There is a lot of misinformation on the internet that references “studies†that have been debunked my science. There is also the fact that science isn’t infallible and has history has shown what science believe to be good for you today, could later turn out to be bad for you. I believe in this case vaccines have proven they work, and they are good science, but their effectiveness means that the risk is much lower to be exposed and therefore need the vaccine is lower as well.
We’ve recently seen cases of preventable illness come back into America after years without a case. I’m a supporter of freedom, but I want what’s best for our society as well. Laws about seatbelts statistically save lives, but this is forcing people to do things against their will for society and their own “goodâ€. How can we call it freedom if we don’t have the choice to make bad decisions? Freedom isn’t defined by a Stepford wife following along because she’s programed to, freedom is defined by doing things like drinking, smoking, gambling, etc that many disagree with. Where is the line in the sand on freedom?
Many public schools require immunization of children or they won’t accept them. These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use. Should they get a tax break? Is that fair? Is it ethical to take away services paid for simply because you don’t agree with the way the person using it acts? And if it’s based more on the danger the unimmunized child presents what’s the liability?
Should we charge anti-vaxxer parents with assault or murder if they cause an outbreak? They generally live in communities, is the whole community to blame? How do we decide (if we agree there should be punishment) who and how much is justified? And what about their own children?
Is it moral to punish a parent for doing what they believe will help even if the end result hurts their child? I don’t know of a single parent who hasn’t felt like they’ve made some bad decisions in raising their children. It’s not like we received a handbook, and even if we did no one would have time to read it. As it requires more and more time to simply “get by†economically, how much of this is societies fault, and how much is simply a case of not having the time and money to do your due diligence?
Quote from: Coveny on November 29, 2017, 10:19:03 PMThere is a lot of misinformation on the internet that references “studies†that have been debunked my science. There is also the fact that science isn’t infallible and has history has shown what science believe to be good for you today, could later turn out to be bad for you.
Of course science isn't fallible, but it's a process of systematizing knowledge that far surpasses any competitor. In fact, it's misleading to say there are even competitors at all. Faith, tradition, etc don't hold a candle. And the past few centuries of science have put the previous millennium to shame.
And while things do change (self-correction is an advantage of science, not a defect, and it certainly beats making errors and not correcting them) things do change, but it's not like seasonal fashions - in one season and out the next. For example, we don't switch back and forth from a flat earth and a round earth. It is still round, it's just slightly thicker at the equator. An oblate spheroid instead of a perfect sphere. We're advancing to ever finer gradations of truth rather than alternating between 100% truth and 100% falsehood.
QuoteI believe in this case vaccines have proven they work, and they are good science, but their effectiveness means that the risk is much lower to be exposed and therefore need the vaccine is lower as well.
I hope this is another example of misinformation.
QuoteWe’ve recently seen cases of preventable illness come back into America after years without a case. I’m a supporter of freedom, but I want what’s best for our society as well. Laws about seatbelts statistically save lives, but this is forcing people to do things against their will for society and their own “goodâ€. How can we call it freedom if we don’t have the choice to make bad decisions? Freedom isn’t defined by a Stepford wife following along because she’s programed to, freedom is defined by doing things like drinking, smoking, gambling, etc that many disagree with. Where is the line in the sand on freedom?
As the adage goes, your freedom stops at my nose. People aren't free to harm others.
QuoteMany public schools require immunization of children or they won’t accept them. These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use. Should they get a tax break?
No. Afaik, people who get banned from the library or lose their driver's license don't get tax breaks, either.
QuoteIs it ethical to take away services paid for simply because you don’t agree with the way the person using it acts?
If they screw up to the point of being denied those services, it's more than simply disagreeing with how they act.
QuoteAnd if it’s based more on the danger the unimmunized child presents what’s the liability?
I don't know enough about the law to comment on that.
QuoteIs it moral to punish a parent for doing what they believe will help even if the end result hurts their child?
Absolutely. Case in point: child labor laws and anti-abuse laws.
Generally speaking, yes. At least a misdemeanor. But there has to be valid medical exceptions as well. Public health is an important concept. But I don't consider parental rights to be some absolute. The child, and the State, have interests as well.
Yes, since it puts other vulnerable children at risk due to diminished herd immunity.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 30, 2017, 06:41:46 AM
Yes, since it puts other vulnerable children at risk due to diminished herd immunity.
pretty much this. If some backwards creeps don't want their child vaccinated, then they shouldn't be allowed to bring them to school.
Here's the thing. What you choose to do with your own body, that's up to you. If you're an idiot who thinks you're going to get autism if you get a vaccine, then don't get one. But when it comes to children, they're not able to give truly informed consent. Their parents are the ones who make decisions for them. A parent's stupidity and personal beliefs should not be allowed to negatively impact a child's health, or the health of the children around them.
Now, if a child is denied schooling because of their parents' refusal to get a vaccine, the parent will probably consider homeschooling, but I think that should be outlawed too. Parents with no teaching degrees have no business taking on the vital role as their child's teacher. Parents who homeschool also have a great tendency to emotionally and physically abuse their children. When a child is bullied at school, they can at least feel safe at home. But a child that is bullied at home has nowhere to escape to. The only reason a parent chooses to homeschool in the first place is so they can indoctrinate their children and limit their exposure to the real world. That's why 99% of the time, the parents who homeschool are Christians. If both refusing vaccines and proper schooling to children is outlawed, Christians will cry "persecution," as they always do. But abuse is abuse, and it is for the good of the children.
oh I agree home schooling never works out, that example, but also the example of if the child is so delinquent no school wants them and the child is forced to be home schools, which is a whole other bag of crap.
But what can be done otherwise. A child who doesn't get vaccinated is a threat to other children and being around them, and it falls to the parents to ensure both their child and other children are safe. So what should be done, should the government or schools step in and make parents sigh a form declaring they must have their children vaccinated, or even the government stepping in and forcing the parents to do so or face criminals charges?
No. Making it law wouldn't solve any issues and would only cost money and cause more dissent. Education is the key.
All children should be vaccinated. It affects all of society potentially--not just other children, but adults as well and especially the elderly.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 30, 2017, 07:12:12 PM
All children should be vaccinated. It affects all of society potentially--not just other children, but adults as well and especially the elderly.
All humans should be caged, not allowed to smoke, do drugs, not do exercise, eat and drink all wrong ... the lack of military discipline, affects all of society negatively.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 30, 2017, 07:12:12 PM
All children should be vaccinated. It affects all of society potentially--not just other children, but adults as well and especially the elderly.
Agree.
Whether you believe vaccinations are good are bad, and indeed what they are - good or bad - is actually completely irrelevant to this topic, believe it or not.
What is relevant is this: Forcing a foreign substance into ones body without their consent, and making it a criminal offense to resist, is a violation of human rights. That's it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 30, 2017, 12:07:55 AM
I hope this is another example of misinformation.
No they are a victim of their own effectiveness.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 30, 2017, 12:07:55 AMAs the adage goes, your freedom stops at my nose. People aren't free to harm others.
An unvaccinated person doesn't touch your nose, they just make it easier for bugs to do it. So that saying does not apply.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 30, 2017, 11:27:32 AM
Here's the thing. What you choose to do with your own body, that's up to you. If you're an idiot who thinks you're going to get autism if you get a vaccine, then don't get one. But when it comes to children, they're not able to give truly informed consent. Their parents are the ones who make decisions for them. A parent's stupidity and personal beliefs should not be allowed to negatively impact a child's health, or the health of the children around them.
Now, if a child is denied schooling because of their parents' refusal to get a vaccine, the parent will probably consider homeschooling, but I think that should be outlawed too. Parents with no teaching degrees have no business taking on the vital role as their child's teacher. Parents who homeschool also have a great tendency to emotionally and physically abuse their children. When a child is bullied at school, they can at least feel safe at home. But a child that is bullied at home has nowhere to escape to. The only reason a parent chooses to homeschool in the first place is so they can indoctrinate their children and limit their exposure to the real world. That's why 99% of the time, the parents who homeschool are Christians. If both refusing vaccines and proper schooling to children is outlawed, Christians will cry "persecution," as they always do. But abuse is abuse, and it is for the good of the children.
That's a strong position to take on the matter...
Quote from: Mermaid on November 30, 2017, 06:33:32 PM
No. Making it law wouldn't solve any issues and would only cost money and cause more dissent. Education is the key.
Yes but then there is our education system...
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 30, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
Whether you believe vaccinations are good are bad, and indeed what they are - good or bad - is actually completely irrelevant to this topic, believe it or not.
What is relevant is this: Forcing a foreign substance into ones body without their consent, and making it a criminal offense to resist, is a violation of human rights. That's it.
Yes this does fall into bodily autonomy. I mean we even protect dead people's right not to have anything put in or taken out of their bodies after their death without their consent.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 30, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
Whether you believe vaccinations are good are bad, and indeed what they are - good or bad - is actually completely irrelevant to this topic, believe it or not.
What is relevant is this: Forcing a foreign substance into ones body without their consent, and making it a criminal offense to resist, is a violation of human rights. That's it.
In general, the law has decided that, the government, proper constituted, can do anything it wants. What it wants is only questionable, if the policy or execution is improperly constituted. So basically, tyranny of the majority, in a democracy, and tyranny of a minority, in an oligarchy.
Coveny - "No they are a victim of their own effectiveness." ... that shows great insight. Unfortunately, in the case of antibiotics, their effectiveness is making the bugs stronger, stronger than our best antibiotics. I would hope that won't happen with immunizations.
But the consent of the dead ... actually applies, to the relatives or whoever has possession of the body. But society requires proper disposal, a custodian of a body, can't do whatever they want.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 30, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
Whether you believe vaccinations are good are bad, and indeed what they are - good or bad - is actually completely irrelevant to this topic, believe it or not.
What is relevant is this: Forcing a foreign substance into ones body without their consent, and making it a criminal offense to resist, is a violation of human rights. That's it.
This isn't about an adult choosing for themselves whether or not to get a vaccine. It's about adults making those decisions for their children. Whatever stupid reasons someone might have to avoid getting immunizations, their children should have the right to necessary health care.
Quote from: Coveny on November 30, 2017, 08:59:21 PM
That's a strong position to take on the matter...
And I believe the law should take a strong position on the matter. Religion and superstition are not legitimate reasons to deny children medical care. Imagine a child has a life threatening illness, and the only way to save them is with surgery. But because the parents of the child are Mormon, and Mormons believe taking blood transfusions is a sin, they tell the doctors not to give the child any blood, even though doing so increases the chances of the child dying in surgery a thousand times. Should the parent have the right to make that call? Of course not. The doctors should use whatever means necessary to keep the child alive and healthy.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 01, 2017, 10:57:59 AM
This isn't about an adult choosing for themselves whether or not to get a vaccine. It's about adults making those decisions for their children. Whatever stupid reasons someone might have to avoid getting immunizations, their children should have the right to necessary health care.
Fine ... if you mean necessary immunizations. Not fine if you mean free healthcare in general. In fact, the immunizations should be free, as a public health service. I think they were back when I was a kid, and they gave out immunizations at school, by the school nurse etc.
Quote from: Coveny on November 29, 2017, 10:19:03 PM
but their effectiveness means that the risk is much lower to be exposed and therefore need the vaccine is lower as well.
I don't think you understand how vaccines work.
QuoteLaws about seatbelts statistically save lives, but this is forcing people to do things against their will for society and their own “goodâ€. How can we call it freedom if we don’t have the choice to make bad decisions? Freedom isn’t defined by a Stepford wife following along because she’s programed to, freedom is defined by doing things like drinking, smoking, gambling, etc that many disagree with. Where is the line in the sand on freedom?
If the lack of a seat belt during a car accident causes you to become a cripple and therefore unable to work, my tax dollars end up supporting you for the rest of your life. I think that gives me some say in the matter of whether or not people should have to wear seat belts.
QuoteMany public schools require immunization of children or they won’t accept them. These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use.
They can absolutely use the services they pay for. But they MUST adhere to the rules in order to use those services. I like to read books and I like to be naked when I do it. Do you want naked men walking around in front of your daughter at the public library? No? Well that's why there are rules that one needs to adhere to in order to use the services.
Also if we're going to talk about giving people tax breaks because we won't allow their festering disease riddled children in the public schools, shouldn't we also talk about giving tax breaks to all those who don't have school aged children or who don't have children at all?
QuoteAnd if it’s based more on the danger the unimmunized child presents what’s the liability?
Again, I don't think you have a complete understanding of how vaccines work.
QuoteIs it moral to punish a parent for doing what they believe will help even if the end result hurts their child?
Not really a valid question. I'm pretty sure if you look hard enough, you could find a parent who believes it helps the child every time they have sex with the child. And I think most of us would agree its perfectly moral to punish that parent.
Quote from: Coveny on November 30, 2017, 08:57:10 PM
No they are a victim of their own effectiveness.
It's true that the vaccination programs have been so effective that newer generations take it for granted and incorrectly surmise that they're no longer needed.
But the part I consider to be misinformation is that communicable disease risks are lower therefore there's less need to vaccinate. DEAD WRONG. That's like throwing away your box of condoms because AIDS is less of a threat. Few things are more dangerous than a false sense of security.
QuoteAn unvaccinated person doesn't touch your nose, they just make it easier for bugs to do it. So that saying does not apply.
So causing harm is okay if it's through indirect means? What a strange position.
Quote from: Johan on December 01, 2017, 02:46:48 PM
I don't think you understand how vaccines work.
Again, I don't think you have a complete understanding of how vaccines work.
Vaccines put an inert/dead version of the the disease in your body so your immune system gets the blue print. This can take several doses to teach your body to effectively identify them, but even then they are around 95% effective so the more people who have been vaccinated the less likely that an out break will happen. The difference between our current coverage of 92% and 92% is very low risk and that's roughly 3 million people. Do you need me to further explain to pass your "understanding" tests?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 01, 2017, 09:49:09 PM
It's true that the vaccination programs have been so effective that newer generations take it for granted and incorrectly surmise that they're no longer needed.
But the part I consider to be misinformation is that communicable disease risks are lower therefore there's less need to vaccinate. DEAD WRONG. That's like throwing away your box of condoms because AIDS is less of a threat. Few things are more dangerous than a false sense of security.
So causing harm is okay if it's through indirect means? What a strange position.
It's a strawman to say my position is "they're no longer needed".
It doesn't work that way. The difference between 92% coverage and 91% coverage is low. - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/immunize.htm
Not vaccinating children who are not at serious risk from a particular vaccination is a social crime. It threatens us all. I easily acknowledge the rare instances where one child should not be vaccinated for some particular disease, but that is a rare situation that will not threaten group immunity.
But fake concerns about autism (long disproven) are not a legitimate reason for not vaccinating children.
Quote from: Coveny on November 29, 2017, 10:19:03 PM
Many public schools require immunization of children or they won’t accept them. These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use. Should they get a tax break? Is that fair? Is it ethical to take away services paid for simply because you don’t agree with the way the person using it acts? And if it’s based more on the danger the unimmunized child presents what’s the liability?
Two problems here. The first is that they are not paying taxes for services they
cannot use, they are paying taxes for services they are perfectly capable of using
if they follow the same rules that apply to everyone else using them. They aren't barred, they are making bad decisions and barring themselves.
The second problem is what I can only describe as a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation works.
My taxes pay in part for the interstates that I as a non-driver don't use. My taxes pay in part for the public and (unfortunately) publicly-funded charter schools, and I have never fathered any children. My taxes pay in part for women's shelters that I will never use. My taxes pay in part for various faith-based initiatives that receive support at the state and federal level, to which I strongly object. My taxes pay in part for the fire department, and I certainly hope to never use their services.
However, I know there are people out there whose taxes pay in part for the maintenance of the bike trails that I use every day to get to work, who have never used them. I work at county children services -- people who have no children, and people who do but will never need our office's services pay taxes that pay in part for my job.
This is the great problem in libertarian and neo-libertarian thinking: that you only should have to pay for what you yourself use, and the necessary corollary to that is that
no one else has any responsibility to help provide for the services that you yourself need.
If you only want to pay for the public services that you use, then you're not going to get public services at all because you're
never going to find a large enough pool of people who all agree on both the same services
and the level of services to provide. Remember, for services to exist, there has to be an infrastructure in place to make them available when they're needed. They can't exist in a zero-cost state of limbo until explicitly needed.
This is the point of pooled resources, and shared supports, even when there's no personal need for them. Remember, there are indirect benefits. I don't use interstates, but their existence means the Kroger's up the bike trail is stocked with fresh produce. By the same token, parents who don't send their children to a public school still benefit from living in a society in which there is a basic level of education -- certainly if they're anti-vaxxers, they
will need medical attention sooner or later, and that's going to require several people who
did go to school, and (statistically) many of them will have gone to publicly-funded schools. Even if they don't need medical services now, the children who are in the public schools now are going to provide the doctors that will care for them in their old age.
So taxation isn't an imposition. It's your cover charge for living in a modern civil society.
Quote from: Coveny on November 29, 2017, 10:19:03 PM
Should we charge anti-vaxxer parents with assault or murder if they cause an outbreak? They generally live in communities, is the whole community to blame? How do we decide (if we agree there should be punishment) who and how much is justified? And what about their own children?
In order:
- yes, assuming it's an outbreak of something typically vaccinated against and it can be traced back to their child as patient zero
- no, only the ones who also don't vaccinate
- the who is whoever made the decision not to vaccinate and the how much, I'd say depending on the consequences, anything from a fine refundable upon proper vaccination of the victimized children to jail time in case of a preventable outbreak
- their own children are not legally culpable for their parents' decisions, in the vast majority of cases (there are always exceptions...)
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 01, 2017, 10:57:59 AM
This isn't about an adult choosing for themselves whether or not to get a vaccine. It's about adults making those decisions for their children. Whatever stupid reasons someone might have to avoid getting immunizations, their children should have the right to necessary health care.
Okay.
Instance:
Parent does not want their child vaccinated. Child also does not want to be vaccinated.
What do?
QuoteWhat is relevant is this: Forcing a foreign substance into ones body without their consent, and making it a criminal offense to resist, is a violation of human rights. That's it.
So parents who refuse to take their children to the hospital are within their human rights, even if it results in the death of their children.
Oh, wait, no they aren't.
QuoteParent does not want their child vaccinated. Child also does not want to be vaccinated.
Parent does not want their child to receive medication because it clashes with their religion. Child also does not want to be medicated.
Child dies. Are the parents innocent?
The answer is no, because the law is not black and white in this regard. The law is not the end-all, be-all of what is right or wrong.
The good of society outweighs individualism when no one is actually being injured or denied actual human rights. A prick from a needle stopping polio, small pox? Not a violation of a human right in most civilized societies. Is that a slippery slope? Fucking yes it is. But it's better to risk slipping then to do nothing. You can always get back on the slide if it goes to far... the dead don't have that luxury.
Quote from: Coveny on December 01, 2017, 11:54:48 PM
Vaccines put an inert/dead version of the the disease in your body so your immune system gets the blue print. This can take several doses to teach your body to effectively identify them, but even then they are around 95% effective so the more people who have been vaccinated the less likely that an out break will happen. The difference between our current coverage of 92% and 92% is very low risk and that's roughly 3 million people. Do you need me to further explain to pass your "understanding" tests?
Welp, you left out a few things. Like the fact that certain individuals cannot be vaccinated due to severe allergic reactions. And also how certain individuals simply do not respond to vaccines (making the vaccines ineffective for them). For these people, their only hope of being protected from infection is to have everyone around them vaccinated thereby lowering the chances of them being exposed live infections.
And for those reasons, your glib little claim that "their effectiveness means that the risk is much lower to be exposed and therefore need the vaccine is lower as well" is what most in the scientific community would refer to as bullshit.
Hmmm... I also notice you had no defense of the rest the shit you said that I pointed out as being incorrect. So I'm going to guess we're done here. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
Considering a woman was just convicted of swearing at her 16 yr old son, she should get prison time on the rock.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 03, 2017, 12:58:59 AM
Okay.
Instance:
Parent does not want their child vaccinated. Child also does not want to be vaccinated.
What do?
Put child in foster care, and vaccinate child (unless valid health reasons not to). Life isn't about freedom, but necessity. Eat today or starve.
Quote from: aitm on December 03, 2017, 08:39:39 AM
Considering a woman was just convicted of swearing at her 16 yr old son, she should get prison time on the rock.
I lipped off to my mom, at that age. She knocked me to the floor with a right hook slap. So jail both of us? Or put teens in British Navy for a few years ;-)
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 03, 2017, 12:58:59 AM
Okay.
Instance:
Parent does not want their child vaccinated. Child also does not want to be vaccinated.
What do?
A child does not have the mental faculties to give consent. They're just going to do what their parents tell them to do. The responsibility is on the parent to make the right decision. When science says that a treatment is good for a child's health and has little to no risks, and when the risks for not having the treatment does carry greater risks, the decision should be clear. Parents who choose to opt out anyway are guilty of abuse.
Quote from: Coveny on December 01, 2017, 11:57:26 PM
It's a strawman to say my position is "they're no longer needed".
1) strawmanception (hint: I quoted you directly as saying there's less need to get vaccinated, that's the position I'm criticizing)
2) I notice absolutely no defense of your bizarre position that germs are the exception to the "my freedom ends at your nose" credo. Why am I not surprised. If I were in your shoes, I'd change the subject, too. But if I were in your shoes I would've never carved out such an irrational position in the first place.
In these sorts of discussions, I've noticed that the rationale for refusing vaccination is either played down or ignored and instead the focus is on anti-vaxxers' "rights" to refuse medical treatment for their safety and for others' safety. Why is this? Supposedly, anti-vaxxers have a good rationale for doing what they're doing. You'd think they could win the argument on that basis. Yet the focus is on rights, not rationale.
It's a bit like walking in on a pedo caressing a minor and the pedo screams that his right to privacy has been unduly infringed. Is that the conversation we should be having?
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 03, 2017, 11:39:26 AM
A child does not have the mental faculties to give consent. They're just going to do what their parents tell them to do. The responsibility is on the parent to make the right decision. When science says that a treatment is good for a child's health and has little to no risks, and when the risks for not having the treatment does carry greater risks, the decision should be clear. Parents who choose to opt out anyway are guilty of abuse.
A child absolutely DOES have the mental faculties to decide whether they want a foreign substance injected into their body or not. If both the child and the parent say no, then it should not happen. Any government that would do it by force, and then jail the parent, is a government that must be met with force itself.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 03, 2017, 12:32:17 PM
In these sorts of discussions, I've noticed that the rationale for refusing vaccination is either played down or ignored and instead the focus is on anti-vaxxers' "rights" to refuse medical treatment for their safety and for others' safety. Why is this? Supposedly, anti-vaxxers have a good rationale for doing what they're doing. You'd think they could win the argument on that basis. Yet the focus is on rights, not rationale.
It's a bit like walking in on a pedo caressing a minor and the pedo screams that his right to privacy has been unduly infringed. Is that the conversation we should be having?
Because it's not a matter of whether anti-vaxxers are right, you dolt. And I'm not even an anti-vaxxer.
What it is a matter of is this; everyone has the right to bodily autonomy. Nobody but ones own person gets to decide what substance goes into ones own person. End of.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 07, 2017, 09:09:11 PMBecause it's not a matter of whether anti-vaxxers are right, you dolt. And I'm not even an anti-vaxxer.
Too kooky for you? I guess everyone has standards, no matter how low those standards are.
QuoteWhat it is a matter of is this; everyone has the right to bodily autonomy. Nobody but ones own person gets to decide what substance goes into ones own person. End of.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/anti-vaccine-measles-outbreak-worst-in-decades-america-minnesota-somali-a7720976.html
Soo...okay because bodily autonomy? (p.s. - did you check with the victims and find out what they decided?)
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 07, 2017, 09:09:11 PMA child absolutely DOES have the mental faculties to decide whether they want a foreign substance injected into their body or not. If both the child and the parent say no, then it should not happen. Any government that would do it by force, and then jail the parent, is a government that must be met with force itself.
No, they don't. Their brains are not fully developed, and that affects their ability to make decisions. Even when researchers in psychology use children as subjects, ethical guidelines dictate that children cannot give the vital informed consent for their participation. The parent gives the concent, and the child gives assent.
Parents have responsibility for making decisions for their children. And if that parent fails to make the right decision when it comes to vaccinations, that can negatively affect the child's health. Unless you're willing to allow Mormon children to have surgery without blood tranfusions, the consistent policy is that parents do not have the right to deny children necessary health care based on personal beliefs.
Quote
What it is a matter of is this; everyone has the right to bodily autonomy. Nobody but ones own person gets to decide what substance goes into ones own person. End of.
Measles, influenza, etc.
do not respect your bodily autonomy. Once you are infected, you become a locus of disease and become a danger to others who are not immunized yet, whose immunizations did not take, or have weakened immune systems/health. We are at war against infectious illnesses, and those who do not do their duty to get immunized are humanity's traitors to the bugs.
Inter arma enim silent legÄ"s.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 07, 2017, 10:15:56 PM
Measles, influenza, etc. do not respect your bodily autonomy. Once you are infected, you become a locus of disease and become a danger to others who are not immunized yet, whose immunizations did not take, or have weakened immune systems/health.
Yeah. It'd be a pretty messed up to be on fire and then intentionally run towards a crowd. That's the kind of thing you could go to jail for or even be justifiably shot for. Doing the same with infectious diseases (many of which can spread and harm worse than any fire) and not expecting other people to be upset reveals a very strange mentality.
And the twist here is that with infectious diseases, it's not the child's choice but the parent's. Poxy by proxy. It's a very sick sort of parent who cares so little about the safety of their own kid and anyone who comes in contact with their kid.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 07, 2017, 10:15:56 PM
Measles, influenza, etc. do not respect your bodily autonomy. Once you are infected, you become a locus of disease and become a danger to others who are not immunized yet, whose immunizations did not take, or have weakened immune systems/health. We are at war against infectious illnesses, and those who do not do their duty to get immunized are humanity's traitors to the bugs.
Inter arma enim silent legÄ"s.
Also, I would add that one's right to bodily autonomy does not give one the right to put
others at risk. This is a society, not a desert island, and rights to self-determination come with an equal responsibility that it not be at someone else's cost. Other people do not deserve to be put at risk for a fellow citizen's ill-informed decisions.
Quote from: trdsf on December 07, 2017, 10:48:57 PM
Also, I would add that one's right to bodily autonomy does not give one the right to put others at risk. This is a society, not a desert island, and rights to self-determination come with an equal responsibility that it not be at someone else's cost. Other people do not deserve to be put at risk for a fellow citizen's ill-informed decisions.
A fine point. Let's set all notions of morality and rights aside for a moment. What happens when people are packed into dense cities like sardines and vaccination is not aggressive pursued? Does anyone truly want to make this dream a reality?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 07, 2017, 11:28:58 PM
A fine point. Let's set all notions of morality and rights aside for a moment. What happens when people are packed into dense cities like sardines and vaccination is not aggressive pursued? Does anyone truly want to make this dream a reality?
New American public action ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLvGnro4Cgw
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 07, 2017, 09:09:11 PM
A child absolutely DOES have the mental faculties to decide whether they want a foreign substance injected into their body or not.
So by your logic I guess we should do away with any laws that set a minimum age to buy and consume alcohol then.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 07, 2017, 11:28:58 PM
A fine point. Let's set all notions of morality and rights aside for a moment. What happens when people are packed into dense cities like sardines and vaccination is not aggressive pursued? Does anyone truly want to make this dream a reality?
Also, herd immunity only works when everyone who
can be vaccinated
has been vaccinated. That protects the people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
A religious objection to being vaccinated is merely stupid. A personal liberty objection is worse: it's selfish, thoughtless and irresponsible.
Quote from: Johan on December 08, 2017, 11:08:48 AM
So by your logic I guess we should do away with any laws that set a minimum age to buy and consume alcohol then.
Gilgamesh is clearly capitalist anarchist. 100 years ago, we had syndicalist anarchism. Today we have capitalist anarchism. One Left, the other Right, both anti-government. The opening wedge? I have a Right to do any damn think I want to. But the Left has to do that in collectivist mode.
No. It is not a criminal offense.
The people who do not have their children vaccinated as engaging in a gamble the the group immunity of those who do will protect their own children. When enough children are not vaccinated, and their children are sufferring serious infectious diseases as a result, I bet they will come screaming at the "Gummint" for a cure! Or blame it for the disease.
We can get into a theory of why "government" exists here. I think it exists to enforce broad social norms on things that are broadly agreed-upon. While that seems circular, I mean that a majority of a social structure has a right to demand adherence to SOME rules. In this case, vaccinations among the population generally aided by it physically.
Social disobedience for ethical reasons is a whole other kettle of fish.