Men should give DNA samples when they register with Selective Service

[bleedingheart]

How about that?

I think that if Roe v Wade is overturned then we need to have a DNA registry to make sure that both partners in a pregnancy are held responsible. ....and what better way than science.

If I have to give up ownership of my body because I am a potential breeding machine then I think all men should be tagged and labeled so that when babies come into the world they can share in that responsibility if they want to or not...Fair is Fair...

Yep...no more worry about one night stands...the Feds will help us find ya....In fact maybe we can tag some of the repeat inseminators with internal transmitters...then we can sell women sensors to alert them that an "inseminate and leave" kind of guy in in their presence??? think of the possibilities???? Hell some bars may even buy devices to alert women ..kind of a way to "class up" the place.

So what do you think of this idea???

[Snoggera]

1. I don't think I like this idea

No government gets my DNA unless they do it surreptitiously. Yes, I drank out of that Sprite can, but didn't.........you get the picture.

Intrusiveness is not a good thing for either gender.

Let's just fight to not allow any intrusions (figuratively) by government officials.

[bleedingheart]

5. Well now you understand what women feel like when their records are

subpoenaed by Ashcroft to justify their health care and abortion decision...

[freetobegay]

10. They were subpoenaed but not turned over

Because it was wrong!

[HEyHEY]

34. What do I care? I can't get any anyway...

Seriously though. I know you're being sarcastic.

[freetobegay]

2. I'm speechless.

:eyes:

[bleedingheart]

7. well that is how I feel when they talk about overturning Roe v Wade

[freetobegay]

9. Two wrongs don't make a right

And I also don't want Roe vs Wade overturned!

[bleedingheart]

12. Well if Roe goes down then I don't plan on having it be lopsided

...by the way I agree that two wrongs don't make a right but we gals will be the ones suffering if Roe is overturned.

[strategery blunder]

3. Will the government sell this data?

I don't want to pay five times the health insurance premium...

[bleedingheart]

6. well ya never know...Ridge sold our driver's license info when he

was governor of PA...so it is a possibility...but then again women haven't got any rights in my scenario...we have to bear children whether we want em or not...

[strategery blunder]

26. You would support subjecting half this country's population

to the Genetic Taliban?

Neither men nor women have any rights in your scenario. I agree that unknown paternity presents a large problem, but the cure is FAR, FAR worse than the problem.

[bleedingheart]

29. well in my scenario women lost their rights

entirely...and many are losing them state by state already....notice how men are never factored into the equation...all those anti-choicers are screaming at women and holding up fetal body parts...yet...I don't see them standing outside bars yelling at men who are scamming to get some free love without the consequences...


read post 22 for more info on my initial post.

[strategery blunder]

38. First, I would not trust A$$KKKroft with DNA info and neither should you.

Just as you do not trust government to restrict abortion (I am pro-life in the TRUE sense, not as the fundies have hijacked the term), I do not trust government with genetic data.

Furthermore, this is collective punishment. Punish half the population for the misdeeds of a few.

I apologize for the hypocrisy of the vast majority of those who call themselves 'pro-lifers.'

Furthermore, if a significant portion of the population is forced to release genetic data, what is to stop the DoD from researching targeted genetic plagues? They're always looking for new ways to kill...

[greenbriar]

4. sounds good to me

fair is fair

[Snoggera]

8. What about all those over the age of 18 when this goes into effect?

They have either already registered, or don't have to.

[bleedingheart]

14. No way out...we will catch the rest through Drivers licenses and

other methods....

[Snoggera]

16. I can understand being upset with the possibility of an overturning

of R v W, but I can't understand wanting revenge by hurting others.

Anger shouldn't cause one to seek revenge on all, many, if not most, who would be innocent of the results of this decision.

Sounds like Fallujah. 4 mercenaries killed, so it is okay to destroy a city. Innocents be damned. They shouldn't have been in the wrong country at the wrong time.

[bleedingheart]

18. Those Others are the Men...and how convenient that we don't want

to hurt them....but its okay to screw with the women.

[Snoggera]

19. It's not okay to screw with either

that is the point. If the unthinkable should happen, all should join together to reinstate it. If not, to be angry at all men is not rational. Having enough justices on the supreme court to overturn does not equate to having a majority of men agreeing.

It isn't convenient to wish to not harm or take away privacy rights to men. It also isn't convenient to do this to women.

Again, I understand anger at considering the possibility, but it does not create a reason for discriminating against men's rights.

If one sanctions the taking away of anyone's rights, I do not agree.

[bleedingheart]

22. (psst)

I agree with you but I am posting this based on the threads I have been reading.

I am looking to see what the arguments against this idea would be...

What I am finding so far in this small sample is that men aren't too happy about their rights being taken away...yet if you read the anti-choice threads...its about the rights of a fetus and not a woman...people are more than willing to throw away a woman's right if a bunch of dividing cells are occupying her uterus.

[Snoggera]

24. I understand

completely!

[BiggJawn]

44. What threads?

We reading the same board? Did i miss a bunch of RW disruptors?

I still don't think your sexist remark was justified, whatever you've been reading.

I'm sick and tired of being tarred with the same brush as Mr. "Bedroom Eyes" Wildpoppy just because I got a cock and balls, too!

I'm on YOUR side, gawd-dammit! :mad:

[Generic Other]

11. Right to life = Right to a mommy and daddy

They go hand in hand. Oh and maybe we should demand shotgun marriages while we're at it. The sanctity of the family thing...

Yup, I'll give up my reproductive rights as soon as all the men give up their DNA and take resposibility for their choices.

Furthermore, I would suggest forced abstinence through chemical means for repeat offenders who father children irresponsibly.

If I have no right to choose, no man should have that right either.

[bleedingheart]

13. We could link this with the NRA to sponsor ..Smith and Wesson Weddings

[Streetdoc270]

60. Last time I checked

Its takes 2 people to create a child, what do you suggest should happen to repeat female offenders, who mother children irresponsably? What happened to the choice to use birth controll or face the results of those actions?

[Generic Other]

69. birth control is considered an abortifacient by the pro-lifers

so I suppose they'll control that aspect too.

But as long as there's a mommy and a daddy, everything will be hunky-dory, right?

(I don't really advocate this position so I am not going to try to come up with any more arguments).

So take your DNA and go home! :)

[Trillo]

15. Who has control of reproduction?

Besides the obvious tactic of having plenty of DNA on hand to implicate anyone in a crime that corrupt police may choose . . .

The thing that bothers me most about this issue is I made a conscious decision not to have children partly because of the tyranny I experienced at home and school when young, and party because I love my children, so it stands to reason I wouldn't bring them to this evil planet of death and destruction.

With cloning actually being practiced, just not overtly with humans, it bothers me that my government hasn't given me ownership rights over my unique DNA combination.

I don't want anyone to ever clone me without my consent. Putting my DNA in a bank pretty much insures that someone, somewhere in time can decide without my knowledge or consent to do just that.

It stands to reason that I should be able to control my own reproduction well before any "activity" takes place.

I say no to banking DNA.

[bleedingheart]

17. your points are well taken but I stand by my statement

Fair is Fair...If women can not have full reproductive rights then men can't either.

[Trillo]

27. Mathematics says two wrongs make a right

but I'm not certain that is the best course of action to take, given that we have free will. Just because someone else murders, does that mean I have to seek vengeance?

I do see a difference between preventing something, and killing it off later. As a male, thankfully, I will never be faced with the decision of aborting a fetus.

That said, the religious argument against abortion breaks down for me here: if there is eternal justice, the mother that kills will be taken care of by God--not men. It appears that men-in-control are attempting to usurp the judgement of God. If God would judge a woman for killing an unborn fetus, how just would it be for women to suffer twice? I truly would hate to see women going back to coathangers.

The world is overpopulated. Deal with THAT.

[bleedingheart]

32. Personally I wish everyone used birthcontrol

and planned every pregnancy....but mistakes happen.
Unfortunately an unwanted pregnancy isn't like having your hair cut too short and then regretting it.... a pregnancy has lifelong issues that must be dealt with and the woman who is in that situation must make a choice that she can live with, whether to continue or end the pregnancy.

Personally I don't think God is going to make woman suffer in hell for abortion because I believe that She is very forgiving.

[ButterflyBlood]

20. bad idea

it's better just to keep abortion legal which I support. But I think Selective Service should be ended altogether.

[bleedingheart]

25. I know I know...

I am just testing the waters with this idea...

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

21. Oh, I think they already will.... dna can be collected from hair,

a few loose skin folicles on the back of a stamp or sticker....a saliva sample...

:tinfoilhat:? I think not.

[bleedingheart]

23. boy you are subversive....

I like your style!

:-)

[DrWeird]

28. Let's also eat poor kids.

That solves both the hunger problem and the poverty problem at the same time.

[bleedingheart]

30. start your own Orwellian threads.....this one's mine!!!!!

:silly:

[mitchum]

31. Swiftian

sorry, it's just the pedant in me :)

[bleedingheart]

33. (eyes rolling)

;-)

[Katarina]

35. Female here...

Pro-choice...but I do not think so! My son will be 18 in 2 years and there is NO WAY in hell this government is getting his DNA...Roe V Wade or not. My sons were not one of the gloating white men leering over *'s shoulders when he signed the partial birth abortion ban and my sons are not going to be punished for whatever may come from this administration. No way!

[wuushew]

36. The government forces you to get finger printed...

the collection of DNA would be more useful from a crime solving standpoint than finger printing. From an identification standpoint is one more threatening than the other?

[Trillo]

41. A fingerprint is an abstract representation

my understanding is that it's difficult to place false fingerprints at crime scenes.

Collecting DNA is done by taking actual tissue samples.

In order for the two to analogize fingerprints would have to be taken by authorities cutting off the finger and saving that. Or, abstract representations of DNA would need to be saved in lieu of the actual tissues.

[wuushew]

48. The increased chance of police fraud is more than compensated

for by increased convictions of rapists,murderers,etc.

If DNA was housed at a central repository I don't see how a corupt police officer could engineer a false genetic sample without a gene sequencer. Only a false result could be claimed, not the actual material. In this instance it would be just like finger printing.

[Trillo]

53. I objected earlier for a different reason

that I also feel is valid.

Housing tissues in a central "bank" is not abstract. Now, if there was a way to save the abstract representation of DNA without any tissue being required, I would have no objections. But how do you get to what's inside a cell without destroying the cell?

Surely I should have the right to prevent the authorities from "cutting" off a piece from me for their study and destruction. If not, what's to prevent them from cutting off something like a couple of eyes without my consent? Or a kidney that I don't need?

[wuushew]

56. No the sequece of anyone's DNA would available via computer

The forensic evidence such as a skin flake,bloodstain or semen sample would have to physically existant by those investigating the crime. The defendent could demand an unlimited number of retests of this forensic evidence and could also verify that his/her DNA sequence be checked against the data base by independent parties. When would corrupt police have an opportunity to steal any organic without physically detaining him?

[Trillo]

59. After the fact

argument of requesting cells for investigation is different, in my view, from banking them ahead of time. In the case that evidence points to a particular person committing a crime, if that individual chooses to give a few cells is something for them to decide then and there.

Banking cells in a repository from people who aren't even suspected of a crime is a different matter.

Today, we demand a few cells, tomorrow we demand __________.

[wuushew]

61. They don't even have to be banked

I only suggested that as a possiblity for running an efficient catalouging system. The finger prints which I was forced to imprint before entering kindergarden exists as data in a computer. The DNA sequence would also exist as data. A piece of crime evidence would have to be sequenced by a lab and checked against this national database. If a police investigator called me up and said my fingerprints where found at a crime scence I would naturally cooperate and attempt to resolve the inconsistency. Why would this be any different for DNA?

[Trillo]

62. It requires the destruction of a cell.

Additionally, who is to say what future use of any cells saved might come to? Today they may say cloning of a human is illegal, but that could change. Now that I think about it, with enough technology, could they piece together an individual's DNA if all they have is an abstract representation of it (data in a computer)? If not now, what about in a few years?

edited to add content.

[SharonAnn]

37. That's what I've been saying for about a year now.

I want the men held accountable if the women are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, whether or not they choose to keep the child.

Somehow I think it'll be like all the Erectile Dysfunction medication ads I see on TV all day/night long. Men get their ED prescriptions paid for by their insurance. Many women don't get their birth-control pills or "emergency contraception" pills paid for by their insurance.

Why? The answer is, men wrote the rules.

[havocmom]

39. Are DNA samples taken from military personnel?

Seem to recall a ruckus about some who refused (like that would actually be possible) a few years back. The rationale for it was for identification purposes. Sounds OK on the surface, but who knows what defense contractors' R&D might be up to. They have pilots and others wired on uppers, so we can't rely on their morals to prevent abuse.

As to the question of samples collected if Roe gets overturned: absolutely! If women become chattel of a theocracy, men need to turn over their body parts too. Take all the DNA you want, and all the body fluids the state/theocracy may need to breed up whatever populations would best serve the feudal corporate lords. If wombs are the property of the state religion, you guys best be handing over your private parts too, cuz chances are good nobody's gonna be getting to use them.

[HawkerHurricane]

40. Yes, samples are taken from military personnel.

And encoded onto the new ID cards.

It's supposed to be the ultimate way to identify a body during wartime. At least, that's what they advertised it as.

[havocmom]

43. Thanks for confirming, HH

I can see the point of it but have great fear for the likelyhood of misuse and abuse.

(Thought my question just might get you to come out and post. Hope all is well with you and the family.)

[HawkerHurricane]

45. Off topic

All well here, I've got a job until mid-june and maybe longer if things works out. Family is well, bills getting paid, maybe this 'retirement' thing will work out after all...

[havocmom]

46. Good, glad to hear it. (n/t)

[BiggJawn]

42. I think it's sexist and I'm alerting...

Unfortunately, you didn't indentify your screed as "Sarcasm".

[Generic Other]

50. Bleedingheart is not being sarcastic, she is offering men a powerful

analogy, so they can understand at a gut level how violated women feel when men try to take reproductive choice out of their hands.

The intrusion into such private areas of our lives by the government should be unacceptable to us all. This is not simply a women's issue.

By the responses on this thread, it seems she has struck a nerve.

Thumbs up!

[BiggJawn]

52. It *IS* unacceptable to me!

it has ALWAYS been unacceptable to me!

Like I said in another post,

"...I'm sick and tired of being tarred with the same brush as Mr. 'Bedroom Eyes' Wildpoppy just because I got a cock and balls, too!

I'm on YOUR side, gawd-dammit! "

How about I "Offer women a powerful anology" by using the "Cee-Word"?

No?

Alright, then....

[Generic Other]

54. I beg your pardon?

Did you just call me a cunt?

[BiggJawn]

70. No.

But isn't THAT just as much a "powerful analogy" as saying "All men should be required to file a DNA sample so that when they sweet-talk some honey in a bar and knock her up, they can be tracked down and drug through the child support system"?

You know, when I look at it that way, Bleedingheart slammed women just as much as she did men...

[Kool Kitty]

55. Thumbs up indeed.

And here's a little DNA story for you: my son got in legal trouble for *ahem* a controlled dangerous substance. He got a letter in the mail a short time ago that before he finishes probation, he has to go in and leave a DNA sample. Why, is what I would like to know?

Bleedingheart, this is a great thread. Makes everyone think.

[HEyHEY]

63. Not men: Assholes are trying to screw with her rights

Men or women has little to do with it.

[Generic Other]

67. Well most of the assholes I see yelling about my reproductive rights

happen to be men. At least the ones in power. Anyone got a photo of the signing of the banning of partial birth abortions? I saw Bush and a whole lot of old GOP men standing there making the choices for me.

Screw that.

[bemildred]

47. Men should not register for the selective service.

It just encourages the government to think it can order us around.

[orthogonal]

49. You're joking, right?

I think that if Roe v Wade is overturned then we need to have a DNA registry to make sure that both partners in a pregnancy are held responsible. ....and what better way than science.... So what do you think of this idea???

I think this is the kind of idea that John Ashcroft would come up with.

It reeks of Big Brother, and has all sorts of potential for abuse by unscrupulous government officials or private "hackers".

I presume you're making a satiric "Modest Proposal" in order to argue for abortion rights.

But on the chance your serious -- wake up and smell the Fascism.

[Solly Mack]

51. Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that you've exposed the nerve...keep it raw. Only then will people fully understand the depth of this issue for women.









"I don't want your sympathy because the government imposes inequality upon my gender..I want your outrage!" (My mother to my father-whom she divorced)

[SarahB]

57. Not a good idea

But I wholeheartedly understand and support the rationale behind the argument. Pretty much sucks how others can worm their way into controlling someone else's reproductive organs.

[Eureka]

58. Wouldn't it be more convenient to leave the sample

with the women? I mean, then no Govt agency can withhold any information from them, which is probably a good thing in this day and age.

The only thing you would need to work out is the design of a suitable receptacle for the sample. It would need to hold the sample without letting contaminants in or out, and be reasonably uniform to ensure test results aren't skewed by different containers etc.

[bigbillhaywood]

64. You want the Bush admin to have your DNA fingerprint? I'll pass.

[Scout]

65. I'd rather see mandatory vasectomy

All males would be given a vasectomy as soon as they are old enough for the surgery to be practical.

Said vasectomy could be reversed after age 18, with the signed consent of the female who has agreed to allow impregnation by said male.

If he never wants the vasectomy reversed great! Far fewer accidental pregnancies.

If he does want children, once he finds a woman who will grow one for him/them, vasectomy is reversed, and they go for it.

[tritsofme]

66. You just gave Asscroft a wet dream.

[Egalitarian]

68. Great Question

The logic behind it is powerful to us men. Not much scarier to an 18-? horny self centered male than an unwanted child. Kick this hard and you'll likely gain much support from males who haven't joined the fight yet.