|
> ... endorse the use of violence on people who-- for whatever reasons-- choose to make a different choice about the healthcare of their children. > It is one thing to incarcerate, or kill if they resist, someone who has committed a crime like murder or rape. It is quite another for you to endorse the use of violence for the "Crime" of not being politically correct. By not getting vaccinations, they are putting other people's health at risk (cf. herd immunity, and children too young to be vaccinated). This is not simply an issue of free choice or ideology. This is not an issue of just what the consequences are to themselves (if it were, I wouldn't have issue). The issue is that they are endangering the lives of others. Force, or the threat of force, is a reasonable response to the endangerment of human lives. I would go so far as to say that it's qualitatively similar to murder (though quantitatively smaller). We have several documented cases every year of infants too young to receive the vaccination dying of whooping cough that they contracted from unvaccinated adults. "Things are not up for debate" only in the sense that no amount of rhetoric can disprove an empirically proven fact. The facts, which were arrived at through science, are that vaccines save lives, and that when individuals are not vaccinated they put not just themselves but other people at danger as well. In the hypothetical, were science to discover new facts disproving this, I would revise my opinion, but these facts have been established over such a long time by so many studies that I consider the odds not just remote but literally impossible. My experience, and you may be an exception although I doubt it, is that people who are ideologically opposed to vaccines have read scientific studies, but aren't actually familiar with science as a process. That is to say, they read a study, and think that it's science and its conclusion must be true. Evaluating a study means also examining its process for sources of bias, examining alternative explanations, and reproducing results in repeated studies. The effectiveness of vaccines and the concept of herd immunity has gone through that process. Anti-vaccination literature that I have seen does not withstand that process. |
Of course you doubt it because you've been taught that anyone who disagrees with this position is a religious nut.
Reality is, I'm a scientist and an athiest. I'm not even taking a position against vaccination.
I'm just pointing out that your side is engaged in a witch hunt based on name calling... not on science.
You failed to provide any science, but you made sicentific claims that are... vague at best, and certainly not supported by any evidence you have provided.