kick off the debate for the stupid people :P

What's the harm in someone having your DNA on record? Unless terrorists suddenly have the ability to clone people from DNA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

I guess I'll kick off the debate for the stupid people :P

What's the harm in someone having your DNA on record? Unless terrorists suddenly have the ability to clone people from DNA.

---

Because I am a sovereign individual, not a slave/property of the state.

I'd argue we have more to fear from the state than terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It's a DNA sample, not a limb.. I don't see why people are getting so worked up about it lol. If it helps keep places safer, there should be no problem? I think people are only making the fuss because they enjoy kicking up about something.

And the whole "terrorists could get their hands on it!!!!!!!"? I would be more afraid of a terrorist pointing a gun at my head than nicking a fingernail from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empired

It's a DNA sample, not a limb.. I don't see why people are getting so worked up about it lol. If it helps keep places safer, there should be no problem? I think people are only making the fuss because they enjoy kicking up about something.

And the whole "terrorists could get their hands on it!!!!!!!"? I would be more afraid of a terrorist pointing a gun at my head than nicking a fingernail from me.

---

Why not wear a cow bell aswell? or have CCTV installed (by the state) in and around your house? I mean only people who you've never met before will be watching the CCTV so whats the problem? if it keeps us safe....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Why not wear a cow bell aswell? or have CCTV installed (by the state) in and around your house? I mean only people who you've never met before will be watching the CCTV so whats the problem? if it keeps us safe....

---

If you're going to take that attitude..

Why not just put the maternity wards in the juvenile detention centers? "Out of the mother and into the cell". It would save a hell of a lot of time.

We had a similar question to answer in our Science Assignment about DNA. I argued mutually, so not in favour of either option. I think it would make criminals think twice about leaving their fingerprints behind at scenes but then surely they'd go to extra lengths to hide their fingerprints, hair samples etc. I also think that it is an invasion of privacy as it can be used to find out a hell of a lot of information about someone just by their DNA. Although, if sampled from a newborn, it could possibly pinpoint places that could prove to be a problem in the future (identify possible diseases and health issues etc) and therefore be life saving. If you gave it as an option to parents of newborns then I still think that's not entirely fair due to the newborn not be able to voice it's opinion lol. And also if you were a notorious criminal to be and the cops had your DNA on the database, then you'd blame your parents would you aha.

So yeah, totally mutual seeing as they both have some really good points that would make me be in favour of it, but then there are some bad points to it. Not sure, suppose that's what makes it such a good debatable topic :)

Yes, it should be mandatory.

I'm sorry I don't have more to add at this time.

If it lead to a proper database for identifying bodies and all that jazz then sure. If it lead to absolutely nothing other than just a place for the government to store DNA. No.

It's not that bad, don't see why everyone's creating a fuss.
It'll be useful tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Why not wear a cow bell aswell? or have CCTV installed (by the state) in and around your house? I mean only people who you've never met before will be watching the CCTV so whats the problem? if it keeps us safe....

---

Yes but this is different isn't it. Taking a DNA sample which will most likely never be spoken of again *obv unless you do bad stuff etc* is WAY different to being watched all the time.
It's silly to even make that comparison tbh.

I personally am against this. It's against our rights, and to take advantage of a child at birth who can't defend their rights should simply be illegal.

Perhaps we could all meet in the middle and make it mandatory to have DNA taken but it could then be destroyed if the parents want as soon as it's been tested for genes that carry Cystic Fibrosis and stuff.

I don't see how this is even a debate. I don't see how people can even say "don't allow them to"...

As long as it's for good purposes, one of which may be easier to stop criminals, murders etc from doing any more damage to earth. As long as it's for good things, I don't see this taking advantage of our rights ok