Tom Stones is a young man on the edge.

He woke up one morning, looked in the newspaper and to his surprise saw an elderly version of himself in a photograph of ageing rocker Dylan Dagg. Tom has never met or seen his father. His mother had told him that she and his father had "made a hash of things" and he left before Tom was born. Tom and his mother, Gem, live comfortable in a house on Sydney Harbour.

After quizzing Gem about his father, 15-year-old Tom decided to do some detective work. He bought front row tickets to the Final Australian Tour Dylan Dagg concert. While Dylan was body surfing in the moh pit, Tom plucked a single hair from his head. He then sent this sample, along with a hair from his own head and one from his mother's (surreptitiously plucked from the comb) to DNA testing company "Paternity Solutions."

For a $720 he has discovered that there is a high probability that Dylan Dagg could be his father.

Gem is reported as saying, "Tom is going through a strange phase at the moment, I won't comment as it costs to kiss and tell."

Dylan's wife, supermodel, Luscious Cherry says "this is the last straw for me, I'm leaving him. and I am going to make him pay."

Civil libertarian Mr Fee Range is outraged that the "stolen" DNA samples were tested by Paternity Solution, "How can such important genetic information be tested for without people's permission knowledge? Who is regulating the activity of these laboratories?"

The CEO of Paternity Solution says "there is now law against testing these sample ; I run a good service that people want"

My opinion is yes. Absent anyone convincing me otherwise, our default position should be "everything is allowed, unless there is a good reason to forbid it", rather than the reverse " everything is forbidden, unless there is a good reason to allow it". The later would not be a nice world to live in.

So, don't set your samples to the UK for testing?

If test in Malaysia / Bangladesh UK law accept or not?

My opinion is yes. Absent anyone convincing me otherwise, our default position should be "everything is allowed, unless there is a good reason to forbid it", rather than the reverse " everything is forbidden, unless there is a good reason to allow it". The later would not be a nice world to live in.

Which means the recent sexual intercourse video by the two immoral people is allowed unless local law says it is not, what a wonderful world according to individual's standard.

Can you find any laws that say the video is not allowed?

Don't know what video you're talking about since you didn't provide a link. But if you cannot find a law that says a video of two people having sex is not allowed in Malaysia, perhaps you're not looking hard enough?

New law is created when the need arise, that is how everything work, just because there isn't such law yet makes it right? The reason there isn't such a law against sex video in this country is because people have not cross the line, exactly the kind of situation in your prefered wonderland.

Our conscience in a multicultural and religion environment forbid it known as understanding, not everything is written in black and white or cast in stone but stupid people are inconsiderate and provoke feelings.

No. It is an invasion of your privacy. Your DNA, hair or saliva, like your blood is part of your body and it is a criminal assault and battery to remove it from you without your consent.

The law is clear on that.

The law does permit some exceptions, i.e., criminal investigations, drunk while driving charges, medical decisions required with that information when your life is in danger or someone else's life is in danger but the exceptions are specific.

What is the reason that we need this law to forbid genetic testing unless there is prior permission given? Truthfully, I haven't formed an opinion either way, as I never thought about this matter. But what are the "plus" and "minus" arguments?

---

Added on October 31, 2012, 7:48 pm

Suppose you got the DNA through other ways, eg swabbing a glass he just drank from, or his tooth brush, hair brush, etc.

We simply cannot form any conclusion due to subjective arguments from all sides, hence stem cell cloning and such were banned and allowed by the relevant authorities. Similar to gay marriage, abortion... endless debate.

Only the authority can perform DNA test and use it to identify us in criminal investigation, no individual have the rights and it is consider violation if without consent. We first bow to our parents then teachers and then the law which is the highest authority that govern a society.

So, if someone claim to be your son, they have to provide their DNA test to you and you go do your own test to find out or you can ignore until criminal charges is filed.

You still have not given any reason on why it should be like this.

Alternatively, they can obtain your DNA (in any number of ways that does not constitute assault) and test it. You have not tried to convince us why that should be forbidden, other than just saying that it should be.

Who do you think decide what is ethical or not?

How many countries approve gay marriage, abortion, death sentence... while why others does not? And does that mean every citizen approve it?

Why some countries still fighting for an island and who can decide its ownership?

Who wrote the rules of human rights and who can force others to practice it?

Who am I to say it should be and who are you to say it shouldn't?
Your answer is in these questions and form your conclusion.

I'm back to my original position. Default to allow, unless there is a reason to disallow.

Well, maybe you have good reasons, but decided to keep it a secret. Since you've decided to not share these reasons with us, the only logical position we should hold is to allow it.

Who do you think decide what is ethical or not?

How many countries approve gay marriage, abortion, death sentence... while why others does not? And does that mean every citizen approve it?

Why some countries still fighting for an island and who can decide its ownership?

Who wrote the rules of human rights and who can force others to practice it?

Who am I to say it should be and who are you to say it shouldn't?

I don't hold any secret because I am not the person to allow or disallow, you can't seems to grasp the concept of written law and the unwritten rules of ethics and moral code but wait, you are acting dumb and I dislike your mockery when you turn against me when you ran out of topic to post.

Only people involve in enforcement and education has the say of what should & should not, we don't do things that will agitate others being a nuisance, people who do that are inconsiderate and need to be disciplined but in your case, it is too late and must commit an act that trigger the alarm to restrict by the authority.

Stepping on the picture or show your butt to our prime minister and post it on the web has become a topic to debate, and the 114 internet law is created recently, you think human by default is allowed to do anything but we are born into a society with many disciplines both behavioural and academical.

Stem cell research and human cloning is one of the example and you can go find out why it is not allowed and then who allow them based on what secret.
If you understand the questions above not necessary knowing the answers, you will not think I've decided not to share the reasons which I don't have, it is only logical that individual's opinion does not overwhelm the law maker or the rules practiced by the majority. 

Please don't reply in multi colours. It makes me go dizzy. And I cannot easy quote back to reply to you.

Are you saying genetic testing should not be allowed without prior written permission? Please state your position clearly. This is RWI.

I'm saying two things. (1) if it isn't prohibited by law in Malaysia, then it is legal (2) I think it should be morally allowed as well, still waiting for someone to convince me otherwise.

All that happen is somebody refered to a law in England that says it is illegal there.