2 ms·

This really shouldn't be downvoted. If one is going to pull the "children cannot consent" card, one should be consistent. If it's not actually about consent and

This really shouldn't be downvoted. If one is going to pull the "children cannot consent" card, one should be consistent. If it's not actually about consent and actually about something else, let's not pretend it's about consent. Obviously the implication is that it's "obvious" that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the cons of ignoring consent, but that just prompts the questions: Is this true, and what amount of benefit is necessary to avoid consent in children? Explicit reasoning should laid out.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago
The vaccine is not taking away part of the pleasures of the child once they become adult, so the choice is between "bad" (vaccine pain) or "more bad" (sick). The circumcision is between "fine and pleasure with some risks" and "very painful, loss of pleasure in some areas, annoying underwear rubbing, body mutilation, some reduced risks". Finally, the reason why the vaccine is done without consent is because you can get killed (or kill accidentally due to lack of herd immunity) if you don't do it. No one is affected by someone going through circumcision or not.