If the government can force a needle into my arm,then they can inject a chip that monitors my movement. They can dictate my weight, my behaviors ( drinking alcohol or smoking) because enforcement of vaccinations is a slippery slope to loss of freedom.
If a woman is pregnant with a Downs baby determined by prenatal testing, then she will be told to abort it because the door has been opened to allowing government access to our bodies.
The loss of liberty from this is greater than the risk. As a conservative, I am surprised that you do not see this connection. But then again, you are a big government proponent.
Why? You do know they can quarantine you, don't you? You do know that the Founders agreed with that authority?
They can dictate my weight, my behaviors ( drinking alcohol or smoking)
Prophylaxis against the spread of disease isn't regulating your more or less harmless habits.
because enforcement of vaccinations is a slippery slope to loss of freedom.
Slippery slope arguments are nonsense. I won't accept yours. I can just as easily say: If the government won't allow me to shoot or stab my kids [by the way, in case you were unaware, it doesn't allow this] then pretty soon I won't be able to beat them with chains and then I won't be able to spank them or talk to them crossly or even politely ask them to lift their feet while I'm vacuuming. Then pretty soon after that the government will be requiring them to poke me with sharp things. It's all a slippery slope.
Rubbish. We have Constitutions, legislatures, executives, the judiciary, and most importantly the polity itself to apply the breaks when we're heading down a slippery slope.
If a woman is pregnant with a Downs baby determined by prenatal testing, then she will be told to abort it because the door has been opened to allowing government access to our bodies
Only in the tortured "thought process" of an antivaxxer can a requirement to protect the life and health of your child be turned into a claim that you would be forced to harm or kill your child. That is EXACTLY what I am arguing AGAINST. Governments have an obligation to protect life, liberty, and property. That's why they're instituted. See Locke, or Jefferson. Read the first few paragraphs of The Declaration of Independence if you're confused about why we've constrained the demons of our darker nature through government.
[Nice reiteration of the abortionists' sacred motto, by the way: "allowing government access to our bodies."]
Protecting the lives and health of children -- born and unborn -- isn't a "loss of liberty" except to people who believe that children are property with no rights. We settled the issue of whether human beings could be regarded as property in 1865. Going backwards 150 years makes you an enemy of liberty, not a proponent of it. Your children have Constitutional rights just as you do. Those rights are protected just as much as yours are. And when you claim the right to harm another human being you're not talking about liberty, you're talking about license.