5 ms·

While I agree I'd do anything to help my child, I also realize it's not up to me or most importantly, the government to dictate how other parents should raise t

While I agree I'd do anything to help my child, I also realize it's not up to me or most importantly, the government to dictate how other parents should raise their children. The right to raise your child the way you see fit, obviously without any major abuse is an universal right any parent has and it's above any social construct. Abuse, in this context, should be real abuse, which means physical or psychological violence. Abuse does not mean disagreeing with the ways a secular capitalist democracy is heading. As much as some people want to enlist "religious indoctrination", lack of vaccination, circumcision and other forms of non-western-conforming customs as "abuse", it is of my opinion that we should refrain from that and respect the inalienable right to have different customs from the globalized state. Governments are not supposed to be our parents and pass diktakts telling people what's the "correct way" to raise children.

panopticon 12y ago
The problem is that choosing to not vaccinating your children has an effect on the people around you. I'm all for raising children how the parent sees fit, but you're talking about a public health issue. Whether or not little Timmy learns about sharing is apples and oranges to spreading disease.
stephencanon 12y ago
It's (partially) up to the government to protect other people's children from your recklessness. Saying that not vaccinating is a choice is like saying that driving drunk is a choice. It's literally true, but the government has a valid interest in curbing both behaviors.
skynetv2 12y ago
agreed. but we live in a society ... not isolated from each other. if not vaccinating your child poses risk to everyone else around him, you NEED to take responsibility for it. Its like ... you have the right to raise the child as you see fit and if you feel its within your rights to teach the child to defecate and urinate wherever he/she feels like it, dont be mad when someone else objects to it. This is the biggest problem with vaccinations. By the time you realize what you have done, its already late. Compare that with the horror people see immediately when someone insists on teaching their child something like bad hygiene and say its their right.
gambiting 12y ago
circumcision is absolutely child abuse and I cheer for every country that bans it.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  Male circumcision actually does have health benefits when it comes to warmer countries with poorer hygiene.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
lsaferite 12y ago
I know this is tangential to the original conversation but it touches on something in your comment. Perhaps this will get down-voted, I don't really mind/care. I firmly believe involuntary genital mutilation (male/female circumcision) should be outlawed. I find it barbaric that we allow male children in this country (US) to have that done and it's considered normal. If an adult wishes to have it done, then by all means go for it, but leave children the choice. This comes from someone who had it done to them and wishes it had not been done. It's like saying, "oh, we cut off the left hand for religious reasons right after birth."
ajuc 12y ago
It is also not up to government to dictate people how they should bury their dead. But if there's epidemy going on - government can and should handle the dead aproprietly to stop the epidemy. This is common sense, really - your liberty stops where it infinges on others liberty. People not vaccinating their kids threaten others lives. Government is there to protect them.
mikeash 12y ago
Would you allow parents to hand their children a loaded pistol and let them play with it outside, endangering themselves and others? Remaining unvaccinated is the medical equivalent. Maybe we should let parents medically endanger their own children (although I really don't think we should) but we definitely should not let parents endanger my child, or me. There is no simple answer here. It's not just a matter of declaring that free people should be left alone. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and your right to remain unvaccinated ends when you make me sick.
zcdziura 12y ago
It is, however, the government's job to look after its citizens as a whole, and act with their best intentions. While there's always a debate to be had about whether government ACTUALLY acts for the greater good of its citizens, one area that it certainly does is mandating the vaccination of children. These vaccines that all kids (at least in the US) are required to receive prevent some horrifying diseases. Horrifying. Like, tens of thousands of people a year would die from them (such as the Measles virus). When a viable vaccine became available for Measles, for example, people lined up around the block so they could receive it. They recognized that being vaccinated was the best thing to do, so they did it. I absolutely hate the argument that people make about "not allowing the government to dictate how they raise their children". They're not. They're not telling you how to structure your day with your child, what books they need to read, what toys they're allowed to play with, etc. They're saying, "We don't want your child to die from these diseases, so we're going to have them vaccinated. You're welcome." Again, the government's job is to look after the well-being of ALL citizens, and preventing their widespread death falls under that jurisdiction. As an aside, I'm not attacking you specifically. I'm attacking that argument, because it's absolutely stupid.
voidlogic 12y ago
In most democratic societies liberties are only extended so far as they don't constrain other people's core liberties. Someone choosing to not allow their child to receive low risk preventative treatment stops being a right when it increases another child likelihood of dying. Why, declining a low risk treatment society has agreed in essential is less of a core right then the other child's right to live.

panopticon 12y ago

The problem is that choosing to not vaccinating your children has an effect on the people around you. I'm all for raising children how the parent sees fit, but you're talking about a public health issue. Whether or not little Timmy learns about sharing is apples and oranges to spreading disease.

stephencanon 12y ago

It's (partially) up to the government to protect other people's children from your recklessness. Saying that not vaccinating is a choice is like saying that driving drunk is a choice. It's literally true, but the government has a valid interest in curbing both behaviors.

skynetv2 12y ago

agreed. but we live in a society ... not isolated from each other. if not vaccinating your child poses risk to everyone else around him, you NEED to take responsibility for it. Its like ... you have the right to raise the child as you see fit and if you feel its within your rights to teach the child to defecate and urinate wherever he/she feels like it, dont be mad when someone else objects to it. This is the biggest problem with vaccinations. By the time you realize what you have done, its already late. Compare that with the horror people see immediately when someone insists on teaching their child something like bad hygiene and say its their right.

gambiting 12y ago

circumcision is absolutely child abuse and I cheer for every country that bans it.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago
Male circumcision actually does have health benefits when it comes to warmer countries with poorer hygiene.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

lsaferite 12y ago

I know this is tangential to the original conversation but it touches on something in your comment. Perhaps this will get down-voted, I don't really mind/care. I firmly believe involuntary genital mutilation (male/female circumcision) should be outlawed. I find it barbaric that we allow male children in this country (US) to have that done and it's considered normal. If an adult wishes to have it done, then by all means go for it, but leave children the choice. This comes from someone who had it done to them and wishes it had not been done. It's like saying, "oh, we cut off the left hand for religious reasons right after birth."

ajuc 12y ago

It is also not up to government to dictate people how they should bury their dead. But if there's epidemy going on - government can and should handle the dead aproprietly to stop the epidemy. This is common sense, really - your liberty stops where it infinges on others liberty. People not vaccinating their kids threaten others lives. Government is there to protect them.

mikeash 12y ago

Would you allow parents to hand their children a loaded pistol and let them play with it outside, endangering themselves and others? Remaining unvaccinated is the medical equivalent. Maybe we should let parents medically endanger their own children (although I really don't think we should) but we definitely should not let parents endanger my child, or me. There is no simple answer here. It's not just a matter of declaring that free people should be left alone. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and your right to remain unvaccinated ends when you make me sick.

zcdziura 12y ago

It is, however, the government's job to look after its citizens as a whole, and act with their best intentions. While there's always a debate to be had about whether government ACTUALLY acts for the greater good of its citizens, one area that it certainly does is mandating the vaccination of children. These vaccines that all kids (at least in the US) are required to receive prevent some horrifying diseases. Horrifying. Like, tens of thousands of people a year would die from them (such as the Measles virus). When a viable vaccine became available for Measles, for example, people lined up around the block so they could receive it. They recognized that being vaccinated was the best thing to do, so they did it. I absolutely hate the argument that people make about "not allowing the government to dictate how they raise their children". They're not. They're not telling you how to structure your day with your child, what books they need to read, what toys they're allowed to play with, etc. They're saying, "We don't want your child to die from these diseases, so we're going to have them vaccinated. You're welcome." Again, the government's job is to look after the well-being of ALL citizens, and preventing their widespread death falls under that jurisdiction. As an aside, I'm not attacking you specifically. I'm attacking that argument, because it's absolutely stupid.

voidlogic 12y ago

In most democratic societies liberties are only extended so far as they don't constrain other people's core liberties. Someone choosing to not allow their child to receive low risk preventative treatment stops being a right when it increases another child likelihood of dying. Why, declining a low risk treatment society has agreed in essential is less of a core right then the other child's right to live.