Message Boards » Debatable Debating » Discussion

TOPIC: Micro-chipping our children

« Prev 1
« Prev 1
 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
June 13, 2012 5:45 AM
I have heard this twice in recent weeks on TV. Yesterday, John Walsh was on The View, and he was saying that he does not understand why people are not more open to this. We micro chip our dogs and cats in case they get lost, so why not our children.

The idea, is that if the child ever gets kidnapped, all you need to do, is track them down via GPS, the chip would be under a cap in their teeth.

He also said that in his line of work, one of the worse things he deals with, are parents that know their children are dead, but are never able to locate the body to get closure. The chip would help with this too.
  18805883
June 13, 2012 6:48 AM
Or the person that takes them will just remove all of their teeth first thing.
June 13, 2012 6:58 AM
Sure, I don't see what could go wrong here.
June 13, 2012 7:04 AM
I am not and never will be in favor of handing over mine or my child's liberty in the name of safety. Not worth it.

I understand how devastating those things can be -- losing your child and possibly not even having a body and the closure it brings -- but the idea of microchipping a person makes me shudder.
June 13, 2012 7:04 AM
QUOTE:

Or the person that takes them will just remove all of their teeth first thing.


Good point.
June 13, 2012 7:05 AM
When it comes to cybercrime, technology is a battlefield in many respects. What about when the bad guys themselves start tracking those chips, or using any other data which might be stored on them?

Do you want the government potentially tracking your child's every move?

It's an interesting idea, but the privacy concerns need to be carefully considered.
Edited by ScatteredThoughts On June 13, 2012 7:11 AM
  13288459
June 13, 2012 7:11 AM
I'd also like to point out that, statistically, it's much more likely that your dog or cat will go missing than it is your child will. The twenty-four-hour news cycle makes it seem like child stranger abductions are happening every second when they aren't actually any more common now than they were 40 or 50 years ago. We just hear about them more.
June 13, 2012 7:17 AM
It's not even comparable to the microchips in dogs and cats because those aren't traceable by GPS. I think there may be one company that is working on developing them, but I don't believe they're out yet. I'm not sure I'd want something that is traceable by GPS in me or my dog, let alone a child. People freak out about cell phone usage and microwaves, yet they would contemplate sticking something under their kid's skin or tooth? Hell no. I agree with rml that I'm not willing to give up liberty for a bit of safety.
June 13, 2012 1:10 PM
No Way - the government is slowing intruding more and more into our lives. Do you want them tracking your every movement? If the chips were implanted, when would they be removed, if ever? no thank you.

I can understand wanting to find your kidnapped/missing child - but the risk is minimal for that compared to the risk of government control and intrusion on our lives.
June 13, 2012 1:31 PM
nopeNOPEnope

No way. A chip in a dog has to be scanned to provide the info. If my kid has been napped, who's going to be scanning them?

GPS tracking chip, you say? MORENOPE.
  115737
June 13, 2012 1:32 PM
My children are all adults now. I'm glad that making such a decision is not necessary for me.
  10050918
June 13, 2012 2:32 PM
Unfortunately, criminals to always seem to be one step ahead of things. They'll just figure out how to remove the chip.
June 13, 2012 4:05 PM
I *might* be in favor putting RF ID tags in your kid's clothing and putting readers at state lines in hopes of finding out if they've left the state or not (via the interstate anyway). There are ways around that of course, but the risk of invasion is also fairly low. Catching stupid criminals is better than catching none.

This is kind of a random side note to the pet discussion, but please don't put your pet's name on the tag on their collar. Just put a contact number to call if they get lost. I don't need someone who might try to steal my pet using the name they're trained to respond to.
June 13, 2012 5:22 PM
QUOTE:
This is kind of a random side note to the pet discussion, but please don't put your pet's name on the tag on their collar. Just put a contact number to call if they get lost. I don't need someone who might try to steal my pet using the name they're trained to respond to.


Never even thought of that! Why would someone who found my dog need to know her name? Thanks for that tip! Gracie gets a new tag tomorrow sans her name.
June 13, 2012 5:25 PM
I've had more than one dog that would respond to pretty much anything, so not knowing the name wouldn't matter. And if someone trying to steal a dog is close enough to read the tag, the dog's gone regardless.
June 13, 2012 6:05 PM
QUOTE:
I've had more than one dog that would respond to pretty much anything, so not knowing the name wouldn't matter. And if someone trying to steal a dog is close enough to read the tag, the dog's gone regardless.


I think it's pretty obvious that a person who is reading the collar and the dog's name would already have his hands on the dog. What I was thinking is if one of my kids was out walking the dog and someone came up to pet her and saw her name, they could later try calling her away. And why do we really need to put our dogs' names on their tags? We know their names. They can't read. You can poo-poo on the tip, but I liked it!
June 13, 2012 6:15 PM
QUOTE:

I've had more than one dog that would respond to pretty much anything, so not knowing the name wouldn't matter. And if someone trying to steal a dog is close enough to read the tag, the dog's gone regardless.


I'd rather not make it easier for my dog to start building a relationship with her thief b/c they know what her name is and she can associate that with a pack mate. It's not really so much about them getting their hands on the dog in the first place. Hell, give her an apple slice and she'll follow you around for forever, but I'm not putting that on her collar either. The same rationale could apply to non-thieves who happen to find her if she got lost. I'm careful so it's not likely to happen, but still.
June 13, 2012 6:36 PM
Negative. I think fingerprinting should be enough. If you're that concerned, get finger prints and foot prints done at birth. Microchipping your child is a bit much, IMO.
June 13, 2012 7:21 PM
John Walsh's heart is in the right place, but he is very biased because of the unspeakable hardship he and his wife had to endure when their young son was kidnapped and killed. I believe he just doesn't want to see that happen to anyone else and I really respect what he has done for american justice.

But sorry, no. There is no government entitiy or private corporation that I would feel comfortable with knowing my or my child's whereabouts at all times. Too much has been given already in the war on terror and I think that even if the motives were pure, we are asking for an unheard of abuse of power. If we are going to micro chip anyone, micro chip convicted rapists and sexual predators.
  8501082
June 13, 2012 7:35 PM
QUOTE:

Or the person that takes them will just remove all of their teeth first thing.


This was actually my first thought too......
  18805883
June 14, 2012 4:13 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I've had more than one dog that would respond to pretty much anything, so not knowing the name wouldn't matter. And if someone trying to steal a dog is close enough to read the tag, the dog's gone regardless.


I'd rather not make it easier for my dog to start building a relationship with her thief b/c they know what her name is and she can associate that with a pack mate. It's not really so much about them getting their hands on the dog in the first place. Hell, give her an apple slice and she'll follow you around for forever, but I'm not putting that on her collar either. The same rationale could apply to non-thieves who happen to find her if she got lost. I'm careful so it's not likely to happen, but still.


It doesn't matter to me whether you do it or don't. I just think you have very little understanding of dogs. If all it took to bond with a dog was knowing the name its family gave it, rescue dogs would never bond with their families.

I found my dog wandering my neighborhood a few years ago. She was an adult, scared to death. She had a collar, had been spayed and clearly had been someone's pet. The only thing it took for her to "bond" with me was when I made a noose out of a piece of twine and slipped it around her neck. She was growling and baring her teeth and trying to get away from me, but the second I slipped the "leash" on her, she jumped up in my arms and went with me no problem. Her collar had no tags at all (and, yes, I tried to find the owner but it appears someone dumped her and was not looking for her).

I have absolutely no idea what that dog's name was before I found her, but she made herself at home as soon as I brought her in the house.

I've also had a couple of the neighbors' dogs slip past them and end up at my house. I didn't know their names, but I opened the door and they came right in and made themselves at home. If I were so inclined, I could easily have "stolen" those dogs without ever having an idea what their names were.

If you don't want to put your dog's name on its collar, don't. It doesn't matter. Your logic is just kind of out there.
Edited by rml_16 On June 14, 2012 4:16 AM
June 14, 2012 8:16 AM
QUOTE:

If you don't want to put your dog's name on its collar, don't. It doesn't matter. Your logic is just kind of out there.


I've actually had several rescue dogs and worked with animal trainers of all sorts in their research, including dog trainers,--yay for a liberal arts education--but ok, believe what you like and I will as well. Like you, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not you think you're right.
June 14, 2012 9:08 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I've had more than one dog that would respond to pretty much anything, so not knowing the name wouldn't matter. And if someone trying to steal a dog is close enough to read the tag, the dog's gone regardless.


I'd rather not make it easier for my dog to start building a relationship with her thief b/c they know what her name is and she can associate that with a pack mate. It's not really so much about them getting their hands on the dog in the first place. Hell, give her an apple slice and she'll follow you around for forever, but I'm not putting that on her collar either. The same rationale could apply to non-thieves who happen to find her if she got lost. I'm careful so it's not likely to happen, but still.


Agreed!

As for GPS chips in children, I agree with Adrian--John Walsh's heart is in the right place, but this isn't an amazing idea, and I understand where Walsh is coming from, but I don't like the idea of eventually every human being in America (maybe even worldwide) having a GPS tracking chip in them. I do, however, know someone who has a chip in them...my friend's Autistic son has a chip in him. I remember her mentioning it when his teacher "lost" him at school...she was mad that they didn't use the chip to find him, even though they knew he had the chip to track him. I'm not sure if it's something he wears daily, or if it's actually in him, I never asked.
  9326442
June 14, 2012 10:32 AM
I can see both sides of this. While there are downsides as others have stated there is also the upside that it could save someones life. It could mean a child could be rescued more quickly. It does make me wonder though, if everyone who is against it would feel differently if it was their child who was missing. We can sit back and say we'd never do this or never do that but if placed in the same situation as John Walsh, would we then change our minds and want to take every pre-caution to protect our child? We can say our opinions on any situation would never change but once faced with that situation it's an entirely different story and we can't say for sure how we would react. We can say how we want to react or that we would plan to do this or that but once those emotions and adrinaline kick in...well, it might not happen the way we plan.
  6762739
June 14, 2012 6:43 PM
There's absolutely no way I would have a chip put in my kids if they were younger (thankfully, they're adults) but I wouldn't want my grandkids to have chips either strictly for my own religious reasons. Thankfully, my daughter feels the same way and wouldn't chip her kids either.
  27137

Message Boards » Debatable Debating

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.