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.
Congratulations on your Award for Clueless Irony For The Entire Internet awarded for your closing paragraph, in a post riddled with emotional name calling [statist, nanny-stater, criminal] to say nothing of the adolescent dig itself. It's is typical of you antivaxxers, who casually sling names at people, then get terribly sanctimonious when I respond in kind.
[I know. I know. You're not an antivaxxer. You're like Mario Cuomo: "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I think other people should have the right to murder their children."]
The abortion analogy is real and not pure emotionalism. You are claiming the Constitution is a warrant to do EXACTLY what abortionists do. You simply don't want to admit that's where your absolutist concept of "liberty " takes you. Your kids must be "forever out of reach of THE STATE; amen." In that case, you have to accept that it applies to your body a fortiori. Then, you have no excuse for calling abortionists baby killers and murderers. They're just "exercising their liberties."
Your smoking strawman is amusing. As a 25+ year and [now 20+ year former] tobacco addict, I would hope smokers wouldn't smoke in the same room with non-smokers, but the science concerning the risk indicates that the danger is minimal. [Unlike the dangers of childhood diseases.] But since your emotionalism raised this Red Herring, let's get down to a more direct analogy which actually is comparable: do parents have an "absolute" right to smoke marijuana in the same room with their children in venues where marijuana is legal? Or do only "nanny-staters" and "criminals" advocate sensible conduct? What if you REALLY REALLY REALLY believe that marijuana is good for your kids, and to use the favorite tactic of the antivaxxers on this thread "there's a wealth of stuff on the Internet that proves that it is!"
Finally, I notice that you do not answer the question about whether a Muslim can or should be denied the right to perform a clitorectomy on his daughter. Is that OK, but infibulation isn't? At what point do you allow us "nanny staters" to step in? The reason you won't answer that is because -- like your feeble smoking analogy -- once taken to its correct conclusion the "right" to do whatever your prejudices dictate blows up your phony "liberty" arguments in your face.
PS: I don't care if you call me names. I'm not a sissy, and my mother, who got me and my siblings all the vaccinations available in our day, taught me a little ditty about sticks and stones. I advise you and the other Neanderthals to toughen up and learn it.
But I suspect what really bothers you is that you know that you don't have a leg to stand on. The Founders did not agree with your definition of "liberty." I've posted evidence of that elsewhere on this thread. I'd happily live in their "nanny-state" in which, just for example, there was enforced quarantine without recourse to the judicial system, any day.