Where do my rights end and yours begin?

[independentusa]

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/2002221983142615/
This is a video showing the reaction of what those who are against vaccinating their children at a hearing where some of their "rights" have been reduced. My question is where do you stand on where do these peoples rights not to vaccinate their children begin and where do they end. I think that if they don't want their children vaccinated, then keep them out of the public where they can infect children whose illnesses don't allow them to be vaccinated. Keep them out of public schools. If private schools allow them that is fine with me. Don't take them to public areas where they can infect other children. The problem is, these people want both, the right not to vaccinate and the right to take their un-vaccinated children anywhere. That I believe is where their rights end, where they can cause harm to others.

 

[Helix]

Where do my rights end and yours begin?

you still have the right to believe unscientific anti-vaxxer woo spewed by people who haven't taken an entry level immunology course. you do not have the right send your unvaccinated kids to the school incubators, putting other kids and all of the rest of us at risk, though.

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/2002221983142615/
This is a video showing the reaction of what those who are against vaccinating their children at a hearing where some of their "rights" have been reduced. My question is where do you stand on where do these peoples rights not to vaccinate their children begin and where do they end. I think that if they don't want their children vaccinated, then keep them out of the public where they can infect children whose illnesses don't allow them to be vaccinated. Keep them out of public schools. If private schools allow them that is fine with me. Don't take them to public areas where they can infect other children. The problem is, these people want both, the right not to vaccinate and the right to take their un-vaccinated children anywhere. That I believe is where their rights end, where they can cause harm to others.

And the society should tell them no, for obvious reasons...and then we should enforce the no. I suggest that you look at this not as a competition of individual rights but rather as a competition between the rights of these individuals and the rights of the collective.

 

[Beaudreaux]

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/2002221983142615/
This is a video showing the reaction of what those who are against vaccinating their children at a hearing where some of their "rights" have been reduced. My question is where do you stand on where do these peoples rights not to vaccinate their children begin and where do they end. I think that if they don't want their children vaccinated, then keep them out of the public where they can infect children whose illnesses don't allow them to be vaccinated. Keep them out of public schools. If private schools allow them that is fine with me. Don't take them to public areas where they can infect other children. The problem is, these people want both, the right not to vaccinate and the right to take their un-vaccinated children anywhere. That I believe is where their rights end, where they can cause harm to others.

Your rights do not end, but you are held liable where your actions taken under your rights adversely effect me personally - create a tort or cause harm against me. My rights do not end, but I am held liable where my actions taken under my rights adversely effect you personally - create a tort or cause harm against you. Neither of have the right to adversely effect the other with a tort or cause the other harm. My right to free speech is not limited, but if my speech causes actions that harm you, or if my speech results in a tort like defamation, I can be held liable for that harm or tort, not my actual exercise of my freedom of speech. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but I can be held liable if I cause harm to you when exercising that right - my right is not limited nor does it have an end, yet my actions while exercising my right may have legal consequences if I cause a harm, ether criminally or civilly.

In your example of anti-vaxers, you can sue them if you can prove that their unvaccinated child, and the decision they made to not vaccinate their child, caused you or your family harm. Their freedom of religion, or whatever right they use as the basis for that choice is not being limited or at any point. The results of their actions, while exercising their rights, can be held legally liable if it causes someone harm or creates a tort. We can't legislate morality, or outlaw religious beliefs. We can only legislate liability for harm done by people's actions.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Your rights do not end, but you are held liable where your actions taken under your rights adversely effect me personally - create a tort or cause harm against me. My rights do not end, but I am held liable where my actions taken under my rights adversely effect you personally - create a tort or cause harm against you. Neither of have the right to adversely effect the other with a tort or cause the other harm. My right to free speech is not limited, but if my speech causes actions that harm you, or if my speech results in a tort like defamation, I can be held liable for that harm or tort, not my actual exercise of my freedom of speech. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but I can be held liable if I cause harm to you when exercising that right - my right is not limited nor does it have an end, yet my actions while exercising my right may have legal consequences if I cause a harm, ether criminally or civilly.

In your example of anti-vaxers, you can sue them if you can prove that their unvaccinated child, and the decision they made to not vaccinate their child, caused you or your family harm. Their freedom of religion, or whatever right they use as the basis for that choice is not being limited or at any point. The results of their actions, while exercising their rights, can be held legally liable if it causes someone harm or creates a tort. We can't legislate morality, or outlaw religious beliefs. We can only legislate liability for harm done by people's actions.

We dont have unlimited time focus or money, this unnecessary complexity should be a non-starter....simply afford the society the right to not allow individuals to take great risks that will be paid by the society at large.

 

[Beaudreaux]

We dont have unlimited time focus or money, this unnecessary complexity should be a non-starter....simply afford the society the right to not allow individuals to take great risks that will be paid by the society at large.

What? Society doesn't have the "right" to limit personal rights. That's the reason our Constitution has the Bill of Rights - to ensure that society doesn't assume the power to do so.

Our rights, do not fall under the category of, TOO HARD to protect, so let's just let the society limit them when they feel scared, or worried, or threatened, or whatever.

You just defined totalitarianism. No thanks.

 

[jaeger19]

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/2002221983142615/
This is a video showing the reaction of what those who are against vaccinating their children at a hearing where some of their "rights" have been reduced. My question is where do you stand on where do these peoples rights not to vaccinate their children begin and where do they end. I think that if they don't want their children vaccinated, then keep them out of the public where they can infect children whose illnesses don't allow them to be vaccinated. Keep them out of public schools. If private schools allow them that is fine with me. Don't take them to public areas where they can infect other children. The problem is, these people want both, the right not to vaccinate and the right to take their un-vaccinated children anywhere. That I believe is where their rights end, where they can cause harm to others.

If you choose to vaccinate your kids then you have nothing to fear from unvaccinated kids. AND interestingly.. its obvious that you have nothing to really fear from unvaccinated kids because kids that cannot be vaccinated because of obvious health reasons. (immunodeficiency disease, etc) are allowed waivers into public school. Which pretty much refutes the "but they put my kids at risk". If lack of vaccination put kids at risk.. then logically NO unvaccinated kids should be allowed in public school. But they are...

So the reality is that the only reason is to punish parents for not choosing to do what you want them to do.

 

[_Sal]

you still have the right to believe unscientific anti-vaxxer woo spewed by people who haven't taken an entry level immunology course. you do not have the right send your unvaccinated kids to the school incubators, putting other kids and all of the rest of us at risk, though.

^^^ yup, I am okay with this, except maybe they shouldn't be allowed out in public either

 

[Hawkeye10]

What? Society doesn't have the "right" to limit personal rights. That's the reason our Constitution has the Bill of Rights - to ensure that society doesn't assume the power to do so.

Our rights, do not fall under the category of, TOO HARD to protect, so let's just let the society limit them when they feel scared, or worried, or threatened, or whatever.

You just defined totalitarianism. No thanks.

Society absolutely has the right to limit individual rights, this nation goes far towards affording minorities and individuals rights which is one of the things that makes us special and better than others, but you slip over the side into stupidity (not saying that you are stupid, I am saying that your argument is stupid). Society has the right to protect ourselves from those who want to hurt us, and those who put us into great danger though their lacking caring about the health of the society and/or ignorance, a group that is way too large today because of our long running unwillingness to protect ourselves because of the cult of the individual.

We need to be brighter than that.

 

[ksu_aviator]

you still have the right to believe unscientific anti-vaxxer woo spewed by people who haven't taken an entry level immunology course. you do not have the right send your unvaccinated kids to the school incubators, putting other kids and all of the rest of us at risk, though.

If they are vaccinated, they aren't at risk...are they?

 

[_Sal]

If you choose to vaccinate your kids then you have nothing to fear from unvaccinated kids. AND interestingly.. its obvious that you have nothing to really fear from unvaccinated kids because kids that cannot be vaccinated because of obvious health reasons. (immunodeficiency disease, etc) are allowed waivers into public school.

So the reality is that the only reason is to punish parents for not choosing to do what you want them to do.

so you are okay with putting your autoimmunity challenged child beside one who chooses not to vaccinate?

 

[vegas giants]

If they are vaccinated, they aren't at risk...are they?

No vaccine is 100 percent effective

 

[ksu_aviator]

As someone that nearly died from vaccinations (allergic reaction because it was incubated in eggs and I was allergic to eggs) I fully understand any parents choice to not vaccinate. I, however, vaccinated with no reservations. My thought process was that the risk is far outweighed by the benefit. But, there is a risk. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a fool.

So, here is where I draw the line. The government has no authority to force anyone to risk their life or their child's life. That is a personal choice.

I also recognize that unvaccinated children pose a risk to me. But I have no right to limit someone else's right.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Society absolutely has the right to limit individual rights, this nation goes far towards affording minorities and individuals rights which is one of the things that makes us special and better than others, but you slip over the side into stupidity (not saying that you are stupid, I am saying that your argument is stupid).

We need to be brighter than that.

You're looking at this all wrong. Each individual has "certain inalienable rights." Inalienable means that neither the government can take them away from you, nor can you give them away. You posses these rights at birth, and they stay with you your entire life. The nation doesn't afford rights.

The law (the US Constitution) precludes the government's ability to limit or infringe upon rights that the people (minority or not) posses naturally by simply existing. You have the right to freedom of speech. No one gives you that right. The government damned sure doesn't give you that right. The Constitution and other laws prevent the government from limiting that right. The Constitution doesn't even give you that right, it simply recognizes that your right exists and states that the government shall not have the power to change that.

You need to change your perspective here, and look at rights differently. That's why I said you were defining totalitarianism - you still are.

 

[Beaudreaux]

As someone that nearly died from vaccinations (allergic reaction because it was incubated in eggs and I was allergic to eggs) I fully understand any parents choice to not vaccinate. I, however, vaccinated with no reservations. My thought process was that the risk is far outweighed by the benefit. But, there is a risk. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a fool.

So, here is where I draw the line. The government has no authority to force anyone to risk their life or their child's life. That is a personal choice.

I also recognize that unvaccinated children pose a risk to me. But I have no right to limit someone else's right.

On most levels, I can agree with that. Well done.

 

[Hawkeye10]

You're looking at this all wrong. Each individual has "certain inalienable rights." Inalienable means that neither the government can take them away from you, nor can you give them away. You posses these rights at birth, and they stay with you your entire life. The nation doesn't afford rights.

The law (the US Constitution) precludes the government's ability to limit or infringe upon rights that the people (minority or not) posses naturally by simply existing. You have the right to freedom of speech. No one gives you that right. The government damned sure doesn't give you that right. The Constitution and other laws prevent the government from limiting that right. The Constitution doesn't even give you that right, it simply recognizes that your right exists and states that the government shall not have the power to change that.

You need to change your perspective here, and look at rights differently. That's why I said you were defining totalitarianism - you still are.

The right to not vaccinate your child is not one of them, go check the Constitution for verification.

I argue that I am not the one who is wrong, and I argue that me having an unusual opinion does not indicate that I am wrong because look at how sick this society is...so sick I remind you that you dont want to be here....that means that we need new different ideas. I encourage you to check mine out rather than rejecting them out of hand.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The right to not vaccinate your child is not one of them, go check the Constitution for verification.

I argue that I am not the one who is wrong, and I argue that me having an unusual opinion does not indicate that I am wrong because look at how sick this society is...so sick I remind you that you dont want to be here....that means that we need new different ideas. I encourage you to check mine out rather than rejecting them out of hand.

Wow, just, wow.

 

[jaeger19]

so you are okay with putting your autoimmunity challenged child beside one who chooses not to vaccinate?

Yep. Think about it. My autoimmunity challenge child puts YOUR vaccinated child at risk.. do they not?

So why would you accept that my autoimmunity challenged child. who cannot be vaccinated.. can be allowed in school. While a child not vaccinated because of their parents is not?

What is the difference in risk between a child who is not vaccinated because of their parents.. and one who is not vaccinated because of a solid medical reason?

Please answer that.

 

[vegas giants]

Yep. Think about it. My autoimmunity challenge child puts YOUR vaccinated child at risk.. do they not?

So why would you accept that my autoimmunity challenged child. who cannot be vaccinated.. can be allowed in school. While a child not vaccinated because of their parents is not?

What is the difference in risk between a child who is not vaccinated because of their parents.. and one who is not vaccinated because of a solid medical reason?

Please answer that.

Numbers. It is rare for a child to go unvaccinated for medical reasons

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It is complicated when we are talking about parental rights. We don’t own our children, we are their guardians. I think it is irresponsible to not vaccinate your children. But I am also not willing to take someone’s children away over it or send cops in to force the vaccination at risk of arrest.

So the compromise is if you don’t vaccinate your kids they can’t attend public school or private schools with similar rules. It isn’t ideal but it is the least bad option I think.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Wow, just, wow.

Sounds like a concession to me....

 

[Hawkeye10]

It is complicated when we are talking about parental rights. We don’t own our children, we are their guardians. I think it is irresponsible to not vaccinate your children. But I am also not willing to take someone’s children away over it or send cops in to force the vaccination at risk of arrest.

So the compromise is if you don’t vaccinate your kids they can’t attend public school or private schools with similar rules. It isn’t ideal but it is the least bad option I think.

Which we get to the right to be only so long as we are not flagrantly irresponsible....not vaccinating your child is flagrantly irresponsible, we are idiots for allowing this flagrantly irresponsibility.

 

[_Sal]

Yep. Think about it. My autoimmunity challenge child puts YOUR vaccinated child at risk.. do they not?.

how so?

So why would you accept that my autoimmunity challenged child. who cannot be vaccinated.. can be allowed in school. While a child not vaccinated because of their parents is not?

because that child has NO choice...

"vaccination is the most effective tool we have to prevent measles, mumps, and a plethora of other contagious diseases"

What is the difference in risk between a child who is not vaccinated because of their parents.. and one who is not vaccinated because of a solid medical reason? Please answer that.

numbers for one...there are very few children world wide who can not be vaccinated due to a physical limitation...paranoia on the other hand could run rampant

 

[X Factor]

It is complicated when we are talking about parental rights. We don’t own our children, we are their guardians. I think it is irresponsible to not vaccinate your children. But I am also not willing to take someone’s children away over it or send cops in to force the vaccination at risk of arrest.

So the compromise is if you don’t vaccinate your kids they can’t attend public school or private schools with similar rules. It isn’t ideal but it is the least bad option I think.

So no compulsory education for unvaccinated kids?

 

[vegas giants]

So no compulsory education for unvaccinated kids?

Online education