4 ms·

> And I believe the 'dangerous precedent' you mention should be easy to protect from in a lawful democratic society. It's not easy to protect from at all. Ther

> And I believe the 'dangerous precedent' you mention should be easy to protect from in a lawful democratic society. It's not easy to protect from at all. There was a time in this country when we had forced sterilization of poor people. [0] It was justified using all the same language that you're using here and seen as an incredibly progressive policy. It's not easy at all to protect from these kinds of abuses. Quite the opposite in fact. > You should be entitled to your personal freedom and rights until they start infringing on the basic rights of others. Anti-vaxxers aren't infringing on any of your basic rights, they are putting you at risk but you don't have a right to herd immunity from diseases. They do have a right decide which medical procedures they undergo, again that may be regressive but that's currently the way it works in our country. [0] http://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/ http://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> Anti-vaxxers aren't infringing on any of your basic rights, they are putting you at risk but you don't have a right to herd immunity from diseases I have the "Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security". By putting my life in danger they are infringing on that right. Now they also have the right to "Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment" which forced vaccination may be treated as. But one right has to take precedence and I would argue it is the former.
astrodust 10y ago
A sufficiently large smallpox outbreak could ruin the US economically, militarily for decades if not permanently. This is not like sterilizing the poor, something based on junk science. This is based on hard, established fact. Don't make false equivalencies here. Are you arguing you should be able to carry around packets of anthrax in public if you, personally, are immune to it?

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> Anti-vaxxers aren't infringing on any of your basic rights, they are putting you at risk but you don't have a right to herd immunity from diseases I have the "Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security". By putting my life in danger they are infringing on that right. Now they also have the right to "Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment" which forced vaccination may be treated as. But one right has to take precedence and I would argue it is the former.

astrodust 10y ago

A sufficiently large smallpox outbreak could ruin the US economically, militarily for decades if not permanently. This is not like sterilizing the poor, something based on junk science. This is based on hard, established fact. Don't make false equivalencies here. Are you arguing you should be able to carry around packets of anthrax in public if you, personally, are immune to it?