Australia Enforces $15K Tax Penalty for Parents who Don’t Vaccinate

[Armoured]

Ah yes, Tim Minchin the hilarious atheist. Nice to see that Christians find him funny too.

Well that's the best example of an ad hominem I've seen in, literally, days.

 

[Armoured]

I love that video. It's almost verbatim of what goes through my head when I talk to certain people.

I use the "Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work?" line disturbingly often.

 

[LionL]

One of my favourite Tim Minchin quotes is his musings on Tony, the first 'fish' ever to have feet:

"Imagine what Tony would think, standing there on his brand new feet on the brink of the beginnings of mankind as we know it... if he could look forward just a few short... hundreds of millions of years... to see one of his descendants... an Israeli Jew by the name of Jesus, having a nail hammered through his feet... the very feet that Tony provided him with, as a punishment for having a, sort of, schizophrenic discourse with a God who was created by Mankind to explain the existence of feet in the absence of the knowledge of the existence of Tony.”

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Way to go, Australia.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I support immunizations, but I also support a parents right to refuse medical care for their child as they see fit.
The parents are the two people that must look out for the child and the best interest of health and welfare for that child.

How far do you think that right should extend?
http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/

 

[TheDag]

And what makes them qualified to determine what is in the childs best interest? Do they have the medical knowledge and such? I always find it funny, a person with zero pilots training wouldn't tell a pilot how to fly the plane they were on, but people who have less then zero knowledge in a subject about medicine feel they are better qualified then the experts on what is or isn't in a childs interest.

Also this isn't about their child, it's about the other children their child may kill through their neglect. Measels doesn't just effect your child, it spreads to everyone elses children, and I've said this over and over, those that defend the right of parents not to vaccinate their children, can they be jailed, or sued, if their refusal to vaccinate their children can be directly linked to the deaths of other children or people?

No because you are within your rights to refuse medical treatment.

As for your analogy sure we wouldn't tell a pilot how to fly a plane (not that pilots do much flying these days) but there are heaps of decisions parents make where they do not have the knowledge to make the decision but nobody suggests we take that decision away from parents. With medicines track record of finding things perfectly safe and then decade or two later finding they are actually harmful also says the experts may not be right either. Also studies that are done are only representative of the majority. There is no evidence as to what is best for an individual.

What would be good is if they found a cure for these diseases. Hopefully they will one day. Vaccination is not a cure. You can still get the diseases if you are vaccinated. To be clear I am talking about if you are vaccinated and the vaccination worked you can still get these diseases.

 

[TheDag]

So you are good with people beating and starving their children?

very interesting comment. After seeing you call people out on fallacies you decide to use one yourself. Interesting.

 

[TheDag]

That requires you to actually be reasonable, I've already pointed out the reason, if multiple deaths and 3 outbreaks in as many years with resugence of whooping cough, measels, and other deadly diseases in the very populations that your defending then then kill and get those not part of that group sick...just what is your defense?

Whooping cough has a resurgence because the majority of people are not vaccinated. Oh sure they received the vaccine once years ago however everyone needs a booster every 4-5 years for that. Well at least the experts say you need a booster that often.
You have failed to address the realities that exist in todays world. Several were mentioned earlier in this thread. If nobody left the country and nobody came from other countries to the US then yeah there would be no chance of a resurgence. However the reality in the world today is people travel.

Do you honestly think you have the right to kill my child because you have a mistaken impression that your right to get my child sick overides my right to have him not get sick?

emotional response devoid of facts

the people like you have KILLED people with your neglect, this isn't some hypothetical situation. before vaccinations most of these disease either killed or left children with issues.

People have died from vaccinations. People have died from other things declared safe by experts. Then you have had lawyers fighting against a quick trial which was requested because most of the people involved would die if they had to wait the normal time for a trial.
We also know there have been harmful substances in vaccines in the past that have been removed. Can you confidently say there is nothing harmful in vaccines now knowing that once upon a time experts thought absestos was fin and that doctors frequently advised people to take up smoking as a cheap treatment for their health problems. Also bearing in mind that the riskier far more potentially harmful polio vaccine is still in use today because it costs less rather than the safer version.

What is your defense? What is your excuse for why you should be allowed to risk children that have nothing to do with you and your ideas on vaccinations?

You were asked to put your case forward. You have not done so other than to make a couple of emotional statements and said it should be clear. It is not reasonable to ask another person to put forward their case when you have not put forward your evidence.

The goverment is only enforcing what the doctors are saying, you don't have a right to risk other people's lives, we have laws about everything else thats dangerous, drinking while driving, firing guns haphazardly, inproper food saftey, and none of those compare to the dangers that a out break of many diseases could cause.

So the government has banned cigarettes altogether then have they?

Or what about guns? Or are people clinging to their constitutional rights on that? Including many who support blindly following vaccinations. Personally I have an issue with one vaccine as it is given to kids and is more about protecting adults not the kids. My child is fully vaccinated in accordance with the govt schedule (was late getting one of them but when my wife went into hospital with a suspected heart attack I was a little distracted and busy)

 

[Blue Wren]

Please watch this. I promise you'll love it

Your promise, was true.

 

[Green Sun]

How far do you think that right should extend?
http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/

I hate every time I hear this story, it's horrible they let this happen to two of their children. Both died of pneumonia, something that could quite easily be treated in any hospital. I really do hope the other seven children will be kept safe from them when they are released in nine more years.

But this does show one thing, if parents can be imprisoned for refusing to give their children medical care, even if it goes against their beliefs, then the government is already saying that the health of your child comes before your religious objections to medicine. I don't think many people here would agree those two parents were in the right when they withheld medical care just once, but twice, allowing those two young children to die.

The government and society as a whole has a duty to make sure people, especially children, are given proper medical care for their well being, and vaccines help prevent diseases that can easily kill children. I don't see much of a difference between this case and a case where a child dies from a disease his or her parents refused to give them a vaccination for if they were medically able to be vaccinated.

 

[keith99]

very interesting comment. After seeing you call people out on fallacies you decide to use one yourself. Interesting.

No it was a reply to a statement that seemed to advocate absolute parental rights to do as they see fit with their children. It was a reduction to absurdidity of that argument. A common debate technique.

 

[TheDag]

No it was a reply to a statement that seemed to advocate absolute parental rights to do as they see fit with their children. It was a reduction to absurdidity of that argument. A common debate technique.

so it seems that the difference between a fallacy and good debate technique is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen plenty of people do exactly what you have done and because they are in the minority people are jumping up & down crying fallacy fallacy fallacy! Good to know thats how it works

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Tell that to the Centers for Disease Control ...

Vaccines and Immunizations: Listing of Side Effects | CDC

A vaccine, like any medicine, could cause a serious reaction.​

In all fairness though...the same list of side effects can be found for aspirin...I'm still going to take a few next time I get a headache lol.

If this were another form of medical risk...like say, a parent of a child with strep throat knowingly refused to get them meds because they opposed antibiotic use, I think there would be a child endangerment case involved.

However, I don't see where they're threatening to throw these parents in jail...and I haven't read where it's a true 'tax penalty' as suggested in the title of the thread...but rather, stipulations on a tax credit & welfare benefits. ...not unlike some of the stipulations we have on welfare benefits here in the US. One example is localities that drug test in order to be eligible to receive certain welfare benefits.

With that being said, I know turn my attention to some of the progressives who support this measure, but oppose drug testing for welfare benefits

Why is it okay for a government to put stipulations on welfare benefits for vaccinations, but not for drug usage? Aren't both technically a case of the government doing a little "behavioral conditioning" via financial incentives?

 

[keith99]

so it seems that the difference between a fallacy and good debate technique is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen plenty of people do exactly what you have done and because they are in the minority people are jumping up & down crying fallacy fallacy fallacy! Good to know thats how it works

True enough there. With more time to think I realize using withholding food from children would have been a better choice.

There is however a difference between the reduction to absurdity and the slippery slope fallacy. The first points out a failure of an argument. E.g. if the argument is correct then it covers this also. The second claims if one is allowed the other will follow.

Since the argument against government mandated vaccinations I was responding to was absolute parental rights my counter was to show that almost no one buys that position, the question was not absolute parental rights vrs. absolute governmental rights but rather where does one draw the line.

 

[NightHawkeye]

In all fairness though...the same list of side effects can be found for aspirin...I'm still going to take a few next time I get a headache lol.

Not me. I'm allergic to aspirin ... and also sulfa, one of the "miracle" drugs.

Call me sympathetic to the position of individuals getting to decide what goes into their own bodies. I know from personal experience that the "infrequent" side effects do, in fact, occur.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I hate every time I hear this story, it's horrible they let this happen to two of their children. Both died of pneumonia, something that could quite easily be treated in any hospital. I really do hope the other seven children will be kept safe from them when they are released in nine more years.

But this does show one thing, if parents can be imprisoned for refusing to give their children medical care, even if it goes against their beliefs, then the government is already saying that the health of your child comes before your religious objections to medicine. I don't think many people here would agree those two parents were in the right when they withheld medical care just once, but twice, allowing those two young children to die.

The government and society as a whole has a duty to make sure people, especially children, are given proper medical care for their well being, and vaccines help prevent diseases that can easily kill children. I don't see much of a difference between this case and a case where a child dies from a disease his or her parents refused to give them a vaccination for if they were medically able to be vaccinated.

I completely agree.

I think sincerely held religious beliefs can be positive, but parents like these are an example of how rigid, unyielding adherence to dogma can be catastrophic.

 

[OGM]

I would not allow religious beliefs to be used. I would allow medical exemptions...such as people receiving cancer treatments, etc....)

 

[TheDag]

I would not allow religious beliefs to be used. I would allow medical exemptions...such as people receiving cancer treatments, etc....)

If they were free and it cost nothing to go to the doctor then I would be happy to go with that. However we do know that for some people the vaccine does not work. Please do not make the common mistake of thinking I am talking about people with compromised immune systems. So to summarize I have a problem with forcing people to take a vaccine that may not work. Forced is the correct word to use because there are a number of people who simply would not survive without these payments. Especially when linked in with other govt policies.
Of course with when you take amount of population that naturally will not take to the vaccine add in those who are allergic and those with compromised immune systems and conscienteous objectors then I doubt they could actually achieve the required immunization rates to prevent these diseases from returning. So I think the required rates are lower than they think but of course that is just my opinion.