Article 3 does not prohibit mandatory vaccination.Originally Posted by Fisherking
Instead, article 25 is in favour of it.
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
Article 3 does not prohibit mandatory vaccination.
Instead, article 25 is in favour of it.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
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.
Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
Seriously, take a human rights course, because you do not understand what they mean.
Article 1 and 2 define what the rest of the document addresses. They are not rights as such, they are the right to the document.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
Seriously, if you took a course on human right and you disagree, you must have slept through it.
It is the foundation of the rest of the document. Self ownership is the foundation of all human rights.
You do get that part, right?
_____________________________
The concept of rights comes to us from natural law from ancient times to the present but the idea of individualism came mostly from the 17th century.
The foremost right is the right to self.
Rights are seen to be beyond government control and attempts to control them are illegitimate. Parents have the right to make decisions for their children until they reach the age of majority or are otherwise emancipated.
The argument here that society has a right to protect its self comes from utilitarianism, the theory of Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century. He didn’t believe in natural rights, believing that all rights should be civil but in the doctrine of greatest happiness was to be the moral guiding principal.
This doctrine is usually applied when government wants to violate natural rights and treat them as civil rights, which my be suspended.
It is also important to understand that government can not grant these rights because anything granted by government can also be taken away by them.
These right are also included in the US Constitution. The right to self or self ownership is not stated but a forgone conclusion and covered under the 9th amendment.
Nowhere in any legal code or philosophy is there a right to be free of risk.
The vaccines being required are known to be highly ineffective with outbreaks occurring where 95% of cases are among the vaccinated population. Clearly this is hardly any risk mitigation.
The diseases vaccinated against rarely require hospitalization and even more rarely are fatal.
This may be the ultimate in sacrificing liberties for security but done so in the name of science and for the children.
The major fallacy to the whole argument is that by vaccinating your own children and your self you have mitigated your own risks to the fullest possible extent. But not being happy with that you wish to compel others to do what you have done.
The compelling of individuals to take substances into their bodies or surrender parts of themselves (blood, hair, or DNA) are violations of this principal. If these things can be compelled there is nothing that can not be compelled.
Exactly what is it about people that they believe themselves to have the right to compel others to do what they have done?
Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
What part of "if they don't take this harmless injection children will die in horrific ways" don't you understand?Exactly what is it about people that they believe themselves to have the right to compel others to do what they have done?
Last edited by Greyblades; 07-01-2014 at 10:24.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
In Victorian times 40% of children died by age five. From the start of last century to its end life expectancies doubled due to medical advances.
Polio was almost wiped out by vaccination not chiropractors who are a vested group in having patients.
Whooping cough kills over 1% of children hospitalized who have got it.
The 95% figure is pure hogwash until a link is added. Making up facts does not a case make.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
You know you misunderstand the whole premise of the argument.
It is not to discourage people from taking advantage of vaccines and protecting themselves as much as possible.
The argument is the right to chose not to and not be compelled by government to do so.
By what right do you have to dictate to the rest of the world what choices to make?
From where do you derive the authority to do so?
Statistics have little or no place in the argument. Statistically I am sure it is possible to single out a group and say they propose some risk to the rest of the population and should be excluded from the rest of the world. This, among other reasons, is what you open your self up to by dictatorial compulsion of individuals to comply against their wishes.
It really doesn’t matter how big a flakes they are or how non-mainstream their ideas are. Their rights are to be as protected as anyone else’s. If they eliminate themselves due to increased risk it is not your business.
We simply do not have a right to protect others against themselves.
Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
Articles 1 and 2 are not 'rights'. Article 3 does not prohibit mandatory vaccination, and article 25 supports it.
The UDHR does not mean whatever you think it should mean. It means whatever the UN thinks it should mean, and the UN runs several mandatory vaccination programs.
Argue for 'liberty' all you want, but do not think the UDHR supports your position.
Last edited by HoreTore; 07-02-2014 at 12:37.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
Article 25 says healthcare is a right. Article 3 is the first right. The first two set the stage as to what a right is. If a person has a right, the government can not infringe upon it.
Therefore no where in those two Rights does it give government the latitude to require people to do as they say.
You are reading what is not there. Having a right to care doesn’t mean against ones will. This limits government. It does not extend its control over the lives and bodies of the public.
edit: When government has the ability to force compliance with medical procedures this is what you get:http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S...0#.U7P14UBRx9N
You don’t have a right sometimes and other times not. If the government can make you take a vaccine they can make you take an anal probe.
Last edited by Fisherking; 07-02-2014 at 13:15.
Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain
Re: If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public scho
They certainly give the government the power to order parents. The UDHR mandates education for all, and so states are bound to mandate education regardless of the parents wishes. The same applies to healthcare, it is the governments responsibility to ensure healthcare for all, regardless of the parents wishes. The government has, according to the UDHR, the explicit responsibility to provide healthcare for children. Note that the article on education includes a note on parents' choice; the healthcare one does not.
Children's rights are further developed in their own convention, the convention on the rights of the child. Now, what does this one state? It states clearly that the government should ensure that children develop healthily. It's not "parents", and it's not "provide". It's the government's responsibility, and they should ensure it. Clarly, if a given vaccine is deemed necessary for the health of a child, it is the governments responsibility to ensure that the child recieves it. Parents have no authority to challenge the human rights of their children.
Feel free to argue for your version of liberty all you want, but refrain from bringing up the UDHR. It does not support your views, and it has an interpretation of liberty which differs from yours. The UN sees national governments, with the UN as arbiter, as the providers of the freedoms listed in the UDHR.
Last edited by HoreTore; 07-03-2014 at 18:00.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks