Australia releases "no jab, no pay" policy

[Kansas]

You cannot abuse your children as part of your 'parenting'.

I'm not abusing my child.

[Ad Bot]

[Ipquarx]

I'm not abusing my child.

Yeah, you're not, because you've said you're going to be giving them vaccines. Not giving them a vaccine is giving them at least a chance of contracting one or more possibly debilitating diseases. That is child endangerment.

[Kansas]

Yeah, you're not, because you've said you're going to be giving them vaccines. Not giving them a vaccine is giving them at least a chance of contracting one or more possibly debilitating diseases. That is child endangerment.

Not according to US law.

[Foxscotch]

Not according to US law.

in a lot of states u can have love with animals so i guess that makes it morally ok?

[Kansas]

in a lot of states u can have love with animals so i guess that makes it morally ok?

Wow

[Frankie²]

Wow

world of warcraft?

[Rally]

Not according to US law.

Like I said earlier, according to US Law feeding your child 400 McDonald's burgers a week is also 'legal'. Does that mean it isn't child abuse? Does that mean you're not a stuffty parent? Does that mean you're not a stupid loving dipstuff? No. The legal system is fallible. If you do not vaccinate your children, you are a danger to society and your children, therefore you should be treated as such.

[Ipquarx]

Not according to US law.

So first it's not manslaughter (Even though I sufficiently proved it would be) and now it's not child endangerment? How about I sufficiently prove it again yes?

From legalmatch.com:


All of the diseases that are prevented by the MMR vaccines run the risk of seriously debilitating a child, and possibly killing them too. Not vaccinating your child is recklessness or indifference.

(From http://www.shouselaw.com/domestic-violence273a.html )


These diseases can easily cause a child to have serious mental and physical pain, and if you're purposely not getting them vaccinated then you're willfully putting them in a situation where they could be injured or even killed.

So in other words, yes, it is child endangerment. Even legally.

[Ladios]

so I guess you shouldn't feed your kids anything except vegetables, fruits, and herbs that you grow in your own garden, and meat and dairy from your own animals. hopefully you can afford all that

It is actually surprisingly cheap to grow your own food supply. The problem is the inadequate distribution of land for people to be adequately self-sustaining.

[Kansas]

So first it's not manslaughter (Even though I sufficiently proved it would be) and now it's not child endangerment? How about I sufficiently prove it again yes?

From legalmatch.com:


All of the diseases that are prevented by the MMR vaccines run the risk of seriously debilitating a child, and possibly killing them too. Not vaccinating your child is recklessness or indifference.

(From http://www.shouselaw.com/domestic-violence273a.html )


These diseases can easily cause a child to have serious mental and physical pain, and if you're purposely not getting them vaccinated then you're willfully putting them in a situation where they could be injured or even killed.

So in other words, yes, it is child endangerment. Even legally.

That's not to say I wouldn't let them visit a doctor, the crime is allowing them to suffer rather than running the risk of them suffering

[Ipquarx]

That's not to say I wouldn't let them visit a doctor

Cool? It's still child endangerment whether or not they see a doctor. They'll be in serious pain with or without treatment, that changes nothing.

[Rally]

That's not to say I wouldn't let them visit a doctor

If you take your un-vaccinated disease ball to a doctor and it has polio the doctor is going to tell you that you shouldn't of been a superstitious moron and you should've vaccinated your child.

[Kansas]

Cool? It's still child endangerment whether or not they see a doctor. They'll be in serious pain with or without treatment, that changes nothing.

The crime falls in not getting them adequate care. I cannot be held responsible for not giving them everything they needed to be protected, it's about how I proceed if they are to contract it.

[Ipquarx]

The crime falls in not getting them adequate care.

Clearly not. Have you read the definitions I gave you? I gave you multiple definitions of it, and neither of them say that.

[Rally]

The crime falls in not getting them adequate care.

Leaving your children vulnerable to easily preventable disease for the sake of 'MUH FREEDUMBS' is adequate care to you? Please do not have children.