I only have a layman’s understanding of the issue, but IIRC there is no way to test for what kind of powers a mutant has, correct? So we could require testing as a condition of, say, getting a Social Security number (another example, btw, of the government sucessfully keeping valuable private information private). But even if every mutant is registered as such at birth, the registry is useless if we don’t know what powers each mutant posesses and to what degree. A registry that shows nothing but whether or not someone is a mutant would have no other function than perpetuating discrimination. There is no way to require detailed information about mutant powers - someone could claim not to know what their power is, or claim that they can only manifest it to a fraction of their actual ability. Asking for details on a voluntary basis might be useful for studying the phenomenon itself, but would be useless for the purposes of law enforcement and public safety. The percentage of mutants who followed up on their registration after they discovered their ability would probably be very low due to fear of persecution and plain old human laziness. Anyone contemplating criminal activity would obviously not volunteer information about their abilities.
Social services, such as training and counseling, should be available on an annonymous and voluntary basis (though court-ordered training might be appropriate in some cases). How to create such a system without exposing the participants to the kinds of people who monitor the comings and goings of patients and doctors at abortion clinics is another matter, which I do not feel prepared to tackle.
A lot of people are quite sure that the list will get out. Why should we assume the data will be significantly less secure than IRS or specific census data?
(What FOIA rules will apply - could you verify that someone else has a registry file under the MRA through FOIA?)
Pretty much everything worth saying has been said already, but I just wanted to say what a fascinating read it’s been. At every post by **Bricker **AND **andros **I found myself agreeing.
In the end, I still agree, with both of you. And that in iteself tells me that registration is the Wrong Thing. In my moral universe, not doing something which might not be harmful is less harmful than doing something which may be harmful. That probably made no sense whatsoever.
Basically, it seems that some small good (crime solving, mostly) and great harm (slippery slopes galore) could come from the MRA.
It seems that some small harm (making it harder to solve crime - but no harder than it is today) and great good (faith in ourselves, our constitution and our country; less chance of civil uprising; better Mutant relations) could come from not enacting the MRA.
Furthermore, too many of the good possibilities **Bricker **brings up are dependent on the law being worded, interpreted and carried out in a very precise manner, and I’m too jaded and cynical to trust politicians, police officers and lawyers to have the mutant’s best interests at heart. I suspect that there will indeed be violations that will get dragged through the courts for decades - no, not a slippery slope argument, simply a realization that the MRA, like communism, will work better on paper than in reality.
So, in the end, I’d have to come out against the MRA, even though it could provide some valuable benefits. The cost to ourselves as Americans just isn’t worth it.
Offer a voluntary registry required to receive special Mutant counseling, training or social services if you like. It’s only those potentially dangerous Mutants willing to undergo training that the registry will help anyway.
In that case, the Registry would be of almost no use to law enforcement, and limited use to research.
I’m sorry, but I just cannot see enough benefit here to justify logging all those carrying a genetic abnormality.
I am left with the feeling that any Registry would either be so intrusive as to declare a separate class of citizens or so gutted as to be useless except for nefarious purposes.
For example, I’d say the intent of “…and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” expresses the intent that the government recognizes theism.
But it doesn’t, because the Declaration is not a source of substantive law.
Way to miss the point, Scott. Regardless of Mr. Jefferson’s personal beliefs, he produced a document using the language of the period and endorsed by several dozen representatives of the North American British colonies to express a sentiment that was used as the basis to declare that those colonies had a legitimate right to form a separate nation. Therefore, when we look to the nation’s spirit, it is entirely appropriate to include an acknowledgement that most of the founders looked to a divine being whom they felt created and ordered the world.
However, 11 years later, when they sat down to construct a document under which the laws of the nation would be created and executed, they quite deliberately excluded any mention of the divine.
Your points regarding the Declaration of Independence and Mr. Jefferson’s personal beliefs are wholly irrelevant to this discussion.
However, tomndebb has made the same obersvation, and I cannot help but think that my attempt would compare unfavorably to his prose, so I’ll just say, “Eh… what he said.”
Way to miss the point, Tom. Really, they all signed, have known what his feelings were, and besides, the deist “endowed by their creator.” is not the “endowed by the creator” is not the that would go towards Rick’s point.
Who said anything about persecution? I thought we were discussing registration.
In reality, drivers with patterns of dangerous driving are considered dangerous. As this pertains to the mutant issue, please see post 54.
Please, come on, people (not specifically the two I respond to here, but everybody). I thought this was one debate that wouldn’t degenerate into insults and shit-slinging. It’s not even for real. Can’t we try to keep emotions out of it.
Having to register because you are considered dangerous simply because of the way you are born isn’t persecution? That’s right. It’s for their own protection.
2)Right, drivers with a pattern of behavior are considered dangerous. People with a wonky gene should also be considered dangerous regardless of patterns of behavior.
3)Who’s getting emotions into it? I’m just trying to stay (mostly) in the spirit of things. That’s why I godwined this thing on page 1. Seemed appropriate at the time.
“And ours” automatically assumes that they are a danger regardless of behavior. Not to mention laws motivated by fear are rarely good ones. A good example would be the patriot act.
Because if the mother has HIV, there is a good chance the child will have it as well. We would essentially be testing every child because there is no way of knowing which child carries a mutant gene. It’s pointless anyways. As far as I know, there is no test to detect the mutant gene before it activates and it becomes apparent that the person is a mutant.
No. It assumes that mutants pose a greater danger, on average, than nonmutants. It seems to me the evidence bears this out. Cyclops, the “thirteen-people-in-hospital” girl, and so forth.
The Patriot Act actually does something. Registering is nothing. It harms nobody.
If there is no such test, then of course I do not support administering it. But if one exists, then I certainly support it.
Either way, this is definitely an issue we should pour research into. Is it possible to predict the activation of the mutant gene and its effects?
There have been a few cases of dangerous mutations. All through this thread, examples of harmless mutations have been pointed out. So far, there is no reason to believe those who can grow their (otherwise ordinary) fingernails real long (Meg Griffin) and those who can change things from one color to another are dangerous, or a minority. The studies draw the opposite conclusion
All except the hardest of heads agree that Senator Kelly is hoping for a slippery slope to come into existence in regards to registration.
Post 90:DocCathode revealed that there is such a test likely to come into the market soon. He also showed how such registration is insane, since there are many kinds of dangerous human beings, but the government is concentrating soley on mutants.
Why do you support, in view of all the reasons against it?
No. According to paper on the subject, tests only show that the gene has a likelihood of existing, not the results of the existence.
