Horribly Irresponsible Governor says Parents Should Have Choice about Vaccinations

Cavemonster said:
When i drive, I risk my own life and the lives of others. If I enroll my kid in karate class and I'm taking six extra car trips a week, I'm adding risk both to me and my kid and to everyone else on the road. But we would probably never dream of making extracurricular car trips illegal.
Click to expand...

You've chosen an example more apt than you probably realise: do we not force drivers and passengers to wear a seatbelt, and keep their vehicles in good operating condition so as to mitigate risk, and punish those who do not respect the rules of the road so as to protect others, up to and including revoking their driving privileges ?
 
Belz... said:
You've chosen an example more apt than you probably realise: do we not force drivers and passengers to wear a seatbelt, and keep their vehicles in good operating condition so as to mitigate risk, and punish those who do not respect the rules of the road so as to protect others, up to and including revoking their driving privileges ?
Click to expand...

We absolutely do, and I'm a bit insulted that you seem to assume I hadn't thought about our driving regulations.

There is a line however about which choices we regulate. We mandate seatbelts and inspections and outlaw drunk or distracted driving or speeding. But something we have never done and likely will never do is outlaw unnecessary car trips, even though it represents a measurable level of risk to one's own children and others.

The mere fact of raising risk for onesself and others isn't justification for government action.
 
Cavemonster said:
We absolutely do, and I'm a bit insulted that you seem to assume I hadn't thought about our driving regulations.
Click to expand...

You're insulted by a projection of me that you've conjured up, because I didn't insult you.

There is a line however about which choices we regulate.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and the line will be exactly where people decide it is. It's always about how bad a risk you feel something is.

We mandate seatbelts and inspections and outlaw drunk or distracted driving or speeding. But something we have never done and likely will never do is outlaw unnecessary car trips, even though it represents a measurable level of risk to one's own children and others.
Click to expand...

And I say that mandatory vaccination, which is (here, anyway) free and without serious discomfort, is more akin to driving with your seatbelt on.

Do you disagree ?
 
Belz... said:
You've chosen an example more apt than you probably realise: do we not force drivers and passengers to wear a seatbelt, and keep their vehicles in good operating condition so as to mitigate risk, and punish those who do not respect the rules of the road so as to protect others, up to and including revoking their driving privileges ?
Click to expand...

The auto creates new risks to be addressed and it is not essential to drive.

Unvaccinated people create no additional risk from before vaccinations.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
The auto creates new risks to be addressed and it is not essential to drive.

Unvaccinated people create no additional risk from before vaccinations.
Click to expand...

Exactly we need to stop conceptualizing dead children as some great tragedy and accept that it is something most parents will go through as 1/3 of children will die from childhood illnesses. Loosing a couple of kids to these diseases is a natural part of being a parent.
 
Belz... said:
No, actually. The analogy is that we regulate things that pose a risk to other people, quite simply. You're twisting the analogy.
Click to expand...


We obviously don't just regulate things. For example, we can't use cars as a case for banning religion because it creates risk. There are other factors that need to be considered and the car regulations don't address it.
 
Belz... said:
And I say that mandatory vaccination, which is (here, anyway) free and without serious discomfort, is more akin to driving with your seatbelt on.

Do you disagree ?
Click to expand...

I do. I think it is more akin to making drunk driving illegal.

Yes, it is your decision whether or not you take your life in your own hands, but it is not your decision to endanger the lives of others. By failing to vaccinate yourself or those you are in charge of, that is exactly what you are doing.

No one has the personal freedom to harm others.
 
Belz... said:
You're insulted by a projection of me that you've conjured up, because I didn't insult you.
Click to expand...

I apologize, but I'm having a hard time finding a way to read this statement:

You've chosen an example more apt than you probably realise: do we not force drivers and passengers to (snip)
Click to expand...

as anything other than a suggestion that I probably wasn't thinking about driving regulations existing when I posted about the driving regulations we do not have. So I'll take your word that's not how you meant it, but I'm then curious about what you were trying to say.

Exactly, and the line will be exactly where people decide it is. It's always about how bad a risk you feel something is.
Click to expand...


If it's purely about feelings, then no amount of discussion will get us anywhere and any opinion is as valid as any other. I don't think you believe either of those things.

Rather, while emotions play a part, I think we also weigh the comparative imposition of the legal intervention, the level and likelihood and type of risk, the predicted level of success of a legal intervention and, when we're smart we weigh all those things for alternatives to legal intervention by force.

Although, there is no objective way to measure liberty against safety in various forms, the process ought to be about more than how freaked out a risk makes us. Legislating based solely on how we feel about a risk has led to some very terrible things.

Right now people feel very freaked out about GMOs. Should we ban them?

[/QUOTE]
And I say that mandatory vaccination, which is (here, anyway) free and without serious discomfort, is more akin to driving with your seatbelt on.

Do you disagree ?[/QUOTE]

I've already given my two main worries about mandatory vaccination in another post. I think both worries are valid and both rise to a far higher level than comparable worries about seatbelts, so no, I don't agree that forced vaccination is akin to legally enforced seatbelt use.
 
I'm a little bothered that parents wouldn't want to protect their child from disease. Something about "loving parents" and all.
 
Is there really any major risk to people because of people who were never vaccinated.
In Great Britain there has usually been one or two deaths from measles and vaccinations are not compulsory. In the US how many deaths have there been.

The risk is probably greater to those people who have immune problems or are too young to be vaccinated from people like me going out with a cough or flu like symptoms.

I am in favor of vaccines but do not like people being told they are required to get them for their children. It seems to be working fine here as it is and in other countries where they not compulsory.

There are other things allowed that cause many more innocents to die (alcohol being number one, maybe guns being number two, ). Should they all be outlawed or behavior mandated.
 
Upchurch said:
I do. I think it is more akin to making drunk driving illegal.

Yes, it is your decision whether or not you take your life in your own hands, but it is not your decision to endanger the lives of others. By failing to vaccinate yourself or those you are in charge of, that is exactly what you are doing.

No one has the personal freedom to harm others.
Click to expand...

But that is a situation where action creates additional risks that does not exist absent alcohol or cars.

That isn't a great comparison to a vaccine that must be inserted into your body and that creates no additional risk. Certainly taking it makes everyone safer, but not taking means we are as safe as before vaccines.

Here is my analogy twist with a little inspiration from the super bowl. Suppose a chip comes out that can be placed in the brain and alters our chemistry to improve dexterity. This will reduce preventable accidents. A minority does not want the perfectly safe chip because they feel it makes them something other than human. Does society have a right to mandate the surgery?
 
marplots said:
I'm a little bothered that parents wouldn't want to protect their child from disease. Something about "loving parents" and all.
Click to expand...
They ,incorrectly, believe there is a greater risk involved with the vaccine than the disease.

Some may also believe and maybe correctly that as long as everyone else is getting it the risk of my child having a vaccination is greater than not.
People I know it is the former reason not the latter.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Here is my analogy twist with a little inspiration from the super bowl. Suppose a chip comes out that can be placed in the brain and alters our chemistry to improve dexterity. This will reduce preventable accidents. A minority does not want the perfectly safe chip because they feel it makes them something other than human. Does society have a right to mandate the surgery?
Click to expand...

Society has the right to mandate it, and I have the right to remove myself from that society. Pretty much like everything else.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Unvaccinated people create no additional risk from before vaccinations.
Click to expand...

Not true.

An outbreak of a disease in LA of 1914 would have taken years to spread to 14 states, not weeks. Vaccines have allowed us to create a worldwide travel network without major quarantine issues.

Maybe we should just have a 2 week quarantine for the unvaccinated when they want to cross state lines.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Not true.

An outbreak of a disease in LA of 1914 would have taken years to spread to 14 states, not weeks. Vaccines have allowed us to create a worldwide travel network without major quarantine issues.

Maybe we should just have a 2 week quarantine for the unvaccinated when they want to cross state lines go out in public.
Click to expand...
ftfy
 
BobTheCoward said:
We obviously don't just regulate things. For example, we can't use cars as a case for banning religion because it creates risk. There are other factors that need to be considered and the car regulations don't address it.
Click to expand...

I'm using it as an analogy to illustrate a point, not as a legal precedent. Maybe you have me confused with another poster.
 
Cavemonster said:
If it's purely about feelings, then no amount of discussion will get us anywhere and any opinion is as valid as any other. I don't think you believe either of those things.
Click to expand...

That conclusion does not follow from the premise. You can ultimately reach all your conclusions based on personal preferences but still use logic and facts as additional factors. In the end, it's like abortion: the exact week of pregnancy after which abortions are made illegal will depend on how people feel about that decision as opposed to other options. It's not like measuring a car's speed.

I think both worries are valid and both rise to a far higher level than comparable worries about seatbelts, so no, I don't agree that forced vaccination is akin to legally enforced seatbelt use.
Click to expand...

It protects you and your passengers from harm and from hurting each other and other people outside your vehicle by becoming human missiles, so I still think it's an apt analogy.
 
Cavemonster said:
I apologize, but I'm having a hard time finding a way to read this statement:



as anything other than a suggestion that I probably wasn't thinking about driving regulations existing when I posted about the driving regulations we do not have. So I'll take your word that's not how you meant it, but I'm then curious about what you were trying to say.
Click to expand...

I'm saying I did not insult you. Why is it insulting to imply that you didn't think about all the implications of your example ? I'm genuinely perplexed.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Not true.

An outbreak of a disease in LA of 1914 would have taken years to spread to 14 states, not weeks. Vaccines have allowed us to create a worldwide travel network without major quarantine issues.

Maybe we should just have a 2 week quarantine for the unvaccinated when they want to cross state lines.
Click to expand...

A most convincing argument.
 
Belz... said:
That conclusion does not follow from the premise. You can ultimately reach all your conclusions based on personal preferences but still use logic and facts as additional factors.
Click to expand...

My premise used the word "purely" about feelings.
 
Belz... said:
I'm saying I did not insult you. Why is it insulting to imply that you didn't think about all the implications of your example ? I'm genuinely perplexed.
Click to expand...

I did not say that you attempted to insult me. I said I felt insulted by the statement that I probably didn't think through the implications.

Telling someone that they probably didn't think of something that's fairly obvious is equivalent to telling them they aren't very smart, and while it may not be an intentional insult, it is insulting and generally considered rude.
 
Sorry- I find this thread turning to a highly theoretical philosophy that I find is common in certain forms of libertarianism. We are not talking some abstract philosophy. We are discussing public health policies that have saved many people's lives, and obviously (due to the concern about parental "rights") have been watered down so as to allow dangerous diseases to infect people in real life (including those too young or immunosuppressed to be vaccinated even if they or their parents' wanted vaccinations). This is not a theory. Quarantines legally limit the "rights" of people a great deal, and reflect only the possibility of a risk to others. Vaccines are far less intrusive in terms of individual rights, and there is no real reason (other than some extreme view of "rights") to not have your children vaccinated, as well as yourself. We routinely limit "personal rights" when there is potential harm to another person. If the basis of the personal decision goes against well established science and health policy, I find myself unconcerned about limiting someone else's right to hurt me. One can always make a purely personal decision (even if it is stupid). One also has some right to make a decision that might modestly affect me, if it is a logical and reasonable decision (I will accept the risk of someone driving a car because they want to to get to a grocery, but not the risk of someone driving a car because they plan to get to Mars by Route 1).
 
So parents can be charged and their children taken away because they are left alone or walking home from school (unlike the olden days), leave your car idling with a kid in it while you go pay for gas and you can be charged but don't vaccinate your kid that now can become a vector spreading disease and even possibly killing others... and the government says it's a parent's choice, even though they stick their heads into citizens business all the time?

I just don't get how they pick & choose the different facets of being the nanny.
 
hgc said:
The governor [ . . . ] was only willing to say that he vaccinates his own children and other people should do what they like, when, as a public official, he should be strongly advocating that everyone vaccinate their children.
Click to expand...
In the UK Tony Blair sort of did the opposite in 2001--saying that the public should vaccinate their children for MMR but refusing to say that he had done this with his son.

That was widely condemned too.
 
Know what else is impinging on our personal freedoms? According to one US Senator, it's food service employees having to wash their hands.


“I was having a discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like ‘maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,’” <...>

“She says, for example, don’t you believe that this regulation that requires this gentleman to wash his hands before he serves you food is important?” Tillis recalled. “I said: ‘I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom.’”
Click to expand...


I can't help but think that this is tied to Christie's little bit of fence sitting.
 
Francesca R said:
In the UK Tony Blair sort of did the opposite in 2001--saying that the public should vaccinate their children for MMR but refusing to say that he had done this with his son.

That was widely condemned too.
Click to expand...


I am led to believe that Cherie Blair is very into woo nonsense. She may have prevented their children from being vaccinated once upon a time, but then that would have been before the vax-autism hoax reared its ugly head.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm interested in the implication that you seem to be able to enforce a de-facto compulsory vaccination programme. I'm doubtful that this would fly in this country. Therefore my on-topic point was, this position is normal in many other countries, so I have trouble classifying it as "horribly irresponsible" when I see it in super-libertarian America.
Click to expand...

Sorry, "super-libertarian America"? Could you tell me where that is? I've certainly never seen it anywhere but in the minds of a few fringe whackjobs, and a whole lot of leftists playing with their straw men.

It's long been a principle in this country that your right to "freedom" end when you become a clear and present danger to others. The only debate is over how you define "clear and present danger". The latest outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and other diseases that should have been all but eliminated by now are a pretty clear indicator that the unvaccinated do constitute a clear and present danger to society at large.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Not true.

An outbreak of a disease in LA of 1914 would have taken years to spread to 14 states, not weeks. Vaccines have allowed us to create a worldwide travel network without major quarantine issues.
Click to expand...
The first measles vaccine wasn't introduced until 1961, well after the start of the boom in in national and international travel networks.

Do you recall the repeated waves of measles pandemics that ravaged North America in the 1950s and 1960s? No? But there was no vaccine! How ever did people manage?

Maybe we should just have a 2 week quarantine for the unvaccinated when they want to cross state lines.
Click to expand...
Why? Are you afraid they're going to give you measles?
 
theprestige said:
The first measles vaccine wasn't introduced until 1961, well after the start of the boom in in national and international travel networks.

Do you recall the repeated waves of measles pandemics that ravaged North America in the 1950s and 1960s? No? But there was no vaccine! How ever did people manage?
Click to expand...

There wasn't pandemics because measles was endemic. And a people managed by having a fair percentage of them dying and being crippled. Like Roald Dahl's daughter. But then people knew better than to make a big deal out of a few dead kids.
 
theprestige said:
The first measles vaccine wasn't introduced until 1961, well after the start of the boom in in national and international travel networks.

Do you recall the repeated waves of measles pandemics that ravaged North America in the 1950s and 1960s? No? But there was no vaccine! How ever did people manage?
Click to expand...
Actually I do remember the endemics of measles that ravaged North America in the 1950s and 1960s. A huge number became sick, including my brother and sister. Luckily, only some of them became blind, or deaf, or sterile, or died. People managed by hoping that their kids would be infected in mid childhood, when the complications were serious, but a bit less dangerous than if infected as adults or babies. The people who suffered the most serious symptoms were buried, placed in special care facilities, or did the best they could with their handicaps.

Measles is one of the most infectious viruses known. There is no specific treatment once you are infected. It is estimated that measles killed 15.6 million people per year before the vaccine. It still killed 96,000 people world-wide in 2013 (the reduction is largely due to the availability of the vaccine in many places). So how did people manage? A lot of them died (I've been waiting to paraphrase that quote from Alien Resurrection for years...).
 
Last edited:
What this issue has done is remind me why my flirtation with Libertariansim was so brief.
It's just plain stupid.
And appeals to the anarchist mindset.
 
I am happy that people born since vaccination became common can be so dismissive of the horror of the diseases that they did not experience due to vaccination. I am pleased that they have missed the terror and the illnesses that stalked society before vaccination. Unfortunately, it appears that human nature makes it difficult to appreciate the progress without personally experiencing what came before. It is sad that we must have a measles outbreak, or Ebola (which we do not yet have a vaccine against) to truly appreciate what we have tended to take for granted,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom