Hello; I believe you changed the parameters. The question I was discussing had to do with "taking away your freedom".
Public safety is a broad umbrella that can be used to push an agenda. Not long ago in this thread I and a few others wanted to have people traveling from the "hot Ebola zones" to be quarantined (strict isolation) for 21 days because we thought it was a potential matter of public health. I contend such quarantine would surely have taken away those people's freedom to move about. Even tho those health care workers knew what they were getting into when they went to treat Ebola in Africa, they did not wish to be inconvienced when they finished their tour and came back to the USA. Those against such quarantine got their way and the wished for quarantine period was not enforced.
That a vaccine for measles is available for those who wish to have it is a good thing. All of you who are vaccinated for measles a very less likely to become infected. Turns out the vaccines are not 100% effective and a few people cannot take the vaccine for a few reasons.
Let’s see if I understand your point. You are on the side that wants all people to be vaccinated for measles, in this case, even if it is against their will. The overriding consideration is the general welfare and that is supposed to be more important than a person’s freedom to choose for him or herself. Majority wants a forced vaccine, so majority rules sort of view?? This does not fit with my take on the type of individual liberty we are supposed to have.
