Re: Civil liability doesn't work in cases like this


Author:BumZen
Homepage:https://www.facebook.com/mads.jeppsen
Date:2019-03-07 13:47:29
In Reply To:Re: Civil liability doesn't work in cases like this by squarooticus
Views:35
I would not be in favor holding someone down and vaccinating them against their will, but I would not be opposed to prohibitions on being in public (enforced by fines) as a very ugly carrot. If you want to go off and live in the hills, go for it; but stay away from civilization.
I can't help but chuckle a little bit when thinking back on your statements concerning socialised medicine.
I don't see how they're connected. Help me?
You said that if just one person is against socialised medicine, you'd think it is wrong of pure principle. Yet, here you are advocating a policy that forces people to do certain actions in order to serve the greater good of society. Don't read too much in to it, though. I'm not trying to bring up that old discussion, as we'll never agree and turn to anecdotal argumentation that leads nowhere.
We are in agreement, though I would add that putting a child at risk by not vaccinating them should be a criminal offense similar to neglect.
There's a practical problem with this: that outcomes from birth parents would have to be really bad for them to be worse than outcomes from the foster care system. I'm not sure a criminal offense that leads to children being taken away from misled but otherwise loving parents is a net positive, even if you don't accept the principle of broad parental discretion.
I didn't define the punishment? What leads you think I support kids being removed? FWIW: I'm not pro removing kids from their parents. A loving parent with the best of intentions can also be neglectful or otherwise harm their kid. I think I read somewhere that you think action > intentions, so I suppose you'd agree to this.
Quote
 | 
Block-Quote
 | 
Reply
 | 
Main Page
 ]