[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Parents are usually not medically qualified to make such decisions. My default position would be to listen to medical professionals

There's a difference between highly encouraging people to take medical advice, and legally mandating them to undergo medical procedures. The latter is a very, very slippery slope in my opinion. Personal bodily autonomy is a cornerstone of a free society and taking that right away will never be the right path.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

That's a really silly comparison tbh mainly because the people at risk from the flu are usually the first to be offered the flu jab.

It also doesn't really contradict what I'm saying at all. People don't get the flu jab so it's okay for illnesses that can be vaccinated againt to spread among children? Weird argument but k.

Many people can be unaware that they have an underlying condition? My point is many healthcare workers in hospitals and clinics have the flu jab routinely offered but they don't have to take it up and no one is accusing them of being negligent by not doing so

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's a difference between highly encouraging people to take medical advice, and legally mandating them to undergo medical procedures. The latter is a very, very slippery slope in my opinion. Personal bodily autonomy is a cornerstone of a free society and taking that right away will never be the right path.

Yeah but its not personal bodily autonomy though, it's either parents deciding for their kids or medical professionals

[user104658]

Speaking of ignorance and something that the general public is mostly ignorant to:

Influenza is SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous than measles. Yet people react to news of someone having the flu like its the common cold, and react to an outbreak of measles like ebola or the plague. The general level of knowledge around basic health is abysmal.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah but its not personal bodily autonomy though, it's either parents deciding for their kids or medical professionals

That's the thing

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah but its not personal bodily autonomy though, it's either parents deciding for their kids or medical professionals

Parental consent should always come before intervention by the authorities other than in really extreme circumstances, surely?

[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]

Next parents choosing to reject treated water or pasteurized food bc they read on some nutty blog that its harmful?

[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

Next parents choosing to reject treated water or pasteurized food bc they read on some nutty blog that its harmful?

So you want the government to mandate diet as well? Maybe we'll start getting soylent green deliveries.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So you want the government to mandate diet as well? Maybe we'll start getting soylent green deliveries.

Don't they intervene already? Sugar tax is inevitable in future

[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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Don't they intervene already? Sugar tax is inevitable in future

Again, that's not an intervention. Sugar being made completely illegal wouldn't be an intervention.

Saying "Your child must eat Brocolli or they will be taken into care" would be your direct comparison here.

[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

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again, that's not an intervention. Sugar being made completely illegal wouldn't be an intervention.

Saying "Your child must eat Brocolli or they will be taken into care" would be your direct comparison here.

You're overreacting

[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.

[Twosugars]

I'm not that arsed about it all TS as personally I decided not to breed. But I worry when science is being undermined. Anti vac movement is part of that imo.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

You're overreacting

I'm reacting appropriately to the idea of state controlled parenting, and the idea that "it would stop at vaccination" is IMO naive.

There are myriad things happening today that would have been branded "an overreaction" if suggested a couple of years ago. No?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

You can make an argument that unvaccinated kids help spreading diseases. As I said, a societal dimension of an individual decision

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

I'm not that arsed about it all TS as personally I decided not to breed. But I worry when science is being undermined. Anti vac movement is part of that imo.

The anti-vaxx movement is indeed absolutely packed with junk "science" but the antidote to that isn't more lies, scare tactics and authoritarianism. It's doubling down on the real scientific facts.

[Twosugars]

Any chance for a naked wrestle to settle our little argument?