In your country yes, in advanced countries no. But regardless you have no evidence that vaccinations are dangerous, just conspiracies and ignorance.
It doesn't matter if vacs aren't dangerous - it's still the parents call. Kool-Aid isn't dangerous but if I don't want my child to have it - that's my decision.
Yes in a backward country like america that is still the case. In the rest of the world the child can be protected from dumb parents.
This shouldn't be a yes/no argument. It should be who and when? If you choose to work with the elderly, sick, or newborns, you should be required to get vaccinated. If you get sick and are contagious, I would expect you to stay home. If you use public facilities I expect you to be hygienic. Other than that it's your choice.
Regarding this issue, the only information one needs to divulge to a school is vaccination records. For a private business, it becomes much harder to enforce since there is no legal requirement to provide information to a private business. Banning unvaccinated individuals from those places might end up being more symbolic than regulatory because of that. But for places like schools that you're legally mandated to attend, it should be without question that those attending have been vaccinated unless they are medically unable to be. None of it requires public marking of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals.
Where are the diseases coming from? Why is this a problem now if we've had decades of inoculation. It seems the root of the problem is being ignored...
Educational facilities have no legal right to 'know'. Neither do employers. If you read back, there are some who feel that the unvaccinated should be banned from appearing in public. There is no other way to tell the difference, other than marking. And we know where that leads to.
It is an extremely contagious disease and all it takes is a couple unvaccinated people to start the spread. https://www.foxnews.com/health/new-york-man-measles-infects-michigan
You totally avoided the question. Diseases don't naturally just pop up in Philly, that would indicate the disease was brought to Philly from some place these diseases are common. That would mean looking more critically at the open border policies of liberals and their sanctuary cities. We've seen the same with other diseases that were previously unseen here, they aren't a fluke, but a predictable result of an unsecured border...
….uh...yeah, we should ignore the proven and obvious in order to look into your interesting Trumpist hypothesis....makes perfect sense.
What's proven? Diseases don't just spring up out of the ground in urban areas. You folks blame this anti-vaccers, but is that even the case? Or is this people who aren't vaccinating their kids because they aren't supposed to be here to begin with and fear legal action?
They are a predictable result of worldwide travel of any kind, including by Americans themselves who may travel abroad and bring diseases home with them.
Some criminal trials that have made the news in the united states and elsewhere in the world would suggest such is not the case. That, however, has nothing to do with the matter of vaccinations, and whether or not they should be made mandatory.
I did, the moment I realized you are incapable of being anything other than a whiny liberal without the capability to address the issues at hand...
I believe in the choice for children not being made by dumbass parents. You seam to think of them as a chattel which you can do with as you like, thinking you in your ignorance can withhold a valuable and harmless vaccine for no other reason than you want to.
Once again, you are applying your beliefs on other people. We do not function by mob rule in this country, much to your chagrin I am sure. You do not know what reasons I apply, but you certainly like to think you can make decisions for other people, and to presume what they do or do not know. And there is your weakness.
I voted "Other" because this is a difficult issue that is not black-and-white. Like abortion, there are philosophical and ethical implications involved with both sides of the argument.
