(September 27, 2017 at 8:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 27, 2017 at 8:24 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: She seems to be avoiding this question given the number of times it's been asked (many) and the number of times she's answered (none). She seems to be completely ok with "but, the parents really believe they're doing the right thing."

I already addressed this earlier on in the thread. Simply choosing not to give a vax bc you think the vax might hurt your child is completely different from not giving a child medical care when they are ill, not giving them food or water, not getting them away from a ravine, and all the other extreme examples given. Even Bob himself admitted they were definitely 2 different scenarios.

Mind you, I still find it unwise to not vaccinate, but child abuse? A crime? No.

(emphasis is mine)

No, you didn't. You've stated your belief that you "find it unwise to not vaccinate" but that it shouldn't be considered neglect. You've been dancing around the question of how you can justify that conclusion. I find your stance odd, especially coming from someone who has stated that abortion should be completely illegal because, from your point of view, it's the same as murdering a child.

(September 27, 2017 at 8:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I already addressed this earlier on in the thread. Simply choosing not to give a vax bc you think the vax might hurt your child is completely different from not giving a child medical care when they are ill, not giving them food or water, not getting them away from a ravine, and all the other extreme examples given. Even Bob himself admitted they were definitely 2 different scenarios.

Mind you, I still find it unwise to not vaccinate, but child abuse? A crime? No.

*My emphasis*

Bob himself also suggested that these two different scenarios have the same level of accountability for their results. As much as a parent could prevent their child from falling into a ravine they can (barring extreme and unlikely circumstances) just as easily prevent their child -and the immunocompromised around them- from contracting a disease that we have all but conquered thanks to vaccinations.

You're seeing vaccination as something different from needed medical care and parental duty, I'm not sure why because this is a simple thing.

The government makes laws to protect people (and their children) from themselves and others all of the time. Why is immunizing a child where people draw a line because of fear and junk science?

CL, I'll ask again: if a child contracts Polio, suffers, and then dies because his/her parents made the decision not to vaccinate, would you consider those parents responsible for the death of their child? Mind you, if the child had received the Polio vaccine, they wouldn't have died of polio.

If you don't think that these hypothetical parents are 100% culpable for the suffering and death of their child, could you please explain why?

If do consider them culpable, then doesn't it follow that there should be legal ramifications for failing to provide the bare minimum of medical care as recommended by all reputable health authorities, to protect your child against 100% preventable deadly diseases?

(September 28, 2017 at 10:42 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: CL, I'll ask again:  if a child contracts Polio, suffers, and then dies because his/her parents made the decision not to vaccinate, would you consider those parents responsible for the death of their child?  Mind you, if the child had received the Polio vaccine, they wouldn't have died of polio.  

If you don't think that these hypothetical parents are 100% culpable for the suffering and death of their child, could you please explain why?

If do consider them culpable, then doesn't it follow that there should be legal ramifications for failing to provide the bare minimum of medical care as recommended by all reputable health authorities, to protect your child against 100% preventable deadly diseases?

No, I wouldn't say they are culpable for their child's death. They made a foolish decision that made their child vulnerable to the disease, yes, and unfortunately as bad luck would have it, the child caught the disease. But I don't see not giving a vaccine as an intrinsically dangerous thing to do, in and of itself. It's like the boy in Orlando who was splashing around in a pond of alligators (despite do not swim signs) and got killed by one of them. Obviously if the parents had taken the precaution and kept him away from the pond, this wouldn't have happened. But I don't hold them culpable because splashing around in a pond isn't an inherently harmful thing. I wouldn't equate it to a child playing with fire or walking off a ravine while the parents sat there and watched, because those things are inherently very dangerous. Sometimes parents make stupid decisions and then pay for them when something happens to their child. Where do we draw the line between poor judgement and crime? I don't think not giving a vaccine should be a crime.

Splashing around in a pond without alligators = not inherently dangerous
Splashing around in a pond known to have alligators = inherently dangerous.

Not vaccinating your kid when there aren't common, dangerous preventable diseases around = not inherently dangerous.
Not vaccinating your kid when there are common, dangerous preventable diseases around = inherently dangerous.


You're right CL, splashing around in "a pond" isn't dangerous, but it is when we know there are alligators around. And preventable diseases are the alligators in this case. We know they exist and they infect kids, so not vaccinating them is inherently dangerous, unless you're planning on keeping them in a bubble and away from all human contact.

(September 28, 2017 at 2:34 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Splashing around in a pond without alligators = not inherently dangerous
Splashing around in a pond known to have alligators = inherently dangerous.

Not vaccinating your kid when there aren't common, dangerous preventable diseases around = not inherently dangerous.
Not vaccinating your kid when there are common, dangerous preventable diseases around = inherently dangerous.


You're right CL, splashing around in "a pond" isn't dangerous, but it is when we know there are alligators around.  And preventable diseases are the alligators in this case.  We know they exist and they infect kids, so not vaccinating them is inherently dangerous, unless you're planning on keeping them in a bubble and away from all human contact.

I'm sure the parents of that boy knew alligators existed. They probably just didn't figure they would be a threat within that situation - in Disney World, at a Resort. Likewise, parents who don't give their kids the polio vax I'm sure just assume polio is not any sort of real threat within their lifestyle and location. If their kid ends up with polio, obviously it means they were wrong and had incredibly bad judgement. Just as the parents of the boy in Orlando. But they were not criminally culpable for what happened.

(September 28, 2017 at 2:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 28, 2017 at 2:34 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Splashing around in a pond without alligators = not inherently dangerous
Splashing around in a pond known to have alligators = inherently dangerous.

Not vaccinating your kid when there aren't common, dangerous preventable diseases around = not inherently dangerous.
Not vaccinating your kid when there are common, dangerous preventable diseases around = inherently dangerous.


You're right CL, splashing around in "a pond" isn't dangerous, but it is when we know there are alligators around.  And preventable diseases are the alligators in this case.  We know they exist and they infect kids, so not vaccinating them is inherently dangerous, unless you're planning on keeping them in a bubble and away from all human contact.

I'm sure the parents of that boy knew alligators existed. They probably just didn't figure they would be a threat within that situation - in Disney World, at a Resort. Likewise, parents who don't give their kids the polio vax I'm sure just assume polio is not any sort of real threat within their lifestyle and location.

And they're wrong for thinking that.  The numerous childhood diseases for which we have vaccinations are a threat to their children.  It's dangerous to the kid's life (and kids around him/her!) for the parents not to vaccinate.  You can say that's their right, and that's another discussion, but it is inherently dangerous.

(September 28, 2017 at 9:57 am)mh.brewer Wrote: The government makes laws to protect people (and their children) from themselves and others all of the time. Why is immunizing a child where people draw a line because of fear and junk science?

"Thousands of lives have been saved and countless injuries prevented over the years because drivers and passengers were wearing seatbelts."

"The combination of effective enforcement and hard-hitting public awareness campaigns mean that, 30 years on, the vast majority of drivers and passengers buckle up when they get in their cars."

"But, unbelievably, there are still some people who do not use a seatbelt - my message to them is simple: a seatbelt could save your life and not wearing one is just not worth the risk."

From here.

---

(September 28, 2017 at 2:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 28, 2017 at 10:42 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: CL, I'll ask again:  if a child contracts Polio, suffers, and then dies because his/her parents made the decision not to vaccinate, would you consider those parents responsible for the death of their child?  Mind you, if the child had received the Polio vaccine, they wouldn't have died of polio.  

If you don't think that these hypothetical parents are 100% culpable for the suffering and death of their child, could you please explain why?

If do consider them culpable, then doesn't it follow that there should be legal ramifications for failing to provide the bare minimum of medical care as recommended by all reputable health authorities, to protect your child against 100% preventable deadly diseases?

No, I wouldn't say they are culpable for their child's death. They made a foolish decision that made their child vulnerable to the disease, yes, and unfortunately as bad luck would have it,

As bad luck would have it? If the child had been vaccinated 'luck' would have no part to play. If your face is ripped to shards going through a car windscreen is it just 'bad luck' you weren't wearing a seatbelt? 
In the scenario presented by LadyForCamus, yes, their sorry arse's should go to jail. In the UK it 'should' at the very least, be involuntary manslaughter, or criminal negligence. Your legal terms may vary.

(September 28, 2017 at 2:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No, I wouldn't say they are culpable for their child's death. They made a foolish decision that made their child vulnerable to the disease, yes, and unfortunately as bad luck would have it, the child caught the disease.

Quote:But I don't see not giving a vaccine as an intrinsically dangerous thing to do, in and of itself.

*My emphasis*

I separated this for emphasis. Seriously though, CL, do you not see the problem here? Isn't it intrinsically dangerous not to safeguard your children against something that could kill them?

This isn't about a "foolish decision" this is about actively turning one's nose up at the fact that if you don't vaccinate your children *by choice* you are needlessly throwing them to the bacterial/viral wolves. We're talking neglectful and downright abusive levels of stupidity and willful ignorance.

Quote:It's like the boy in Orlando who was splashing around in a pond of alligators (despite do not swim signs) and got killed by one of them. Obviously if the parents had taken the precaution and kept him away from the pond, this wouldn't have happened. But I don't hold them culpable because splashing around in a pond isn't an inherently harmful thing. I wouldn't equate it to a child playing with fire or walking off a ravine while the parents sat there and watched, because those things are inherently very dangerous. Sometimes parents make stupid decisions and then pay for them when something happens to their child.

Quote:Where do we draw the line between poor judgement and crime? I don't think not giving a vaccine should be a crime.

I should think we would draw the line where one's "poor judgement" is killing your children or bringing waves of disease that we had put the kibosh on back into the fray. But I suppose that's not reasonable. 🙄