Give DNA or no job; A.F.P.

Ha, you got me there... I've forgotten how it started.

In the end tho, I suppose the ends don't justify the mean's and I've never really looked at that angle before. I've always been interested in the end result's. A better us. I just hope genetic engineering get's to a point where it can solve alot of problem's with cancer's and disease's.

Wouldn't we all like to get rid of disease and everything bad?
Oh well.... I believe that we'll never get rid of bad things.

Originally posted by mashup

How did this thread come to the discussion of eugenics?

The next step after collecting everyone's DNA info is to "cull the herd" based on genetic profiles - eugenics policies. This can occur in several ways, not by killing them outright like Hitler did - people can be moved out of the mainstream economy based on their genes, they can lose their insurance coverage, they can be denied a mortgage if their genes say their lifespan might be shorter than average. The list goes on....

And the funny bit is... it's all conjecture and no proof. We can sit here all day and say oh this is gunna happen, that's gunna happen. Problem is, this lil thing called evidence. Which there's lack of.

Soficrow, I like that you keep asking the next question and the next...

To me that's the value of a site like this, not ask, have answered leave at that, but to inspire people to explore all angles from their own perspectives.

Saddly too often people forget that though a view may not be 'complete' it can be a highly valid 'missing piece' of the whole 'truth'.

In a trial, you don't pass judgement on the evidence you 'liked the best' but the picture painted from the whole pallet.

Originally posted by Produkt
And the funny bit is... it's all conjecture and no proof. We can sit here all day and say oh this is gunna happen, that's gunna happen. Problem is, this lil thing called evidence. Which there's lack of.

Nobody is saying anything is going to happen with certainty. Just that certain things can lead to other things, as they have done in the past.

With respect to my observation that collecting DNA samples from people readily supports the institution of eugenics policies, it's rather obvious don't you think?

How not?

There's nothing even remotely like eugenic's with the AFP DNA collection. The article doesn't mention it as such atleast.

Originally posted by soficrow

With respect to my observation that collecting DNA samples from people readily supports the institution of eugenics policies, it's rather obvious don't you think?

How not?

To me it is obvious, particularly in how many different ways around the world identifying biological 'material' has been collected and stored for so many different reasons.

On their own, here and there, they can seem harmless but "who" has, or can access, the 'ultimate' list?

Stories like this, are just another one in a too long list of places our 'bio. info.' is collected and stored.

P.S. Produkt, the R.S.P.C.A, doesn't ask for donations to put down healthy animals, but it's still what it does. Do you really expect the A.F.P. to say, "oh and by the way we have ulteria motives for this 'policy' but "they" don't want us to tell you."

[edit on 12-1-2006 by suzy ryan]

Right... Yea, obvious. How silly of me.

On their own, here and there, they can seem harmless but "who" has, or can access, the 'ultimate' list?

And who says there's an ultimate list? I mean god know's these seperate orginization's aren't all working on their own for their own purposes right? They MUST be working together inwittingly. So far your seriously lacking evidence in this matter and have been twisting news articles to appear as evidence.

I haven't found any articles concerning the RSPCA, but would like to point out that your notion of an other motive's is based soley on opinion and opinion alone. As we're all well aware, opinion doesn't make it a fact. Now unless you have evidence, you should stop peddling your opinion as fact. Atleast start off stating that your theories are based upon opinion's only.

Good of you to remind folk of what I've already stated, that I offer my concidered, honest, opinion, and like everyone else's opinions, though they may not be 'full views', that doesn't mean the views aren't valid or important.

I know I'd rather go backwards to discover I was wrong, than march ahead unjustified, and die a fool.
Asking people to review a conclussion they've come, to isn't insulting, but respectfull in expecting them to understand the 'wisdom' that, 'new facts' can effect 'old facts'.

Anyone can tell people my/anyone's opinion isn't worth, "a snow cone in a sand storm", but all I ask is that folk compare the overall tone and opening (rather than closing) view of differant people's posts, before they decide how much weight to give to each.

Isn't this sound advice and a 'healthy practice', for those on 'consiracy sites'?

How much wieght should one give to a statement such as this.

Who would/could 'they' be? NWO head honchoes?

You jump to conclusions while admitting the article is "written in a very ambiguous way".

Is jumping to conclusion's without all the fact's, evidence and proof laid out first healthy practice and should anyone really put much wieght into something of that effect? Such statement's are not valid statement's. You do know what they say about assuming something right? Not sure if I can repeat it here. Make's an... that one?

While it may be useful for the fed's, things like this deserve more attention.

If it was decreed that every Australian should have their fingerprints put on record there’d be an outrage. Yet something more personal than a fingerprint is on record for almost every Australian born after 1970 - a sample of their DNA. The DNA collection came about accidentally because of Guthrie Cards - a blood sample taken from every baby, to check for diseases.
. . .
The police have accessed the database without consent in the past. In Western Australia this led to the Perth hospital destroying all their samples to ensure this sort of thing couldn’t happen again.

Source

Gee, I guess it would be okay to have your skills and tendencies (criminal or not) determined by an fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) too?

And Produkt, what makes you such an expert in this field? Your sensitive and insightful disertation on eugenics leaves me wondering as to your intent as well as your level of understanding of these issues. Get informed. Deny ignorance, don't propogate it.

I like your new avatar suzy

When did I state I was an expert? I'm just arguing the fact that none of these article's suggest and NWO plot. As your's does state, isolated to western australia, the usage of the cards to determine the possibility of contracting a disease, failure of the law to protect the database. These three point's outlined in the new's article do not in any way imply an NWO plot or concpiracy. Just bad politics. No, not an expert opinion, just an obvious observation.

Originally posted by Produkt
I'm just arguing the fact that none of these article's suggest and NWO plot. As your's does state,

Produkt. This is a conspiracy site. We collect information, analyze it and re-analyze it. Pretend we're a think tank. We look for implications, possibilities and probabilities.

If you have nothing to hide, the process shouldn't threaten you.

Originally posted by Produkt
As your's does state, isolated to western australia,

No, it does not say it's restricted to Western Australia, it says they are the only ones to DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. It's a national program, get your facts straight.

If you were born in Victoria after about 1975 then a sample of your blood will be stored on these cards. And that’s more personal than a fingerprint, because that spot of blood also contains a sample of your DNA.

Source

And you didn't say you were an expert, you inferred it. Ignorance and arrogance aren't an attractive mix. H.A.N.D.

Ah ok, I mistook the article meaning it was just western australia. No need to get pissy, simple human mistake, but thank you for pointing out the error..

The problem that cloning a human embryo is because the clones might become super nad very healthy. Genetic mapping can also cause a problem, such as people worrying about a disease that they might not even get. And then companies won't employ them because they may die and they won't want the insurance.
And then they may become socially isolated and cause stress.

There isn't proof that this is happening, but that's a strong argument for the case against DNA mapping and cloning.


Similarly to Bird Flu, there isn't exactly proof that the H5N1 strain will mutate but they're still worried (very) about the possibility.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Cloning is the process of making a genetically identical organism through nonsexual means.

science.howstuffworks.com...

In this article, we will look at the process that could be used to clone humans, why we would want to clone ourselves and the controversy surrounding cloning.

Cloning uses your genetic makeup to create an identical you. It wouldn't be anymore healthier then you were at birth. If the clone were allowed to live a full life, it's health could turn for the better or worse depending upon how it live's it's life.

Mapping the human genome shouldn't even raise any concern's. If you have your genome mapped and checked for any chance's of catching a disease later in life, there could be a good chance of curing it before you contract it. People shouldn't worry IF they'll get a disease that they might not even get. You get your genome checked, get it fixed before you get anything if there is a chance of getting anything. Laws could be put in place that protect genetic profiling and discrimination, thus making it illegal for companies and such to act against certain genetic markers.

Yes Produkt, it could be good to map someone's DNA but people are saying it may lead to the things that I said in the post before.

It's quite easy to modify DNA with the process of using an emzyme to cut out a particular part of the DNA strand and then use another emzyme to stick in another part of another DNA strand. It's called transgenics and is how they make anti biotics (I think).

I understand that, which is why people would need to try and get laws made up to protect against thing's such as this. Once law's are in place these concern's wouldn't be needed.