Should Vaccination be Mandatory

[JSS2306]

No one here is saying you shouldn't vaccinate your kids.

That's literally the problem with Paul's version of America. He just gives every dumbass in America the OK to do as they please.

"I'm not saying don't vaccinate your kids... but DON'T LET THESE GUBMINT COMMIES TELL YOU WHAT TO DO! YOU GONNA LET THESE ASSHOLES VACCINATE YOUR KIDS? PRETTY SOON THEY'LL BE VACCINATING THEIR SCHLONGS BEFORE THEY BEND YOU OVER.

Vaccinating is probably recommended."

 

[Jack Brickman]

You don't have the authority, the consensus doesn't have the authority, and Obama doesn't have the authority.

Well, you're certainly right that I don't have the authority. I'm just a guy who writes SQL for a living in North Carolina.

But the government? I'm pretty sure they have the authority to make vaccinations mandatory. They won't, especially while the Republicans are running Congress (not that liberals are much better on this issues, as there are a lot of liberal dumbasses in California not vaccinating their kids). However, if the government really wanted to, they could very easily make this a public health mandate, and they should.

Vaccinating your kids is common sense, and therefore it should be mandatory, because not enough people these days actually utilize common sense.

 

[OptimusPrime]

That's literally the problem with Paul's version of America. He just gives every dumbass in America the OK to do as they please.

I know right. At least you don't have to worry about ever living in a world like that. You just do what you're told and enjoy your freedumb.

 

[Sebastian]

You don't have the authority, the consensus doesn't have the authority, and Obama doesn't have the authority.

Making it mandatory doesn't mean 100% of people will have them, so you are just surrendering your rights for nothing.

And while I have no problem with vaccines, diseases like measles were almost wiped out before the vaccine even hit the market. People aren't dropping dead because the government didn't force them to get vaccinated.

The electoral majority has the power. So, yes. The consensus.

The only thing that may prevent the majority from forcing good health practices are 'activist judges.'

Issues with enforcement do not mean a law shouldn't be made.

 

[OptimusPrime]

The electoral majority has the power. So, yes. The consensus.

They have the power. Not the authority. They will never have that.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I know right. At least you don't have to worry about ever living in a world like that. You just do what you're told and enjoy your freedumb.

So you don't think there should be laws in place to protect stupid and/or crazy people from both themselves and others?

 

[Sebastian]

They have the power. Not the authority. They will never have that.

Come again?

 

[OptimusPrime]

Come again?

Passing such a law would be a blatant violation of a parent's right to raise their child, whether or not the mob agrees.

 

[Sebastian]

Passing such a law would be a blatant violation of a parent's right to raise their child, whether or not the mob agrees.

There are many laws that regulate a parents' behavior towards their child. What makes this all the more onerous?

 

[Jack Brickman]

Passing such a law would be a blatant violation of a parent's right to raise their child, whether or not the mob agrees.

So is passing a rabies vaccination law therefore a blatant violation of my right to raise my dog as I see fit? Because I am definitely required by law to get those vaccinations. I really don't see the difference. In fact, I'd wager that more people are put at serious risk by non-vaccinated children than by dogs without rabies shots.

 

[OptimusPrime]

There are many laws that regulate a parents' behavior towards their child. What makes this all the more onerous?

Any law that doesn't involve hurting the child is equally onerous. Just because they already violate rights doesn't mean they should do it some more.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Any law that doesn't involve hurting the child is equally onerous. Just because they already violate rights doesn't mean they should do it some more.

Couldn't it be argued that not vaccinating a child is hurting him/her? Given that by not doing so you are exposing them to deadly diseases, it doesn't seem like a tough argument.

 

[OptimusPrime]

So is passing a rabies vaccination law therefore a blatant violation of my right to raise my dog as I see fit? Because I am definitely required by law to get those vaccinations. I really don't see the difference. In fact, I'd wager that more people are put at serious risk by non-vaccinated children than by dogs without rabies shots.

Of course it is, but you will happily do whatever they tell you to do, so it doesn't affect you.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Of course it is, but you will happily do whatever they tell you to do, so it doesn't affect you.

Well, at least now I know that you're trolling.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Couldn't it be argued that not vaccinating a child is hurting him/her? Given that by not doing so you are exposing them to deadly diseases, it doesn't seem like a tough argument.

No, it couldn't. You aren't exposing them to anything. Unless you suggest that letting your child out of the house is hurting them by exposing them to getting hit by a car.