(09-14-2010 12:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "It's just that the right to life, of any fetus, does not guarantee that the woman is obligated to carry it to term"
Funny, the government now considers 'healtcare' a right so much so that it's willing to take money, involuntarily, away from my family to give it to someone else but a mother caryring a baby for 9 months is pillaging it's mother.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your drivel, but I can't tell you how funny I find this. You spend a great deal of your post whining that I'm responding to a straw man (I'm not) then include this little beauty.

Not only does it not even attempt to address the statement in any way, shape, or form, but it's completely contradicted by something I said earlier in the post you are responding to. Since your reading comprehension appears to be more than a little lacking, I'll spell it out for you. I don't speak for the government, nor does the government speak for me, so the position of the government is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. And there is no way a negative right to health care could be used to justify a confiscatory tax scheme designed to provide such services. The very point of negative rights is that they don't define what must be provided to you, but rather what they restrict others from doing to you.

(09-14-2010 01:12 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 12:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "It's just that the right to life, of any fetus, does not guarantee that the woman is obligated to carry it to term"
Funny, the government now considers 'healtcare' a right so much so that it's willing to take money, involuntarily, away from my family to give it to someone else but a mother caryring a baby for 9 months is pillaging it's mother.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your drivel, but I can't tell you how funny I find this. You spend a great deal of your post whining that I'm responding to a straw man (I'm not) then include this little beauty.

Not only does it not even attempt to address the statement in any way, shape, or form, but it's completely contradicted by something I said earlier in the post you are responding to. Since your reading comprehension appears to be more than a little lacking, I'll spell it out for you. I don't speak for the government, nor does the government speak for me, so the position of the government is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. And there is no way a negative right to health care could be used to justify a confiscatory tax scheme designed to provide such services. The very point of negative rights is that they don't define what must be provided to you, but rather what they restrict others from doing to you.

Fair enough... Ill own up to that one, I got off topic...

I was trying to point out that saying "sure he has the right to live, just not to be in the mother" is akin to saying "Sure he has the right to worship as he pleases, just in a way that the state says is ok"

You just watered down the unborn child's right to life to the point of being meaningless, maybe that was your intent. When two rights come into conflict the more fundamental right has precedence.

Clearly the right to live take priority over the right to someone else's comfort. So again the issue comes down to "Is it a baby and when?"

Now you can choose to ignore the rest of my post because my own scarecrow gives you an out or we can have a discussion about this...

When do you beleive *human* life (not cellular life) begins?

(09-14-2010 12:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 10:17 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I distinguish between potential and current states. From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body ... including those skin cells you're killing by the 100's as you read this. The question is not just when is it life -- but when it it a human life in and of itself. I consider the mind the essence of the human existence, and therefore I start when the brain begins to form. I think, therefore I am.

Way to take a scientific opinion and state it like a scientific fact! Almost make it look authoritative. But Biologically speaking if you take a fetus (Greek for *UNBORN BABY*) and put it in its ideal environment it grows all the things that make it 'look' like a person. If you take any of the Billions of cells and put it in it's ideal environment it stays exactly what it is. That's a pretty damn distinguishing.

"I consider the mind the essence of the human existence, and therefore I start when the brain begins to form. I think, therefore I am."

So is someone who is more intelligent, more of a human? is someone who is so severally mentally retarded that thay are border line non sentient less of a human being?

Your draw the same line I do, you just move it further back. Using the same principles you use, one could make the "every sperm and every egg is sacred" argument.

And actually, those skin cells contain all the same DNA, they're just executing different parts of it.

Going to your mental retardation bit ... notice I describe the line as when the brain BEGINS to form. Until over a month in, there ISN'T A CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. None. Nada. Void. Null. If you want to keep the analogy honest, remove the (including stem) and spinal cord entirely.

(09-14-2010 02:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 12:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 10:17 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I distinguish between potential and current states. From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body ... including those skin cells you're killing by the 100's as you read this. The question is not just when is it life -- but when it it a human life in and of itself. I consider the mind the essence of the human existence, and therefore I start when the brain begins to form. I think, therefore I am.

Way to take a scientific opinion and state it like a scientific fact! Almost make it look authoritative. But Biologically speaking if you take a fetus (Greek for *UNBORN BABY*) and put it in its ideal environment it grows all the things that make it 'look' like a person. If you take any of the Billions of cells and put it in it's ideal environment it stays exactly what it is. That's a pretty damn distinguishing.

"I consider the mind the essence of the human existence, and therefore I start when the brain begins to form. I think, therefore I am."

So is someone who is more intelligent, more of a human? is someone who is so severally mentally retarded that thay are border line non sentient less of a human being?

Your draw the same line I do, you just move it further back. Using the same principles you use, one could make the "every sperm and every egg is sacred" argument.

And actually, those skin cells contain all the same DNA, they're just executing different parts of it.

"From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body" <-- This is a false statement and thats what I was addressing, now if you would more clearly like to say at *x* weeks its now a person with rights, I would love to hear it.

As to the sperm thing... It was funny when Python did it because it was original, people who parrot it now have mined any creativity out of it. My logic is *at the moment* of conception it becomes a person, it applies to sperm and eggs no more than it does the 'mood lighting' that got things going.

"And actually, those skin cells contain all the same DNA, they're just executing different parts of it."

DNA is not human life, it's just a blueprint for it...

(09-14-2010 02:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 12:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 10:17 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I distinguish between potential and current states. From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body ... including those skin cells you're killing by the 100's as you read this. The question is not just when is it life -- but when it it a human life in and of itself. I consider the mind the essence of the human existence, and therefore I start when the brain begins to form. I think, therefore I am.

Way to take a scientific opinion and state it like a scientific fact! Almost make it look authoritative. But Biologically speaking if you take a fetus (Greek for *UNBORN BABY*) and put it in its ideal environment it grows all the things that make it 'look' like a person. If you take any of the Billions of cells and put it in it's ideal environment it stays exactly what it is. That's a pretty damn distinguishing.

"I consider the mind the essence of the human existence, and therefore I start when the brain begins to form. I think, therefore I am."

So is someone who is more intelligent, more of a human? is someone who is so severally mentally retarded that thay are border line non sentient less of a human being?

Your draw the same line I do, you just move it further back. Using the same principles you use, one could make the "every sperm and every egg is sacred" argument.

And actually, those skin cells contain all the same DNA, they're just executing different parts of it.

Going to your mental retardation bit ... notice I describe the line as when the brain BEGINS to form. Until over a month in, there ISN'T A CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. None. Nada. Void. Null. If you want to keep the analogy honest, remove the (including stem) and spinal cord entirely.

The skin, sperm, and egg cells contain the same DNA as the rest of the person they are from. The Unborn child contains a unique set of human genetic material from the moment of conception and is thus a separate human being. That is a new human life.

(09-14-2010 11:35 AM)jh Wrote:  

Quote:Thomas and Meeks Griffin were electrocuted by the state of South Carolina in 1915 for allegedly murdering confederate Civil War veteran John Louis. Last Wednesday, they were pardoned for that murder.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/10...-2009.html

It looks like we have our first (or at least a) confirmed case.

One of the reasons more haven't been proven is probably because once a person is executed, clearing their name just isn't that important anymore. Could the Innocence Project accomplish more by going back & proving that innocent people have been executed? Probably, but what good would that do the innocent people rotting in jail or executed in the meantime (which I believe is actually their goal, not eliminating the death penalty). Why would a state go back & examine evidence in a case where it is impossible to correct a mistake.

Not buying this argument... first, a 100 year old case is the best you can come up with? Second, the case is hardly "proof". He was pardoned. The outcome was NOT "reversed". Yes, one accuser "reportedly" recanted (either he did or he didn't,... why is it "reportedly"??), but that is legally proof of nothing more than that that person is a liar... one time or the other. Finally, there are tons of people and tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars spent to find that one person undeniably wrongfully executed as it would "prove" their case against the death penalty. You're entitled to believe this, but it's hard to say that what you have presented is "proof"... The BEST argument I've seen was a Texas case where improved forensic fire analysis brought the "story" of the fire into question... not proof, but perhaps reasonable doubt... yet despite this supposed "proof" and the commutation/pardoning of dozens of others during the time, this man was not pardoned or even commuted... by both Democrat and Republican Governors. Something tells me there was still enough evidence to convict him.

Quote:And if you are one of the rounding errors, but you didn't do anything wrong, it's a pretty big deal. Many people are also calling for the death penalty to be expanded or the process sped up, which will only increase the likelihood of such mistakes.

This is "reactionary" speak. You know I didn't imply that the wrongfully convicted were a rounding error. I said the number of executions is a rounding error to the number convicted... thus the OTHER argument that it isn't a deterrent is generaly true. It's not a deterrent because the chance of it happening is so remote. Gotta get caught... Gotta get NO "deal"... gotta get convicted... gotta get the max sentence... gotta lose appeals... gotta live long enough for it to get carried out. I'm not going to look it up again, but since 1975... there have been roughly 300 people executed out of more than 60,000 CONVICTED of murder alone in Texas... 1/2 of 1%... the "Execution" capital of the country... Even if you are CONVICTED of murder, you have a 1/2 of 1% chance of being executed for it.

Quote:Since the death penalty is so rarely used, what's wrong with getting rid of it altogether? I suspect its main use is to coerce defendents to plea to lesser charges/penalties. If you couldn't afford a really good lawyer, would you be willing to put your life in the hands of 12 people (who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty no less), or agree to spend the next 20 years in prison?

THIS is a reasonable argument... not saying I agree... but I'd certainly entertain it... either DO it, or don't. The point you make about pleading to a lesser charge just makes the number of executions/convictions for murder even a smaller chance. You are rightfully concerned about the wrongfully convicted... but what about the wrongfully freed? I'm confident that more innocent people have been killed by wrongfully freed murderers than wrongfully killed innocents by the state... certainly in the last generation. I'm not really moved by arguments about what happened 100 years ago... or even 50. Racism was rampant and open and Forensic Science was in its infancy. Texas commuted EVERYONE convicted prior to 1974 or so. You can argue that they killed innocents prior to that. Can't prove it, can't dispute it... but the courts also commuted the sentences of hundreds of convicted murderes. Can't believe that EVERY conviction prior to 1974 was wrong.

Bottom line... the argument that ONE is too many should be balanced. ONE innocent person executed is bad... but arguably no worse than ONE innocent person murdered by someone who goes free for it.... or goes free for another one and does it again... and I'd argue that with the burden of proof and appeals etc. the current status is HEAVILY skewed towards protecting the guilty, who are only rarely wrongfully convicted, much less executed and ignores the victims... who are ALWAYS wrongfully executed.

I'd prefer we spend more of our efforts and millions protecting the wrongfully convicted petty criminals who end up "victims of the system" and become more hardened as opposed to the "alleged" phantom wrongfully convicted murderer. I believe that would help society significantly more than what we're currently doing. You guarantee me that, and I'll give up the death penalty.

(09-14-2010 03:08 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  The skin, sperm, and egg cells contain the same DNA as the rest of the person they are from. The Unborn child contains a unique set of human genetic material from the moment of conception and is thus a separate human being. That is a new human life.

Soooo cancer is a separate human life, because the cells are replicating altered DNA that is different from the host?

Your definition of simply different genetic material is weak.

(09-14-2010 02:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body" <-- This is a false statement and thats what I was addressing, now if you would more clearly like to say at *x* weeks its now a person with rights, I would love to hear it.

I have done so ... and it's in the original quote in your post.

(09-14-2010 03:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 02:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body" <-- This is a false statement and thats what I was addressing, now if you would more clearly like to say at *x* weeks its now a person with rights, I would love to hear it.

I have done so ... and it's in the original quote in your post.

Sotty GTS, got you mixed up with someone else..

So what at five weeks makes it a person?

(09-14-2010 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 03:08 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  The skin, sperm, and egg cells contain the same DNA as the rest of the person they are from. The Unborn child contains a unique set of human genetic material from the moment of conception and is thus a separate human being. That is a new human life.

Soooo cancer is a separate human life, because the cells are replicating altered DNA that is different from the host?

Your definition of simply different genetic material is weak.

IS this right GTS? Cancer cells ARE improperly replicated cells... but I believe they are still genetically identical. I could be stupid

(09-14-2010 03:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 03:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 02:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body" <-- This is a false statement and thats what I was addressing, now if you would more clearly like to say at *x* weeks its now a person with rights, I would love to hear it.

I have done so ... and it's in the original quote in your post.

Sotty GTS, got you mixed up with someone else..

So what at five weeks makes it a person?

Accourding to the SCOTUS, viability. Being 2+ months premature myself, I have SOME issue with the fact that developing science keeps moving this earlier and that one day, we will have an artificial womb making viability possible at conception... and that each baby has its own developmental pace... some might be viable earlier or later than others, and the courts don't address this which IMO means no due process... but I'm confident that if we can agree the definition is viability, we can reach an agreement on what that means. As of NOW, that is what the court says. Until the baby can be expected to live OUTSIDE the mother, the mother's rights, including the right to terminate the pregnancy are supreme. Again, not saying I agree or that YOu must either... just that the legal thing that makes it a person at "x" weeks is viability

(09-14-2010 02:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Fair enough... Ill own up to that one, I got off topic...

I was trying to point out that saying "sure he has the right to live, just not to be in the mother" is akin to saying "Sure he has the right to worship as he pleases, just in a way that the state says is ok"

No, it's more like saying that "sure, he has a right to worship as he pleases, but I don't have to build him a mosque and drive him to services every week."

Quote:You just watered down the unborn child's right to life to the point of being meaningless, maybe that was your intent. When two rights come into conflict the more fundamental right has precedence.

Clearly the right to live take priority over the right to someone else's comfort. So again the issue comes down to "Is it a baby and when?"

My argument does not have anything to do with watering down the right to life of a fetus who resulted from rape. Its right to life is exactly the same as the right to life of a fetus concieved in love as the right to life of a four year old child as to the right to life of you or I. The point is that the right to life, for any of us, does not require that anyone else provide us with what we need to survive. It is a negative right, not a positive one. Without an independent claim against the mother, the right to life of a fetus is not violated by an abortion, even if its life is terminated. Reasonable arguments can be made establishing this claim if the sex was consensual (that doesn't mean that everyone will agree with them). There are no such reasonable arguments in cases of rape or where the mother's life is in danger.

I'm assuming from the part about Obamacare that you do not believe health care is a right, at least not in the sense that it is an entitlement. But why not? If someone needs an expensive drug to prolong their life, why doesn't their right to life trump your property right? How is that different than arguing that the right to life of a fetus trumps the right of a woman to determine what happens with her own body?

The key is to recognize that rights don't trump one another because, properly defined, they don't come into conflict. It might be hard to decide which competing claim is correct, but only one can be.

Quote:When do you beleive *human* life (not cellular life) begins?

I'm not sure when human life, in a meaningful sense, begins. I certainly don't think it's at conception, and I'm equally certain that it's not after birth (I've seen both those positions argued). I doubt I will ever pay enough attention to embryonic development (unless I become a dad or run for office) to be much more specific than that. Regardless, there are situations where, even after I consider the fetus to be human, abortion should be permissible.

(09-14-2010 04:14 PM)jh Wrote:  Regardless, there are situations where, even after I consider the fetus to be human, abortion should be permissible.

There are some people long after birth where I support abortion... but we call it the death penalty

(09-14-2010 04:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 04:14 PM)jh Wrote:  Regardless, there are situations where, even after I consider the fetus to be human, abortion should be permissible.

There are some people long after birth where I support abortion... but we call it the death penalty

My objections to the death penalty aren't really about rights, or at least not the right to life. I have no real problem with the argument that a man, rightly & fairly convicted of a serious enough crime, can be executed without violating his rights. In extraordinary circumsatances, I even believe it is entirely possible for an innocent man to be wrongly executed without his rights being violated (for a trite example see the movie The Life of David Gale [or at least read a recap, I wasn't trerribly impressed with the movie itself]).

Rather, they are more practical in nature. While our judicial system has improved greatly from the early 1900s (that was the case I knew of off the top of my head), it is still far from perfect. Prosecutors have an incentive to get a conviction, even if it is wrong. There are problems with partiality & competence at crime labs (see below for an account of North Carolina's recent shennaigans). Numerous public defenders are some combination of overworked, underqualified, or just don't care (you rarely hear a story about a prosecutor falling asleep during a trial). I'm not sure how true this really is, but it's practially conventional wisdom that most jurors are selected for their ignorance & pliability (along with their inability to get out of jury duty of course). Mistakes will happen, but only mistakes involving the death penalty can never be corrected.

You mentioned the need to find a balance between convicting the innocent and letting the guilty go free, and I agree (although I do have to point out that when you convict an innocent man the guilty man does go free). While I generally believe it's better to let a guilty man go free, there does have to be a balance or we could never justify convicting anyone. This doesn't really apply to the death penalty, however. The choice isn't between the death penalty & freedom. It's between the death penalty and some other serious form of punishment like life in prison with no possibility of parole. Nothing substantial is lost if a guilty man spends the rest of his life in prison instead of being executed. Obviously, this is not so if an innocent man is executed.

Quote:Analysts at North Carolina's crime lab omitted, overstated or falsely reported blood evidence in dozens of cases, including three that ended in executions and another where two men were imprisoned for murdering Michael Jordan's father, according to a scathing review released Wednesday.

The government-ordered inquest by two former FBI officials found that agents of the State Bureau of Investigation repeatedly aided prosecutors in obtaining convictions over a 16-year period, mostly by misrepresenting blood evidence and keeping critical notes from defense attorneys....

The report does not conclude that innocent people were convicted, noting the evidence wasn't always used at trials and defendants may have admitted to crimes. But it states prosecutors and defense lawyers need to check whether tainted lab reports helped lead to confessions or pleas.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...QD9HM560O3

And even if all four were actually guilty, which I highly doubt, I would still say that they were unfairly executed. Two days between arrest & trial is simply not enough.

*** And I still don't know if I'm a social liberal, a moral liberal, or something else entirely.

Generally agree with your arguments JH... I believe the report is actually an example of why the system works... appeals, reviews, etc etc etc... and this oversight helps overcome the deficiencies you mention. There can be corrupt people on a jury... but a corrupt jury is much harder/impossible... and the vote has to be unanimous.

At any rate, appreciate the honest debate.

I don't know how you'd describe me either, other than anti-government in anything other than the necessities.

(09-14-2010 07:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Generally agree with your arguments JH... I believe the report is actually an example of why the system works... appeals, reviews, etc etc etc... and this oversight helps overcome the deficiencies you mention. There can be corrupt people on a jury... but a corrupt jury is much harder/impossible... and the vote has to be unanimous.

At any rate, appreciate the honest debate.

I don't know how you'd describe me either, other than anti-government in anything other than the necessities.

I agree that in many ways the report is a form of the system working. The system isn't perfect, and never could be, and will always need constant monitoring and review. But it didn't work fast enough for the three that were executed. I have no idea if they were guilty (I certainly hope so) or innocent or if the information would have made the slightest difference in their trials, but even so they deserved to have all available evidence at the disposal of their defense teams.

(09-14-2010 04:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 03:08 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  The skin, sperm, and egg cells contain the same DNA as the rest of the person they are from. The Unborn child contains a unique set of human genetic material from the moment of conception and is thus a separate human being. That is a new human life.

Soooo cancer is a separate human life, because the cells are replicating altered DNA that is different from the host?

Your definition of simply different genetic material is weak.

IS this right GTS? Cancer cells ARE improperly replicated cells... but I believe they are still genetically identical. I could be stupid

Damaged DNA. This is why radiation exposure causes cancer ... the rays are literally ripping through your body and damaging DNA in the process.

(09-14-2010 03:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 03:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 02:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body" <-- This is a false statement and thats what I was addressing, now if you would more clearly like to say at *x* weeks its now a person with rights, I would love to hear it.

I have done so ... and it's in the original quote in your post.

Sotty GTS, got you mixed up with someone else..

So what at five weeks makes it a person?

The brain and CNS begin to form. The brain is the essence of humanity. I think therefore I am.

(09-14-2010 08:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 04:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 03:08 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  The skin, sperm, and egg cells contain the same DNA as the rest of the person they are from. The Unborn child contains a unique set of human genetic material from the moment of conception and is thus a separate human being. That is a new human life.

Soooo cancer is a separate human life, because the cells are replicating altered DNA that is different from the host?

Your definition of simply different genetic material is weak.

IS this right GTS? Cancer cells ARE improperly replicated cells... but I believe they are still genetically identical. I could be stupid

Damaged DNA. This is why radiation exposure causes cancer ... the rays are literally ripping through your body and damaging DNA in the process.

Not trying to argue a point... just educating myself,.... and apolgize for the derailment...

We use DNA to identify things... so would cancerous cells from someone be potentially (and I mean in the most remote of senses) be genetically different enough to misidentify someone?

(09-14-2010 08:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 08:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 04:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 03:08 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  The skin, sperm, and egg cells contain the same DNA as the rest of the person they are from. The Unborn child contains a unique set of human genetic material from the moment of conception and is thus a separate human being. That is a new human life.

Soooo cancer is a separate human life, because the cells are replicating altered DNA that is different from the host?

Your definition of simply different genetic material is weak.

IS this right GTS? Cancer cells ARE improperly replicated cells... but I believe they are still genetically identical. I could be stupid

Damaged DNA. This is why radiation exposure causes cancer ... the rays are literally ripping through your body and damaging DNA in the process.

Not trying to argue a point... just educating myself,.... and apolgize for the derailment...

We use DNA to identify things... so would cancerous cells from someone be potentially (and I mean in the most remote of senses) be genetically different enough to misidentify someone?

Yes, but frankly we don't do a very good job of identifying DNA to begin with. We have limited splices. The non-duplication accuracy is 99 point something%. Even giving the benefit of the doubt and saying 99.9%, that means my odds of having identical crime scene forensics DNA as you is 1 in 1,000. That's actually really good odds of a false match for something prosecutions claim is fullproof and worthy of instant-conviction. Make the margin more generous 99.999%. 1 in 100,000. My opinion still does not change. And that should make your skin crawl if you're in the UK where they have DNA databases. (Of course, even here in the states we maintain DNA databases of every child born ... in some states indefinitely.) Freedumb comrade!