RE: The Morality of preserving DNA, When is it right? When is it wrong?
An interesting dilemma. The courts here in the US have set precedent that one cannot forcibly take the DNA from another individual without that individual's consent (we just saw a situation where police unjustly arrested and detained a nurse after she refused a request for a blood draw on an unconscious patient while reminding them of this law).
However, there is no protection for the individual if the DNA is obtained in a way that is non-coerced (ie: rooting through a person's garbage for something that might contain a hair or saliva sample, or, in your example, semen from a used condom).
I whole-heartedly agree that one should not be able to deliberately use another person's DNA to create a new life without that person's consent, and use of contraception in any form should very much make it clear that the intent was for pleasure, not for procreation.
Be interesting to see what the legal system makes of this once we see a case of it. You know it can't be too far away...
It won't be long for the Supreme Court or even state officials to start making laws in this area. However, we the people need to take responsibility for ourselves. If we let the government handle ALL of our problems, then we're slowly, but surely giving our freedoms away and becoming 1984. Before you know it, the government will declare itself justifiable to take and use our DNA with or without consent.