indy not even close to understanding what drove you in that post
You seem unaware of the basic reason this thread exists

The very thought that anyone could be permitted to interfere with another's body and the body of their children, punch holes in them and insert unwanted substances into their bloodstream, is absolutely sickening and barbaric. How could such a vicious idea even cross one's mind, let alone infect a society?

So suppose some of you happen to have a desire, in the case before us it is to live without certain germs and viruses, but it could just as well have been to become rich and enjoy other's slave-labour and/or sexual graces for free, or to live longer by reaping and implanting other people's organs: how dare you impose the fulfilment of your desires on the bodies of others?!

yuyutsu never going to get near understanding you
But are you saying the parent has rights but not the child
That others exposed because that child is, have no rights
That the history of vaccines stopping millions of deaths is not good
Do you cringe on hearing of the latest death of a child because mum and dad would not let it have a blood donation that may have saved it
Is your stance on rights of the parent reason enough for further needless deaths

To Belly.

I understand the scope of the debate. I understand the reason for vaccines are to prevent and remove horrible diseases from being in society. In fact in my area several vaccines are required to be taken before being allowed to go to public schools, and the vaccines are required again as a booster shot later on while in school.

The point of the vaccines are not just to keep an individual from being sick, but to remove the sickness from society. In order for that to happen it has to be mandated for everyone to take the vaccinations. This is where the controversy lies, in that if there are any ill effects from the vaccines or somehow are connected to the vaccines. Perhaps it's the vaccine, or it's a bad batch the drug company made, or it was something at the doctor's office being unclean while exposing the child to these vaccines, or a combination of any of these things and other elements. But the point is that if there is harm from the vaccines, something a parent has to worry about with retardation or some other ailment, then it is the parent's responsibility to do what they thing is right for the sake of their children.

This isn't an issue of child rights because the parents are looking after their children when making their decision.

Dear Belly,

«But are you saying the parent has rights but not the child»

On what grounds are you claiming that the best interest and wellbeing of the child would be served by following the dictates of foreign people rather than of his/her own parents, in other words that some others "know better"?

My view (on which I expanded in the past) is that one's parents (assuming that they both are in agreement) are most likely disposed to be the best to know what's good for their child.

«That others exposed because that child is, have no rights»

Other people do have the right to protect themselves, but not to harm others.
They may for example rightly demand that unvaccinated children do not come physically near them or their own children.

«That the history of vaccines stopping millions of deaths is not good»

I wasn't saying that, but since you asked, my view is that what is good for one is not necessarily good for everyone else. Wellbeing is much a function of values and circumstances, which vary between people and cultures.

«Do you cringe on hearing of the latest death of a child because mum and dad would not let it have a blood donation that may have saved it»

It deeply depends on the intention of the parents, whether their refusal was selfish or for genuine care for the child.
And what does "saved" mean anyway? Your presumption (likely based on Western/Judeo-Christian values) is that life is automatically better than death. I do not share this assumption. In my view, for example, one should not be saving the body at the expense of spirit.

«Is your stance on rights of the parent reason enough for further needless deaths»

This is not about parents' rights, but about the ability of parents to best represent their child's true interests. Depending on circumstances, death is not automatically bad or "needless".

Who else but parents can protect their child from mistaken/inappropriate values of society?

What about "Do unto others....". People refusing to vaccinate their children benefit from the choice of others who vaccinate their children. In turn, unvaccinated people may acquire preventable infections and spread them to children below the age of vaccination with devastating consequences. Unfortunately this scenario is not a hypothetical one. The Blairs were shamed into vaccinating their children with this reasoning.