America was founded based on the notion that people should not be controlled by government.
Whether it’s religious persecution, taxation without representation or regulation of bodily functions, the government should not have control of the peoples’ personal rights.
Yes, the American government and justice system is structured around a trade of freedoms for security, however, nobody is arguing that vaccines are the answer to security.
In fact, this article is not an argument on whether or not vaccines are good or bad; it is, instead, a discussion on why the government should not have the opportunity to intrude in our personal decisions as individuals or parents.
I am a firm believer in small government, and with that being said I believe that the government should not have the authority to interfere in intimate medical decisions of people, including how or when children receive injections.
The Co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center Barbara Low, even said, “If the State can tag, track down and force citizens against their will to be injected with biological products of known and unknown toxicity today, there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.”
Yes, the government is supposed to protect the welfare of its citizens, however, it’s not like we have a person watching over us like “Big Brother” who tells us when we can and cannot have children. There is no swim test to see if we are smart enough to contribute to the gene pool, so why should there be a law telling us what we need to put into our bodies?
Others would argue that children are not capable of making their own decisions, to them I would say, do your research. According to CBS News, there are seven states which allow mature children to take their vaccination into their own hands.
Our government has always allowed people to make their unpopular decisions, and that includes those against vaccines.
People will make their own decisions, typically for the better, without the government having to force them to do the ‘right’ thing.
If I haven’t convinced you yet, maybe I should pose it in a new way. Have you ever considered, instead of pouring funding into mandates for vaccines and imposing strict fines, that maybe we could put that funding into distribution of information about vaccines and then allow the people to make their own decisions?
America is based around an educated populous and letting the people make their own decisions and having their voice heard. Why would we silence that voice now?
This writer will always stand for the rights of the people and a government that places less restrictions and instead distributes information. It’s time the medical community and parents allow them to do that and stop trying to force all views on the entire society.
Daniel Jones’ column entitled “Two Sides of the Great Vaccine Debate” contains so many logical fallacies it is difficult to know where to begin. But first, I have to remind the editorial board of the Pacer that journalism does not always mean giving both sides equal treatment. For example, if one person comes in from outside and says it’s bright and sunny outside and another person dark and rainy, journalism means looking outside the freaking window to see who’s right. It doesn’t mean treating both as if they have equal standing.
What’s wrong with giving them equal treatment? You do a disservice to your readers. When you say “Two Sides of the Great Vaccine Debate,” many readers are left with the impression that there is some kind of debate in science about the effectiveness or necessity of immunizing children against disease when no such “debate” exists. Ditto for so many other matters on which overwhelming scientific consensus exists, such as climate change or evolution. There is no “debate.”
Now to Mr. Jones’ column. He claims “America was founded based on the notion that people should not be controlled by the government.” That is known in logic as a false dichotomy: it sets up only 2 possibilities when many others exist. The founders did not set up an anarchy. What they did do was set up a representative government (rather than a monarchy, which they considered tyrannical). There are still laws governing what we can and cannot do.
In the context of freedom, Jones mentions “religious persecution,” as if freedom from religious persecution had anything to do with immunization policy. The religion of the Aztecs called for human sacrifice. Do we limit the religious freedom of followers of religions that call for human sacrifice? Of course we do. Because we recognize that freedom is not unlimited. Once that “freedom” impinges on the freedom of others, we begin to draw limits, and that is one important reason government exists. Again, the founders were not seeking to implement anarchy but instead a constitutional republic. I don’t have the right to go 100 mph in a 35 mph zone and imposing limits on my speed does not make me any less “free” – it is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that we don’t live in a vacuum.
Jones anticipates a very valid counterargument, and that is that “children are capable of making their own decisions.” His response: “I would say, do your research. Acording to CBS News, there are seven states which allow mature children to take their vaccination into their own hands.” As if that mattered. There are also several states that allow that allow first cousins to marry, or for girls as young as 12 to get married, but I doubt many of us would condone such practices, arguments based on “religious freedom” notwithstanding.
The fact that immunization works. We have been able to eliminate diseases that were the scourge of humankind for centuries, diseases like smallpox or polio are virtually unknown now due to immunization. And children – no matter what their parents’ wacky pseudoscientific or religious beliefs – have a right to grow up without being subject to these diseases. Few things in life are that simple, but it really is that simple. Not only that, but some of these disease (like the aformentioned smallpox) are communicable, so that even if one vulnerable anti-vaxxer does not contract it, he or she could end up contracting it through interaction with another anti-vaxxer who did. Now think about these people going to the hospital and how much time is missed from work, how much productivity is lost, how much the rest of us effectively have to pay if that person is – like tens of millions of Americans – not insured, etc. and you begin to see that this stance is scientifically and morally indefensible.
Chuck Hammond
Professor of German
UT Martin
Standing ovation for Professor Hammond👏