Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, that someone else made for other people. That's not necessarily informed.

The Supreme Court seemed to think that they had enough information on their hands to render a verdict, which has not been overturned.

You'll have to cite an example of this. Not enforcing our policies or even mimicking them was a major setback. Again, in the wiki article you quoted.

Examples of what? Examples of developed nations with a policy called "vaccination" going out and "vaccinating" anyone they could get their hands on? Pretty sure I already have.

Are we? You've been talking about smallpox. The chances of me coming into contact with it are slim, as with many other deadly viruses.

Yes, we have, as an example of why mandatory vaccination is a good policy, and why it works. Just why do you think your chances of coming into contact with it are so slim?

You're arguing from a position of pimping vaccinations, so to speak. I have no problems with vaccinations, only with you making people take them.

I don't make people take them, we do. You know what, while we're on this, you keep using words like "make" or "force" as though I'm advocating strapping people to a chair and sticking a needle in their arm. That's not even close to our policies of compulsory vaccination. I say the very few loopholes we have are garbage in all cases except medical reasons, and that we should enforce these mandates much more harshly. At what point exactly do you figure I'd turn into a guy with a gun and a needle?

The Supreme Court established that the states have a right to establish their own legislation in the matter. The federal government has since recommended that the vaccine stop being administered to the general public. That was during an outbreak of proportions we do not see in the modern world. Don't say that is because of vaccinations because antibiotics, sanitization and travel policies are just as important and two of the three are not enforced on a population-wide basis.

Because we handled the problem (to our satisfaction) by vaccination, among other things. Maybe some policies regarding sanitization and antibiotics should be mandatory, oh snap, they are.

See above.

Sometimes, when I look up, all I see is thin air.....

We're not arguing science, Rhythm. We're arguing whether people should be forced into having something injected into their bodies because someone else said so.

Which is a position that was reached by a healthy dose of science and answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court.

I have been arguing the issue directly. You have been arguing against an anti-vaxxer who isn't here.

Hmn, The OP says "Abstaining from vaccination should not be a right", I agree, so does the supreme court, you do not. Relative to me Shell, you...are the anti vaxxer...and you are present. I mean point me in the direction of the nearest official anti-vaxxer and I'll re-direct my comments to them, but aren't you playing devils advocate for them here?

I am arguing that. You are arguing that vaccinations are good. Established. Moving on.

I'm arguing that mandatory vaccinations are a good idea because they work, in no small part because vaccination is a good idea.

My apologies. The last one in Europe was in Yugoslavia, though there were several outbreaks in Britain after their mandatory vaccination policy was put in place.

I realize you probably want to reference the single case, as it would help your argument. However, a single case is not an outbreak.

The source of the outbreak?

What was that about developed countries?

Appealing to the exceptions instead of the rule? Sure, why not...lol.

---

But don't people have a right to make bad decisions?

Absolutely, but apparently not in this case, since it affects us all, again, as per the Supreme Courts verdict (which I obviously agree with).