Do you think all children should be DNA tested at birth?

Question

Why or why not?

Kendell: Why do we get blood tests? We all know we have blood.

Sprout's Mom: It's not an invasion of privacy if you make the alleged father take the test when he doesn't want to, but it is an invasion of privacy if the father wants the test taken?

Answer 1

Yes I think so. It should just be routine carried out by the hospital. There are too many guys raising or paying for another man's baby, and that's not right.

For one thing, you need to know your true father's genes and medical history, in case it makes you prone to certain diseases, or in case you ever need an organ transplant.

Answer 2

I agree with Babe Heart: For what purpose?
It is clearly an invasion of privacy if done, as I suspect, for reasons of possible future criminal activity.
If there is a valid medical purpose - that can be done in vitro, or possibly at birth: But how do you guarantee the privacy issue?
The ONLY circumstance I find acceptable is when there is a putative father - or the child is a result of a rape.

Kendall, you're a hoot!! lol!!
zdlaup: Pt. 1 is b.s., Pt. 2 I agree with you completely.

Answer 3

If everyone were tested at birth and there was a DNA registry then people wouldn't get away with rape and murder as much as they do. And to the earlier poster who asked if everyone in the south is related...that's a rediculous stereotype. People are incestious all over the world, not just in the South, and certainly not everyone in the South is incestious. That's like saying everyone in Chicago eats hot dogs.

Answer 4

no longer all women folk are "devious liars" little boy. i'd in no way dream of dishonest on my fiance. he's the in reality one for me. So no i do no longer imagine that it would want to properly be mandatory. yet I do imagine that if a father needs to request a dna attempt then he ought to ought to ideal to have one executed ideal after the youngster is born. Im sorry that some lady tried to attempt this to you :/ yet you should nonetheless have understand for different women folk. and inspite of in case you probably did have sex once at the same time with her using protection there continues to be conceivable (even with the reality that extraordinarily not likely!) that you would possibly want to have the ability to be the daddy. No protection is one hundred%.

Answer 5

I think most are born with DNA so I really don't see a reason for testing for it. If you mean test for a specific illness or for paternity then I would say its up to the parents. I would be against recording the DNA of all children at birth for a DNA registry.

Answer 6

No. The testing is very expensive and if the couple trust and love each other there is no reason to do so.

Only someone who is paranoid would want to DNA test their children.

Answer 7

no. dont let science try to predetermine what your child will be like and their chances of having whatever ailment or whatever. lots of times, those tests are VERY wrong b/c the baby is still growing, the body is rapidly changing, science does not need to nudge itself in and get your baby hooked on drugs and such only to find out later that none of it was atually ever needed but now you have to do all sorts of extra things to get the baby off the medication. not worth it. let the child be!

Answer 8

I think the DNA should be recorded for future identification purposes. But I hear this won't work in the South since everyone is related. Is that true?

Answer 9

if u r going out with a women and when she tells you that she is preganant and you dont remember seriously than you should probably get an dna test because women are sneaky

Answer 10

it depends on if you don't believe you are the father.
I do not want DNA experiments for a SUPER CHILD. Oh, look that child has super genes lets grab it or that child has a bad gene.... etc/etc. I