Turn on thread page Beta

B1352 - Compulsory Vaccination and Operation Bill 2018 watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    It should be the choice of the parents as to whether or not their children get vaccinations, not the state.
    The choice of the child's life or death should be to the parent? I think not!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    The choice of the child's life or death should be to the parent? I think not!
    No, let’s have it in the hands of the state instead, who can poison children or partake in genetic engineering by putting hidden chemicals in the vaccines!

    See, two can play at reductio ad absurdum.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    Formatting is a bit weird due to the way I’ve done indents, but it’s still perfectly readable. Phew!
    It's funny to read on the app.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    The choice of the child's life or death should be to the parent? I think not!
    Citation needed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    No, let’s have it in the hands of the state instead, who can poison children or partake in genetic engineering by putting hidden chemicals in the vaccines!

    See, two can play at reductio ad absurdum.
    An incredibly pathetic reply, in my opinion. This does not give the power to the state to choose life or death over the child. This gives the duty to the hardworking doctors of our health system to work to save the lives of children if their parents are opposed to the treatment.

    These parents should be in a position where if they did request a child's hospital treatment to be withheld, they would be acting ultra vires.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    No, let’s have it in the hands of the state instead, who can poison children or partake in genetic engineering by putting hidden chemicals in the vaccines!

    See, two can play at reductio ad absurdum.
    Why would the state want to poison children by putting chemicals in the vaccines? If they wanted to do that, they might as well poison the food and water supply.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    By the same conception let's allow parents to give their kids cigarettes. ****ing hell, don't be daft. This has literally nothing to do with liberty.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Hasn’t this already been done?
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Hasn’t this already been done?
    I don’t see the current legislation as adequate. This bill repeals the previous one.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    I don’t see the current legislation as adequate. This bill repeals the previous one.
    how do you prove the a child is typanophobic?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Hasn’t this already been done?
    It has
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    An incredibly pathetic reply, in my opinion. This does not give the power to the state to choose life or death over the child. This gives the duty to the hardworking doctors of our health system to work to save the lives of children if their parents are opposed to the treatment.

    These parents should be in a position where if they did request a child's hospital treatment to be withheld, they would be acting ultra vires.
    Why not go the full way and let the state raise the children? Surely the experts in every field should be involved in raising the children rather than parents
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    By the same conception let's allow parents to give their kids cigarettes. ****ing hell, don't be daft. This has literally nothing to do with liberty.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is a false dichotomy, and says nothing. Last time I checked vaccines didn’t have an age restriction on them.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Hazzer1998)
    No, I do not believe the state has the right to force children to have vaccinations. Children's immune systems can handle most infections naturally, vaccinations have questionable ingredients that can cause adverse side effects.The state should not force children or parents to have vaccinations against their will and be injected with known or unknown biological products. Prehaps the house want to have situation like we have in some African countries where they are forced to have vaccinations at gunpoint ?.

    Vaccninations should still be available on the NHS however it should be up to the parents (Not the state) in which vaccinations/ operations their children have.
    Please tell me you aren’t one of those idiots who believe that vaccines cause autism?

    Also, the state has whatever rights we want to give it. The state is an abstract entity who’s powers are there because the people cannot be trusted.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    An incredibly pathetic reply, in my opinion. This does not give the power to the state to choose life or death over the child. This gives the duty to the hardworking doctors of our health system to work to save the lives of children if their parents are opposed to the treatment.

    These parents should be in a position where if they did request a child's hospital treatment to be withheld, they would be acting ultra vires.
    Hear, hear!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    By the same conception let's allow parents to give their kids cigarettes. ****ing hell, don't be daft. This has literally nothing to do with liberty.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hear, hear!
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    how do you prove the a child is typanophobic?
    Why would you need to?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Hazzer1998)
    Where did i say that vaccines casuse austism?, you are putting words into my mouth to force your narrative that anyone who has a negative opinion about vaccinations or disagrees with forced vaccations is evil and thinks vaccinations= austism.

    No you are wrong, Right's hold no physical value and are socially constructed. the state should not interfere and should recognise indvisualism and perosnal choice not this collectivist ideology that people should be forced to behave or think in a certain way or be forced to have whatever vaccinations the state demands. it's pure Altruism
    Yes, which is why the state has whatever rights we decide to give it. We aren’t calling for thought police. Adults are allowed to refuse but in the same way if a parent beat their child they would be arrested it isn’t fair for a parent to deliberately harm a child.
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    Why would you need to?
    The traumatic experiences... how do you prove a deadly fear of needles?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Yes, which is why the state has whatever rights we decide to give it. We aren’t calling for thought police. Adults are allowed to refuse but in the same way if a parent beat their child they would be arrested it isn’t fair for a parent to deliberately harm a child.

    The traumatic experiences... how do you prove a deadly fear of needles?
    Any reasonable parent would agree to the vaccinations. there is no need to make legisation for the sake of legisation. it's called trusting the parent.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Hazzer1998)
    Any reasonable parent would agree to the vaccinations. there is no need to make legisation for the sake of legisation. it's called trusting the parent.
    Then this doesn’t affect most parents and those that it does affect as you say are unreasonably putting their children in danger.

    “Trusting the parent” isn’t an argument in my eyes other than a weak ideologically driven emotive argument.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 28, 2018

2,992

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.