[user104658]

So we're now advocating for medical professionals and the government having the final say over parents wishes?

Well. **** do I even have to respond to that?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So we're now advocating for medical professionals and the government having the final say over parents wishes?

Well. **** do I even have to respond to that?

It'd stop genital mutilation

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

It'd stop genital mutilation

Genital mutilation should be illegal anyway, and legally blocking a medical procedure is entirely different to legally obligating one.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So we're now advocating for medical professionals and the government having the final say over parents wishes?

Well. **** do I even have to respond to that?

What about adding fluorine to water? Or any form of sanitary intervention?
Do you want an opt out from that too?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

What about adding fluorine to water? Or any form of sanitary intervention?

Do you want an opt out from that too?

You can opt out of that quite easily by not using tap water as drinking water. What other bodily intervention is legally mandated? Also why would you put vaccination under the heading of sanitation?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You can opt out of that quite easily by not using tap water as drinking water. What other bodily intervention is legally mandated? Also why would you put vaccination under the heading of sanitation?

As it's designed to stop spreading diseases then yes
Not that different from sanitation designed to stop spreading diseases

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

As it's designed to stop spreading diseases then yes

Not that different from sanitation designed to stop spreading diseases

It is entirely different but I don't even know where to start in stating why, if it's not just plain obvious. Nanny state gone wild here. I find this genuinely scary . Not sure if people realise that they are effectively advocating for universal state guardianship? It's actually BEYOND Orwell at this point.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It is entirely different but I don't even know where to start in stating why, if it's not just plain obvious. Nanny state gone wild here. I find this genuinely scary . Not sure if people realise that they are effectively advocating for universal state guardianship? It's actually BEYOND Orwell at this point.

Jabs are not only about the individual but also have epidemiological, societal importance.

Nobody is forcing anybody afaik, but robust medical recommendations should be hard to ignore

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Nobody is forcing anybody afaik, but robust medical recommendations should be hard to ignore

I agree with that wholeheartedly and again have said that several times, but again, read the first two responses on this thread. The first is that "not vaccinating should be illegal", the second is the horrific suggestion that unvaccinated children should be removed from their parents by social services.

It IS advocating for force, quite openly. That's literally all I'm arguing against here. Again, I've pointed out several times that vaccinating is clearly the sensible option on balance of risk and should be heavily encouraged.