|
Post by Amadan on Aug 15, 2018 19:38:10 GMT -5
Interesting conundrum, though I also side with the utilitarian argument. As to "Where do you draw the line?" Well, everything is potentially a slippery slope, right? That's why you lawyers have jobs... True but that's the problem, it's a utilitarian argument. So I have to ask, where do you draw the line and, more importantly, what guides you in the line drawing? It's also pretty painless to give blood and immensely useful (life-saving even) so can we require that? It's totally painless to give up organs after death, and clearly life-saving -- should we mandate that? My problem is seeing how and where we draw the line.
Personally, the only argument I can think of against legally requiring usable organs to be made available upon death (or at the very least, requiring people to opt out rather than opting in) is a slippery slope one - I can see ways in which wealthy and powerful individuals might "encourage" an increase in the supply of organs they need.
As for vaccinations, it seems to me that society's interest in suppressing epidemics justifies some minimal restrictions on civil liberties, just like any other existential threat. Extending the argument a little, since I am not a libertarian, I believe requiring people to pay taxes so we can have sewer systems and roadways and emergency services is also justified. Other things that do or do not justify spending tax dollars are certainly debatable, but the principal is the same. If you live in a complex, highly populous society and enjoy the benefits of civilization, you have certain obligations to help maintain it. One of those would be not allowing yourself to become a preventable vector for infectious diseases.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 15, 2018 22:58:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 20, 2018 7:45:49 GMT -5
So you would agree with Rob (and me, I guess) that there should be no exemptions granted? You wanna go to a public school, you get vaccinated. If not, you home school, or maybe send your kid to a private school. I'm OK with that. I'm pro-choice everywhere, so I'm both pro-abortion choice and pro-vaccine choice. (Let me make clear I think the no-vax choice is a dumb one.) I see the problem, as I generally do, as coercion. If you're going to force someone to pay for a service, they should receive that service. Either refund the anti-vax taxpayer's school "contribution" in property taxes and let them send their child to private school, or make the anti-vax taxpayer whole by paying for his child's private-school fees, up to the average cost of educating a student in the applicable school district. Gee, school vouchers would make this a non-issue! What a surprise. Personally, I'd rather see the whole school system go marketplace, with "school stamps" granted to all students, just as "food stamps" have proven to provide better nutrition and allow people more control over their lives than lining up for "government cheese." Alternatively, I guess we could have government stores and force everybody to buy their groceries there or grow their own, parallel to the "take what we offer or homeschool" crap parents put up with today.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Aug 21, 2018 16:33:37 GMT -5
I don't think the body autonomy works here as a principle because when it's abortions, the folks decide on their own bodies. With vaccinations they make a choice for someone else. There's a higher bar to pass there. Parents can't, in my opinion, make destructive decisions for their child. Children are not property, but are humans with full human rights in and of themselves.
Skipping vaccinations do not just harm the particular child that doesn't get vaccine, but also any child they come in contact with that need to rely on herd immunity.
|
|