My body my choice only applies when it's politically convenient for the dems. Being pro choice about DNA editing doesn't seem to fly over well with them.
The Fifth Amendment protects you from self incrimination, you do not have to allow your 'self' to be used against you or taken from you without your Free Will consent.
Yeah I know, offer only applies under the Rule of Law.
You're stating your opinion—to which I'm sympathetic! For obvious reasons there are no "facts" about the Framers' views on DNA testing. But our opinions and interpretations don't determine what rights are actually recognized and enforced; the Supreme Court's do.
On the interpretation that is actually applied in American courts, obtaining a genetic sample does not count as "compelling" a person to "be a witness" against himself because (like a fingerprint) it is "non-testimonial". If the sample is obtained by intrusive means, like drawing blood, a search warrant is required—though, of course, DNA can often be obtained without such intrusion.
You are, of course, free to disagree with that interpretation, or to speculate that the Framers would have had a different view had they lived to see the era of genetic testing. But the rule currently applied by all U.S. courts is that the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incriminating testimony, and does not cover biological evidence.
That is not what he claimed at all. He said that the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the 5th amendment is different from your own. Which is a fact.
I don't think rights fundamentally "come from" courts OR constitutions, but we're not talking about natural rights or moral rights. You made a claim about the Fifth Amendment, which is a legal claim. Since the Fifth Amendment does not literally say "no person's DNA shall be involuntarily analyzed," we have to resort to interpretation. Maybe your interpretation is better than the one SCOTUS arrived at, but theirs is the one that determines what "the Fifth Amendment protects" in practice.
Someone tried this and was told it is prohibited to patent life....once you take the patented mRNA vaccine, I wonder if you lose your sovereignty. Maybe now those injected become a GMO, &/or your offspring are patented products... sorry for the scare.
This is the big question. There is no way they can guarantee that our bodies will not take this synthetic mRNA and incorporate it within our own DNA. They continue to tell the public it will not happen, but that is total BS. It can and does happen. Study GMO seed crops. And yes, this synthetic piece of genetic material is patented. The courts have already ruled that the owners of patented genetic intellectual property have rights to that property. Just because that genetic sequencing resides within a person's DNA does not negate the owner's rights to that material. This is a Pandora's box of legal and ethical questions that have yet to be answered. And if the past is any indication of future rulings, it will not go well for us.
My body my choice only applies when it's politically convenient for the dems. Being pro choice about DNA editing doesn't seem to fly over well with them.
The Fifth Amendment protects you from self incrimination, you do not have to allow your 'self' to be used against you or taken from you without your Free Will consent.
Yeah I know, offer only applies under the Rule of Law.
https://files.catbox.moe/xmg5qn.jpeg
The Supreme Court has, unfortunately, rejected that argument. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/757/
I make no argument, just stating fact.
https://files.catbox.moe/k89j6w.gif
You're stating your opinion—to which I'm sympathetic! For obvious reasons there are no "facts" about the Framers' views on DNA testing. But our opinions and interpretations don't determine what rights are actually recognized and enforced; the Supreme Court's do.
On the interpretation that is actually applied in American courts, obtaining a genetic sample does not count as "compelling" a person to "be a witness" against himself because (like a fingerprint) it is "non-testimonial". If the sample is obtained by intrusive means, like drawing blood, a search warrant is required—though, of course, DNA can often be obtained without such intrusion.
You are, of course, free to disagree with that interpretation, or to speculate that the Framers would have had a different view had they lived to see the era of genetic testing. But the rule currently applied by all U.S. courts is that the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incriminating testimony, and does not cover biological evidence.
You claim 'rights' come from courts, I do not agree.
An example of what courts do...
https://files.catbox.moe/mgb52p.jpeg
That is not what he claimed at all. He said that the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the 5th amendment is different from your own. Which is a fact.
Agree with him and walk away.
' our opinions and interpretations don't determine what rights are actually recognized and enforced; the Supreme Court's do.'
WOT?
No, I am not arguing, you are wanting to do so but read it and you walk away maybe. I don't care if you agree or not, is simple fact.
Voulez-vous capische?
https://files.catbox.moe/97nn50.jpg
I really can’t fathom what you said “WOT” for. The statement you quotes was clear and accurate.
I don't think rights fundamentally "come from" courts OR constitutions, but we're not talking about natural rights or moral rights. You made a claim about the Fifth Amendment, which is a legal claim. Since the Fifth Amendment does not literally say "no person's DNA shall be involuntarily analyzed," we have to resort to interpretation. Maybe your interpretation is better than the one SCOTUS arrived at, but theirs is the one that determines what "the Fifth Amendment protects" in practice.
Go argue with that other fella or fellette, I'm not interested.
https://files.catbox.moe/ko4dc5.jpg
Not arguing; just stating facts.
Someone tried this and was told it is prohibited to patent life....once you take the patented mRNA vaccine, I wonder if you lose your sovereignty. Maybe now those injected become a GMO, &/or your offspring are patented products... sorry for the scare.
Btw, China owned 23nMe
Did Google founder Sergey Brin's ex-wife Anne Wojcicki sell it to them?
https://archive.vn/5sdlK
Link doesn’t work, can you take a look at it or tell me what I’m looking for by title? Thx
The link works, but you can use the actual link if you're having technical issues (using a browser that doesn't support archive.today perhaps)-
https://www.businessinsider.com/23andme-founder-anne-wojcicki-speaks-about-sergey-brin-2017-11?op=1&r=US&IR=T
Oh that’s tooooo creepy. Her ex started Google and she 23nMe then sold it to the CCP.
This is the big question. There is no way they can guarantee that our bodies will not take this synthetic mRNA and incorporate it within our own DNA. They continue to tell the public it will not happen, but that is total BS. It can and does happen. Study GMO seed crops. And yes, this synthetic piece of genetic material is patented. The courts have already ruled that the owners of patented genetic intellectual property have rights to that property. Just because that genetic sequencing resides within a person's DNA does not negate the owner's rights to that material. This is a Pandora's box of legal and ethical questions that have yet to be answered. And if the past is any indication of future rulings, it will not go well for us.
Does this mean every time I fuck my wife, she'll owe me royalties?