Ordered to have vaccine

Ordered to have vaccine

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

The mother produced opposing evidence that the vaccinations were unnecessary but was criticised in the judgment for submitting evidence from an "immunisation sceptic", who made what the magistrate described as "outlandish statements unsupported by any empirical evidence".

(visit the link for the full news article)

In this case the divorced parents disagreed whether to have their child vaccinated so the courts chose for them. I'm not sure how you can have it any other way than the judge deciding in place of the parents, since the parents could not agree. I do however think that the judge should have delegated the decision to someone with medical knowledge designated to actually look at the studies and summarize them for the judge. All too often doctors just parrot knowledge passed off as fact, when those facts turn out to be bloated assumptions. That is especially true with vaccinations, which turn out to be a terrible idea a very large amount of the time.

www.dailytelegraph.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

The subject title of this thread is a tad misleading I think. Yes it's true but when one reads the story, it turns out not to be a straight matter of the state imposing it's will on someone.
As said, it is the court ruling in the favour of one parent against another.
At this stage in life I wouldn't choose to be vaccinated any more. But as a child I was vaccinated along with trillions of others. The fact is that for every sad and terrible story of individuals having an adverse reaction, millions suffer no adverse effects whatsoever. And even taking into account that some of the consequences go unreported, it is FACT that some previously fatal childhood diseases have virtually been eradicated due to vaccination programs. But hey, let's not have REALITY get in the way of a good ole conspiracy theory.

I agree with the op that a judge may not have been the most qualified to make the decision, but any medical expert they would have called in probably would be in full support of the vaccines. Big pharma and all.... As far as not getting vaccines, that is a great choice I think for an adult, I won't get them either... I don't know about other cities, mine isn't even very big so I imagine they do this everywhere, they kind of have you by the balls as far as kids go. They won't allow them in public schools if they don't have all their shots current... And then you're in trouble if your kid isn't in school, and who would want their kid to have no education anyway? So if you have the money for private school or the time for homeschool, you might be able to get away with not vaccinating your kids, but if you have them in public school there isn't much you can do...

Originally posted by starchild10
it turns out not to be a straight matter of the state imposing it's will on someone.

You don't believe that one of the two parents is having the states will imposed upon them against their will?

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by starchild10
it turns out not to be a straight matter of the state imposing it's will on someone.

You don't believe that one of the two parents is having the states will imposed upon them against their will?

I know you weren't asking me but I don't think I agree with you that one parent had the decision forced upon them against their will. At least not completely... They couldn't agree on an issue. They chose to go to court and have an impartial third party make the decision for them knowing full well that they could lose. It was a choice to go that route, they chose to let someone decide for them.

Originally posted by civilchallenger


In this case the divorced parents disagreed whether to have their child vaccinated so the courts chose for them. I'm not sure how you can have it any other way than the judge deciding in place of the parents, since the parents could not agree. I do however think that the judge should have delegated the decision to someone with medical knowledge designated to actually look at the studies and summarize them for the judge. All too often doctors just parrot knowledge passed off as fact, when those facts turn out to be bloated assumptions. That is especially true with vaccinations, which turn out to be a terrible idea a very large amount of the time.

www.dailytelegraph.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

May I ask why it is that you think they are such a terrible idea?

I believe it was wrong of the judge to force the child to get vaccinated in this case, the mother had obviously looked into the subject and decided that she didn't want her child to be part of it. some will say what about what the father wanted but IMO when two parents diagree about whats best for the child the decision should fall with the MAIN CARE PROVIDER, especially on a subject that has two clear sides and pros and cons for each

People need to stop giving their freedoms away by participating in the legal system. We give these illusory legal systems authority to make decisions for us, we forfeit our opportunity to develop inner strength and wisdom, all the while passing our ignorance and weakness to our children.

Slaves, please wake up.

Originally posted by stealthXninja

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by starchild10
it turns out not to be a straight matter of the state imposing it's will on someone.

You don't believe that one of the two parents is having the states will imposed upon them against their will?

They chose to go to court and have an impartial third party make the decision for them knowing full well that they could lose.

Why do you think both parties agreed to go to court voluntarily?

reply to post by Visitor2012

When your ex-wife has turned into a total B##ch, what other choice do you have? You can't kill her, so the courts have to get involved. I am not saying I like it, but sometimes you are screwed.

I would like to point out that the father originally consented to not vaccinate
because he was desperate to establish a relationship[as article states]
because mom wasn't going to risk him vaccinating the child on the sly[not mentioned, but obvious here]
then once he got what he wanted out of the deal
he broke his word and then he got the power of the state to turn the screws on the lady in question

pretty sneaky behavior
pretty disgusting too
notice how the system always sides with the bully also

it's obvious the creep is going to go for full custody as well

if it had been me i would have demanded a signed legal agreement from both the judge and mister creepy
to hold them fully responsible, legally and financially for any negative consequences from the vaccination

just my 2 cents

This is plain and simple a move to create empowerment for the state publicly. They have over stepped the boundaries of the parental right to refuse.

I can see the future for these parents:

If one parent does not agree to allow their teen to have premarital sex, and the second say's no, then what let the courts decide?

Where does this end?

I feel very sorry for the parent who was dis empowered by the courts on their personal decision, she obviously is not a member here. I was walked through the process for how I was able to make that choice 'and' had the legalities on my side.

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by stealthXninja

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by starchild10
it turns out not to be a straight matter of the state imposing it's will on someone.

You don't believe that one of the two parents is having the states will imposed upon them against their will?

They chose to go to court and have an impartial third party make the decision for them knowing full well that they could lose.

Why do you think both parties agreed to go to court voluntarily?

You bring up a good point, I have to admit I didn't think of that. That could definitely have an effect on my response. To be fair though, you also don't know that both parties didn't want to go. They may have both felt like they were right and wanted to go because they both thought they would win...
This is a serious question, if somebody wants to take you to court for anything, are you always obligated to go? You can't refuse? That would seem unfair to me that someone could use all my time and money without my consent....

Originally posted by stealthXninja

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by stealthXninja

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by starchild10
it turns out not to be a straight matter of the state imposing it's will on someone.

You don't believe that one of the two parents is having the states will imposed upon them against their will?

They chose to go to court and have an impartial third party make the decision for them knowing full well that they could lose.

Why do you think both parties agreed to go to court voluntarily?

You bring up a good point, I have to admit I didn't think of that. That could definitely have an effect on my response. To be fair though, you also don't know that both parties didn't want to go. They may have both felt like they were right and wanted to go because they both thought they would win...
This is a serious question, if somebody wants to take you to court for anything, are you always obligated to go? You can't refuse? That would seem unfair to me that someone could use all my time and money without my consent....

Now that I've thought about both our points on this, I am positive that this cannot be considered the state imposing its will on anyone. Hear me out... The two parents couldn't agree on an issue regarding their child. The way we settle things like this is by going to court. Whether one or both parents wanted to go to court is irrelevant. What it was, if anything, was the father imposing his will on the mother. The court was just doing its job and had to rule in favor of one of the parents. That is just the way it works. For it to be considered the states will, they would have had to have selected someone at random and told them they were going to vaccinate their child whether they wanted it done or not.