Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Meanwhile in the real world, High Court orders two sisters must receive MMR vaccine. I suppose the High Court is just another part of the conspiracy, right peacegirl? Or they're fooled by the scientists and their oh-so-misleading, peer-reviewed, well designed empirical studies? |
Yes, this is probably politically motivated. For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical. There are many cases where a parent's right to choose is disregarded. |
The point you missed is that... best sit down and concentrate hard for this one, as it is rather complicated...
There are TWO parents! 
The father wants the children vaccinated, the mother doesn't. The parents are separated and sufficiently angry with each other to take the argument over the children to law - which is how the high court came to be involved in the first place. |
peacegirl, since your response indicates you didn't read the article, I am really curious as to what your immediate thought was as to why a judge was ruling on this at all. Who did you imagine took the case to court? Why did you assume it was a political thing? |
|
I'm assuming the parents went to court because they couldn't solve the issue on their own. But it seems to me that the mother was at a disadvantage because the judge, being part of a political system, is representing the people therefore he would naturally side with the father since not vaccinating (according to that time period) is something only the fringe of society or the destitute do. |
Liar. Your initial answer was based on the link title, as it showed zero indication that you had read the article and understood that it was a case of a disagreement between two parents. I am also pretty sure you thought it happened in the US, since you have no idea how judges are appointed in the UK, so assumed some political motiviation.
If you had read and understood it, you wouldn't have responded with " For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical", nor would you have assumed political motivation. |
Would you please shut up with your better than thou attitude? I was referring to the new world. In this world the courts are needed to solve disputes. But in the new world there will be no court making these decisions (since these issues won't come up; although there will be lawmakers that will clarify what is a hurt and what isn't) just as there will be no authority mandating vaccines, which is unethical (or morally unjustifiable), especially when a no blame environment will compel them to be honest with themselves that they really don't know whether vaccines are completely safe or which children could be adversely affected. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
OMG and you claim you no longer weasel? This is a flat out lie.
Where in your initial response, which is clearly and unambiguously what I was asking about, is there anything indicating you were talking about the new world that doesn't exist?
|
Doesn't matter. I often compare the two worlds because I want to show how these issues won't even come up. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.
Quote:
|
1. Yes, this is probably politically motivated.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Definitely referring to current world, specifically the US
|
Absolutely not. Dragar mentioned the high court in the UK. Appointments are not the same as elections, true, but it's still a political system and, as such, it is going to have an impact on the judge's decision. That's what I meant when I said politically motivated.
Quote:
|
2. For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Talking about this world, and this case
|
I wasn't referring to this case specifically. This case was justified because the parents weren't in agreement. I was stating that parents should not be penalized if they choose not to vaccinate. And that's what government does. It penalizes parents and the children suffer.
Quote:
|
3. There are many cases where a parent's right to choose is disregarded.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No new world in this either
|
You're right, this statement was not about the new world. It was to show how wrong it is for a government agency to override a parent's decision [as to what she believes is in the best interest of her child] by forcing compliance, especially when the issue is as controversial as vaccines.