I want you to point out to me how the claim that you have a "right" to be infected by a disease which you might spread to other people is any different from the selfish claim [implicitly] made by a symptomatic doctor returning to the US after treating Ebola patients in West Africa that he had a "right" to go bowling in one of the most densely populated places on Earth.
I want you to tell me where you think this supposed "liberty" ends? Do you have the right to genitally mutilate your daughter because your religion says so, and the state may not be allowed to interfere in that?
Given what we know, choosing not to vaccinate is child abuse. There's no "conflation."
To decline to administer a vaccination is not tantamount to doing "whatever you want with your children".
And trying to bring the abortion issue into the discussion is pure emotionalism.
Given what we know, choosing not to vaccinate is child abuse. There's no "conflation."
False. There is conflation. If there's even the slightest possibility that a vaccination could cause a problem (and there is such a possibility), then making it mandatory is outright criminal, IMHO.
I'm sure you're a very well-meaning statist (aren't they all), but I, for one, hope that nanny-staters, with all their smug self-assurance, and their confident convictions regarding what's best for everybody else, never gain ascendancy in this society.
Because I'd rather have true freedom, with all of its warts and challenges, than the authoritarian utopia which science-worshippers invariably seem to envision.
I imagine you believe that smoking tobacco in the same house as one's children also constitutes child abuse. Or at least that becomes the case the moment science deems it to be so.
Science is a useful tool, but I would never want to see it be used as an excuse for advancing the nanny-state Tyranny of the forced vaccination crowd. Education, not legislation, is invariably more effective, and social engineering via the use of force is the purview of socialists.
Congratulations, though, for managing to respond to a post without engaging in the juvenile name-calling which has characterized so many of your other responses.
Because, Fred, abortionists do not do anything for their children. They kill them, on purpose. Whereas parents making choices about vaccination are making those choices in order to protect the lives of their children. That's called a completely different, totally opposite, set of conditions - as of course you well know. Because otherwise how could your slander enrage people and trash the thread?
In addition, you've paid scrupulous attention to merging all of the different types of vaccination together, from early puss scratches to simple single vaccines without adjuvant, to vaccines containing adjuvants, to ignoring the many different kinds of poisons in adjuvants, to equating blood injected adjuvant poisons to smaller dosages of similar poisons outside of the blood barrier, to multiple vaccines given simultaneously, to multiple vaccines given simultaneously in short sequence, to multiple vaccines given simultaneously in shirt sequence to babies and children without developed immune systems.
Yes indeed, in the Monsanto Boot-Sucking FredWorld, ALL of those completely different things are called the same ONE thing: "vaccines." And you're either for it or against it, and if you're against it you're a communist abortionist moron who needs to GTFO of civilisation.
LOL, you're a clown, Fred. No wonder your tagline is "O, Reason not the need" - people who reason just piss you off!