26
54

[–] brother_tempus 26 points 54 points (+80|-26) ago 

She is right.

State compulsion is state tyranny and thus immoral

If you argument requires violence and coercion to work, than you have lost the argument.

Freedom > Safety which is why we have a Bill of Rights as opposed to a Bill of Safeties

[–] [deleted] 9 points 20 points (+29|-9) ago 

[Deleted]

7
7

[–] repoman 7 points 7 points (+14|-7) ago  (edited ago)

If folk want to avoid vaccinations but accept the consequences of being quarantined by the rest of society, that might be an okay compromise

I think people should be free to come and go as they please as long as they are not symptomatic of any infectious disease. If someone has the measles, then yes they should be quarantined until they are no longer infectious. However, the government should not punish someone for the "pre-crime" of choosing not to be vaccinated.

Yes I know there is the argument that some people have immune disorders that preclude them from vaccination who are thus susceptible, but that is their own health issue to deal with rather than the rest of society having to live in a bubble just to create a safe space for a handful of sickly kids.

Is it really better to enlist all of society in creating a global "safe space" just so the handful of bubble-boys can ride the rollercoaster without their spacesuit? If you think so then I hope you also helping SJWs fight for a trigger-free world, because in each case it's a small subgroup claiming that their right to not be potentially transgressed is more important than everyone elses' rights to freedom of movement and speech.

14
-1

[–] brother_tempus 14 points -1 points (+13|-14) ago 

Sort of. When it comes to health and safety the rights start to conflict.

There is no right to be safe .. there is only the right to live which comes with risks to safety.

If freedom trumped safety in all aspects, we wouldn't have so many laws

We are not suppose to have so many laws .. that is the point

The vaccinations fall into this area.

Compulsory ... no .. consensual yes.

You have the right to want a vaccine just as you have the right to not want a vaccine ... both rights are equal .. one does not trump another

6
-4

2
2

[–] Questionssm 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

The United States constitution is a social contract. Where a citizens agree to certain restrictions for government protection.

The bill of rights does not guarantee your ability to forgo a rule because it violates your perception of freedom.

3
2

[–] brother_tempus 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

nited States constitution is a social contract. Where a citizens agree to certain restrictions for government protection.

There are no restrictions on the citizens anywhere in the Constitution .. all the restrictions are placed on the Federal and State governments.

The Bill of Rights validates my statement as well as the last clause in Article One, Section 8

You need to re-read the Constitution because what you says exists in there does not .

The bill of rights does not guarantee your ability to forgo a rule

yes it does ....\ the Bill of Rights states government cannot pass any law that infringes my rights .. and the 14th Amendment sets that same standard to State governments

7
2

[–] lexsird 7 points 2 points (+9|-7) ago 

Yet Republicans lead the "war on drugs" which will wreck your life over weed with their authoritarian laws. I'm amused at how running a major corporation into the ground makes you a candidate for Republicans, I can possibly understand Democrats supporting her because of their hate of overbearing corporations, but seriously Republicans ...lol....just lol.

1
7

[–] Had 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Hello, I would like to introduce you to my favorite fallacy, the Straw Man

0
2

[–] Bainshie 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yes because vaccinations are totally the same as recreational use of drugs.

Jesus fuck, even the most pro drugs supporter would think your argument is retarded.

6
1

[–] poodog 6 points 1 points (+7|-6) ago 

So you're saying that we as a society should let all the murderers and killers out of jail?

It infringes on their Freedom.. and Freedom > Safety.

5
1

[–] brother_tempus 5 points 1 points (+6|-5) ago 

It infringes on their Freedom

5th Amendment says otherwise ... nice Appeal To Emotion Logical Fallacy though

4
-2

[–] dv1155 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

Leave it to a statist. Equating innocent children with murderers and killers. What crime did these children commit to have their and their parents' right to manage their own health taken away from them?

4
-2

[–] squiremarcus 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

lol

0
37

[–] satnavtomington 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

I feel like the latter part of that headline is the most important, if parents don't vaccinate their kids, fine, but schools have a duty to protect their students and having unvaccinated kids could jeopardise that.

0
5

[–] oowensby [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Correct. I posted this article in response to the misleading WAPO story someone posted earlier.

4
2

[–] Charlie_Prime 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

How are vaccinated kids unprotected?

0
18

[–] oowensby [S] 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Vaccinated kids are of course protected. The kids that are medically precluded from immunizations (allergies, immune system compromised, etc.) need the "herd immunity."

1
16

[–] goat_boat 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

Well that's assuming vaccines are 100% effective and that they stay 100% effective for life. Increasing exposure is inherently risky. Would you like to sit on a train with 100 people with measles? You've got a vaccine, so you are OK, right? No thanks.

0
6

[–] poodog 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Diseases mutate, they're not set in stone. I am vaccinated but I still got whooping cough because it mutated. It only mutated because some unvaccinated fuckwhit cought the disease, and it mutated in their body.

You let 100 of these little timebombs into schools, and everyone in the school will catch whatever mutated diseases they have, regardless of vaccination.

The only way to protect everyone is to vaccinate everyone, it's called herd immunity. By not vaccinating a % of these special snowflakes, you're effectively undoing 50-60 years of hard work to get rid of a disease through vaccination by giving it opportunities to mutate.

1
0

[–] repoman 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

How is banning students for the possibility that they may someday have measles any different from banning all men from a college for the possibility that they may someday rape somebody? Society should not make rules based on the assumption that someone is inevitably going to turn into Typhoid Mary or Bill Cosby. It should instead focus on defining and imposing harsh penalties upon those who commit the crime of wittingly or recklessly causing harm to others.

Anti-vax parents could be given a CDC guidebook that they must follow verbatim whenever their child falls ill to ensure their child is isolated, diagnosed and treated without spreading the disease. Failure to follow this guidebook would expose the parents to liability for any others their child infects.

On a side note, insurance companies could also set their insurance rates accordingly higher for non-vaxxed children - I wonder how many parents are so strongly opposed to vaccines that they would pay $1000 extra a year to insure their perfect little snowflake.

12
20

[–] mountain_chamois 12 points 20 points (+32|-12) ago 

Unvaccinated children are public menace. Whether they go to school or not still makes them a menace to society and to those infants or elderly who are vulnerable. It is unconscionable to have presidential candidates say such nonsense!

0
1

[–] MissEve 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

0
0

[–] mysteriouspants 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It is unconscionable to have presidential candidates say such nonsense!

To be fair, nobody was going to vote for her, anyway.

0
0

[–] MissEve 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That is false. Thugs are a public menace.

7
0

[–] lissencarak 7 points 0 points (+7|-7) ago 

True as this might be, you have a responsibility for your own kids, not for the kids of others. They may vaccinate or not, as they wish. Feel free to not let your kid or yourself be involved with people who don't vaccinate.

2
5

[–] gatordontplaythatsht 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

That's dangerous logic, unvaccinated kids can easily spread disease even without public schooling. It's a very dangerous game to play, enabling parents to choose not to vaccinate.

1
3

[–] ReadShift 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

You have a responsibility to your society, and your neighbor's kids are a part of that. There are individuals (who may be your own kids) who cannot be vaccinated and depend on herd immunity to keep from getting sick. Heck, small children have to wait before they can be vaccinated, meaning every child depends on herd immunity at some point in their life. Plus, vaccines can fail. Unvaccinated kids put everyone at risk. Vaccines should be compulsory, period.

0
0

[–] MrMongoose 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If a child gets critically ill, is it the parents right to neglect to give them medical treatment? Or maybe it is their right to just not feed them? At what point does society have the right to start/stop enforcing child welfare?

3
9

[–] the_spectre 3 points 9 points (+12|-3) ago 

That's...very reasonable.

Honesty and education, not coercion, is the way to stop anti-vaccers.

1
3

[–] Terkan 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

No it isn't reasonable at all. Those unvaccinated children can spread it to babies too young for vaccines at stores, parks, theatres... anywhere public. Reasonable would be If you aren't vaccinated, you can't leave your house, ever. You risk spreading it anywhere and everywhere those kids go. Just saying the kids can be homeschooled doesn't stop the danger to society in the slightest. To prove my point, look at the Measles outbreak in Disney. What good would keeping kids away from public schools have done there? The threat of removing from public schools is not enough to prevent the unnecessary deaths cause by unvaccinated children and stupid parents.

0
2

[–] NateThomas1979 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You do know that the measles outbreak in Disney was traced back to vaccinated kids right?

[–] [deleted] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] wervenyt 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I mean... ideally, it is.

0
0

[–] MissEve 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

6
7

[–] Charlie_Prime 6 points 7 points (+13|-6) ago 

I hope the make vaccination mandatory for public school attendance.

It would wildly increase the number of good parents opting for private schools.

2
5

[–] oowensby [S] 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Or opt for home schooling.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] newoldwave 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

fine, let them

1
1

[–] Bainshie 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

"Good parents".

"Not vaccinating your kids"

Choose one, because they kinda don't go together.

1
1

[–] Gargilius 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

**Mandatory for school attendance, using any form of public transportation, attending any kind of public event, using any kind of public services (shops, businesses, administrations, etc.).

Moreover, they should also be required to carry a massive amount of insurance to cover any cost / liability incurred to any person they might eventually infect.

1
-1

[–] brucethemoose 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I don't think you can get sued for "infecting" someone else.

I mean, unless your kid was locked in a room with the kids who were later infected, how would you prove it in court? Strain testing? I'm not even sure that's possible, and it's probably not practical.

0
5

[–] Bleak_Morn 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I'm a Libertarian. I believe that "individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

Libertarians have strong views on Self-Ownership including the view that people "own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate".

For example, in opposition to America's failed drug policy, we believe that "Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves."

Of course, in the same section of the LP Platform, it says "Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm."

Refusing vaccinations is a negligent decision that "places others involuntarily at significant risk of harm."

While Libertarians support the right to keep and bear arms for Self-Defense, a person who carried a firearm that discharged randomly and injured, maimed or killed people would clearly be committing a crime of negligence - even if they didn't pull the trigger or otherwise intend to injure the victims.

It's the same with vaccinations. If you are prepared to monitor yourself to ensure that you are not contagious - and then take measures to prevent others from becoming contaminated then by all means, forgo vaccinations and assume responsibility for diseases you may carry and preventing the infection of others.

With todays technology, this is simply not possible.

While the Government should not force people to become vaccinated, anyone who chooses to forgo vaccines should assume liability for damages (both criminal and civil) that result from infections they spread through negligence. This would include adequate insurance to pay damages to people harmed by such negligence.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
2

[–] MissEve 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

It is insane to pump babies full of toxins, I agree.

0
3

[–] oowensby [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The lede:

Lotta media buzz this morning over what she said yesterday — or at least, the first part of what she said — about vaccines, but her stance on this isn’t new. She argued for some degree of parental choice back in February when BuzzFeed asked her about it. But now that she’s cracked the GOP field’s top tier, I guess the “gotcha” effort needs to begin in earnest. What better place to start than with an issue that tripped up Chris Christie and Rand Paul earlier this year?

She draws the line where most Republicans would, I imagine: The state can’t dictate to a parent over their child’s health, but that parent has no right to put other parents’ children at risk in the schoolyard.

0
7

[–] Professor_de_la_Paz 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

The state can’t dictate to a parent over their child’s health, but that parent has no right to put other parents’ children at risk in the schoolyard.

Agreed. Have a +1 on me.

1
0

[–] ReadShift 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The state absolutely should dictate some aspects of every kid's health, unvaccinated kids are a danger to everyone. Unvaccinated kids reduce herd immunity, something which every kid relies on when they are too young to be vaccinated themselves.

load more comments ▼ (19 remaining)