Thread:User talk:WaitingforGodot/Quick question for you...

(BTW, sorry if this is coming off as frustrated, but that's not your fault, fucking LQT deleted this post two times already and I'm rather peeved about that)

In some recent statements you've made, you've come off as empathetically against any parent that makes any sort of decision about their children's body and state thereof- tattoos, scarifiation, piercing, and especially circumcision. While I can somewhat understand the first few, I don't understand the last one. Because I don't know the exact thought process behind your rejection of it, I'd like to ask you what your opinion on the vaccination of children is. This may seem like a unrelated question, but it's really not. Both are essentiall making a medical decision for a child too young and uninformed to make it for themselves, and I see no reason how some self-professed "rationalists" can uphold one as one of the greatest scientific triumphs even and simoultaneously denigrate the other as a human rights abuse.

I mean, considering the evidence, it seems as if you've essentially decided that, no matter who puts out what evidence, whether it be the CDC, the WHO, the Lancet, or any of the numerous medical orgaizatons stating that it can reduce the transmissions of HIV and UTI's, they're wrong and you're right because you've already formed your opinion. And not only are they mistaken, the scientists conducting the studies are either cooking the results to appease, or are straight-up in the pocket of mysteriously well-funded religous groups- which, if you'll pause for a second, is the exact same argument anti-vaccers make, but with "Big Pharma" instead of "Big Circ".

So how is a parent making the rational decision to (safely, in most cases!) prevent or decrease the risk of urinary tract infections, HIV, and some STD's, guilty of "child abuse"? It seems like you've skipped right over the science and gone straight for the "NO SCIENCE TOUCHING MY KIDS BODIES!!111!" levels that anti-vaxxers often reach and justifying it with moral/ethical arguments that are often paralell if not identical?

I guess what I'm trying to say, is where do you draw the line between "For the good of public health" and "My right to privacy trumps the medical well-being of others around me"? It just dosen't seem like you're basing your position off of facts.