Current Events > France to make vaccinations for children mandatory in 2018

(+) Yeah! (+)

Polycosm posted...

JE19426 posted...

Polycosm posted...

But it must remain a voluntary decision at its core.

Why?

By default, I believe that an individual should have autonomy over his or her own body. It's immoral for the government to to forcibly inject chemicals into your body. It violates the non-aggression principle, to start with.

Admittedly, the NAP alone doesn't sufficiently handle all cases of child neglect. Obviously if a parent is starving his child then it's ethical for the government to intervene, separate the parent and offer the child food and water. However, force-feeding is another thing entirely (i.e. a form of torture which was inflicted on suffragettes, and more recently used in Guantanamo Bay).

I'm okay with governments exerting extreme social and economic pressures on antivaxxers and cutting them off from access to public services and spaces. I'm not okay with violating the sanctity of the individual in order to accomplish the end goal.

While I agree with you in theory, leaving that choice to parents can be very bad, as they put their children at risk. If they were to leave it as a choice the punishment for not getting your kids vaccinated should be on par with sever cases of child abuse. Only thing with that is you end up creating situations where kids could be taken away from their parents and thrown in to foster care, which doesn't help anyone.

The simplest solution is to just make it mandatory.
---

JE19426 posted...

Polycosm posted...

By default, I believe that an individual should have autonomy over his or her own body. It's immoral for the government to to forcibly inject chemicals into your body. It violates the non-aggression principle, to start with.

Children don't have autonomy over their bodies.

They have some degree of autonomy. Also, they're not born as property of the state; to the extent that children don't have full autonomy over their bodies, their parents/guardians are responsible for making up the difference.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

While I agree with you in theory, leaving that choice to parents can be very bad, as they put their children at risk. If they were to leave it as a choice the punishment for not getting your kids vaccinated should be on par with sever cases of child abuse. Only thing with that is you end up creating situations where kids could be taken away from their parents and thrown in to foster care, which doesn't help anyone.

The simplest solution is to just make it mandatory.

I sympathize with where you're coming from, and I agree that mandatory vaccination is far easier to implement than what I'd propose... but I also think that the harder solution is worth it to avoid laying a legal framework for the dystopian future depicted in The Giver.

Right now, most of us agree that vaccines are good and we want everyone to have them (though we may disagree on the means to accomplish our shared goal). But what happens if, in the future, the chemical compounds to be injected are legitimately up for scientific debate? Mandatory vaccinations set a dangerous precedent. It may seem safe now because the chemicals we're dealing with are well-vetted and scientifically sound. I don't necessarily trust things to remain that way forever with Big Pharma involved.
---

I'm pro vaccine, but anyone defending forced vaccination is an awful human being. Fucking authoritative statism is not the answer. For the reasons Polycosm mentioned.

Transcendentia posted...

In any case, it's pretty insane to treat unvaccinated people as some kind of leper. They don't need a scarlet letter or to be treated as lepers, dude. Nothing's going to happen just because you walk next to a person who was not vaccinated. I say this as someone who thinks anti-vaxxers are off their rockers.

I don't mean to depict unvaccinated people in such an extreme light, but we have a serious problem on our hands in the US when suddenly there are measles outbreaks happening in 2015, 2016... the danger is tangible.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

RockRapDubstep posted...

Good

---

Polycosm posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

While I agree with you in theory, leaving that choice to parents can be very bad, as they put their children at risk. If they were to leave it as a choice the punishment for not getting your kids vaccinated should be on par with sever cases of child abuse. Only thing with that is you end up creating situations where kids could be taken away from their parents and thrown in to foster care, which doesn't help anyone.

The simplest solution is to just make it mandatory.

I sympathize with where you're coming from, and I agree that mandatory vaccination is far easier to implement than what I'd propose... but I also think that the harder solution is worth it to avoid laying a legal framework for the dystopian future depicted in The Giver.

Right now, most of us agree that vaccines are good and we want everyone to have them (though we may disagree on the means to accomplish our shared goal). But what happens if, in the future, the chemical compounds to be injected are legitimately up for scientific debate? Mandatory vaccinations set a dangerous precedent. It may seem safe now because the chemicals we're dealing with are well-vetted and scientifically sound. I don't necessarily trust things to remain that way forever with Big Pharma involved.

And I agree 100%. It's just a very delicate subject. On one hand you have the rights of individuals vs. the well being of vulnerable persons and the safety of the general public.

As far as I am concerned if you are going to purposely ignore sound science in favour of your feelings and endanger other people through negligence and wanton disregard for whats best for society, you should be stripped of those rights.
---

Polycosm posted...

I don't mean to depict unvaccinated people in such an extreme light, but we have a serious problem on our hands in the US when suddenly there are measles outbreaks happening in 2015, 2016... the danger is tangible.

I hear there's a pretty reliable method of not getting measles.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

France is showing us the fuck up.
---

Deadpool_18 posted...

France is showing us the fuck up.

France is also stubbornly secular, which helps sometimes.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Polycosm posted...

I don't mean to depict unvaccinated people in such an extreme light, but we have a serious problem on our hands in the US when suddenly there are measles outbreaks happening in 2015, 2016... the danger is tangible.

I hear there's a pretty reliable method of not getting measles.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

Thats pretty much what this topic is about. Is forcing vaccines on people ethical?
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Polycosm posted...

I don't mean to depict unvaccinated people in such an extreme light, but we have a serious problem on our hands in the US when suddenly there are measles outbreaks happening in 2015, 2016... the danger is tangible.

I hear there's a pretty reliable method of not getting measles.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

Thats pretty much what this topic is about. Is forcing vaccines on people ethical?

It is not.

neat-o
---

Good, vaccines save lives
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Good, vaccines save lives

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Is forcing vaccines on people ethical?

No it is not.

Just because something is a really good idea, does not mean it should be mandatory.

Transcendentia posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Polycosm posted...

I don't mean to depict unvaccinated people in such an extreme light, but we have a serious problem on our hands in the US when suddenly there are measles outbreaks happening in 2015, 2016... the danger is tangible.

I hear there's a pretty reliable method of not getting measles.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

Thats pretty much what this topic is about. Is forcing vaccines on people ethical?

It is not.

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Is forcing vaccines on people ethical?

No it is not.

Just because something is a really good idea, does not mean it should be mandatory.

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

These people are so few and it is highly improbable that theyll ever have anything to worry about. they dont justify a government forcing medical procedures or vaccinations.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

For the same reason we haven't banned peanuts.

Transcendentia posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

These people are so few and it is highly improbable that theyll ever have anything to worry about. they dont justify a government forcing medical procedures or vaccinations.

So because they are such a small group we should just let them suffer the consequences of other peoples ignorance, instead of putting in measures to protect them.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

For the same reason we haven't banned peanuts.

What reason is that?
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

For the same reason we haven't banned peanuts.

What reason is that?

They're delicious
---

Feline_Heart posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

For the same reason we haven't banned peanuts.

What reason is that?

They're delicious

And even that is a more justifiable reason than, "My feelings and Jenny McCarthy tell me it's bad."
---

Transcendentia posted...

I'm pro vaccine, but anyone defending forced vaccination is an awful human being. Fucking authoritative statism is not the answer. For the reasons Polycosm mentioned.

So letting kids who can't get vaccinations for medical reasons, who actually want vaccinations, but literally can't have any get measles is better than forced vaccinations? Hell no.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

For the same reason we haven't banned peanuts.

What reason is that?

Because, the people who will die pretty much immediately when exposed to peanut dust, tend to be smart enough to avoid it.

If you cannot be vaccinated for measles, for some reason, don't go where there might be measles. Your right to body autonomy is not more important than mine.

LightHawKnight posted...

Transcendentia posted...

I'm pro vaccine, but anyone defending forced vaccination is an awful human being. Fucking authoritative statism is not the answer. For the reasons Polycosm mentioned.

So letting kids who can't get vaccinations for medical reasons, who actually want vaccinations, but literally can't have any get measles is better than forced vaccinations? Hell no.

Uh, yes it is better, much better. Because giving the government permission to forcefully put something inside everyone's bodies is a line that should never be crossed, ever. Hope you enjoy your nanomachines and tracking chips.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Transcendentia posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

These people are so few and it is highly improbable that theyll ever have anything to worry about. they dont justify a government forcing medical procedures or vaccinations.

So because they are such a small group we should just let them suffer the consequences of other peoples ignorance, instead of putting in measures to protect them.

You could say exactly the same thing about the small group of people that would be affected by side effects and even death because of vaccinations. They're rare, but they do happen and can happen. What about them?

The unfortunate reality we live in is that we can't legislate something just because of a handful of people who might be affected. Example: Just because some of us might die in car accidents doesn't mean we should ban cars.

LightHawKnight posted...

Transcendentia posted...

I'm pro vaccine, but anyone defending forced vaccination is an awful human being. Fucking authoritative statism is not the answer. For the reasons Polycosm mentioned.

So letting kids who can't get vaccinations for medical reasons, who actually want vaccinations, but literally can't have any get measles is better than forced vaccinations? Hell no.

A bunch of us might catch awful diseases if we go to Africa or other places where there are awful diseases. Solution: Don't go to the awful places. We can't force a government into someone's body just because of a small handful of people who might be otherwise restricted.

Just like we can't ban cars just because some people might die in car accidents.

Because any excuse to invoke Harrison Bergeron is a good excuse:
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

For the same reason we haven't banned peanuts.

What reason is that?

Because, the people who will die pretty much immediately when exposed to peanut dust, tend to be smart enough to avoid it.

If you cannot be vaccinated for measles, for some reason, don't go where there might be measles. Your right to body autonomy is not more important than mine.

So... you mean out in public? I didn't realize you were a bigot and prejudice towards disabled people, my mistake.

Interesting take on the allergies, you're sure the invention of the epipen doesn't have something to do with it? Like I mean we have invented away for people with sever allergies to survive an attack if they happen to find themselves in a situation where they might die.

Guess what the closest thing we have for that when it comes to disease are vaccinations.

And if we are being honest, my right to body autonomy is actually way more fucking important than yours.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Because any excuse to invoke Harrison Bergeron is a good excuse:
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

I remember reading this in middle school. It's insane how true it's becoming. Leftists are literally after that type of future.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

For the same reason we haven't banned peanuts.

What reason is that?

Because, the people who will die pretty much immediately when exposed to peanut dust, tend to be smart enough to avoid it.

If you cannot be vaccinated for measles, for some reason, don't go where there might be measles. Your right to body autonomy is not more important than mine.

So... you mean out in public? I didn't realize you were a bigot and prejudice towards disabled people, my mistake.

Interesting take on the allergies, you're sure the invention of the epipen doesn't have something to do with it? Like I mean we have invented away for people with sever allergies to survive an attack if they happen to find themselves in a situation where they might die.

Guess what the closest thing we have for that when it comes to disease are vaccinations.

And if we are being honest, my right to body autonomy is actually way more fucking important than yours.

Oh shut the fuck up. You don't have a moral highground, you clown.

Good, child abuse and reintroducing old diseases is wrong.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Good, child abuse and reintroducing old diseases is wrong.

Also lol @ "bodily autonomy" to not vaccinate your children.

You're such an inconsistent clown. In the other topic you bashed prenatal cures to diseases because of the potential for abuse in the form of eugenics, yet here you are defending forced vaccinations and forced procedures without giving a damn about the potential for abuse.

Just the other day you were being a keyboard warrior about why prenatal cures are immoral because of the potential for abuse.

As an aside, does anyone know if the shingles shot is worthwhile?

hockeybub89 posted...

Also lol @ "bodily autonomy" to not vaccinate your children.

That's just dumb. Do you want your kid to get rubella?

Transcendentia posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So why are you two so against the rights of people that are vulnerable to disease that can't get vaccinated themselves?

For the same reason we haven't banned peanuts.

What reason is that?

Because, the people who will die pretty much immediately when exposed to peanut dust, tend to be smart enough to avoid it.

If you cannot be vaccinated for measles, for some reason, don't go where there might be measles. Your right to body autonomy is not more important than mine.

So... you mean out in public? I didn't realize you were a bigot and prejudice towards disabled people, my mistake.

Interesting take on the allergies, you're sure the invention of the epipen doesn't have something to do with it? Like I mean we have invented away for people with sever allergies to survive an attack if they happen to find themselves in a situation where they might die.

Guess what the closest thing we have for that when it comes to disease are vaccinations.

And if we are being honest, my right to body autonomy is actually way more fucking important than yours.

Oh shut the fuck up. You don't have a moral highground, you clown.

I never claimed to.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

As an aside, does anyone know if the shingles shot is worthwhile?

Are you talking about the newest one that just came out?
---

Transcendentia posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Good, child abuse and reintroducing old diseases is wrong.

Also lol @ "bodily autonomy" to not vaccinate your children.

You're such an inconsistent clown. In the other topic you bashed prenatal cures to diseases because of the potential for abuse in the form of eugenics, yet here you are defending forced vaccinations and forced procedures without giving a damn about the potential for abuse.

Just the other day you were being a keyboard warrior about why prenatal cures are immoral because of the potential for abuse.

I do not see the inconsistency between the legalization of eugenics and vaccinating children. Also, I admitted later that I would accept the cure in that hypothetical if the cure someone existed and we could avoid the moral issues of genetic engineering. How does one abuse mandatory vaccines for children?
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

As an aside, does anyone know if the shingles shot is worthwhile?

Are you talking about the newest one that just came out?

There's a new one?

hockeybub89 posted...

Transcendentia posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Good, child abuse and reintroducing old diseases is wrong.

Also lol @ "bodily autonomy" to not vaccinate your children.

You're such an inconsistent clown. In the other topic you bashed prenatal cures to diseases because of the potential for abuse in the form of eugenics, yet here you are defending forced vaccinations and forced procedures without giving a damn about the potential for abuse.

Just the other day you were being a keyboard warrior about why prenatal cures are immoral because of the potential for abuse.

I do not see the inconsistency between the legalization of eugenics and vaccinating children. Also, I admitted later that I would accept the cure in that hypothetical if the cure someone existed and we could avoid the moral issues of genetic engineering. How does one abuse mandatory vaccines for children?

Exactly the way Polycosm described - the government starts putting awful shady shit in the vaccines for experiments or for malicious purposes. Or a terrorist organization does that. Or we're just wrong about certain chemicals in vaccines and don't find out until we've fucked over the human population.

It's absolutely insane to defend forced vaccinations, because the population of unvaccinated people will never be large enough (in 1st world countries) to adversely affect everyone else.

Transcendentia posted...

It's absolutely insane to defend forced vaccinations, because the population of unvaccinated people will never be large enough (in 1st world countries) to adversely affect everyone else.

Well, it can be, if you let a bunch of people from not-1st-world countries in all at once. I hear that happened fairly recently.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Transcendentia posted...

It's absolutely insane to defend forced vaccinations, because the population of unvaccinated people will never be large enough (in 1st world countries) to adversely affect everyone else.

Well, it can be, if you let a bunch of people from not-1st-world countries in all at once. I hear that happened fairly recently.

That's different. If we're taking in people from areas that are highly susceptible to awful diseases, we should vaccinate those people.

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

As an aside, does anyone know if the shingles shot is worthwhile?

Are you talking about the newest one that just came out?

There's a new one?

I don't know. I just heard about a shingles vaccine not too long ago. I don't know how long it had been out at the time, but I haven't heard of anyone getting it yet anyway. So I guess I was just trying to clarify if the one you are asking about would be the same one I heard about.
---

Transcendentia posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Transcendentia posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Good, child abuse and reintroducing old diseases is wrong.

Also lol @ "bodily autonomy" to not vaccinate your children.

You're such an inconsistent clown. In the other topic you bashed prenatal cures to diseases because of the potential for abuse in the form of eugenics, yet here you are defending forced vaccinations and forced procedures without giving a damn about the potential for abuse.

Just the other day you were being a keyboard warrior about why prenatal cures are immoral because of the potential for abuse.

I do not see the inconsistency between the legalization of eugenics and vaccinating children. Also, I admitted later that I would accept the cure in that hypothetical if the cure someone existed and we could avoid the moral issues of genetic engineering. How does one abuse mandatory vaccines for children?

Exactly the way Polycosm described - the government starts putting awful shady shit in the vaccines for experiments or for malicious purposes. Or a terrorist organization does that. Or we're just wrong about certain chemicals in vaccines and don't find out until we've fucked over the human population.

It's absolutely insane to defend forced vaccinations, because the population of unvaccinated people will never be large enough (in 1st world countries) to adversely affect everyone else.

Terrorists could put shit in vaccines right now and kill millions, destroying western civilization in the process. Same with unintentionally fucking up a vaccine. I know you hate government, but god damn that's "mind control in the water" levels of paranoia. I wasn't thinking of conspiracy shit when I was arguing against genetic engineering, but the availability to the poor and the concept of designer babies.

You can't say "there are very few anti-vaxxers" and then argue mandatory vaccinations will suddenly create new potential for massive abuse. Are governments and terrorists just not content with this angle until they can harm everyone at once?
---

Transcendentia posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Transcendentia posted...

It's absolutely insane to defend forced vaccinations, because the population of unvaccinated people will never be large enough (in 1st world countries) to adversely affect everyone else.

Well, it can be, if you let a bunch of people from not-1st-world countries in all at once. I hear that happened fairly recently.

That's different. If we're taking in people from areas that are highly susceptible to awful diseases, we should vaccinate those people.

But what if the government or terrorists try to mess with those vaccines? Forced vaccines for some, tiny American flags for others?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Transcendentia posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Transcendentia posted...

It's absolutely insane to defend forced vaccinations, because the population of unvaccinated people will never be large enough (in 1st world countries) to adversely affect everyone else.

Well, it can be, if you let a bunch of people from not-1st-world countries in all at once. I hear that happened fairly recently.

That's different. If we're taking in people from areas that are highly susceptible to awful diseases, we should vaccinate those people.

But what if the government or terrorists try to mess with those vaccines? Forced vaccines for some, tiny American flags for others?

Well I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate.
---

Transcendentia posted...

That's different. If we're taking in people from areas that are highly susceptible to awful diseases, we should vaccinate those people.

And that's why, coerced vaccinations as a condition of doing something else (public schools, local gym, whatever) isn't awful, while mandatory vaccinations for merely existing is pretty much tyranny.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Transcendentia posted...

That's different. If we're taking in people from areas that are highly susceptible to awful diseases, we should vaccinate those people.

And that's why, coerced vaccinations as a condition of doing something else (public schools, local gym, whatever) isn't awful, while mandatory vaccinations for merely existing is pretty much tyranny.

I am much more inclined to agree with this, than mandatory vaccines just for existing. But when you are basically exiling people from society unless they get vaccinated, you are also kind of forcing them to do it anyway. They only difference is you still give the parents the power to maim and ruin their children's lives.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

But when you are basically exiling people from society unless they get vaccinated, you are also kind of forcing them to do it anyway.

Kinda, yeah, but it's still voluntary.

It's neat that we've somehow found an understanding, instead of the usual "you suck" / "no, you suck" these things always devolve into.

Questionmarktarius posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

But when you are basically exiling people from society unless they get vaccinated, you are also kind of forcing them to do it anyway.

Kinda, yeah, but it's still voluntary.

It's neat that we've somehow found an understanding, instead of the usual "you suck" / "no, you suck" these things always devolve into.

Yea, I do prefer to have more civil conversations. As they are more likely to lead to compromises that everyone can live with that people just being stand-offish.
---