Posted on 06/03/2013 5:43:43 PM PDT by South40
The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision Monday that police may take a DNA swab from people arrested for crimes without first getting a warrant to do so. In an unusual twist, the court's conservative firebrand, Antonin Scalia, joined three of his liberal colleagues in a scathing dissent that warns the court's decision paves the way for the creation of an invasive police state.
Scalia called the decision's scope "vast" and "scary," and said the DNA collection is an unequivocal violation of Americans' Fourth Amendment right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures" of their bodies and homes.
"Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You are reading words without understanding them. HUMANITY is not the same as species.
BTW, God has a hook into your soul. It’s up to you whether or not he reels that soul in, or just let’s it fall into Perdition.
I’m not the person trying to make the case that we do not own the rights to our own genes, so please don’t try to lecture me on my comprehension or skills related to understanding.
Please explain why this is different from fingerprinting someone.
Frankly I don’t want Humana, ADM or Monsanto claiming rights to them either.
I’m not going to move off onto another subject with you.
My comments were related to this topic. Yours are not.
Then you have wasted an awful lot of time arguing their case for it.
Using words like humanity or species don’t somehow validate what you’ve been trying to peddle here.
In what sense is a person who has been arrested “secure in their persons”?
Has anyone commenting actually READ the decision, or know what is at issue?
“Held: When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing,a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf
Humana, ADM, and Monsanto have come up with their own genetic product. I’m okay with that. I suggest they sell it at a premium, and quit trying to deny people the right to use it as long as they have paid for it. That being said, folks have a right to buy or not buy it, after considering the parameters.
I would rather not use it, if there is so much down side to doing it.
If I have a gene that provides a benefit to others, it’s up to me how I want to release it, if in fact I want to at all. I own it. You don’t. The human race doesn’t own it. There is not some over-riding right that the human race has to my body. If there is value to something inside me, it’s my right to determine I will never sign off on release of it. It’s not some other human’s right to tell me I will or else.
I don’t believe this post was on target. I should address it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3026920/posts?page=127#127
I was wrong to state that you had been arguing their case, because you have actually been arguing something against their concept of rights as they see them. But you have been arguing something different when you have addressed me. It was that difference that I keyed in on to say you had been arguing their case, when that wasn’t true at all, and I need to be frank about that.
What I am born with, is not something I engineered.
What Monsanto (for example) is selling is something they did engineer.
Arguing I shouldn’t think of my genes as my own is wrong. I’m not seeking to claim the rights to every gene in the world that exists in the body of another person. In that you are correct. I should not be able to patent my own genes to the exclusion to the rights of anyone else if they have a copy inside themselves naturally.
What I am stating is that if my body does hold one particular gene that has a trait others don’t have, and they would like access to that different gene, then the aspects of access should be determined by me, not some government agency (or any other entity) who demands access.
I believe we are all different. I believe that we do have near uniformity. I also believe that some of use have traits that few others have. And I believe those traits inherent in the genetic anomalies should be proprietary.
We are coming to a time where an individual with an advantageous gene would be wise to keep quiet about it lest they flense him and decant his genome in its entirety.
How much blood would it take to do a full genetic profile?
It wouldn’t take that much would it?
Depends on how much they want ~
Fingerprinting good only for identifying an individual and his past presence at a physical location or contact with an object.
DNA goes 100 times farther than that regarding personal information on the individual. The least intrusive aspect of DNA is simple identification of a person as in the manner of finger prints.
Other than identifying me as being at the scene of, or committing a crime, all the other info provided by DNA is none of the government’s damn business and will be used by the government to exercise control over me.
No, the database will be used for identification. They will not keep some huge sample and replicate your DNA and sell it or create new beings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.