21–30 of 119 posts
Congress is going backwards! How could they even consider this bill? It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
Congress is going backwards! How could they even consider this bill? It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
What's the downside? If the info was irrelevant then I'd understand it, but obviously genes are relevant to risk. Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination, I don't see the problem here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the downside? If the info was irrelevant then I'd understand it, but obviously genes are relevant to risk. Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination, I don't see the problem here.
No downsides. Please post your complete medical history, financial transactions, porn history here so we can evaluate your fitness for your next job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the downside? If the info was irrelevant then I'd understand it, but obviously genes are relevant to risk. Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination, I don't see the problem here.
No downsides. Please post your complete medical history, financial transactions, porn history here so we can evaluate your fitness for your next job.
Congress is going backwards! How could they even consider this bill? It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
Rich will have designer genes and protected estates, poor will be locked out of any kind social advancement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the downside? If the info was irrelevant then I'd understand it, but obviously genes are relevant to risk. Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination, I don't see the problem here.
No downsides. Please post your complete medical history, financial transactions, porn history here so we can evaluate your fitness for your next job.
Meanwhile in Canada, the House voted to ban genetic discrimination, over the objections of the Cabinet (who believe this should be a provincial issue and not a federal one). http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/genetic-testing-bill-vo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then some researcher finds a (probably not causative) correlation between a certain set of genes and pedophilia. Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit
Just for argument's sake... Do you think the greater good would be served by protecting that politician's privacy, and that of several dozen school teachers who also carried that set of genes? Or would society be better off if the politician and the teachers were subjected to greater scrutiny, leading to some percentage of them being removed when discovered to be actual pedophiles? This isn't meant as rhetorical, and…
Congress is going backwards! How could they even consider this bill? It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
What's the downside? If the info was irrelevant then I'd understand it, but obviously genes are relevant to risk. Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination, I don't see the problem here.
Sure there is, are you familiar with the Age Discrimination in Emloyment Act of 1967 [1]?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employ...