|
Even if she does stay his perfect vestal virgin, she could still get raped. Gah, this is like not letting her buy car insurance because it will encourage reckless driving.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
Yeah I don't get that opposition to AIDS research. They know babies contract it from their mothers without treatment right? And that even if the baby doesn't get the disease, it still suffers tremendously when it becomes orphaned, right? Anyway my dad is basically the same as that girl's father. When my dad was trying to talk my sister out of moving in with her boyfriend, he told her she couldn't rely on birth control because if her boyfriend thought she'd leave him, the guy would sabotage her pills somehow to get her pregnant so she'd have to stay. Egg-jacking bro's!!!  At least he's not an anti-vaxxer though. As long as it doesn't have anything to do with sex (er, and evolution), he trusts science.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Never underestimate how profoundly stupid or misinformed people can be. Few people fact check much, if anything, so all some people know is "Jenny McCarthy said vaccines cause autism." Why people take medical advice from a celebrity rather than a doctor is beyond me but there you have it. Unlike the medical industry, celebrities aren't in it for the money, so they will tell you The Truth. Yep that's right, celebrities never ever do things just to get media attention and keep their names in the headlines, and never ever profit from endorsements.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:It also mentioned how the CIA used a doctor/spy to locate bin Laden by taking blood samples while under the guise of providing vaccinations and how that is being used as an excuse to murder and expel I don't understand how this isn't considered a war crime. Isn't there something in the Geneva convention about appropriating the trappings of humanitarian organizations as a cover for military or espionage activities? Or is it a war crime, and this is just another instance of the USA not giving a gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You have to be pragmatic. Forcing Christian scientists to vaccinate their children helps basically no one because herd immunity can cover those people but it might hurt by increasing sympathy for the anti-vaccine movement and making the government look tyrannical. On the other hand, the idea that claiming to be God's bestest buddy means you get to ignore public health in favor of your idiot superstitions is currently harming women's health today, and that could even be expanded if the Supreme Court decides that a pile of incorporation paperwork can also know the mind of God. Not to mention that people are even treating seriously the idea that contraceptives which don't cause abortion can still not be provided as long as you hold the magical belief that they do. I'm all for religious freedom, right up until it starts hurting people who don't share your beliefs. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Do you think there might be a distinction between "letting people choose not to have a specific medical procedure done to their children" and "banning abortion, preventing your employees from accessing contraceptives, and forbidding teachers to talk about safe sexual practices"? Yes. (1) That's child abuse (2) it puts other people's lives at risk. If anything, it's a bigger deal, because at least those women have other options, unlike unvaccinated children who get no choice but to suffer and die because of their parents' idiot beliefs. You might as well say we should look the other way when parents give their kids exorcisms instead of antibiotics.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Is there another example of something that our government has forced a minority of people to do to themselves for the benefit of the population? I'm sure there must be, but I'm failing to come up with anything. Not smoke peyote (note: savage religions aren't real religions like One True Christianity) Not own slaves Let black people marry white people Provide contraception coverage Buy health insurance Educate their kids Fight in Vietnam etc
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Most of those things are not forcing a person to do something to themselves. I'd say the draft is even easier because it did allow religious exceptions. But your education plan has to meet standards, it can't be "nothing, God says educating women is a sin". But the real kicker is that the government has no issue trampling on religious freedom if it's a despised ethnic group like Native Americans. Because obviously smoking a plant in church is a serious public danger, unlike letting your kids spread measles.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:However, people also have a right to practice their religions, regardless of how backwards you believe those religions are. Praying over their kids instead of giving them antibiotics is also practicing their religion so unless you're arguing we should legalize that then I don't see how you can defend letting people use Jesus Power instead of medicine on their kids when it comes to vaccines.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don't know, but in a world where literally everyone except a tiny minority have to get vaccinated it seems like the risk is probably pretty small.If herd immunity can seriously be compromised by such a tiny fraction of people it was worthless anyway. I've asked you twice now if religious faith should be an acceptable reason not to give your kid antibiotics, because if not then it sure isn't a good reason to deny them other life-saving medical treatments. Care to address this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Caros posted:This is a false equivalence. I agree people should not have the choice to deny life saving treatment. Vaccinations are not life saving treatment, except things like spot vaccines such as rabies etc, in which case I refer you to my previous answer. I haven't been vaccinated for tetanus since I was six, but I don't currently have lock jaw. There are plenty of people who go through life without being vaccinated by choice or by chance because of herd immunity. It certainly increases their risk, but that isn't the same thing, and I somehow doubt you are up in arms every time a child gets a sunburn which increases their chances of skin cancer. Well you could make the same argument about antibiotics then. Not getting antibiotics doesn't ensure that you die from the infection, it just increases your risk. Plenty of people get infections and survive without antibiotics. A single sunburn now, eh, stuff happens you can't demand the impossible, just like vaccinating your kid a few months late isn't necessarily terrible. But if a parent refused to use sunscreen or limit their child's sun exposure because it's evil wizardry and their kid was getting severe sunburns as a result, I actually would call that child abuse! Caros posted:Feels like I wandered into the liberal version of a Freep thread. Yes clearly Christians are the poor abused minority here, why vaccination requirements are just like Jim Crow! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Well that just proves herd immunity is worthless so why vaccinate anyone at all?  MrGreenShirt posted:3,939 women died in 2010 from cervical cancer. Their lives could have been saved had they been vaccinated. Yeah but then those women would end up in hell so it wouldn't be worth it. And even if you don't believe in hell, you'd still be saving those women at the cost of hurting some Christian Scientists' feelings and we just can't have that guilt weighing on our conscience. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So you end up with a needless violation of religious liberty. I know that's fine with you because you're a goony goon goon who hates religion, but that's not how this country works. No I hate dead children. I'm totally cool with your religion until you decide it means your kids don't get medical care, then gently caress you, take care of your kids. And it's already been pointed out to you that this country doesn't give a gently caress about religious freedom if it's non-Christians because "you can't take psycedelics  think of the children !"Actual dead kids because some Christians totally had brunch with God and He told them over mimosas that He has a hardon for 17th-Century medicine though, meh. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
I'm all for religious freedom. Persecuting people for believing in the wrong God is terrible, and people should be left free to worship their faith. Randomly insulting innocuous religious people with some smug r/atheism burns is also crude and dickish and I don't support that. But for some reason, some religious people take this religion freedom and claim that it means that they get to run society and that their fairy tales should trump facts and evidence. And then it's perfectly fine to tell them to shut the gently caress up and leave science to the experts. Hey have fun with your religion and all, but if you think that because Zeus told you to not vaccinate your kids/not educate women/not give your kids antibiotics/that slavery is totes cool/to stone your daughter for being raped/gays aren't people then no sorry, you believe in magic and your super dumbass brand of magic doesn't determine reality no matter how much you arrogantly insist that God is your best buddy so you know better than medical science. But if your worship isn't hurting anyone else hey, awesome, go for it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Caros posted:Actually I still have the religious freedom argument, that whether you think these people are stupid or not (I do) that it does heavily impose on their freedom. At least those people genuinely believe they're saving their kids' souls or whatever. You're defending letting kids get polio on the basis of not hurting their parents' feelings. Getting a shot is not an imposition on freedom. They can still go to church and worship however they want. They can be idiots and refuse to get blood transfusions too, but they can't deprive their minor children of them. Do you not see the difference between me refusing medical care for myself and me denying it to a powerless child?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Caros posted:The number of these people is so small that it won't make a real dent in herd immunity, they are in a tiny minority compared to the millions who cannot get vaccinated for other reasons. And as I mentioned earlier it's a really lovely Hill to die on, since the optics of taking a child from her mother because of her religious beliefs will feed the persecution complex and in my view will lead to more idiots trying not to get vaccinated simply out of spite from what the gubberment wants. How many of these people actually exist though? It's already been pointed out that yuppies who unfailingly trust celebrities check the religious exemption box to avoid the requirement. But I'm willing to bet that most religious people are pragmatic. If it's totally up to them they'll reject the vaccination sure, but most people aren't going to want to have their kids kept away from them while they pour a ton of money and time into a battle to get them back, when they can just get the shot and ask for forgiveness. The few fundies who screech about tyranny are going to do that no matter what because fundies don't care about religious tolerance; they want to force their religion on everyone. Look at the contraception mandate. Obama preëmptively sold out women working as church secretaries or organists or whatever, telling them their own interpretation of their religion isn't worth poo poo; if the man who pays them is a pastor then his beliefs dictate their healthcare. Did that appease the fundies, or make them say "well the government accomodated churches, so we can meet him halfway"? gently caress no it didn't, they turned the "Satanic Marxist-Obammunism" up to 11, screamed about tyranny, and we still had to treat asinine arguments about if a legal fictional person can love God and if it magically believes that birth control causes abortions then they do so they should get to deny it to women, like those arguments have any relevance to reality. The people who hate everything about the government are going to bitch and moan about religious oppression until we have a theocracy, there's no point in trying to appease them by giving in and letting some of their beliefs trump public health and child welfare; that just tells them their beliefs have some legitimate weight beside empirical facts and they don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Although I'll admit I do have a bit of a beef with Christian Scientists after hearing a boyfriend tell me about his childhood growing up in a Christian Science home. When he was a kid, he legit did not know that medicine existed: he thought an ear infection meant lying in bed for weeks in sickness and pain, hoping God gets around to healing you soon and you don't go deaf. He just thought that's what sickness was and it was all he knew.  He had to suffer through every childhood infection with no treatment and when he got a bit older and met kids from outside his religious community, he was right pissed on finding out that for their illnesses they take some pills or get a shot and they're better in a few days. Fortunately his parents smartened up, got out (braving the shunning of the extended family), and got him and his siblings vaccinated in middle school, and they never got measles or anything. gently caress Christian Science, gently caress Christian Scientists, medicine exists, they can afford it, but they just plain don't want to give it to their suffering kids. Religious freedom isn't a license for child abuse, tell 'em to take their kids to a doctor or take 'em away.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:"the state requires you to accept this medical procedure" sounds a whole lot like "the state requires you to donate a kidney" or something, and while I *fully* admit that is a slippery slope argument, I keep coming back to it. One day the state is requiring you to feed your kids and take them to the doctor, the next day you're bent backwards over an altar screaming as Obama cuts out your heart to sacrifice on the altar of Islamomarxism. Medical treatment. Not even once 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Denying food to your child causes death. Denying a vaccine to your child is not sufficient to cause your child's death. Ah, denying them vaccines isn't sufficient to cause death because another factor, disease, actually kills them. Interesting argument. I suppose leaving them in a bear pit smothered in honey isn't sufficient either because hey, it's the bears killing them. My actions only increased the risk they'll die of a bear attack, which is something the state shouldn't interfere with at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I was arguing that not vaccinating does not guarantee that you will catch it. How does this not apply to almost any medical treatment. Denying my kid antibiotics does not guarantee his pneumococcus infection will kill him. People used to recover from pneumonia without treatment all the time!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:It absolutely applies to pretty much any other medical treatment. And yet there are people whose firmly held beliefs do not allow them to partake of those treatments. I don't agree with it, I don't like it, I advocate against it and I think efforts should be made to make that happen as rarely as possible. And yet, I don't think mandating medical procedures is an appropriate use of state powers. Okay, so just to be clear, your argument is that the biggest injustice in this story: Faith-Healing Parents Jailed After Second Child’s Death quote:A Pennsylvania mother and father who believe in faith-healing were sent to jail Wednesday for causing the death of their young, sick child by refusing to take him to the doctor. It was the second of Herbert and Catherine Schaible’s children to die under their care. Is that the government is not respecting the religious freedom of these people to kill their two children from neglect, and instead of being in jail they should be free, permitted to continue having children to neglect, beyond the reach of the law, hoping that eventually one will make it out of childhood alive despite complete withholding of medical care? Is this your position?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:No. Legal actions (I'm not saying that those actions were legal in the case you quoted) that result in harm or death should be prosecuted when possible. My objection was to mandated prophalactic medical procedures, not to there being legal ramifications for people who opt to not protect their children medically and then fail to protect them (or others) from the increased risk caused by their choice. I specifically asked you about active medical treatment for disease, not prophylactics though. VitalSigns posted:How does this not apply to almost any medical treatment. Denying my kid antibiotics does not guarantee his pneumococcus infection will kill him. People used to recover from pneumonia without treatment all the time! You said Bel Shazar posted:It absolutely applies to pretty much any other medical treatment. And yet there are people whose firmly held beliefs do not allow them to partake of those treatments. I don't agree with it, I don't like it, I advocate against it and I think efforts should be made to make that happen as rarely as possible. And yet, I don't think mandating medical procedures is an appropriate use of state powers. So could you explain? Should it be legal to withhold antibiotics from a child suffering from pneumococcus, or not? If not, why is it okay to expose your child to needless risk of death by withholding vaccines, but not to expose him to needless risk of death by withholding antibiotics? Neither thing guarantees death.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:Modern experiments have found evidence that human brains are rather poo poo at accurately determining risk. You can say that you prefer incentives over mandatory laws at getting people vaccinated, but you're then putting unjustified faith in the risk assessment of normal human beings. Your position is in opposition to real evidence. Just to reiterate what you're saying, this was demonstrated pretty strongly when this happened: Pohl posted:That church in Texas that was anti-vaccine actually held vaccination clinics after a bunch of them got measles. It turns out that being anti-vaccine is cool until people start catching diseases that will disable and or kill them. Parents today are the first generation to grow up without they or anyone they know ever getting these diseases, and they literally have no idea what they are, or what they do so vaccines against something no one ever gets seems unnecessary and needles are scary so any argument against them can appear like a plausible reason "not to take the risk of injections". Education isn't enough. Sometimes you have to force people because they are willfully or negligently ignorant. Especially since experiencing the consequences finally drills some sense into these idiots, so if education doesn't work you might as well force them to do what they're almost definitely going to want to do anyway once one of their kids dies. But with the mandate we can skip the whole needlessly dead kids part.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
These laws are a good idea. If we are going to allow religious or conscience exceptions (which we should not be doing), at least make it more of a hassle than getting the drat shot is and require medical consultation, so at least negligent assholes don't just check the box because it's easier and anyone who is incurious but not super dumb has to let a doctor show them a flipbook of polio pictures or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:(falls over dead after contracting smallpox) Anti-vaxxers suck but blaming them in the event of a terrorist's biological weapons attack is a stretch.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Apparently we didn't even bother to keep records so we could at least follow up later and tell people "Hey, that wasn't a vaccine, you should go get a real one from these people, sorry!" At least this time we didn't purposely infect anyone with syphilis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:We didn't intentionally infect those people, we just lied to them about how they were being treated. It was still loving horrible, but not as bad as you are implying. Actually, wives of these men became infected over the course of the study, and their children were born with congenital syphilis. This was an obvious outcome of witholding treatment (or in some cases diagnosis!) and we did it anyway, so it's pretty accurate to say we intentionally infected people with syphilis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Especially when it comes to polio, that's a huge argument for mandatory near-universal vaccination because if we wipe out the disease, no one will ever have to be vaccinated for it again. Isn't the smallpox vaccine the one with the highest risk of complications? And also, it's one of those times you have to force people, because even a simple game theory analysis will tell you that as more people are vaccinated and the disease incidence drops, skipping vaccination starts to become more desireable for an individual.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:How do parents who willfully not vaccinate their kid not get charged with, at least, reckless endangerment if a kid dies from an easily vaccinated disease? Because somehow absolutely stupid claims that "religious freedom" means getting to abuse someone else by forcing them to follow idiot anti-medicine beliefs are taken seriously in America. Even if we did pass a law requiring vaccines with no religious exception, some fundie is going to claim that vaccines cause abortions and the Supreme Court will be like "sounds good to me"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:I thought the courts have been ruling against that thought. Yeah but that's only because the anti-vaxxers haven't had the opportunity yet to tell Alito that vaccines cause abortions  But seriously I think those court cases only said the school district didn't have to accept kids-who-are-unvaccinated-due-to-stupid-parents, not that the parents had to vaccinate or that letting your kid get polio because Moses or Jenny McCarthy said a thing is child neglect.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Until there arises up a new generation over America, who will not have known Measles, and so will think that Vaccines are Not Necessary and also cause Leprosy or something, Despite the best Evidence. Selah. Now I finally understand why God kept asking Moses to let Him kill all the Israelites every time He dazzled them with a miracle to save their asses and two hours later they'd forgotten all about it and were worshiping random animals or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:Its regular price is 150$, how do people who believe in magic writing untensils afford to get scammed so much? But it retails for $300! The savings!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Generally, the government does not intervene on questions of preventative care. I hate slippery slope arguments, but if one were to say the government had a right to dictate when a parent must vaccinate or face criminal sanction/removal of child, could the same be applied to routine dental screenings? ActusRhesus posted:pap smears starting at a certain age? etc. etc. ActusRhesus posted:Add our lack of universal preventative care to the mix (some parents can't afford preventative care) and you have another issue to consider ActusRhesus posted:As for what happens when a kid does get measles or polio or something, there would probably be a causation issue. While not getting vaccinated certainly put the kid at greater risk, unless the parent not only failed to vaccinate and then exposed the kid to a live virus, had them tongue kiss the neighbor kid with measles, etc. etc. it would be difficult to prove any sort of criminal liability. Not vaccinating doesn't necessarily mean one WILL get sick, as opposed to something more certain. e.g. if you do not give this child these anti-biotics now, your kid's infection will spread and they will die. Leaving my infant unsupervised in the bathtub doesn't necessarily mean he'll drown. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Your understanding of negligence/recklessness as it is applied in a criminal context is a little off here. Well sure. And just like the laws can create a definition of negligence that the courts can interpret without slipping us down the slippery slope to suing us for forgetting to brush the cat, so too can we make laws defining not vaccinating your kids in accordance with a doctor's recommendation as neglect without making everything into neglect.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:OK. How? I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see failing to vaccinate handled in a more draconian fashion, but how would you bring it under the criminal code? As I see it, first, our criminal code generally goes after people for specific actions, not omissions. An Omission case is a lot harder. Second, as a matter of public policy, we tend not to put criminal sanctions on parents for medical issues regarding their kids because we want patents to go to doctors, seek help, etc. etc. I have a baby. I need help for my baby. But if I take baby to hospital and they find out baby was not vaccinated, I will be arrested. Result: I stay home and baby dies. Well, you write the law to discourage that. Not vaccinating your kid, minor penalty (kid gets taken away by child services maybe, or CPS checks hospital records, sees your kid isn't vaccinated, knocks on the door and tells you to do it). Keeping your kid with measles home until he dies, major penalty. Not feeding your kid for a couple days, minor penalty. Going "oh poo poo, don't let them take my kids" and locking him inside until he starves to death, major penalty. ActusRhesus posted:It's the same reason why we don't (in most states) go after pregnant drug users. We want to encourage people to come forward and get help/treatment even if it's late in the game. Also, you run into major mens rea issues re: recklessness, amplified by the fact that every state gives a "exemption" you run into major "gross negligence" issues because the risk of contracting these diseases is still remote (because of people who are not idiots and continue to vaccinate), therefore the "substantial" in "substantial risk" is missing, and you would also have causation issues, as you would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal context, that the defendant's failure to vaccinate was the proximate cause of the illness. Make giving the vaccination a legal duty (like feeding and clothing your kid), then require parents do it or take the kids away if it's not done. We don't wait until a child starves to death before getting involved, why should we wait until after an unvaccinated kid dies of polio to get involved?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
That's what statutes are for. No one claims kids will die if they don't go to school but somehow we managed to write statutes that require school attendance or the kids get taken away.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Except they don't. See e.g. Wisconsin v. Yoder That case still seems to acknowledge the State's right to require education up to eighth grade, and the Amish still had to show that their kids got vocational training after that to be successful members of the Amish community. ActusRhesus posted:Also, are you proposing a regulatory intervention or a criminal sanction? Both? If you don't vaccinate your kids, the state considers it neglect and intervenes. If you purposefully evade that and hide your kids or whatever, you're breaking the law. If your child dies as a result, that's criminal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Homeschooled children still have to be able to demonstrate competency in basic subjects though, you can't just keep them in the backyard and claim you homeschooled them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:The point that ActusRhesus was making is that if the kid's already sick, we don't want the parents to face the decision point of "take the kid in for treatment and certainly be punished, or hope the kid gets better by himself and not be punished at all." There are a lot of people who are going to choose the latter, even when the medical condition is dire, because they're afraid or selfish. Right, so if you find out the kid isn't vaccinated, you require the parents to vaccinate him or take the kid away. If the parent tries to avoid this by keeping a sick kid at home until he dies, then that's criminal. We already do this. If a kid has rickets or something because he's not being fed properly, we require the parents to take care of the kid right or we take him. Nobody goes "oh well actually we should let that slide because what if the kid gets injured and has to go to the hospital but the parents are afraid to take him in because the doctor will certainly notice he has rickets too and notify CPS so they can deal with that". ActusRhesus posted:Anyway, the problem you will face is under the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, states pretty much have to give "exemptions" for religious reasons, and any anti-vaxxer who's got half a brain, in the face of a more draconian law will say "My deeply held spiritual beliefs blah blah blah" No you don't, the RFRA only applies to laws that don't specifically say "and the RFRA doesn't apply to this law" somewhere in it. Also, the RFRA doesn't apply to state laws (see City of Boerne v. Flores) which are generally where educational and child welfare policy is done. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And when you remove these kids, where will you remove them to? The same place you remove them to when parents refuse even to homeschool their kids: it only happens in a few necessary cases because nearly all parents when faced with that will say "ok fine I'll vaccinate/send them to school/make sure they can pass homeschooling exams." Your average suburban mom who watches a Jenny McCarthy video on YouTube and goes "well I'll skip vaccines just in case" is not the kind of zealot who will hole up David Koresh style when CPS comes by to say "hey you really need to vaccinate your kid, not kidding". ActusRhesus posted:Yes...because draconian laws that end in removal of children from their parents have such a great track record of encouraging indigents to seek public resources. If they're indigent, the answer is to vaccinate their kids for free, obviously. Actually all vaccines should be free as a simple public health measure.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 20:30
|
|