Probably because they felt the need to draw the line somewhere to prevent hypothetical five year olds from demanding a dangerous cocktail of innoculants from every pharmacy in town, and probably the sense that at 12 you've developed enough for your sense of agency to be respected.
I picked 12 because that is the age of medical privacy in my state. It is consistent with the grade level at which schools teach comprehensive sexual health.
> they felt the need to draw the line somewhere to prevent hypothetical five year olds
> probably the sense that at 12
I think you get the point. 12 is entirely arbitrary. Some children might well be able to make sound choices like this at that age. Some definitely will not. You're advocating for a line at which parents lose their right to be parents while maintaining the rest of the responsibility for raising the child. You want to put the government in control. I think you need more than a sense before taking that step.
This is one of those ideas that sounds good mostly to people who don't have the responsibility of being parents.
Yes, I get the point that you couldn't muster an actual argument so resorted to an overly broad question that intentionally ignored context.
And I'm not advocating for anything, I just hate the insincerity that comes from people asking questions like that. Its also a little whiffy that you're trotting out the 'some kids will make good choices' bit with regards to this age range and the ability to ask a doctor for a vaccination - we normally reserve that line of reasoning where making a bad decision is attractive and an adult might also not behave responsibly.
Also point of order - what are you talking about, 'government control'? The topic at hand was literally whether 12 was an appropriate age to start respecting a persons wishes when it came to seeking a vaccination. It is troubling that you see that as government control, and troubling that you see this as 'losing your right as a parent'
> Yes, I get the point that you couldn't muster an actual argument
Don't be a dick. It was a legitimate question. And no amount of insinuations or insults on your part changes that. Your points are very weak for someone advocating for getting the gov't more deeply involved in everyone's affairs.
And if you don't think some 12 year olds are wildly incapable of making good medical choices, I don't know what to say.
I don't get it - the government is what gives you your current legal authority over your offspring, and someone suggests less of that power, and you're saying the government is getting more involved? It makes it difficult to take you seriously.
Why does 12 sound arbitrary to you?