Except it’s usually not the antivaxxers’ body, is it? It’s their children’s bodies. (No one’s forcing adults to be vaccinated.) This is just another example of how antivaxxers view their children as property or an extension of themselves.https://twitter.com/MsheArt2_Mia/status/1209981538391203841 …
-
-
But the flip side implies a child's body is the property of the State. The bottom line is, kids belong to (or are wards of) their parents, who should be empowered to make ALL decisions on their behalf until they reach an age of reason. Whether out not we agree with them.
5 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
“Belong to the parents”? Freudian slip there? No, parental rights are not absolute, nor should they be. Children are separate beings with rights of their own, among them the right to proper medical care.
4 replies 11 retweets 79 likes -
I agree that children are separate beings, but disagree that parental rights are a privilege to be granted by the State, and contingent upon following the State's rules for child rearing
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So you’d be OK with parents not giving their child with type 1 diabetes insulin or treating their child with a treatable cancer with homeopathic quackery instead of chemo? You’d be fine letting these children die in the name of “parental rights.”
2 replies 2 retweets 30 likes -
These are not hypothetical examples, either. I have dozens of actual cases that I’ve studied over the years. In some of them the child did end up dead.
1 reply 1 retweet 24 likes -
I might not LIKE it, but I consider that a parent's prerogative
20 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You consider it a parent’s prerogative to let her child die a highly preventable death from medical neglect? From failure to treat a treatable disease?
-
-
Legally, yes.
16 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.