World's Health Organization declares Vaccination Hesitancy a TOP THREAT for 2019

I don't trust that site

 

Yup, bill is part of Bilderberg group and also a militant atheist.

 

People are dying in Europe from measles, an easily preventable disease, so I'd say that the WHO might have a point.

What pisses me off about this is that it's not about people taking risks with their lives, its people taking risks with their children's lives based on spurious shit that they read on the internet.

 

I've found common ground with "pro-vaxxers" before: I say that the issue is not necessarily about scientific disagreement regarding the vaccines, but it is moreso the issue that I should not be forced to adhere to standards of health dictated to myself and my family by state institutions.

When law infringes upon the free association and expression of the individual, that is when it becomes oppression.

You open the door to the slippery slope of authoritarianism. Parents should have absolute free reign to intercept whatever stimuli come into their children's sphere of experience. Otherwise, why not have the state remove the child entirely from the family's impact and raise it under government supervision?

No, so long as parents do not commit modern criminal actions against children (physical and sexual abuse, forced confinement or starvation) intervention is unnecessary.

 

But can you not say that playing with your children's lives because of your own beliefs (and they are beliefs as they are generally not backed by scientific evidence) is a form of abuse? If they contract polio because you didn't want to vaccinate them, the damage sustained will be much more serious than slapping them around a bit.

It's a fact of law that children have rights of their own and are not just possessions of their parents whole have sole rights over them.

I'm just playing devils advocate here, mind you. State intervention in a child's upbringing is a slippery slope.

 

I understand exactly what you mean. I've thought about this on and off again for quite a while, and I still have not resolved this sort of grey area problem with children.

Do you think those laws are the same as apply to adults? Should they be more severe?

In most of these examples, I really lean toward "no": I would not force a parent to vaccinate their child to prevent a natural occurrence of polio.

This reminds me of the stories of those strict religious parents who pray for their cancer children, and refuse to give them medical treatment. In both examples, I strongly favor parental liberty.

The difference has always been actions of moral agents versus actions of the natural world. But, then there is a problem of whether moral agents are part of the natural world or not -- which you have to contend with if you are anything other than a moral objectivist.

I am willing to listen to any conversation or points on this subject. It is something I would like to more solid about, intellectually speaking, so if you've found a way to square that circle without violating libertarian principles I'd like to here it.

 

So where do you stand on the use of antibiotics? Are these not used to counteract a natural occurrence?

 

Good for you. Any evidence? After all hygiene and nutrition don’t prevent the occurrence of bacterial infection, so why should it do so in the case of viral infections?

 

Lol I couldn't resist.

"It's on the internet so it must be true."

 

This appears to be fake news.

No, there's no such theory. There was a brief moment when a badly run, unreliable piece of research was published to sensational media headlines claiming that vaccinations caused autism. This research was roundly debunked internationally. However, conspiracy theorists have steadfastly maintained that the conclusion was true and valid. It's absolute rubbish, and unfortunately this fake news has led (among other things) to a resurgence in infant mortality due to measles within the USA and Europe. If you love your children, vaccinate them.

 

I don't lean toward forcing any medicinal alleviation at all. What I personally think about these medicines or vaccines is a separate issue from whether I want parents forced to use them on their children, though.

 

Where I live, parents are forced to do all sorts of things to their children. They have to feed them well. They have to take them to school. They have to clothe them. They have to take them to the doctor if they're sick. Why should saving their lives with vaccinations be any different?

I know that you disagree, but I'll go with science and caring for children any time over disproven conspiracy theories. My mother failed to vaccinate me, and I was the one who paid the price.

 

Because it's totalitarianism?

Maybe read 1984 again. If you force human behavior, you remove the humanity from populations..

 

So, you're quite happy to allow parents to neglect their children because the alternative is totalitarianism?

As I said, we'll disagree on this. I won't persuade you, and you won't persuade me.

 

@Mordobarn , I've already stated my case:

Yeah, I stand by that statement.