3 ms·

It is an extreme view, but I disagree with your assessment that it should be entirely the parents' choice. In not vaccinating a child, parents are not just maki

by lemming 13y ago

It is an extreme view, but I disagree with your assessment that it should be entirely the parents' choice. In not vaccinating a child, parents are not just making a decision about their own child, they're making a decision that can potentially affect many other people's children too. At least where I live, education is compulsory and vaccination is not, so it's illegal to refuse entry to a school based on vaccination status - I think this is wrong. I would like to be able to choose to send my children to a school where I feel like parents are taking responsible steps to not just protect their own children but those around them as well. I'm also biased because I live near a town with a large hippie population and very low rates of vaccination for things like whooping cough. For the last two years there has been an outbreak of whooping cough, our doctor was pleased that they hadn't had a new case in two weeks. The child of a friend of my parents died age 1 1/2 from whooping cough. For young children the vaccination takes 3 injections over a course of months as they build up immunity - it's a dangerous thing, and I know people who think twice about taking newborn children outside here. If my child died of whooping cough (or something similar) because people around me didn't feel like being responsible members of society, you'd better believe I'd feel like pressing manslaughter charges. Whether I actually could or not is another matter, but it would feel massively unjust if I couldn't.

TallGuyShort 13y ago
I understand your reason for "bias" as well, and I agree it's unfortunate. But let's take the flu as an example. People die from that, but are all the people who didn't get a flu-shot responsible? Do you take into account how often the victims washed their hands, and how well they developed their immune systems beforehand? And who's going to be deciding what vaccinations are and aren't required? My doctor's recommendations change all the time based on the latest evidence. Why are we even suggesting removing an individuals right to make their own decision based on their own research? Yes, you can label it as "irresponsible" and I'd probably agree, but setting a precedent that the government can mandate that you inject you and your child with an agent derived from lethal diseases? That's not many steps away from mandatory abortions for undesirable genetic traits.
- lemming 13y ago
  ...are all the people who didn't get a flu-shot responsible? Sure, if by getting a flu shot you can reliably prevent infection. That's nowhere near as true for flu as it is, say, for polio. Why are we even suggesting removing an individuals right to make their own decision based on their own research? You're assuming there that most people make their decisions based on research - they don't. People's irrational fears affect their ability to accurately estimate statistical risk tremendously. Plus we already do this - education is mandatory. What if I decide that my child would be happier not being educated? Should I have the right to make that decision? That's not many steps away from mandatory abortions for undesirable genetic traits. Of course it is - one is performed purely for the benefit of the individual (and perhaps their family) whereas the other is performed to try to eradicate communicable diseases which cause untold misery across the world for the benefit of everyone.
  - secstate 13y ago
    News flash, you do have a right to homeschool your child. Why wouldn't you abort a fetus if you knew it was going to be a fiscally bad decision as it would need help to breath it's entire life. We don't need loafers that can't function on their own.

by lemming 13y ago

TallGuyShort 13y ago

I understand your reason for "bias" as well, and I agree it's unfortunate. But let's take the flu as an example. People die from that, but are all the people who didn't get a flu-shot responsible? Do you take into account how often the victims washed their hands, and how well they developed their immune systems beforehand? And who's going to be deciding what vaccinations are and aren't required? My doctor's recommendations change all the time based on the latest evidence. Why are we even suggesting removing an individuals right to make their own decision based on their own research? Yes, you can label it as "irresponsible" and I'd probably agree, but setting a precedent that the government can mandate that you inject you and your child with an agent derived from lethal diseases? That's not many steps away from mandatory abortions for undesirable genetic traits.

lemming 13y ago
...are all the people who didn't get a flu-shot responsible? Sure, if by getting a flu shot you can reliably prevent infection. That's nowhere near as true for flu as it is, say, for polio. Why are we even suggesting removing an individuals right to make their own decision based on their own research? You're assuming there that most people make their decisions based on research - they don't. People's irrational fears affect their ability to accurately estimate statistical risk tremendously. Plus we already do this - education is mandatory. What if I decide that my child would be happier not being educated? Should I have the right to make that decision? That's not many steps away from mandatory abortions for undesirable genetic traits. Of course it is - one is performed purely for the benefit of the individual (and perhaps their family) whereas the other is performed to try to eradicate communicable diseases which cause untold misery across the world for the benefit of everyone.
- secstate 13y ago
  News flash, you do have a right to homeschool your child. Why wouldn't you abort a fetus if you knew it was going to be a fiscally bad decision as it would need help to breath it's entire life. We don't need loafers that can't function on their own.