Would you microchip your son or daughter?

[Nsxile 27,322]

I would never have my own hypothetical children microchipped, if I ever did have children.

[Here No Longer 5,277]

I wouldn't do it for pets or possible but more than likely hypothetical adopted children. It basically turns them into just some sort of property instead of something as important as a child or a pet, not to mention I don't even see the purpose of doing so anyways... 

Edited June 2, 2019 by DusksuD

[Lucky Bolt 35,085]

Wait, what? No, I would not. 

[Thuja 3,659]

If it's just something like a GPS?  No, I wouldn't but if it were like a pet's chip, I probably would.

If it were something that held health information, I absolutely would.  Imagine if your kid's on a trip with some friends and they have some medical issue that requires attention.  One scan of their chip and the doctor would immediately know their health history, any potential allergies, blood type, etc. it would only be a bonus at that point if it had a home address and next of kin to contact should there be an emergency.  And, should the worst happen, the police could identify their body and know who to contact.  A chip like that could help save lives or at least bring closure.  I mean, exactly how many children out there are currently being sex trafficked to god knows where?  If the local authorities were raiding one such establishment, they'd know who the kids were and where they're from with a simple scan of their microchip.  They could find out that the children have been considered missing for months if not years thanks to the chip holding such information.  I'm sure, like a pet's microchip, there'd be a service that you can update all information for the microchip but more in-depth and not just having to update home address should you move.

[Treeglow Flicker 13,890]

Nope! Nothing more I can say on the topic really.

[Twiggy 2,966]

No. I would respect her privacy. And even if I wasn’t ideologically against it, I still wouldn’t do it because I know my daughter is enough like me that she would cut it out of her herself when it became an inconvenience for her. 

[碇 シンジン 27,433]

Maybe as an experiment and to gather some data though  the practice becomes irrelevant after  certain amount of time

[RDDash 19,206]

We already have cellphones for that, why would I want to use microchip tracker?

[Splashee 28,566]

If I ever had kids, I would not track (or treat) them like objects. So no is the answer.

[offline40 3]

That’s silly! lol I would never do that. 

[applesjck 5,602]

No, I would not. They deserve their privacy, I’m not gonna track their every move. 

[Early Sunsets 2,107]

I won't have kids, but if I did, I definitely wouldn't do that. That's an invasion of privacy.

[Oblivion 20,271]

Nope, that's just something rouge government would do, I have a feeling that the ways it's going it'll become law that all humans must be microchipped at birth! You know because the elites have to keep track of their subjects you know! 

[Clawdeen 15,518]

I wouldn't microchip myself let alone my kids if I ever had them

[Dreambiscuit 10,170]

It depends on what kind of microchip and what it’s intended to do. I have no problem with something made to track a missing child, and would advocate it. I would not use something designed to eavesdrop on someone’s personal life and would never want anything made to track their interests or sell anything. It has to be based on the safety of the child and nothing else, but ‘illuminati’ as proposed in the OP is absurd, no matter how you look at it.

[Tacodidra 61,332]

I don't have kids, but I definitely wouldn't do that unless there were very significant benefits to it. The same goes for getting one myself. It's a very dystopian idea to me.

Edited February 21 by Tacodidra

[RafaStaryStory 3,493]

Never. I don't have children, but I would never do that to them if I decided to have, not even to myself No matter how good the benefits would be, I wouldn't trust it. I completely doubt they wouldn't try to hide special functionalities of this chip from us. I believe these chips would be something you wouldn't need to pay to have. People would like to have these microchips implanted in them because of its supposed benefits, but those guys would like to have something from these people in return, wouldn't them? And you know what it is. We are living in a era where as more technology evolves, the more we lose our privacy.

[Treeglow Flicker 13,890]

On 2019-06-03 at 10:12 PM, Treeglow Flicker said:

Nope! Nothing more I can say on the topic really.

To expand on this from years ago. The only time I'm likely to have a child of mine chipped is if I decided to build a robot daughter to make up for the fact that I will never be able to have children naturally. I call it the Jenny Wakeman route.

[Maxmillian 98]

I would rather get Unabomber return over Microchipping people. But this is why i think religion might be the thing to save us. Since it had apocalyptic ideas on "Mark of the beast" aka cant buy anything without mark of the beast, dire warning to this evil corporate technocrats. I say "Eat the rich"

On 2025-02-20 at 11:21 AM, Dreambiscuit said:

It depends on what kind of microchip and what it’s intended to do. I have no problem with something made to track a missing child, and would advocate it. I would not use something designed to eavesdrop on someone’s personal life and would never want anything made to track their interests or sell anything. It has to be based on the safety of the child and nothing else, but ‘illuminati’ as proposed in the OP is absurd, no matter how you look at it.

 

Edited February 25 by Maxmillian

[Pentium100 2,200]

I like the law that mandates microchips in pets, but would be against one that mandated microchips in people (and my chip would accidentally break all the time).

There are two reasons for microchipping pets. Sometimes pets run away and cannot find their way back. I know of a dog that would dig its way under the fence, go out of the yard and not be able to return. That dog was taken from a shelter, so it's likely it ran away from its first owners. Having a chip actually saved it once, as it ran away (again), nobody was able to find it until a car hit it a few km away from home. The driver took it to a shelter, they scanned the chip and notified the owner.

The second reason is people who throw away pets intentionally. Now they can be found out and punished. 

The difference is that kids would be able to say where they live (if a kid is too young, then maybe he or she should not be without supervision), but pets cannot.  

 

[ZiggWheelsManning 11,106]

Won't do it.  Bad on so many levels as electronic devices would have the free reigns  

[abronymouse 5,876]

if you lose your kids so much they need a chip, then eep. Also, that sounds very illegal. They're little people, you can't just chip them.

animals, on the other hoof... I say definitely chip em, if you need to. We had a spaniel that was always getting out. His main, spaniely concerns in life were 1) being near humans, 2) sniffing things, 3) weeing on stuff. If there was a deep inner life where he never forgave us for infringing on his bodily privacy when we chipped him, he hid it pretty deep  

[Totally Nyx 36,204]

I'd never microchip my kids. It's wrong and immoral on so many levels.

I wouldn't chip a pet either, but that's because there's no need. There's no information I'd want on a chip that I couldn't fit on it's collar. Name and a phone number or address.