Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
OK Republican calling for forced vaccininations - as predicted
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mugsy" data-source="post: 2755459" data-attributes="member: 18914"><p>Sh00ter & Crrcboatz - I think you each are half-way there. We live in a constitutional republic with built-in protections for minority and/or general rights BUT in the overall context of majority rule on most issues. The U.S. Constitution isn't designed to prevent majority rule but rather to prevent its abuse. Majority rule is a principle that is easily abused and can easily veer into tyranny. Even when the majority decides that some issue must be backed by force of law it should be done to the minimum level required to meet the need. Stopping the spread of communicable disease can be a worthy and reasonable goal but even that can be abused. So, for example, immunizing againt certain diseases is necessary because the carrier may be infectious long before he displays symptoms and the disease may be spread very easily and so a preventative approach makes sense. Some other immunizations do not present as compelling a case - compelled HPV immunization of all children (males teens were just added to the recommended list) seems like gross over-reach, especially given that HPV isn't really preventing a "crisis" in the same sense as prevention of smallpox does. IMHO if the case isn't a compelling public health need then the State (federal or one of the fifty) should not be forcing anything as a general principle of law. Hmmm..I may have veered off of the OP topic a little, my apologies.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mugsy, post: 2755459, member: 18914"] Sh00ter & Crrcboatz - I think you each are half-way there. We live in a constitutional republic with built-in protections for minority and/or general rights BUT in the overall context of majority rule on most issues. The U.S. Constitution isn't designed to prevent majority rule but rather to prevent its abuse. Majority rule is a principle that is easily abused and can easily veer into tyranny. Even when the majority decides that some issue must be backed by force of law it should be done to the minimum level required to meet the need. Stopping the spread of communicable disease can be a worthy and reasonable goal but even that can be abused. So, for example, immunizing againt certain diseases is necessary because the carrier may be infectious long before he displays symptoms and the disease may be spread very easily and so a preventative approach makes sense. Some other immunizations do not present as compelling a case - compelled HPV immunization of all children (males teens were just added to the recommended list) seems like gross over-reach, especially given that HPV isn't really preventing a "crisis" in the same sense as prevention of smallpox does. IMHO if the case isn't a compelling public health need then the State (federal or one of the fifty) should not be forcing anything as a general principle of law. Hmmm..I may have veered off of the OP topic a little, my apologies. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
OK Republican calling for forced vaccininations - as predicted
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom