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

[Fisherking]

I see this as one of those left/right hypocrite issues.

This is the abortion issue in reverse.

Are people free to control their bodies and make decisions for their families or are they subjects of the government to be dictated to and controlled for their own good (the good of the government).

The benefit doesn’t matter. It is simply an either or proposition. Free or subject.

Who would decide differently on those grounds?

[Papewaio]

I see this as one of those left/right hypocrite issues.

This is the abortion issue in reverse.

Are people free to control their bodies and make decisions for their families or are they subjects of the government to be dictated to and controlled for their own good (the good of the government).

The benefit doesn’t matter. It is simply an either or proposition. Free or subject.

Who would decide differently on those grounds?

Not equivalent bordering on a straw man argument in its fallacy.

Not vaccinating has closer merits with some lazy twat deciding to post natal abort someone else using Russian roulette.

[Fisherking]

Not equivalent bordering on a straw man argument in its fallacy.

Not vaccinating has closer merits with some lazy twat deciding to post natal abort someone else using Russian roulette.

Please do explain the fallacy.

It is either people have the right to be as stupid as they like or the government has the right to tell you what to do with your body.

Sometimes is something that never works.

The right of society to exclude you for that stupidity is valid. Your choice. But the right to compel you to put or not put substances into your body is far more intrusive.

[Papewaio]

Please do explain the fallacy.

It is either people have the right to be as stupid as they like or the government has the right to tell you what to do with your body.

Sometimes is something that never works.

The right of society to exclude you for that stupidity is valid. Your choice. But the right to compel you to put or not put substances into your body is far more intrusive.

There is a difference between choosing self harm and harming others.

Not vaccinating is in the same vein as shouting fire in a theatre. It's action can cause harm and death to innocents around you.

Young children cannot get vaccinated against whooping cough. Adults can. But if an unvaccinated adult gets whooping cough they can infect the child. Whilst in an adult whooping cough is annoying and nasty, in a child it can cause death.

So this is about other people choosing detrimental outcomes to you. It is about other people impacting on the health and safety of others.

Unvaccinated people are no different to people screaming fire in a theatre, or speeding vastly above the speed limit, or doing other dangerous activities that impact more then just themselves. In most instances these activities if done result in custodial sentences. Not immunizing is treated pretty lightly considering the harm it does to society.

[Fisherking]

There is a difference between choosing self harm and harming others.

Not vaccinating is in the same vein as shouting fire in a theatre. It's action can cause harm and death to innocents around you.

Young children cannot get vaccinated against whooping cough. Adults can. But if an unvaccinated adult gets whooping cough they can infect the child. Whilst in an adult whooping cough is annoying and nasty, in a child it can cause death.

So this is about other people choosing detrimental outcomes to you. It is about other people impacting on the health and safety of others.

Unvaccinated people are no different to people screaming fire in a theatre, or speeding vastly above the speed limit, or doing other dangerous activities that impact more then just themselves. In most instances these activities if done result in custodial sentences. Not immunizing is treated pretty lightly considering the harm it does to society.

Yours is the fallacy.

You are rationalizing a position for government intervention into the most private area of human existence. Your own body and what you can do with it.

If the government has a right to tell you what you can put into it for any reason then you are property of the government.

If they cannot then there is some degree of individual freedoms the government cannot take from you.

Which is it?

[Fisherking]

Its not that hard a concept. By choosing to take a moral stand on vaccination, you actually endanger people. That's not in dispute, is it?

No, there is risk. But it goes beyond that single risk.

It is not vaccination or any other single issue.

A right is something the government cannot take from you under any conditions what so ever.

It is not subject to the will of the government or the wellbeing of others.

Personal ownership is the foundation of all other rights. If you give up that right you have de facto given up all the others.

You can’t simply have a right sometimes and sometimes not.

[Fisherking]

This may seem like a simple no brain issue of the wellbeing of others vs. the will of a few malcontents but it is the foundation of all rights and liberties.

It is the ultimate in the battle of security vs. liberty.

Understanding that is the most important part of deciding the issue. Vaccines reduce the risk of contracting an illness but do not always work. You gain some measure of security from them but you have given up your most basic and personal right to get that security.

Is it truly worth it?