> The idea that "things...are not up for debate" is the most profoundly anti-science (and anti-intellectual) thing that can be said. I have yet to meet a pro-vaccination person who was willing to talk about the actual science.
MMR doesn't cause autism, as was fairly obvious at the time and the now-settled science shows. Do you accept that, in this case, it is not true to say "those who are wary of vaccines are pretty well aware of the state of the science on the issue," and in fact those people were flat out wrong?
> their own health care choices,
We are talking about childhood vaccinations. I agree these are difficult moral and political issues, but you can't just quote the founding fathers and act like you've proved your point. Children do not make their own healthcare choices, their parents do, and society is more than happy to restrict the choices of both parents and children.
> politically correct
This is ridiculous dog-whistle. Please taboo it and use a phrase that describes what you mean in each case. It like "health and safety", to which I say: Do you object to having people not die in factory accidents or is it that you want the privilege of drinking polluted water?
I cannot debate a scientific issue with someone who rejects, out of hand, the entirety of the scientific process, as you do. When you use the term "now-settled science" you are rejecting the scientific method and science.
Only in the realm of politicians and ideologues is the term "settled science" used.
Since your opening position-- and that of the mandatory vaccination ideology-- is to reject science and claim that you don't have to be accountable under it because you claim your opponents reject science-- you have already lost.
Science relies quite heavily on the concept of "settled science". The word used in science is "assumption". No scientist has the ability to prove everything from first principles in their work, they rely on a base of assumptions. If any of their assumptions get overturned, their own work gets overturned as well, so they choose their assumptions carefully. Sometimes that stack of assumptions can get pretty high and shaky, but science cannot operate without it.
MMR doesn't cause autism, as was fairly obvious at the time and the now-settled science shows. Do you accept that, in this case, it is not true to say "those who are wary of vaccines are pretty well aware of the state of the science on the issue," and in fact those people were flat out wrong?
> their own health care choices,
We are talking about childhood vaccinations. I agree these are difficult moral and political issues, but you can't just quote the founding fathers and act like you've proved your point. Children do not make their own healthcare choices, their parents do, and society is more than happy to restrict the choices of both parents and children.
> politically correct
This is ridiculous dog-whistle. Please taboo it and use a phrase that describes what you mean in each case. It like "health and safety", to which I say: Do you object to having people not die in factory accidents or is it that you want the privilege of drinking polluted water?