Imaginary Friends And Needles
A David Gorski tweet:
@gorskon Quoth @DrPaulOffit on religious exemptions to vaccination: Your religious beliefs don't give you the right to martyr your children. #TAM2014
Imaginary Friends And Needles
A David Gorski tweet:
@gorskon Quoth @DrPaulOffit on religious exemptions to vaccination: Your religious beliefs don't give you the right to martyr your children. #TAM2014
Why don't you ask SillyRaddy, who authoritatively declares that children don't have rights?
Patrick at July 12, 2014 12:21 PM
A dangerous precedent. Once you decide the government has the right to tell you how to raise your children where does it stop. Are all 'conservatives' bad people who must have their children taken away. Should all home schooled children be sent to government reeducation camps?
There is a public interest in limiting disease. Refusing to offer services (public schools) if people don't comply is the traditional way to handle this.
The same applies to federal control of education. While the federal government has no control over how states educate their citizens, once a state takes federal money the threat of losing that money is used to control state policies.
Ben at July 12, 2014 2:40 PM
Set the viewer for 2022 AD and read thus --
"Quoth @DrFederali on religious exemptions to implanted ID chips: Your religious beliefs don't give you the right to render your children anonymous and untraceable."
Quoth @SecretaryOfEducation on religious exemptions to Presidential Youth Camp: Your religious beliefs don't give you the right to make your children friendless outcasts who do not know the words to the songs about Our Leader. #HAILtotheCHIEFbaby
Quoth @ImanOfDearborne on religious exemptions to daily prayer: Your worship of Gaia doesn't give you the right to damn your children to Allah's wrath.
Quoth @TheShortForm: OBEY (hashtag OBEY)
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at July 12, 2014 5:24 PM
Somewhere, even now, something bad is happening, and some fool is perfectly willing to trample on the rights of 300 million in a futile attempt to make sure it never happens again. My kids got their immunizations, because I'm not an idiot. No shots, no school. Seems like a reasonable compromise to protect public health and respect the First Amendment.
MarkD at July 13, 2014 5:06 AM
Patrick – should I call you Patsy or remain an adult? Patrick it is – you may notice that these children have guardians, because in the eyes of the law they are incompetent and cannot exercise rights.
If you were not caught up in some sort of emotional turmoil, you might notice that if they actually had rights, there would not be this storm of controversy about this issue.
But you and many others are confused about the term, "rights"; apparently, millions think the government grants rights. I suspect that is the case with you, given your line of discussion.
Of course, that is grossly wrong. Rights are claimed and defended by individuals. You are simply painting with the broadest possible brush.
Children have no right to enter into legal contracts, bear arms, vote… their freedom of expression is constantly limited.
Oh, yes – in fact, you yourself would never tolerate the limitations imposed on children, even as you frequently act like one.
Radwaste at July 13, 2014 6:15 AM
Radwaste,
Don't forget the big one, work for pay. Your 10 year old cannot go down to the local factory and pickup trash for minimum wage. We have child labor laws. If you or I couldn't work for pay we would be very hungry.
Ben at July 13, 2014 8:29 AM
Oh, just ignore SillyRaddy, Ben. He's bitter because he said something so profoundly idiotic that it deserved to be laughed at. So, I did laugh at him, and proved him wrong, and he's hated me for it ever since.
It seems that Amy once made the comment "children have rights, too." Which they do. It was then that this dyed-in-the-wool moron made his comment which so clearly showed he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. He said, rather sagely (and stupidly), "Children do not have rights as enumerated by the Constitution."
That, of course, ranks among the most profoundly ignorant comments ever seen on this blog. The Constitution recognizes children as citizens. They are persons, and as the Constitution says, "ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
They do not create some nebulous class of "junior citizen." A child born or naturalized in the U.S. is as much a citizen as any adult.
And you have to remember, SillyRaddy said "as enumerated by the Constitution." Obviously, he thinks that children are given no rights in the Constitution. But the Constitution itself does not recognize children as anything other than citizens.
State laws, state Constitutions, yes. They do place certain restriction on children. But to say that they have no rights as enumerated by the Constitution of the United States EASILY ranks as among the dumbest things I'm likely to read.
I'm very annoyed by morons who have no idea what they're talking about when they try to make these profoundly informative statements...which make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and have no basis in fact.
So, I pointed out Tinker v. DesMoines, in which a fifteen-year-old, sixteen-year-old and a thirteen-year-old sued for the right to wear arm bands in protest of government action. And won!
The Supreme Court maintained that children do have the right to free speech, saying that they didn't abandon them at the schoolhouse gate. This would, of course, indicate that children have freedom of speech and Rad is full of shit.
Moreover, it would also suggest that children have other rights, since they the Court didn't suggest that this was one of their few rights, or their only right.
Also, obviously, they have the right to sue, since the lead plaintiff in this case was fifteen years old. Does that not seem like such a right to you? It's more than a slave has. The Supreme Court in deciding Dred Scott v. Sandford maintained that since Dred Scott was property, he had no right to sue at all. (Though they nonetheless decided to rule on this case.)
As for their right to vote. Rad compounded his stupid statement by saying "as enumerated by the Constitution." Ah, Minor v. Happersett determined that the Constitution doesn't give the right to vote to anyone, and indeed it doesn't.
It does place restrictions on the states that prevent them from withholding the right to vote on the basis of race or gender, but the Constitution doesn't give the right to vote to anyone.
Parents are the protectors and executors of children's rights. And yes, states and the federal government do restrict children from certain things, but to say they have no rights is so overwhelming idiotic, SillyRaddy should be ridiculed to his dying for that stupid comment.
Children do have rights and exercise them every day. To point to a few restrictions placed upon them by the law for their own protection and then arrive at the conclusion that they have no rights whatsoever and that they're just their guardians' chattel is stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.
Patrick at July 13, 2014 3:46 PM
So here's one o' those guys we entrust with creating our laws. Maybe not a good idea trusting our kids to them fellers.
When you get to part about the anti-bullying initiative being part of a plan to distribute the AIDS virus, try not to have a thrombo.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 13, 2014 4:19 PM
Leave a comment