[Leaning Right]

However, your logic does not extend to those who make the educated choice NOT to vaccinate.

This is not like a parent choosing not to send his child to, say, church. That decision only affects the child. But an unvaccinated child can do harm to a vaccinated child. As I mentioned in an earlier post, no vaccine is 100% effective. So when a parent chooses not to vaccinate his child against, say, mumps, that parent is also putting everyone's children at risk for mumps. And I'm not talking about just at schools. I'm talking about on playgrounds, in movie theaters, etc.

Regarding "government coercion", the government coerces me to obey the speed limit. That's a reasonable thing to do, because without such coercion innocent people will suffer.

But I will not defend all government health coercion. I trust my local doctor. But I no longer trust the government health authorities. Unlike in days past, today's health authorities do not always put the public health first. Often there is a hidden political agenda. So if my doctor says vaccine my kids, I'll vaccinate my kids.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “ But an unvaccinated child can do harm to a vaccinated child.” <<

That is about the absurdest statement I have read in years.

Vaccinations cause more deaths than the natural occurances of disease ever could.

The lion’s share of reported measles deaths are the result of the vaccine itself.

.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Respectfully, you are using a false analogy comparing, "going to church" with "injecting a foreign substance in a child's body". Additionally, you are incorrect that an unvaccinated child can do harm to a vaccinated child. A "diseased" child can do harm to a non-diseased child, but not an unvaccinated one.

Regarding "government coercion", once again you are using a false analogy. Obeying laws of conduct is different from government coerced "injections" of foreign drugs.

It is nice that you can trust your doctor, however, would you really abdicate your rights as a parent to a doctor?