Apparently, vaccination is rape

[caketastydelish]

I don't know where this "anti vac" crowd came from but these people are fruitcakes.

Also: comparing getting vaccinated to rape insults actual rape victims everywhere.

 

[Commodore]

"My body, my choice." Ring any bells?

J

The only problem with your argument is the anti-vaccine crowd is preventing their children from getting the vaccine instead of letting them make their own choice as to whether or not they want to receive it.

So it seems just a bit hypocritical for anti-vaccine parents to shout "my body, my choice" at the top of their lungs and then in the same breath say "I'm not letting my son or daughter get that vaccine!" By doing so they are committing the same violation of their child's personal freedom and right to their own body as the government would be by mandating vaccines.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The only problem with your argument is the anti-vaccine crowd is preventing their children from getting the vaccine instead of letting them make their own choice as to whether or not they want to receive it.

So it seems just a bit hypocritical for anti-vaccine parents to shout "my body, my choice" at the top of their lungs and then in the same breath say "I'm not letting my son or daughter get that vaccine!" By doing so they are committing the same violation of their child's personal freedom and right to their own body as the government would be by mandating vaccines.

Parents making medical decisions for their children is standard practice...and probably should remain unchallenged.

 

[Evie]

And yet, many countries (ie modern western democracies) sensibly make exceptions to that when parents are putting the child's life at risk. The courts overriding a parent's wishes and allowing a child to receive life-saving care is something that's happened.

It's rarely a good plan to establish absolute principle and say they suffer no exceptions.

 

[Esperr]

I remember years ago getting patients who refused to vaccinate there children(this was before the big recent anti-vaccine fad) during a short stint working in L & D. I refused to provide further treatment because if the patient wouldn't follow basic medical advice how could I expect them to care about anything else I say? I feel nowadays I could probably get into trouble for that.

 

[Commodore]

Parents making medical decisions for their children is standard practice...and probably should remain unchallenged.

Of course. My point though, was that what these anti-vaccine parents are really fighting for is not personal freedom or bodily rights. They are fighting to maintain their position as their children's overlords so they can best decide when and how to violate their children's personal freedoms.

So I think it is pretty shameless and downright low of them to hide behind the 'personal freedoms' argument, when that's not what they want at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think they want their "personal freedom" to make medical decisions regarding vaccination for their child. Whether I agree with the medical decision they are making or not, I can see how their argument that it is their decision to make functions.

At the end of the day children have no personal freedoms, and we all are well aware of that.

 

[Evie]

Not altogether true, that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not altogether true, that.

Okay. Very darn little personal freedom.

 

[Rashiminos]

The only problem with your argument is the anti-vaccine crowd is preventing their children from getting the vaccine instead of letting them make their own choice as to whether or not they want to receive it.

So it seems just a bit hypocritical for anti-vaccine parents to shout "my body, my choice" at the top of their lungs and then in the same breath say "I'm not letting my son or daughter get that vaccine!" By doing so they are committing the same violation of their child's personal freedom and right to their own body as the government would be by mandating vaccines.

Society doesn't typically recognize the child's right to choice at the low ages in question. I'm not sure along what particular axis you'd find this particular position to be hypocritical.

Of course. My point though, was that what these anti-vaccine parents are really fighting for is not personal freedom or bodily rights. They are fighting to maintain their position as their children's overlords so they can best decide when and how to violate their children's personal freedoms.

As opposed to?

I remember years ago getting patients who refused to vaccinate there children(this was before the big recent anti-vaccine fad) during a short stint working in L & D. I refused to provide further treatment because if the patient wouldn't follow basic medical advice how could I expect them to care about anything else I say? I feel nowadays I could probably get into trouble for that.

Good for them.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's not only a matter for children. I am my father's legal guardian (he's 80 and has dementia), and one thing I insisted on was that any medical decisions be mine, not that of the Office of the Public Guardian. So every year I have to sign a piece of paper or send an email to the director of the Assisted Living unit of the nursing home where he lives so he can have his annual flu shot.

 

[aelf]

The law surrounding abortion is central to the issue.

It is not. Kthxbye.

 

[warpus]

I think they want their "personal freedom" to make medical decisions regarding vaccination for their child. Whether I agree with the medical decision they are making or not, I can see how their argument that it is their decision to make functions.

In this case this should not be a personal freedom that they should have.

It's funny how some people think (not you Tim) that "Personal freedom" should trump all other considerations.

 

[Farm Boy]

In this case this should not be a personal freedom that they should have.

It's funny how some people think (not you Tim) that "Personal freedom" should trump all other considerations.

Obviously, it doesn't. But when you talk about inserting the state as an entity of enforcement between parents, children, and their doctors, and this introduction of distrust and policing is justified by the level of harm we can reasonably predict from the vaccines currently on the market and their usage rates? Man alive talk about draconian fixes far out of proportion to what they claim to address. I'd wager the simple amount of people scared into less frequent checkups of their kids and themselves by this alone hurts more kids than any increase in immunization rates helps.

This isn't really about thinking of the 'chillrens. This is mostly about being more than willing to browbeat one's fellows for a small increase in perceived safety to one's self. Then when it's pointed out that the real increase in safety would be small, the trick is to hyperventilate and faint about how worldcrushing the risks actually are. I mean did you know how many people the bubonic plague can kill? It's no joke. Really. It's not.

 

[warpus]

No offense, but I don't really understand any of your post.

 

[Rashiminos]

No offense, but I don't really understand any of your post.

Maybe you could start with a small portion of it and ask Farm Boy to help you fill in the blanks.

 

[warpus]

Okay, the first sentence I understand. The second sentence seems to be a question, but not really. Then I gave up.

I'm not surprised that so many people in the U.S. fall for the whole libertarian mode of thinking. I reckon that's what the post is meant to be about. but I'm not really sure.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No offense, but I don't really understand any of your post.

He is saying the same thing I always say.

While "personal freedoms" doesn't "trump everything," the idea that a decision that represents minimal risks either way is too important to leave in the hands of mere parents is absurd. The fact that people of seemingly good intentions tend to inflate the risks either way beyond all proportion not withstanding.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Parents making medical decisions for their children is standard practice...and probably should remain unchallenged.

That absolutely should not remain unchallenged if the medical decisions they are making for their children are demonstrably harmful to the child. If a child gets leukemia and the parents decide to treat it with acupuncture or Gerson therapy coffee enemas instead of actual medical treatment, that should absolutely be challenged. Children have the right to not be harmed by their parents stupidity or neglect.

 

[warpus]

While "personal freedoms" doesn't "trump everything," the idea that a decision that represents minimal risks either way is too important to leave in the hands of mere parents is absurd.

It's not absurd, but you can't make grand sweeping pronouncements about personal freedoms either way; instead you've got to look at the situation on a case by case basis.

In this case giving parents the power to not vaccinate their kids is not a good one, for several reasons. That on an individual on-the-surface basis it doesn't appear to be too much of a risk completely ignores the way that vaccination works on a grand scale.