There are some that would say that a government should not be able to force you to inject things into your own or your children's bodies. They would call that tyranny.
Much of the pro-choice argument regarding abortion is based on the idea that you own your own body.
My kids get vaccinated, but I sympathize with the anti-vaxxers arguments regarding governmental force.
The same argument could be said that kids born to unwilling mothers leads to social and moral decay. If you are pro abortion/ pro choice you must be pro choice for anti vaxx.
No it can't because there is no direct, empirical relationship between children born in neglectful or under-resourced households and medical illness in other children. You can mount an abstract argument that there are secondary or tertiary effects that increase e.g. crime, violence or what have you. But that kind of relationship is not nearly as tight nor as evident as the reduction in herd immunity effected by fewer children receiving vaccinations.
I don't disagree. I personally think it's irresponsible not to vaccinate your kids. I also support schools and such requiring vaccinations for attendance (although that gets murky when the government runs the school).
But using the government to forcibly inject stuff into people's bodies seems wrong.
Why do you keep calling it "stuff?" and why "forcibly inject?"
You say you support vaccination but you can't help but describe it without the necessary context, as if random Feds are strapping babies down against their will and pumping random fluids into them against their will for no particular reason.
You can make your argument and avoid the pointlessly nefarious language.
I see your point regarding the word "stuff." Mostly I phrase it like that because I'm trying to empathize with (and represent) the anti-vaxxer view. They don't view vaccines as medicine, they view it as poison or at least potentially harmful. They are also not often well informed regarding it's contents, so to them it is just "stuff" that someone who they don't trust says is good for them.
"Forcibly inject" tho is metaphorical but accurate. Many of the people here are advocating the mandating of (i.e. forcing) people to vaccinate their kids.
> as if random Feds are strapping babies down against their will and pumping random fluids into them against their will.
That's not completely wrong. The kids in my mother's generation for example were force-vaccinated in school and a lot of them suffered through life-threatening kidney issues caused by said vaccine. This is certainly not the case right now, but I have heard of people advocating for mandatory vaccination in schools.
It happened around 1962-1964. It was a smallpox vaccine. My mother ended up with Nephritis and had to battle it for years while my uncle ended up with his hands and legs being paralyzed and had to get a surgery.
When someone doesn't vaccinate their child and they get the measles, which kills someone else's child, who was too young to be vaccinated, that also seems wrong.
People will spend their entire lives as a potential danger to society. I don't think the measles, for example, will be eliminated.
People are committed by the state (MN at least) for mental health reasons, and in certain cases, forced to take neuroleptic drugs, some of which are injected. Tyranny?
In my opinion, promoting an anti-vaccination stance is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater, or should be viewed as such. It's a public health risk.
If you were committed by the state for mental health reasons, and in certain cases, forced to take neuroleptic drugs, some of which are injected, would you consider that tyranny? I definitely would ...
But I concede that's a pretty hard problem to deal with. I don't have any answers.
I personally know someone who is wrongfully convicted and serving a prison sentence. Maybe my mind is corrupted by movies but I've seen enough films where people are wrongly committed for political or revenge reasons that I would be hesitant to support that and give them the power to do it.
Wrongful conviction is an unfortunate part of our justice system. In some cases it is rectified, and others it is not.
My point was that people who refuse vaccines and people with mental illness who refuse to comply with treatment potentially both pose a danger to others.
If someone is harmed, whether by preventable disease or violence as a result of another's refusal to accept the recommendations of medical professionals, the party that refused vaccination/treatment causes harm to another without being held liable. Either someone else pays to make the party who suffered whole, or the party who suffered loses.
I feel the state should intervene when people are unable to make the correct decision about medical treatment when there are negative externalities. It's unfair to those who comply.
Vaccinating your child is basic medical care for your child. Your child has a right to life and my child has the right not to get whooping cough and possibly die from it.
If you don't believe in vaccines, don't have kids.
Much of the pro-choice argument regarding abortion is based on the idea that you own your own body.
My kids get vaccinated, but I sympathize with the anti-vaxxers arguments regarding governmental force.