Well both seem absurd to me, I know some anti- vaccination parents though. They're really good parents in general, I don't agree with them but they genuinely think they're doing best for their children and I don't think the government should interfere with their choices. The government should protect those that have chosen otherwise, I don't think unvaccinated children should be allowed to mingle with others for example, but prison ?
Do you think parents who refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds should be overruled?
Do you agree that vaccination is a medical treatment?
Are vaccinations highly protective against serious disease and death?
Are the rights of children to access medical treatment and life more important than the religious, superstitious or otherwise irrational beliefs of their parents?
Assuming that you respond in the affirmative to all of the above, what should happen when parents refuse vaccination for their children?
I am not calling for jail sentences or some such. My concern is the welfare of the children. So, which comes first: the welfare of children, or irrational peculiarities and sensitivities of parents?
I accept that there are problems with enforcement when a fucking shocking number of parents are so fucking irresponsible to consider not vaccinating their children is a valid option. But let's not muddy the waters by making false distinctions: not vaccinating children or refusing them life-saving medical treatment (with vanishing small risks) pretty-much disqualifies someone as a good and responsible parent.