Would you support a new law?

Question

that would require each new child born to have implanted at birth a chip that would send a location signal to a receiver and once the child reaches the age of majority he/she can have the signal turned off if they so desire? Qualify your answer please...thanks

Answer 1

What an interesting question!
I'm also finding it particularly disturbing that tons of people will chip their beloved pets but wouldn't dream of doing that to protect their child's safety!

I'm sure some people would see this as "some mark of the beast" type of bullshit. But, if you ever lost a child to abduction by a predator, or had them wander off never to be found again, or knew somebody who had, you might feel a lot differently about the premise of this question.

If there had been such a thing when my boy was just a little guy, I'd have taken the precaution. When they're older, you can get them cell phones but when they're infants, toddlers and too little for cells, I'd have appreciated the availability of having the choice of that added security. We are fingerprinting our small children today and making profiles on them. A chip implant would be an added measure of security for a child's safety that I think a lot of parents would look into.

Stil, I would NOT support a law to make it mandatory.
Each of us has to do what we feel is right. It's still a free country where we should all be allowed the right to choose for ourselves what we want for ourselves and our families.

Answer 2

Nope. Having a tracking device (or anything other foreign object) implanted in their body is a serious violation of privacy. What would be the difference between doing it when they are children and doing it when they are adults? The child can not legally make choices for themselves, but that is what the parents/guardians are for. Let the parents choose if they want their child implanted. It should not be forced by the government.

Answer 3

No. Legislated bodily interference is unconstitutional. If our own bodies are no longer private, then what could we argue privacy for anymore? What happens to children, health-care wise, should be a parent's choice, and that should never be sacrificed to benefit the police or census bureau.

I'm also troubled by the parallels between this and microchipping dogs.

Answer 4

I would absolutely support this. The reason my husband and I have not had a child yet is for the fear of losing them by kidnapping. I know it is rare, but we don't think we would be able to live if something liked this happened. So yes, I would support it, but I don't think it would ever pass because so many people would say that it violates privacy. I wish it was a personal choice.

Answer 5

Nope. I'm not what you would call a conspiracy theorist, but there is enough troubling information about our government out in the open to preclude me from allowing that.

Answer 6

I can tell you right now we are not ready for that yet. It would be considered a violation of civil liberties. We can't even get that done form criminals who have lost most of their civil liberties.

Answer 7

that's like asking me if i want my child to have the sign of the beast tattooed on him at birth.
everyone has cell phones these days, they have gps on them. fork over the money and get a cell if you want to know where your kid is.
i prefer the government NOT interfering with my life. who knows what out scum bag politicians will encode in those chips. no thanks!

Answer 8

No! I don't care if it did become law I would not allow that to happen.

Answer 9

I think it will be done in the future whether we agree to it or not.
But no, I wouldn't want it done.

Answer 10

nope