As invariably he does, Aractus again uses the tired old false equivalence argument. He seems to not
comprehend the criticality of childhood immunisations, in order for self-protection, as well as guaranteeing
herd immunity. His thinking sounds very close to that of the ignorant, selfish anti-vaxxers.
And as his usual wont, he attempts to reinforce his argument with a rambling, irrelevant straw man; in
this case the Sentinelese people who live on a tiny isolated island in the Bay of Bengal. During a 2014
circumnavigation researchers recorded six females, seven males—all apparently under 40 years old—and
three children younger than four.
And his claim that "no one should be forced to take a vaccine against their will, nor should parents be
forced to give their children medical interventions they haven't consented to" reflects exactly the stated
viewpoint of the anti-vaxxers. Of course compulsory immunisation legislation should be introduced, as
some parents are simply too uneducated or stubborn to get their children—even from their increased
vulnerability as neonatals—properly vaccinated. And they're also selfishly single-minded in their wilful
rebuttal of the very protection their own kids are (hopefully) getting from herd immunity.
And to introduce my own straw man, what about the Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions
on religious grounds? Section 24 of the Victorian Human Tissue Act 1982 enacts that a medical practitioner
who gives a child a blood transfusion against the express wishes of the parent is not committing a
criminal offence. The blood transfusion must be treatment for a condition the child has and without
the transfusion the child is likely to die.
Unfortunately, Aractus's notions of medicine are truly disturbing for an apparently well-educated individual.
I have no medical qualifications in order to form an opinion on vaccination, other than relying in turn on the
opinions of duly qualified medical practitioners. Unless Aractus can show us some sort of personal medical
qualifications, then anything he writes needs to be treated merely as his personal opinion—a lot of it erroneous,
and often a distortion of the accepted facts.
comprehend the criticality of childhood immunisations, in order for self-protection, as well as guaranteeing
herd immunity. His thinking sounds very close to that of the ignorant, selfish anti-vaxxers.
Aractus Wrote:Do you say the same thing about parents who allow their children to compete in equestrian events?
What about other risky activities like rock climbing, hiking, driving. Do you think it's immoral for parents to drive their
children around in their car? How about uncontacted peoples - like the North Sentinelese, are you going to go over to
their island and force them to take vaccines? Do you think they're immoral for not knowing about modern medicine?
And as his usual wont, he attempts to reinforce his argument with a rambling, irrelevant straw man; in
this case the Sentinelese people who live on a tiny isolated island in the Bay of Bengal. During a 2014
circumnavigation researchers recorded six females, seven males—all apparently under 40 years old—and
three children younger than four.
And his claim that "no one should be forced to take a vaccine against their will, nor should parents be
forced to give their children medical interventions they haven't consented to" reflects exactly the stated
viewpoint of the anti-vaxxers. Of course compulsory immunisation legislation should be introduced, as
some parents are simply too uneducated or stubborn to get their children—even from their increased
vulnerability as neonatals—properly vaccinated. And they're also selfishly single-minded in their wilful
rebuttal of the very protection their own kids are (hopefully) getting from herd immunity.
And to introduce my own straw man, what about the Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions
on religious grounds? Section 24 of the Victorian Human Tissue Act 1982 enacts that a medical practitioner
who gives a child a blood transfusion against the express wishes of the parent is not committing a
criminal offence. The blood transfusion must be treatment for a condition the child has and without
the transfusion the child is likely to die.
Unfortunately, Aractus's notions of medicine are truly disturbing for an apparently well-educated individual.
I have no medical qualifications in order to form an opinion on vaccination, other than relying in turn on the
opinions of duly qualified medical practitioners. Unless Aractus can show us some sort of personal medical
qualifications, then anything he writes needs to be treated merely as his personal opinion—a lot of it erroneous,
and often a distortion of the accepted facts.
I'm a creationist; I believe that man created God.
