If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public school

Originally Posted by Sir Moody:
The Epidemic happened because there was a significant section of the population who were NOT immunised (which is why there was a rush on immunising with queues a mile long...)

Outbreaks will still happen (immunisation provides a resistance not immunity) however in a properly immunised community an outbreak will be tightly contained and should not become an Epidemic.

I see. So you place security above all human rights. Beyond this point there is no argument for liberty. Personal ownership is a myth and all are subject to the government will. Humans are just like any other farm animal.

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
In the most notable case where it was wrong to compel compliance with a pharmaceutical standard, it turned out that the individual holding out against said standard was actually doing her job according to the industry standard, and that it was the pharmaceutical company who were cutting corners in the cause of making money. The scientists were right and the capitalists were wrong, in other words. And similarly in every other case I know of where there has been a general consensus among the scientific community.

It is not a scientific argument. It is a philosophical argument. Personal ownership is the foundation of all human rights and liberties.

Originally Posted by Fisherking:
I see. So you place security above all human rights. Beyond this point there is no argument for liberty. Personal ownership is a myth and all are subject to the government will. Humans are just like any other farm animal.

I put Community safety over individual rights - that most definitely isnt ALL human rights.

If someone is doing something which endangers others then yes I expect the Government who we give power to help regulate and protect the community to step in and stop them.

If they are only endangering themselves then fine - they can do what they want...

Originally Posted by Sir Moody:
I put Community safety over individual rights - that most definitely isnt ALL human rights.

If someone is doing something which endangers others then yes I expect the Government who we give power to help regulate and protect the community to step in and stop them.

If they are only endangering themselves then fine - they can do what they want...

Well, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that doesn’t fly. Check article 3.

Besides there are no collective rights. If individuals have no rights or are trumped by the group, then no one has any rights. They are also not a danger. They only present a risk. A possibility that they may fall ill and if not contained in some manner might effect others or pose some greater risk.

Your thoughts go with the Benthamite notion of utilitarianism. That is a concept but is not codified in law.

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
I swear, its almost as if compulsion is the preference of a few on this board. It seems to me they lurk in waiting for issues which could be compelled on others. "Do you have a solution that could make large positive gains? If it isn't though compulsion, we don't want to hear it." It is super creepy.

Meh. Not vaccinating yourself is stupid, endangering others and so on and so forth but we are by and large still agreed it's your choice to be stupid, irresponsible and we'll overlook how you are endangering others in the process.

That is not really at issue. The 'red' line is where it concerns bodies that are not your own.

Thus far you lot are continuing blithely with the freedom grandstanding but still avoid answering my simple question: why should you be free to decide against vaccinating your children, or anyone else, too?

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Meh. Not vaccinating yourself is stupid, endangering others and so on and so forth but we are by and large still agreed it's your choice to be stupid, irresponsible and we'll overlook how you are endangering others in the process.

That is not really at issue. The 'red' line is where it concerns bodies that are not your own.

Thus far you lot are continuing blithely with the freedom grandstanding but still avoid answering my simple question: why should you be free to decide against vaccinating your children, or anyone else, too?

The concept in parental rights have the same root as individual right. Children are the property of the parent until they reach the age of majority, to care for and to keep safe.

The concept at issue is if they are under the care of the parents or at the direction of the state.

It is still a question of fundamental human rights.

Maybe set aside a school in the district for kids not vaccinated by choice. If they don't want to contribute to the herd immunity, they shouldn't benefit from it as well.

Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Well, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that doesn’t fly. Check article 3.

lolwut?

You should take a human rights course. Mandatory vaccination against article 3? That's an argument from loonieland.

Instead, you should check out article 25a, and remember that children are counted as humans.

Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Children are the property of the parent until they reach the age of majority, to care for and to keep safe.

Two issues: children are not property, and what if either care or safe keeping is lacking? See this earlier post of mine in the thread:

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Why not? We do so routinely for non-life threatening situations, nobody starts wringing hands about the freedom to make a dishonest choice which the child will be the victim of. Child labour is banned. Minimum education is mandatory. Children may be taken away and placed into care if abuse is discovered.

We do that precisely to limit the damage that may be wrought by irresponsible, incompetent or uncaring parents.

We go on to do much the same to competent adults.

What in particular makes the decision to deny your children vaccination fundamentally different from the decision to rent them out as cheap labour? Or to deny them their education?

From a strict individual's property rights point of view, both cases are quite equivalent: your property, your decision to make. Except, of course that we don't accept your decision in some cases and take matters out of your hands (child labour). Why then, should we not do the same with vaccination given what we know namely that to deny vaccination is tantamount to abusing your positing as a parent and failing in your duty of care?

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Two issues: children are not property, and what if either care or safe keeping is lacking? See this earlier post of mine in the thread:



What in particular makes the decision to deny your children vaccination fundamentally different from the decision to rent them out as cheap labour? Or to deny them their education?

From a strict individual's property rights point of view, both cases are quite equivalent: your property, your decision to make. Except, of course that we don't accept your decision in some cases and take matters out of your hands (child labour). Why then, should we not do the same with vaccination given what we know namely that to deny vaccination is tantamount to abusing your positing as a parent and failing in your duty of care?

Ownership is just the terminology. Like self ownership. You cannot sell your self or your children into slavery any more but it is still deemed as ownership. It is just a part of parental rights.

Rights are very incontinent things. They don’t allow us to tell others how they should behave or to see the sense of our arguments. We either trust people to do what they believe is best or we remove rights and make it a function of the state.

The state will never object to your surrendering your rights unless they accrue some financial obligation in the transaction. They are most happy to tell you what to do with your self and your children, just not pay for the undesired outcome.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
lolwut?

You should take a human rights course. Mandatory vaccination against article 3? That's an argument from loonieland.

Instead, you should check out article 25a, and remember that children are counted as humans.

Sorry I missed your post. Personal ownership. An individual's right to them self.

Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Sorry I missed your post. Personal ownership. An individual's right to them self.

Article 3 does not prohibit mandatory vaccination.

Instead, article 25 is in favour of it.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Article 3 does not prohibit mandatory vaccination.

Instead, article 25 is in favour of it.

Articles 1 and 2 also represent the same principal. Either a person is entitled to personal control over their body and the bodies of any dependant children or they are not free. They have no rights at all.

It denies that humans are born free or endowed with reason. Article 25 says they have the right to the service, it doesn’t compel them to take advantage of it. They have the liberty to make that decision themselves.

Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Ownership is just the terminology.

Property simply means that what may be bought and sold and what may be exploited for your own benefit. I'm fully aware there are degrees of ownership, for example the difference between cattle and spanners. Cattle imply a duty of care towards them (indeed, failure to do so means they may be taken away from you), spanners can be left to rust away without a second thought.

However, property rights don't apply to human beings in your care not even if they are your children because humans are not property.

The way you phrase it, it seems you are trying to build an argument from notions of property rights that were widely considered abhorrent even in the 18th century!

Could you please explain yourself more fully, taking the time to actually engage with my question? Could you explain why the state mandating vaccination of children would be wrong (again, given what we know about the consequences of not vaccinating) whereas it's completely fine for it to ban child labour or mandate minimum education?

I simply fail to see the appeal of a 'pure' rights argument on this issue, given the world we live in. I think it is wholly divorced from reality, and harkens back to outmoded views of rights which if anything were very much a minority view and never established and enshrined in the way you seem to imagine they were.

An HPV vaccine is a bad example, imo. Kids aren't supposed to be having sex in school- so you don't need to mandate that particularly vaccine for school attendance. I believe the OP said something about the government protecting people from themselves- that's not it at all. It's protecting us from them.

I support their right to be stupid and think vaccines cause autism or whatever. But, the health and well-being of my children depends on their getting their children vaccinated against certain contagious diseases before coming to school. (see Herd Immunity) If they were only putting themselves at risk, I'd have no issue with it. But the more people who don't get vaccinated, the greater the risk to us who do get vaccinated.

Therefore yes, certain vaccines need to be compulsory for school attendance. :yes:

It doesn't stop with immunization. If what you're arguing is that if the state has the right to control behavior whenever individual choice introduces risk on a larger scale, you've opened a really nasty can of worms.

Using the very justifications for forced immunization introduced in this thread (and mind you, my kids are immunized) shouldn't we ban alcohol and tobacco? Other people are injured by drunk drivers, and other people do get impacted by second hand smoke.

Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
It doesn't stop with immunization. If what you're arguing is that if the state has the right to control behavior whenever individual choice introduces risk on a larger scale, you've opened a really nasty can of worms.

Using the very justifications for forced immunization introduced in this thread (and mind you, my kids are immunized) shouldn't we ban alcohol and tobacco? Other people are injured by drunk drivers, and other people do get impacted by second hand smoke.

Drink driving is one of the bigger no-nos among drivers here, with designated drivers on nights out (who refrains from alcohol for the night) and smoking has to be done in the open. Alcohol and tobacco has also been a politically risk-free source of added tax revenue with every budget.

Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
It doesn't stop with immunization. If what you're arguing is that if the state has the right to control behavior whenever individual choice introduces risk on a larger scale, you've opened a really nasty can of worms.

Using the very justifications for forced immunization introduced in this thread (and mind you, my kids are immunized) shouldn't we ban alcohol and tobacco? Other people are injured by drunk drivers, and other people do get impacted by second hand smoke.

Sometimes I wonder why americans keep using the slippery slope argument in these cases considering that can of worms has been open since the patriot act. Even the liberals dont want to put the lid back on pandora's box. Seems like you might as well make the most of it.

Sure, it's a big no-no here as well. It's very expensive and you can lose your driving priveleges for substantial periods of time. Yet drink-driving accidents and fatalities happen all the time (significantly more than firearms fatalities/injuries).

My point wasn't any particular risky behavior, more to show how broad the issue can grow pretty quickly. "State having a vested interest" gets into a LOT of rights-trampling before you can say "Kelo v. New London".

Interesting side note: The corporate interest that asked the local government to seize and demolish the housing through emminent domain changed their mind and de-invested in the area. The area is now an abandoned rat's nest littered with construction debris. I raise this point to make the case that Government most certainly does NOT always know what's best.

Originally Posted by Greyblades:
I honestly dont understand why americans keeps using the slippery slope argument in this case considering that can of worms has been open since the patriot act. Even the liberals dont want to put the lid back on pandora's box, so you might as well make the most of it.

Cynic of the century award goes to.....

That's your position? Because of the Patriot Act we should just go ahead and cede all our liberties? Let me guess, you work for an MP, doncha? :yes:

Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Cynic of the century award goes to.....

That's your position? Because of the Patriot Act we should just go ahead and cede all our liberties? Let me guess, you work for an MP, doncha? :yes:

No, I'm saying because of the patriot act you allready have ceded your liberties and as a nation you havent actually done a damn thing about it beyond moaning on message boards and comment sections. Frankly, if it means so little to you I wish you would stop bitching alltogether and save us all the pain of hearing your hollow "liberty" spiel.

I wasn't really bitching, more concerned about government overreach. I appear to have touched a nerve and if I came off as snarky, I apologize

I'm not saying what you may or may not do, I'll cede that point even if I think think argument is bogus considering the American government has been telling us what we can and can not do since 1789

I'm merely saying you shouldn't be allowed in public school

Originally Posted by :
I wasn't really bitching, more concerned about government overreach. I appear to have touched a nerve and if I came off as snarky, I apologize

*sigh* Apology accepted and I apologize if it came off as personal, but I am just so sick of hearing "we must uphold ther personal liberities" from the same people who upon seeing thier liberties recided only shrug and keep obliviously preaching.

You people are such wannabe demagogues, except for Gelatinous Cube. Rights have never been 100% absolute and have always had their restrictions as long as the reason is deemed reasonable. Vaccines are not abortion which is not appropriation of private property which is not the Patriot Act.

This is not rocket science. The Patriot Act is a law, not a Commandment handed down from God. It will have its time and eventually will be repealed when the climate is different. It's almost as if the idea that society has a fluid and ever changing standard of what is "reasonable and necessary" is alien to you people.

Vaccines are backed up by solid science and good results. That's more than you can say about the Patriot Act even on the best of days, so why are people acting as if mandatory vaccines are just the natural conclusion of a society broken upon the intrusions of national security laws?

I love having these discussions guys, I really do, but it gets very tiring when even Donald Sterling becomes the subject of the ultimate battle between left and right, between liberty and statism, freedom and tyranny.

EDIT: By the way, nice to see Don back in here.

Perhaps the "clear and present danger" concept used in limitation of free speech could serve as a benchmark.

Our default -- at least here in the USA under our Constitution -- must be in favor of individual choice.

If you choose to avoid vaccination, government should not be allowed to force you to comply unless it clearly presents a danger to the public at large, but (with the consent of its voters) should be able to impose reasonable limitations for health and safety, public education, food preparation, and the like. The basic concepts of public health codes in restaurants etc. is what is being applied here. If you choose to dine at a private home, or a private "supper club" you take your chances with the health practices of those preparing the food etc. Public licensure is made available to organizations who agree to abide by government standards for sanitary arrangements etc.

Only when someone knowingly continues to threaten public health or well-being should drastic measures be taken on behalf of the polity. Example

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:

Our default -- at least here in the USA under our Constitution -- must be in favor of individual choice.

An empty, meaningless phrase used to conjure a boogeyman and prod the votes.

disgusting.

Originally Posted by Sir Moody:
I put Community safety over individual rights .

Then you are a fool who deserves the government that you will get.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
An empty, meaningless phrase used to conjure a boogeyman and prod the votes.

disgusting.

And NOT, by me, designed to be snipped out and used as some kind of stand-alone sound bite, sir. Are you stooping to journalism now?

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Thus far you lot are continuing blithely with the freedom grandstanding but still avoid answering my simple question: why should you be free to decide against vaccinating your children, or anyone else, too?

Why should you be free from what chemicals the government demands that you inject into your body due to the endless and insatiable fears of others.... Hmm, let me think about that for a while and get back to you.