Point, Counterpointless
Both Sides of the Argument- The Right One and the Wrong One

If given the choice between swabbing and not, I’ll take swabbing. Unless, of course, I have something to hide.

Regarding criminality, refusing to give the authorities access to information that can help prove your guilt or innocence only makes you appear guilty. We know this. How many times have you seen reports on ESPN of an athlete refusing a breathalyzer test after being pulled over doing 110 on the freeway? Some high priced attorney swoops in and the star gets some probation and an apology from the officer for doing their job.

Do I agree with tasering someone for refusing a sample? No. I believe we should all operate within the current laws. That should apply to law enforcement officials as well.

However, you implicate yourself as guilty if you are uncooperative. The innocent typically have little to hide from.

Furthermore, when was the last time someone refused to give their fingerprints? Aren’t those our own individual identifiers? What’s the difference? DNA is newer. DNA is more accurate. And more to the point, DNA has been mystified by CSI and makes people uptight.

Now, should babies have their blood samples stored without parental consent? Absolutely not. Should the samples be taken? Probably.

It is very easy to speculate about the intervention of Big Brother and controlling programs regarding our DNA. And Back to the Future created speculation about Hover-boards being on store shelves in 2000. Seen any skater kids floating around your neighborhood? Probably not.

From a scientific stance, do the positive possibilities outweigh the negative ones? What could scientists do with this data? Could they isolate common factors encountered during pregnancy that cause birth defects? Could they create synthetic blood for every type, fulling stocking blood reserves in perpetuity?

This article contains the following quote: “Once learning the genetics of one child, you could see an insurance company seeing that possibility for the next child and making it clear that this is a preexisting condition that the company would not cover. Or perhaps an employer that found out about it wouldn’t want to have us as an employee,” said Twila Brase of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care in St. Paul.

This issue is NOT scientific. The civil liberties arguments involved with background checks and insurance companies need to be addressed now, because of existing problems. We allow insurance companies to make medical care decisions based on profitability rather than the advice of our doctors. How do we allow it? The average American cares more about which gender Lindsey Lohan is swapping fluids with this week than they do about protesting the ever expanding grasp of corporations.

Remember, the Constitution was drafted to protect the rights of the burgeoning American aristocracy, not the masses. If you want real rights for the masses, you’ll need to start working on a revolution.