4 ms·

This is one of the many reasons that "parental rights" people are dead wrong. People as young as 12 should have the absolute right to seek and get, in confidenc

This is one of the many reasons that "parental rights" people are dead wrong. People as young as 12 should have the absolute right to seek and get, in confidence, this vaccine and other health care. Nobody should give any weight to whether their parents want them to not have this vaccine.

NotGMan 3y ago
[flagged]
- kstrauser 3y ago
  I always love the presumption that "big pharma" is the same worldwide, and therefore non-US countries' health organizations are in on the "big lie".
rootusrootus 3y ago
> as young as 12 Why the arbitrary line at 12?
- burnished 3y ago
  Probably because they felt the need to draw the line somewhere to prevent hypothetical five year olds from demanding a dangerous cocktail of innoculants from every pharmacy in town, and probably the sense that at 12 you've developed enough for your sense of agency to be respected. Why does 12 sound arbitrary to you?
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    > Why does 12 sound arbitrary to you? Because it is? > they felt the need to draw the line somewhere to prevent hypothetical five year olds > probably the sense that at 12 I think you get the point. 12 is entirely arbitrary. Some children might well be able to make sound choices like this at that age. Some definitely will not. You're advocating for a line at which parents lose their right to be parents while maintaining the rest of the responsibility for raising the child. You want to put the government in control. I think you need more than a sense before taking that step. This is one of those ideas that sounds good mostly to people who don't have the responsibility of being parents.
    - burnished 3y ago
      Yes, I get the point that you couldn't muster an actual argument so resorted to an overly broad question that intentionally ignored context. And I'm not advocating for anything, I just hate the insincerity that comes from people asking questions like that. Its also a little whiffy that you're trotting out the 'some kids will make good choices' bit with regards to this age range and the ability to ask a doctor for a vaccination - we normally reserve that line of reasoning where making a bad decision is attractive and an adult might also not behave responsibly. Also point of order - what are you talking about, 'government control'? The topic at hand was literally whether 12 was an appropriate age to start respecting a persons wishes when it came to seeking a vaccination. It is troubling that you see that as government control, and troubling that you see this as 'losing your right as a parent'
      - rootusrootus 3y ago
        > Yes, I get the point that you couldn't muster an actual argument Don't be a dick. It was a legitimate question. And no amount of insinuations or insults on your part changes that. Your points are very weak for someone advocating for getting the gov't more deeply involved in everyone's affairs. And if you don't think some 12 year olds are wildly incapable of making good medical choices, I don't know what to say.
        burnished 3y ago
        I don't get it - the government is what gives you your current legal authority over your offspring, and someone suggests less of that power, and you're saying the government is getting more involved? It makes it difficult to take you seriously.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    I picked 12 because that is the age of medical privacy in my state. It is consistent with the grade level at which schools teach comprehensive sexual health.
jmyeet 3y ago
Children have rights. Parents have responsibilities. Vaccines are a medical miracle. Never except that being an anti-vaxxer (or a "vaccine skeptic", which is the sanitized name for the same thing) as being on equal footing. Vaccines are evidence-based. Anti-vaxxers are vibes-based.
- alfor 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    You keep bringing this up. Go ahead, share the peer reviewed articles that support your claim. I'd love to see them!
iraqmtpizza 3y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Age of consent laws have nothing to do with parents' rights; that's about the child's rights. I don't think any of us want a world where a parent can consent to sex on behalf of their child. (In fact, parents' rights to consent to underage marriage in some states is currently a loophole in this regard. https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/child-marriages-violating-statutory-rape-laws-many-us-states-337728 https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/child-marriages...) > In many U.S. states, children can legally marry at an earlier age than they can consent to sex, leading to situations where sex between spouses may be a criminal act. Some states exempt sex between married spouses from their definition of statutory rape, which may create perverse incentives for child marriage, according to researchers from McGill University.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Child rape is a situation where it shouldn't matter how many people approve. If your twelve year old wants to have sex, and you with your "parents' rights" endorse that choice, you should go to jail. Because your right as a parent to make decisions is in conflict with the right of the child not to be subject to statutory rape. The poster upthread asserts a similar conflict between the rights of the parent to make decisions and the right of the child to lifesaving medical measures.
      - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        Actually you make a good point. Nobody should be penetrating children, regardless of what the parents think — kids can get irreversible medical procedures when they turn 18.

NotGMan 3y ago

[flagged]

kstrauser 3y ago
I always love the presumption that "big pharma" is the same worldwide, and therefore non-US countries' health organizations are in on the "big lie".

rootusrootus 3y ago

> as young as 12 Why the arbitrary line at 12?

burnished 3y ago
Probably because they felt the need to draw the line somewhere to prevent hypothetical five year olds from demanding a dangerous cocktail of innoculants from every pharmacy in town, and probably the sense that at 12 you've developed enough for your sense of agency to be respected. Why does 12 sound arbitrary to you?
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > Why does 12 sound arbitrary to you? Because it is? > they felt the need to draw the line somewhere to prevent hypothetical five year olds > probably the sense that at 12 I think you get the point. 12 is entirely arbitrary. Some children might well be able to make sound choices like this at that age. Some definitely will not. You're advocating for a line at which parents lose their right to be parents while maintaining the rest of the responsibility for raising the child. You want to put the government in control. I think you need more than a sense before taking that step. This is one of those ideas that sounds good mostly to people who don't have the responsibility of being parents.
  - burnished 3y ago
    Yes, I get the point that you couldn't muster an actual argument so resorted to an overly broad question that intentionally ignored context. And I'm not advocating for anything, I just hate the insincerity that comes from people asking questions like that. Its also a little whiffy that you're trotting out the 'some kids will make good choices' bit with regards to this age range and the ability to ask a doctor for a vaccination - we normally reserve that line of reasoning where making a bad decision is attractive and an adult might also not behave responsibly. Also point of order - what are you talking about, 'government control'? The topic at hand was literally whether 12 was an appropriate age to start respecting a persons wishes when it came to seeking a vaccination. It is troubling that you see that as government control, and troubling that you see this as 'losing your right as a parent'
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      > Yes, I get the point that you couldn't muster an actual argument Don't be a dick. It was a legitimate question. And no amount of insinuations or insults on your part changes that. Your points are very weak for someone advocating for getting the gov't more deeply involved in everyone's affairs. And if you don't think some 12 year olds are wildly incapable of making good medical choices, I don't know what to say.
      - burnished 3y ago
        I don't get it - the government is what gives you your current legal authority over your offspring, and someone suggests less of that power, and you're saying the government is getting more involved? It makes it difficult to take you seriously.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  I picked 12 because that is the age of medical privacy in my state. It is consistent with the grade level at which schools teach comprehensive sexual health.

jmyeet 3y ago

Children have rights. Parents have responsibilities. Vaccines are a medical miracle. Never except that being an anti-vaxxer (or a "vaccine skeptic", which is the sanitized name for the same thing) as being on equal footing. Vaccines are evidence-based. Anti-vaxxers are vibes-based.

alfor 3y ago
[flagged]
- kstrauser 3y ago
  You keep bringing this up. Go ahead, share the peer reviewed articles that support your claim. I'd love to see them!

iraqmtpizza 3y ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 3y ago
Age of consent laws have nothing to do with parents' rights; that's about the child's rights. I don't think any of us want a world where a parent can consent to sex on behalf of their child. (In fact, parents' rights to consent to underage marriage in some states is currently a loophole in this regard. https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/child-marriages-violating-statutory-rape-laws-many-us-states-337728 https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/child-marriages...) > In many U.S. states, children can legally marry at an earlier age than they can consent to sex, leading to situations where sex between spouses may be a criminal act. Some states exempt sex between married spouses from their definition of statutory rape, which may create perverse incentives for child marriage, according to researchers from McGill University.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Child rape is a situation where it shouldn't matter how many people approve. If your twelve year old wants to have sex, and you with your "parents' rights" endorse that choice, you should go to jail. Because your right as a parent to make decisions is in conflict with the right of the child not to be subject to statutory rape. The poster upthread asserts a similar conflict between the rights of the parent to make decisions and the right of the child to lifesaving medical measures.
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      Actually you make a good point. Nobody should be penetrating children, regardless of what the parents think — kids can get irreversible medical procedures when they turn 18.