Apparently, vaccination is rape

[jackelgull]

http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-vaccination-skeptics-network-compares-vaccines-to-rape-in-facebook-post/story-fncynjr2-1227315985884

Someone please tell me this is a joke that I'm missing because of cultural context or something.

The anti- vaccination crowd is getting desperate in their quest to end vaccinations. By the definition they are going by, feeding babies is rape. Because babies don't choose to be feed, their parents make the choice for them. This also seems offensive to actual rape victims

I mean, I agree somewhat with their basic premise- people should have the right to make choices with what they do to their bodies. But I find it the idea that parents have the right to gamble with their children's health odious. Even if the chance of the child getting disease is slim, why do the parents get to make choices for the child? I suppose for an infant that can't make decisions for itself, this makes sense, but for a child that is old enough to make decisions? Do they own the kid by virtue of raising him or her?

And now this.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

This is not new, anyone who follows the vaccine "controversy" knows that the anti-vaccer crowd have been using this line for a long time now. There is no depth they won't sink to, whether that means comparing it to rape or the holocaust, which they have also done. Absolutely standard tactics for these people.

 

[Triewd]

You can't legislate against silliness unfortunately.

I personally distrust vaccinations but yes that poster is A grade misrepresentation.

 

[jackelgull]

So I can't even say that they've sunk to a new low can I?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have now reached the point of cynicism where I acknowledge that none of the lows are actually new.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

So I can't even say that they've sunk to a new low can I?

I'm afraid not, this low is very low indeed, but it's not, strictly speaking, new. It's always encouraging to see such statements getting press though, the more these people can be exposed as whack jobs to the public the better.

 

[Antilogic]

Did you know all those new parents wipe their infants' genitals? With "moist" towlettes!?

Pedophiles, all of them. Baby rapists.

 

[Triewd]

Despite the ridiculous poster the issue of consent is central to vaccination - you can't force it on people.

What is needed is a sensible debate about what should and should not be in vaccines and how much is appropriate not sensationalist claims.

 

[Antilogic]

Despite the ridiculous poster the issue of consent is central to vaccination - you can't force it on people.

What is needed is a sensible debate about what should and should not be in vaccines and how much is appropriate not sensationalist claims.

No, you could mandate vaccination, which I think would be "forcing it on people."

 

[Triewd]

No, you could mandate vaccination, which I think would be "forcing it on people."

And I really hope they NEVER mandate it.

 

[Sonereal]

I hope they mandate that children who aren't vaccinated due to non-medical reasons are sent to their own schools and parks.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I hope they mandate that children who aren't vaccinated due to non-medical reasons are sent to their own schools and parks.

Separate but equal worked so well last time, AmIrite?

 

[Sonereal]

I wouldn't pretend it was equal.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wouldn't pretend it was equal.

It wasn't. That was actually a large part of the problem. It was separate. That was another large part of the problem. Ultimately, it was pretty much nothing but a problem, so I can't support you in advocating trying it again.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Separate but equal worked so well last time, AmIrite?

Tim, you're smart enough to know better than to make this argument. There's a crucial difference, which is that in the case of vaccines people are being treated differently due to choices they have voluntarily made, rather than accidents of genetics. And a second difference in that the reason for it is an issue of public safety, not prejudice. Herd immunity concerns mean that keeping children who are unvaccinated due to parental choice out of public schools is necessary. The antivacc people are mostly making the argument that they have the right to put their children at risk if they want to. I strongly disagree, but for the sake of argument let's assume they have a point there. Even if they DO have a right to put their own children at risk for no good reason, they emphatically DO NOT have the right to put other people's children at risk. I hope we can all agree on that.

I personally believe vaccines that are proven to be safe and effective should be mandatory for every child who does not have a medical reason why they can't get them, because I do not believe that parents own their children and should be allowed to put them at unnecessary risk. But even if consensus comes down against me there in the long term and it's decided that parents do have that right, that still would not make it okay for them to put other people at risk, any more than they would be allowed to send their children to school if they had chicken pox. If parents want the right to decide not to vaccinate their children because they believe debunked studies or because they have some backwards anti-science ideology, then having to home school or private school their children is the consequence of that decision that they are going to have to accept. The right to choose comes with the responsibility for the consequences of that choice.

 

[Sonereal]

It wasn't. That was actually a large part of the problem. It was separate. That was another large part of the problem. Ultimately, it was pretty much nothing but a problem, so I can't support you in advocating trying it again.

Blacks don't choose to be black. Choosing to put other people and their children in dangers is a choice. Therefore, separate them, take them out of our communities, and treat them like the lepers they are.

We have a lot of islands I'm sure. Plenty of places to establish anti-vaxxer colonies.

 

[Lights]

Or just make it mandatory to vaccinate (except when that person can't be vaccinated for X reasons). I'm not seeing people complaining about being illegal driving while drunk.

 

[onejayhawk]

This is one more area where USA political parties are inverting.

This is a simple privacy claim that some seek to overcome because third parties are affected. The amusing part is that the Pro-choice/Right to Life groups are deeply involved, advancing arguments the other side uses concerning abortion.

In a sense, this is more normal. Abortion was always upside down.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Here's my problem with your argument, Wolfbeckett.

You talk about the vaccines as "safe", which is fine...as long as you accept that using safe in that context defines it as something like "carrying very small risks that most people would consider negligible."

Unfortunately, when you use that definition of "safe" and the accompanying statistics that measure the actual risk you are calling negligible it destroys the first part of your argument. Because in many cases the diseases being vaccinated against are also safe if you use that definition and level of probability.

On the other hand, if you work from the other side and say "the consequences of measles are so horrific that we must sacrifice all personal freedom and suffer reasonable risk from vaccines to protect ourselves" then you are setting the demand for safety so high that the minimal risk from the vaccines also becomes reasonable to call unacceptable.

POLIO? Shoot it up!

MMR? Measles, mumps, the other measles that starts with an R? Shoot, it, catch it, it doesn't matter either way. Move along. I personally consider the risk from measles et al and the risks from the vaccines to both be so minimal that I frankly don't care who gets vaccinated or who doesn't.

 

[Sonereal]

"Personal freedoms" is the new states' rights.