DNA Should Be Collected From All Newborn Babies And Stored Indefinitely

I accept, and I will begin with a breif rebuttal of Pro's mentioned "benefits"I am assuming Pro means "all newborn babies in the world" and not "all newborns in a specific country" Rebuttals:1. Concerning Pro's mention of criminals. I don't believe they will have a higher chance of being identified. In fact, the chances would likely remain constant, if not decrease. It has been shown throughout history that the more advancements made to capture and defy criminals only advance criminals even farther. If we are able to use DNA to our advantage, criminals would be able to do just the same. This would mean they can more effectively frame someone just by making sure their DNA is at a crime scene. 2. Concerning the kidnappings of children. If they ever have a DNA test in the future for an unrelated issue, that just means they are no longer kidnapped (held captive), so there is no danger and it would be easier for the children to inform the authorities rather than have a DNA test.3. Pro's 3rd reason is tied with his 1st reason, which I have refuted. My rebuttal states that crime rates would remain constant and unchanged if not increase.4. Con's proposition in his 4th reason is limited to people who are biologically related. Therefore, this excludes wives, husbands, in-laws, adoptive parents and children, etc. Besides, if the isolated family members knew each other personally before being isolated, they can easily be reunited through the use of social media. In fact, several isolated people have been reunited like this, and it is very easy and requires no DNA extraction. All they need to know is each other's names. Therefore, the only case in which this would be truly useful would be when finding relatives you never knew. But let me ask you this: if you found out you had a second cousin in a country thousands of miles away, would you be excited and contact him or maybe even try to visit him? That was a rhetorical question of course on for most the answer would be "no". Therefore, having a DNA database of everyone in the world isn't as beneficial as Pro though. It's benefits are not significant enough for there to be a need for it.Addendum:1. The method of comparing people's DNA based on database has a problem. It can easily be changed and it is very risky. If a hacker manages to break in to the database and change anything, which could harm a lot of people and would be a huge problem for the government, who must spend a huge amount of funding on repairing it. 2. It can be easily tricked or used to frame someone, therefore crime rates will stay the same. If a killer kills someone, he can have a source of DNA prepared, like someones hair, blood, finger prints, etc. All he needs to do is leave this at the crime scene and make sure he himself doesn't leave any DNA. 3. This is not effective and unfair with those who have cancer or genetic mutations that occur after they are born and got their DNA collected. People who have cancer or genetic mutations have different DNA from the time they are born because their DNA has been mutated. 4. It would decrease the quality of performance of crime investigators. Nowadays, the process in which we use to compare DNA for solving crime is called Gel Electrophoresis. It is very precise and easy (cheap) to do. Why, I did it just the other day in my biology lab with DNA from onions. It is a better method for crime investigation because it only compares the DNA found at the crime scene with the DNA of suspects to determine the culprit. This is a lot more precise than comparing the DNA with everyone in the database. If there were a whole database of DNA, the authorities would get lazy and rely on this database heavily, which is not good. 5. If someone steals someone else's DNA information, he could cause a lot of harm with this info. With the implemation of a DNA database, that just gives swindlers and scammers a new thing to steal and take that they can maybe sell in the black market. 6. Pro's resolution focuses on all newborn babies in the world. The fact that it can be used to find long lost family members in different parts of the world like Pro implies, means that it would be one large combined database containing the DNA information of everyone in every country. Now, I would like to ask Pro, who owns this database? Wouldn't this be a problem for countries who are enemies because they know the DNA information of each other's citizens?7. Funding is also a huge problem. This would require a lot of money. This leads to my 8th point.8. Who pays for this? Who pays for the DNA collection of the whole world? Surely not the government of a particular country. Do all the countries pitch in? Would that not be a problem for opposing countries or countries in poverty or debt? Pro must explain the mechanics of this system. Closing Statement:While having a DNA database can be a good tool with benefits, it's benefits are not significant enough for the proposition to be worth executed. Also due to the expense, reduction in crime investigation performance, and vulnerability of the identity of everyone in the world.Over to Pro...