Good idea, You have to have a license to keep a ****** cat, but anybody with a dick and a cooperating woman can father a child? Tell me that makes sense. Anybody who doesn't vaccinate is giving the disease someone to breed in and it can possibly develop a vaccine resistant strain which would ravage a population like ours that doesn't see the malady that often and so has less immunity (and no, I am not mixing up vaccines with antibiotics, both can do this). Measles, rubella, all that **** should be eradicated worldwide like smallpox by now but noooo we have these Alex Jones retards who think the Bilderbergers want their own kids to be autistic. Upshot is that of course these *******s should be arrested and imprisoned and maybe have their kids taken away. They are endangering all our lives, what the hell are laws for if we don't use them in cases like this to protect ourselves?
No, there are not, That's the problem. There's no real ethical issue involved with either one once you stop twisting yourself into a moral pretzel You don't have a right to endanger my life or tell a woman she can't remove an unwanted growth from her own body, period. (and if you want to discuss abortion, start another thread, you brought it up, I just replied)
No, you are discussing abortion. Not me. So you need to start a thread, not me. It is not black-and-white. There ARE ethical issues on both sides, and it is a demonstration of ignorance to pretend that there are not. One one side, there is the issue of endangering the child (and in fact, the rest of the population.) On the other side, there is the issue of parental rights. It may not be the kind of ethical issue that you want to give credit to, but you don't get to decide what is important. Stop attacking me for sitting on the fence.
What parental rights are you talking about? The right to needlessly endanger your children's lives or the right to endanger the lives of everybody? Your rights in regard to the OTHER PEOPLE who are your children are really very few once they leave your actual physical body. You can't kill them, torture them or mutilate them, either physically or mentally (drat) You sure as hell can't refuse them lifesaving medical care or vaccines that protect ALL of us, not just them, I don't care what your totally misguided conspiracy theory or religion says I'm not attacking you, I generally approve of people who, unlike the Sith, do not deal in absolutes. But isn't Yoda's advice itself somewhat Sith-like? Some things ARE black and white, and this is one of them
Murder is only a federal crime under certain circumstances, like for example, happening on federal property.
agreed no idea who Alex Jones is but I get your drift and personally I think that parents that don't get their kids vaccinated are total mongers but that said.... yeah...but its not quite that easy really in a free society...well relatively free anyway. In terms of the UK I was thinking along the lines if parents were to decline to have their kids vaccinated then they should be withdrawn from the NHS (forced to pay for private medical) and made to pay a reasonable annual fine to the government until they caved in and had it done...just a thought. But in principle I think we're on the same page.
I think "right" is not the word you should consider. The basis of one's life is predicated upon a set of options; the options one makes have real consequences. Those that do not agree to have their children vaccinated have opted not to do so based upon whatever considerations they may have and presumably are willing to accept the consequences of their decision. You suggested one possible option for not having ones child vaccinated is the imprisonment of the parents and the removal of their children, do you honestly think that a viable option? What about a less draconian one; why not just create colonies of non-vaccinated children like the TB colonies in the 50s? I guess my point is who becomes the ultimate arbiter in respect of the upbringing of a child? Parents? State? If there are no laws against a course of action; if a decision is based on a legally valid option then whose right takes precedent? I don't think that those parents (however misguided) think they have a "right" to needlessly endanger their children, my assumption is that they are either ignorant of or ambivalent to the consequences of the vaccination or may have some religious or other objection.
The problem isn't just to them, however, but to all of us. If their unvaccinated child catches or mutate a virulent form of measles that can contract to vaccinated people then they are basically the same as if a carrier of smallpox were to come among us, which I think would kill us all since our population has NO immunity to that disease now. No, I'm sorry, but I don't care, these people are going to end the world while we argue about their rights if we let them. **** anybody that ignorant or stupid, they shouldn't have kids if they're going to let them endanger humanity
Not only no ... HELL NO!! If you can't see the long term implications of allowing government a mandate such as this then you have more freedom than you can handle already.
Would you mind pumping your damn breaks, please? I never said that I am anti-vax, and I have no conspiracies or religions. Before you begin accusing people of such tripe, perhaps get to know them and understand their position. I am completely on the same side of the fence as you are. Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are putting their children at risk, along with other people. The one thing that you need to understand is that there are also moral implications with requiring people to get health procedures. I said that this is not an easy issue to navigate because of that principle. As much as you or I disagree with an anti-vaxer, they have their concerns, and their concerns are valid concerns whether you or I think they are or not. Society is compelling them to pump their families full of substances which they know very little about, and for reasons they may not fully understand.
How would you feel if this was measles's relative, smallpox? Or how about plague or ebola? There were two separate quarantines today, affecting over 1000 people. . Some people may have "valid concerns" and you're right, these people might well think those concerns valid whether they are or not. Intercourse them. If you live in society with thousands of other people you are going to have to do some things you may disagree with in order to get along with them. I am sick to death of libertarians who want to kill us all to protect the "rats"of some Flat Earther types who think disease is God's Will and/or medicine causes Autism. I try to be tolerant of people I disagree with but enough is the straw that breaks the camel's back here.
I may agree with your sentiments, but right now I could care less. You should learn to not pre-judge and attack people.
You should understand that not all disagreement is an attack. I went out of my way to make it clear I was not attacking you
You agreed with me and didn't even know it because you judged me, without even listening to what I had to say. Because of your unwillingness to listen or understand, you accused me of having a conspiracy theory and crazy beliefs. That's not an attack? I'd hate to know what is.
Fair point, but there's such a thing as 'for the public good', and we can't have a handful of defaulters threatening the majority just because they have an unfounded suspicion, so they must be coerced into conforming?
It's not an easy problem to solve. Yes, it is "for the public good." Yes, anti-vaxers are stupid. But I am not willing to start demanding that people be forced to forfeit their liberties. It's just got a bad vibe to it. It goes against my moral fabric, and it raises questions. What other things will we allow the government to force people to do with their bodies for the "common good?" That's a legitimate concerning question that needs quite a bit of boundary-setting before we enter this territory. In the grand scheme of things, vaccine-preventable disease is about as rampant as illegal immigrant crime--barely at all. Will some people die? Yes. Should parents be charged if their child dies from a vaccine-preventable disease because they refused to vaccinate their kids? Hmm. Probably. I'm going to say yes to that one. But that's where I stop for now. This isn't easy.
I recall watching a BBC tv prog a couple of years or so ago where a plane passenger arrived here incubating the ebola virus, and even knowing it was only a science doco, the rapidity of spread was absolutely frightening.
If there are diseases we can vaccinate against like ebola, then it probably should be mandatory...I don't know. You see? This is such an ethical can of worms.
No. I think you mean reckless or criminal endangerment. "Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse. State laws and penalties vary, so local laws should be consulted." https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-endangerment/ While the language in these reckless endangerment statutes could theoretically cover such behavior, I have not found any legal precedent for it yet and I am not sure that juries or appellate courts would be easy to convince. I prefer a misdemeanor charge and a fine until we pass an ironclad statute specific to this behavior first and then hold them accountable.
Re-read what I wrote. I thought I had referred to other people, not you specifically. If I was unclear in this I apologize
It's a no-brainer to me; I see it like this - vaccinate by force if need be and head off a pandemic, or don't enforce it and just carry on as usual until it gets to you. (not 'you' personally, I hasten to add). Indeed it is, but then this isn't a perfect world, and there are limits to what freedoms we should have?
I'd love to agree with you. But it's not a "no-brainer." Actions have consequences. You pointed out only one side of the consequences--the health consequences. What about the consequences of a government forcing citizens to inject their bodies with substances they don't understand?
I obviously don't know your domestic situation, but pre-supposing that you're a family man: your next door neighbours refuse to have their kids vaccinated and then the inevitable happens, and they pass on whatever it is to your kids. Would you then review your opinion? I can tell you are cynical about 'government' (no more than me, I assure you), but would you not seek your medical adviser's advice? That's what I'd do.
My quarrel would be with the man next door, not the government. Believe me, I am a liberal and I see your point. Asking the government to force people to inject themselves with substances for any reason is not okay with me. At least not so blanketedly. There needs to be a better understanding on the citizen's part that it is for their good, and everybody else's as well.
Vaccinations are usually done by medically-qualified professionals?? And a fat lot of good your 'quarreling with the man next door' will do if he's moved away? Your kids would still have whatever it was they'd caught from his kids?
