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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

Drunk driving is a great example of reasonable curtailments of liberty. The requirement that you find other means of transportation if you decide to drink instead of driving under your own power.

It is very different from saying that you must be injected with a growing list of chemicals at our discretion, period. Unless you can pay 10k per year to opt out by going to parochial school, or quit your job to homeschooling.

[Greyblades]

Edit: you know what, the pot doesnt need more stirring from me, comment retracted.

[Montmorency]

Nice to see that Dawg thinks children should be counted the extensions of their parents bodies, yet fervently denies the righteousness of paternalism by the state...

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

You are not "merely saying" that. The overwhelming majority do not have anywhere near the means to make that choice. You are requiring that everyone but the rich and well off be forced to be injected with chemicals at the whim of majority dictate.

Not driving your vehicle while loaded and being required to either stay home, get a ride, take public transport, etc present a very different and low/no cost set of options.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I will admit, if it came to a vote, I would not vote for mandatory injections. But seriously, if you don't vaccinate, I would want you as far away from my kids as possible.

[Montmorency]

present a very different and low/no cost set of options.

stay home, get a ride, take public transport, etc

What rubbish.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are not "merely saying" that. The overwhelming majority do not have anywhere near the means to make that choice. You are requiring that everyone but the rich and well off be forced to be injected with chemicals at the whim of majority dictate.

Not driving your vehicle while loaded and being required to either stay home, get a ride, take public transport, etc present a very different and low/no cost set of options.

"Chemicals" is a loaded word. Just admit that your position is untenable unless on some level you think the government is going to do some bait and switch on a scale that makes 9/11 "chem trails" look easy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nice to see that Dawg thinks children should be counted the extensions of their parents bodies, yet fervently denies the righteousness of paternalism by the state...

I've already ceded the point that children's voices over their parents objections when in the interest of the state should be the deciding factor. This is important in rebuking your assertion that I believe that a ward is an extension of self.

[Strike For The South]

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?

Good sir Ill have you know I dove way below journalism and hit rock bottom as a law intern. I have yet to begun to defile myself.

Vaccines are safer than mothers milk for 99,99% of the population and are tens of dollars even in our broken system. It makes me seethe to know that the ones who will pay for this are only children. Measles, mumps and, rubella kill children, they kill children in brutal ways.

We should not have our judgement clouded by the same idea that's used to jack me up for memorial day blow out at the Toyota dealership. Children will die and the same snake who was whispering all those sweet nothings about freedom in your ear will raid your 401k, dupe you into buying gold, and get you to reverse mortgage your house.

That kind of horsedung needed to end yesterday

[Greyblades]

I've already ceded the point that children's voices over their parents objections when in the interest of the state should be the deciding factor. This is important in rebuking your assertion that I believe that a ward is an extension of self.

I think I said something about this a while back, what was it... Oh yeah:

Children are universally deemed incapable of making informed decisions about sexual conduct. I see no reason to think that children should be able to make the same informed decision about vaccinations that children are incapable of making about sex.

Besides, children gain most of thier viewpoints by imitating the parents, even if we believe that a child was capable of making an unbiased choice about it; the parents influence would undeniably make them less likely to agree to vaccinations.

[Montmorency]

I said it because you take the position implicitly, leading to hypocrisy. You keep saying that a person should not be forced to 'have chemicals injected into their bodies' - never mind that a hospital will not wait for you to give consent in an emergency - when the issue at hand is vaccination of children. You are not a child, I think.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think I said something about this a while back, what was it... Oh yeah:

Yes, you have said that children are merely extensions of the State and that nobody gets in the middle of a State and its children.

[Greyblades]

Easy response: So did you when you voted republican.

[Strike For The South]

You are not "merely saying" that. The overwhelming majority do not have anywhere near the means to make that choice. You are requiring that everyone but the rich and well off be forced to be injected with chemicals at the whim of majority dictate.

Perhaps the church could help? That's the point where we are at in this conversation right? Someone says something about wealth inequality and them some mouthbreathing dickbag invokes the gold plated, all mighty, church as the solution to all of our problems.

The state of Texas requires I do many of things, some of which restrict my sweet sweet freedom 10x than what vaccines do. Such a strange topic to make a stand on.

[Papewaio]

Liberty is not 1:1 equivalent to freedom.

Liberty is the freedom within be confines of the social contract which is normally spelled out at the worst case scenario as law and further in towards the normal daily life as politeness. Part of the social contract is that you give up some freedoms to the government for instance the government can lawfully detain someone, an individual doing the same might face kidnapping charges.

Rights also come with responsibilty, best summed up with the catchphrase "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Most rights are based on all being treated equally under the law & that ones personal freedoms become curtailed when they impact on others.

So this leads to vaccination which is applied equally to all regardless of race, creed or wealth. The unvaccinated impact the health and well being of those around them.

This is no different to having a speed limit applying to all and to the danger when someone recklessly exceeds it and becomes a danger to others on the road. Does anyone think that it is okay for people to endanger others because they want to drive at 150 drunk and that any damage done to other people is the price of freedom?

IMDHO the damage done to the vaccination program in Pakistan due to the use of it to get hard data on OBL is going to cause more long term harm and deaths then 9/11. This comes down to most people only being able to see spectacular dangers and not the slow burn ie hippopotamus kill more people the lions and bees are more deadly then sharks.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Perhaps the church could help? That's the point where we are at in this conversation right? Someone says something about wealth inequality and them some mouthbreathing dickbag invokes the gold plated, all mighty, church as the solution to all of our problems.

The state of Texas requires I do many of things, some of which restrict my sweet sweet freedom 10x than what vaccines do. Such a strange topic to make a stand on.

Yes, I am notorious for bringing the Church up in my political arguments. Especially arguments concerning science and vaccines.

Anyway, this isn't about religious freedom, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.

I do generally support the paternalism of the parent over that of the state, except when it concerns acts malum in se. I view an accountable and proximate government as favorable to one that is neither.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Some local private schools made news recently in announcing that all students will be subjected to periodic drug tests.

Administrators say it’s to counter the rapid rise in heroin use by teens and get help for those who may be addicted.

But some question whether the mandatory testing is truly beneficial.

The issue sparked a spirited debate on WCPN’s daily call-in talk show The Sound of Ideas.

Tom Stuber has a bird’s eye view as CEO of Lorain County’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services. He said the rate of overdose deaths in Ohio rose 300 percent over the last three years.

“The overdose deaths among the state overall, has continued to rise and surpass auto fatalities three years ago,” said Stuber. “And the leading cause of accidental overdose. And the problem is, that individuals…young people…are getting addicted from beginning experimental use, or even prescribed use, of narcotics.”

St. Edward, St. Ignatius, and Gilmour Academy—all Catholic high schools in Cuyahoga County—came to the conclusion that they need to be more proactive.

By plucking a single hair, school officials can learn if a student is using drugs and that’s what they plan to start doing this fall.

Brother Robert Lavelle, Head of Gilmour Academy, explains why he supports the initiative.

“We really want to have kids grow up and be in a very safe environment and you want to be able to help them move through adolescence in a way if they can, merge through that, addictive free, we want to be a part of that resource for them,” said Lavelle.

“And so I think doing this effort allows a youngster who’s starting on that path, to perhaps get the help he or she may need.”

A number of parents at the schools have indicated their support for the drug testing policy but others complain that they weren’t consulted first.

Some say it teaches kids the wrong lesson – that you’re guilty till proven innocent.

One of the show’s callers, Paul, said as a St. Ignatius alum he’s outraged by the school’s policy.

“In fact I got a letter yesterday from Ignatius asking for more money, and I give them money every year…but I’m really doubting it now,” he said. “Y’know, why should I pay for this? Y’know, parents are responsive. And they can do their own drug testing, I think.”

So what do people think of this? All you have to do is pluck a single hair, way less intrusive than a vaccine. We could do this in every school in the country and expel from normal schools all the students who repeatedly fail the drug test.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So what do people think of this? All you have to do is pluck a single hair, way less intrusive than a vaccine. We could do this in every school in the country and expel from normal schools all the students who repeatedly fail the drug test.

Finally, a more legitimate analogy. That is a tough one. I could argue that, as a result of the test being noninvasive it is of a less serious nature and acceptable. Although, I want to see all drugs legalized, kids in possession of them is a large concern, as is slavish dependency at all ages. Hmm

[HopAlongBunny]

The goal is not expulsion but assistance; unless my reading comprehension has totally gone to pot

[Strike For The South]

Fine.

Public schools already do this with drug dogs, any hint of residue or paraphernalia and the most lenient punishment at the 8th largest school district in the State of Texas is school replacement.

You don't even have ever had to try the stuff. Also these kids are not guilty until proven innocent. They are being tested for drug use at a private and if they test positive they will be coddled.

Here in Texas they kick your ass to the curb

[Xiahou]

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.

Most minors are already prohibited from using alcohol and tobacco..... not that it does much good....

Further, vaccines shouldn't be mandated by penalty of law- only as precondition of attending school. If they don't want vaccinated.... home schooling is always an option. Good luck attending any university without vaccines though.

So what do people think of this? All you have to do is pluck a single hair, way less intrusive than a vaccine. We could do this in every school in the country and expel from normal schools all the students who repeatedly fail the drug test.

Nah. Possession or use of drugs on school property or at school events should be and is punishable. Use outside the jurisdiction of the school should be beyond the realm of their control

[ICantSpellDawg]

Partial like - due to the drugs/alcohol bit, but not the unreasonable compulsion.

[Pannonian]

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.

Over here, the most powerful lobby group pushing for restrictions of individual liberties is mothers. Pretty much a single monolithic interest in key areas, politically impossible to deny, and very keen on ensuring that their kids will never face any kind of risk or discomfort whatsoever. Even if the government doesn't want to impose restrictions, once the mothers' lobby wants them, they'll get them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Over here, the most powerful lobby group pushing for restrictions of individual liberties is mothers. Pretty much a single monolithic interest in key areas, politically impossible to deny, and very keen on ensuring that their kids will never face any kind of risk or discomfort whatsoever. Even if the government doesn't want to impose restrictions, once the mothers' lobby wants them, they'll get them.

Isn't that the rub. It's not so much paternalism as maternalism. That's why they call it the nanny state.

[drone]

Poor analogy. A schoolkid mainlining the smack endangers only him/herself.

[HoreTore]

Articles 1 and 2 also represent the same principal.

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

So what do people think of this? All you have to do is pluck a single hair, way less intrusive than a vaccine. We could do this in every school in the country and expel from normal schools all the students who repeatedly fail the drug test.

Yeah, don't HELP them... Instead mark them as failed and hope it makes the addiction go away... Because everyone know that if it's something that makes addicts less addictive, is to make them feel like a failure, banned from society and normal life.

Dude, you need to check that moral compass of yours...

[a completely inoffensive name]

So what do people think of this? All you have to do is pluck a single hair, way less intrusive than a vaccine. We could do this in every school in the country and expel from normal schools all the students who repeatedly fail the drug test.

**** I am not in the best of states to argue this properly. But you must agree with me that there is a difference between a policy enforcing vaccine law in which there is science behind the vaccine and everyone is proven to be unprotected until a recorded vaccination and a policy of enforcing drug laws in which you cannot prove anything and you are really just prodding into people's lives for the sake of figuring out what they are up to.

[Fisherking]

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.

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?

[Greyblades]

Exactly what is it about people that they believe themselves to have the right to compel others to do what they have done?

What part of "if they don't take this harmless injection children will die in horrific ways" don't you understand?