"Sick Privilege

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Non-medical exemptions for vaccination should be banned and people who refuse to let their children be vaccinated for non-medical reasons should see them taken away.

[Indy Texas]

No, but I think if you forbade health insurance companies from insuring children who were not vaccinated, you'd see a lot fewer opt-outs. (Or, at least, removed coverage for treatment for "preventable" illnesses like measles where if you got it, it's because you chose not to be vaccinated.)

[Free Bird]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

[Indy Texas]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

So you're okay with a measles outbreak in America in 2015 because "Muh freedoms, I don't want no vaccinations givin' muh kids the autism."

People who are that stupid shouldn't have the right to reproduce.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

I agree with you on this point mostly, but I am curious: how do you feel about requiring chemotherapy for child cancer patients when the parents' religious beliefs don't allow so. I feel like the government needs to defend that child's right to live when the parents are impeding that.

Also, I'd be surprised if this has to do with religious reasons - I saw a map the other day that confirmed my suspicion in that Oregon was the national leader in opt-outs and the south mostly lagged behind.

[Free Bird]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

So you're okay with a measles outbreak in America in 2015 because "Muh freedoms, I don't want no vaccinations givin' muh kids the autism."

People who are that stupid shouldn't have the right to reproduce.

Not out of TEH AUTISM but out of religious freedom. Children are INKSing people too not assets. If parents were sensible, then they would. It's like The Draft. Maybe have the kids decide too. As for smilo, no, parents and the child should decide, but ultimately for the child. The government, no matter what you say, has no place in family matters. If you guys don't want them in people's bedrooms, then keep them out of living rooms, too.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion.

Why should I care? Parents should have far less individual agency over children than they do now. We cannot afford to see suffering and disease like this because someone's sky fairy tells them that modern medicine is a Satanic plot.

[SWE]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

Do the children not have a right to not catch measles?

[H. Ross Peron]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

Children aren't the property of muh parents either. Preventing vaccination for religious reasons is no more "Freedom of Religion" than sacrificing one's children to Moloch is freedom of religion or pedophilic sexual rituals is freedom of religion.

[Indy Texas]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

So you're okay with a measles outbreak in America in 2015 because "Muh freedoms, I don't want no vaccinations givin' muh kids the autism."

People who are that stupid shouldn't have the right to reproduce.

Not out of TEH AUTISM but out of religious freedom. Children are INKSing people too not assets. If parents were sensible, then they would. It's like The Draft. Maybe have the kids decide too. As for smilo, no, parents and the child should decide, but ultimately for the child. The government, no matter what you say, has no place in family matters. If you guys don't want them in people's bedrooms, then keep them out of living rooms, too.

Just stop. Religious freedom in this country the way "the Founding Fathers wanted it" - since your ilk are so concerned about us never going beyond having our lives dictated into eternity by wealthy 18th century plantation owners - does not go beyond the federal government having no official established church.

It's not license to do whatever you want and obtain special privileges because your personal religious beliefs are your justification for why you don't feel like doing something.

Putting your child in a position where they can contract a disease that is preventable by vaccination is abuse and neglect. I suppose you think we should get rid of CPS too.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes, clearly getting measles is worse than being taken from your family as a child...

[Indy Texas]

Yes, clearly getting measles is worse than being taken from your family as a child...

Getting measles is worse than your parents being compelled by law to stop being idiots and get you vaccinated against measles.

Children are not property of their parents. They are wards of their parents and when parents exercise poor judgment in caring or not caring for them, it is the right and obligation of the government, in the public interest, to intervene.

This is no different than the idiots in Pakistan who refuse to let their kids get the polio vaccine because clearly it's all a big trick by the Imperialist-Zionist Plot to Undermine Our Traditional Islamic Values. Replace "Imperialist-Zionist" with "Liberal-UN-NWO" and "Islamic" with "Christian/American."

[Deus Naturae]

Yes, clearly getting measles is worse than being taken from your family as a child...

Getting measles is worse than your parents being compelled by law to stop being idiots and get you vaccinated against measles.

Children are not property of their parents. They are wards of their parents and when parents exercise poor judgment in caring or not caring for them, it is the right and obligation of the government, in the public interest, to intervene.

This is no different than the idiots in Pakistan who refuse to let their kids get the polio vaccine because clearly it's all a big trick by the Imperialist-Zionist Plot to Undermine Our Traditional Islamic Values. Replace "Imperialist-Zionist" with "Liberal-UN-NWO" and "Islamic" with "Christian/American."

I doubt that these people are NWO conspiracy theorists. More likely just gullible, easily frightened parents.

[Flake]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

"VACCINES INFRINGE ON MY AND OTHERS FREEDOM OF RELIGION BUT EVEN THOUGH I WOULDN'T DO THIS TO MY KIDS THESE PARENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO LET THEIR KIDS GET THE MUMPS/MEASLES/POLIO."

Context of next thing:

[Indy Texas]

Yes, clearly getting measles is worse than being taken from your family as a child...

Getting measles is worse than your parents being compelled by law to stop being idiots and get you vaccinated against measles.

Children are not property of their parents. They are wards of their parents and when parents exercise poor judgment in caring or not caring for them, it is the right and obligation of the government, in the public interest, to intervene.

This is no different than the idiots in Pakistan who refuse to let their kids get the polio vaccine because clearly it's all a big trick by the Imperialist-Zionist Plot to Undermine Our Traditional Islamic Values. Replace "Imperialist-Zionist" with "Liberal-UN-NWO" and "Islamic" with "Christian/American."

I doubt that these people are NWO conspiracy theorists. More likely just gullible, easily frightened parents.

All the more reason they shouldn't have this much discretion over their children's healthcare.

[bedstuy]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

So you're okay with a measles outbreak in America in 2015 because "Muh freedoms, I don't want no vaccinations givin' muh kids the autism."

People who are that stupid shouldn't have the right to reproduce.

Not out of TEH AUTISM but out of religious freedom. Children are INKSing people too not assets. If parents were sensible, then they would. It's like The Draft. Maybe have the kids decide too. As for smilo, no, parents and the child should decide, but ultimately for the child. The government, no matter what you say, has no place in family matters. If you guys don't want them in people's bedrooms, then keep them out of living rooms, too.

This is blatantly insane.  I can understand the religious exemption for vaccines.  But, for cancer treatment?  Insane.  Sure, maybe there are cases where chemo is useless because you're too far gone.  But, there are plenty of cases of cancer where radiation plus chemo = 99% chance to survive and no treatment means death.  Not providing care to a child in that situation is neglect.  

You don't just let parents kill their children by neglect, even if that neglect is because of the parent's sincere beliefs.  Would you also allow parents to starve their children?  To kill them because they think God said so?  Parental rights are important sure.  But, you can just let people abuse or neglect their children.  

Personally, I don't think we should necessarily force parents to vaccinate.  Forcing people to do anything is difficult and problematic.  Maybe you can just hit parents with a fine if they refuse to vaccinate their kids.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

They're becoming a public health hazard. I'm starting to come around to the thought that religious exemptions for vaccines don't make any more sense than a religious exemption for ritual human sacrifice does. People's lives > people's liberty in extreme cases.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Certainly, California needs to dump it's "philosophical exemption" for vaccinations. If a child is to attend public schools or enter public hospitals, that child needs to be vaccinated for the safety of himself and those around him. Period.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Found the map for who's doing this by state. Vermont, Michigan, Oregon, Idaho, and Illinois make your top 5.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Yes, clearly getting measles is worse than being taken from your family as a child...

I agree. A debilitating disease like the measles is much worse than being taken away from my parents.

[Indy Texas]

Found the map for who's doing this by state. Vermont, Michigan, Oregon, Idaho, and Illinois make your top 5.

I don't see what your point is. Culturally liberal, granola-y people can be stupid and narrow-minded just as easily as culturally conservative Christians can. Anti-vaccine and anti-GMO rhetoric are the Cultural Left's biggest sins against science, just as anti-global warming and anti-evolution rhetoric are the Cultural Right's biggest sins against it. I don't believe either group has a right to act in ways that contravene public health.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I didn't really have a point other than to show it really doesn't seem to be getting done for religious reasons. Some can be explained by mistrust of the government (Idaho, Oregon, maybe a little Vermont) and some by the cultural left (Oregon, Vermont, maybe Illinois). I just thought the visual was nice to add to the thread.

[Sol]

No, but I think if you forbade health insurance companies from insuring children who were not vaccinated, you'd see a lot fewer opt-outs. (Or, at least, removed coverage for treatment for "preventable" illnesses like measles where if you got it, it's because you chose not to be vaccinated.)

The issue with removing coverage is that people who got the vaccine might get measles when they normally wouldn't because of herd immunity.

[Free Bird]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion.

Why should I care? Parents should have far less individual agency over children than they do now. We cannot afford to see suffering and disease like this because someone's sky fairy tells them that modern medicine is a Satanic plot.

THE GREATER GOOD! That's all I'm hearing from you right now. Parents should have all agency over their kids.

[Free Bird]

No. Even if it makes no logical sense, they still may have religious reasons for it, and confiscating the kids because of that would interfere with Freedom of Religion. I understand a government that isn't all-powerful is a foreign concept to this forum, but people still have their rights. Children aren't the property of muh guvment, and this very idea that they can force parents to put something in their kid's bodies is sickening.

So you're okay with a measles outbreak in America in 2015 because "Muh freedoms, I don't want no vaccinations givin' muh kids the autism."

People who are that stupid shouldn't have the right to reproduce.

Not out of TEH AUTISM but out of religious freedom. Children are INKSing people too not assets. If parents were sensible, then they would. It's like The Draft. Maybe have the kids decide too. As for smilo, no, parents and the child should decide, but ultimately for the child. The government, no matter what you say, has no place in family matters. If you guys don't want them in people's bedrooms, then keep them out of living rooms, too.

This is blatantly insane.  I can understand the religious exemption for vaccines.  But, for cancer treatment?  Insane.  Sure, maybe there are cases where chemo is useless because you're too far gone.  But, there are plenty of cases of cancer where radiation plus chemo = 99% chance to survive and no treatment means death.  Not providing care to a child in that situation is neglect.  

You don't just let parents kill their children by neglect, even if that neglect is because of the parent's sincere beliefs.  Would you also allow parents to starve their children?  To kill them because they think God said so?  Parental rights are important sure.  But, you can just let people abuse or neglect their children.  

Personally, I don't think we should necessarily force parents to vaccinate.  Forcing people to do anything is difficult and problematic.  Maybe you can just hit parents with a fine if they refuse to vaccinate their kids.

That at least seems like a good compromise. It shows the importance while not treating a family bond like a disposable object