You see I am just as much a believer in my side of science as you are of yours.
The reference you posted is an interesting one. Note the paragraph, “For the small group of parents actively declining vaccines – now officially known as “vaccine refusers” – the solutions are more challenging. While nationally they may be up to 2% of parents, they tend to cluster in regions like the Northern Rivers of NSW and Sunshine Coast of QLD. This is of concern because diseases prevented by vaccines are more likely to occur in such regions. Parents in these communities are committed to their views and hard to change.”
As an intelligent woman, why do you think these parents tend to cluster? The researcher is telling us that this particular cohort of society is easily influenced and they tend to believe their own b*llshit rather than accept the science. You may believe in you heart of hearts that you are an intelligent woman exercising her God-given right of choice. If that is true, then you had better believe that I also believe that I have the right to exclude your child from associating with mine!

Geoffrey Kelley

Just out of interest tired: are your pets vaccinated?

There's a doco called 'Jabbed: Love, Fear and Vaccines' on SBS1 Sunday 26th at 8:30. It sounded quite good in the review I read. I encourage you all to watch it.

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks for that Tony, I will watch that show.
Anti-vaccine supporters won't watch it though, because it will only show them how foolish they have been,

Dear Chris,

<<Yes the state has the legal right to force Immunization on the population just as much as it has the right to force us to obey the road rules or not smoke in planes.>>

?state having a legal right?

What a circular, thus meaningless statement - "legal" by definition means "kosher according to the state"!

Other people have no moral right to force me or you or anyone else to inject poison into our blood-stream. This is sheer violence and the fact that these people organise themselves into a state doesn't change that fact.

We do accept that unless one is a saint, reasonably-necessary violence is acceptable in (and only in) self defence: the legitimate powers of the state are derived from nothing but the sum of the powers of the individuals that approve that state and collectively entrust in it their own powers of self-defence.

Poisoning others is not a reasonably-necessary measure of self-defence because self-defence can similarly be achieved without violence, in this case simply by denying those who are not vaccinated access to public places.

As for the examples you gave, roads and planes are public places, so individuals are not a-priori allowed in them. Rather, the public who owns those places normally allows individuals conditional entry: breaking the conditions of entry is in effect trespass, which allows the public to defend itself.

<<The government is the democratically elected voice of the people>>

What nonsense? Which people? The only people whom a government may have power over are those who willingly gave their power away to it.
Just because a certain group of people, a subset of the population, formed and approve a state and its government, gives them no power whatsoever over others outside their group, regardless of the inner-workings of their group.

<<If you object to the Immunization protocols then don't put your kids in preschool. Look after them where you should. In the home.>>

I fully agree, but so does the government need to rescind its demand that my kids attend school, thus everyone is made happy.

Tired thanks for your contributions, they are quite interesting.
In them you claim the right to not vaccinate.
And by inference tell us you do so *because it is your right*
Then you question others rights to the opposing view.
Do you understand you, by your stance, in my view are part of the problem, not the solution.
Lets look at Polio, until recently we had wiped it out, in this country.
That lung disease that killed or harmed so many, was gone.
Dreadful mass killers wiped out.
BUT some tell us the very tool that killed them, here at least, is not fool proof.
I and surely most of us, can not understand parenting that inflicts risk on children, and calls it love.
And I question rights that let this risk be taken, not with parents lives but the child, do we have a duty to those children to intervene?

To be fair, Belly, I don't believe tired was questioning our rights to an opposing view.

Yuyutsu,

Let's not get too pedantic about which "poisons" we introduce into our bodies as health measures

Anybody who drinks scheme treated water (that's water treated with chemicals to kill pathogens) is introducing "poisons" into their system.

I know you don't particularly give credence to our "physical" form, but most of us do what we need instinctively to preserve our "physical" well-being.

Just ask the people in developing countries about the value of chemically treated water, especially if one lives in a heavily populated area and doesn't have access to pristine a environment. I think they'd prefer it to parasites and cholera.