Spot on.

I'm learning tonight....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/iaomt.org/top-ten-reasons-oppose-water-fluoridation/amp/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/

While I agree with your sentiment swimmer, and do share some of the same concerns... I do have to fall back and ask If by government, you mean a collection of representatives chosen to enact laws and norms for their reespective constituents, then how is it being done by force or mandate.

If someone truly believes that vaccines are bad and unsafe, are they not free to disassociate from the rest of the vaccinated society and gonform a new one.

I would deal with it like dogs i suppose..cant take your dogs hardly anywhere without their vaccination papers. Not a perfect solution, but liberty always adds risk.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I would deal with it like dogs i suppose..cant take your dogs hardly anywhere without their vaccination papers. Not a perfect solution, but liberty always adds risk.

---

Forgive my ignorance, but is that due to private industries self imposing a health regulation in order for you to bring a dog into their establishment, or is there a state regulation (either thru law or insurance regulations)!requiring private industries like dog groomers, boarders, Daycare's to require current vaccination records from clients?

Private industry I believe

AstroAg17 said:

---

I mean, the prevailing opinion is that opposition to the fluoridation of water is ridiculous. That was supposed to be an extreme example on which we would obviously agree.

---

I'm not highly educated on the subject, so I googled "water flouridation". Those were in the top 5 results. Shrug.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Nobody knew thalidomide was teratogenic.

---

And some day we may find out that vaccines (or, more possibly, overwhelming an immature immune system with a huge number of antigens all at once because our vaccination schedule has ramped up so rapidly) can have harmful side effects in susceptible individuals . All good and well if they're a free choice we can make as was thalidomide. Not so great if we are forced to partake via a government agency. Is the existence of the National Vaccination Injury Compensation Program not, in some ways, a tacit admission that some WILL be hurt by vaccines?

Google is your friend. It isn't hard to not be an idiot.

And here we are, TexAgs at its finest. Good night.

AstroAg17 said:

---

You guys are the strangest group IMO. The ones who think the inoculation process itself matters. It's a needle, you'll be fine. Grow up.

And yet people view oral and nasal vaccines much more positively. People really do think needles are icky.

---

I'm absolutely convinced that a large part of the anti-vaccine movement is comprised of parents who don't want their kids to get stuck with needles. I've had some straight up tell me that. They don't want their child to suffer no matter what possible good it could do. If all vaccines were nasal sprays or harmless parches, I'd wager money the anti-vaccine movement would dry up in a week

I think the minimum standard for the government to rightfully violate your bodily autonomy (or parental autonomy as bodily autonomy by proxy for a minor) is that there exists a substantial and imminent threat to another person or group of people, and that society mandates it as your responsibility to ensure that threat not materialize.

In the case of not vaccinating the threat to life is substantial, so that clause is met. But I don't think it meets the other two.

By not being vaccinated I may get ill. I may infect another. Maybe someone who I infect will die. Maybe not. Maybe nothing will happen. The threat of death or maiming, which is what I would consider substantial, being caused by me not getting vaccinated is relatively small. Because of this I don't consider the threat to be imminent.

Has society mandated that we, as individuals, have a responsibility to ensure others stay healthy? I hope people would take that responsibility on themselves. But whether or not it's a social mandate, I don't know. I personally don't think it should be.

Should the government step in to save a child's life because parents refuse to medicate? Well, there is a substantial threat, as the child may die. And parent do have a responsibility to ensure the well-being of their children. So as long as the threat is imminent I would say yes, the government should intercede.

So yes, I was too broad in my initial post. But I don't think vaccines should be compulsory, and I do think the government may rightfully intercede on a child's behalf when his parents refuse to give him life-saving drugs.

dargscisyhp said:

---

I think the minimum standard for the government to rightfully violate your bodily autonomy (or parental autonomy as bodily autonomy by proxy for a minor) is that there exists a substantial and imminent threat to another person or group of people, and that society mandates it as your responsibility to ensure that threat not materialize.

In the case of not vaccinating the threat to life is substantial, so that clause is met. But I don't think it meets the other two.

By not being vaccinated I may get ill. I may infect another. Maybe someone who I infect will die. Maybe not. Maybe nothing will happen. The threat of death or maiming, which is what I would consider substantial, being caused by me not getting vaccinated is relatively small. Because of this I don't consider the threat to be imminent.

Has society mandated that we, as individuals, have a responsibility to ensure others stay healthy? I hope people would take that responsibility on themselves. But whether or not it's a social mandate, I don't know. I personally don't think it should be.

Should the government step in to save a child's life because parents refuse to medicate? Well, there is a substantial threat, as the child may die. And parent do have a responsibility to ensure the well-being of their children. So as long as the threat is imminent I would say yes, the government should intercede.

So yes, I was too broad in my initial post. But I don't think vaccines should be compulsory, and I do think the government may rightfully intercede on a child's behalf when his parents refuse to give him life-saving drugs.

---

Immunocompromised persons.


Vaccines are harmless, stop.

dargscisyhp said:

---

ETFan said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

I think the minimum standard for the government to rightfully violate your bodily autonomy (or parental autonomy as bodily autonomy by proxy for a minor) is that there exists a substantial and imminent threat to another person or group of people, and that society mandates it as your responsibility to ensure that threat not materialize.

In the case of not vaccinating the threat to life is substantial, so that clause is met. But I don't think it meets the other two.

By not being vaccinated I may get ill. I may infect another. Maybe someone who I infect will die. Maybe not. Maybe nothing will happen. The threat of death or maiming, which is what I would consider substantial, being caused by me not getting vaccinated is relatively small. Because of this I don't consider the threat to be imminent.

Has society mandated that we, as individuals, have a responsibility to ensure others stay healthy? I hope people would take that responsibility on themselves. But whether or not it's a social mandate, I don't know. I personally don't think it should be.

Should the government step in to save a child's life because parents refuse to medicate? Well, there is a substantial threat, as the child may die. And parent do have a responsibility to ensure the well-being of their children. So as long as the threat is imminent I would say yes, the government should intercede.

So yes, I was too broad in my initial post. But I don't think vaccines should be compulsory, and I do think the government may rightfully intercede on a child's behalf when his parents refuse to give him life-saving drugs.

---

Immunocompromised persons.


Vaccines are harmless, stop.

---

What isn't harmless, on the other hand, is government overreach. Which is really what my post was about. I'm not sure how your comments address my post.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think vaccines should be compulsory

---

I addressed that, they should be. For the sake of people that can't vaccinate. It's simple, drop the government hubbub, it's irrelevant. Everyone should vaccinate that can.

EDIT: You're arguing that people shouldn't wear seatbelts. It's exactly he same, ignoring the fact that an unbelted person will kill everyone else in the car.