Someone already said it – the “weak” are usually the ones who can not get vaccinated. Mostly your immunocompromised people. They are dependent on “the herd.” It’s fine to use your freedom to choose to not vaccinate yourself – but you are taking away their freedom to a long and healthy life by taking away their only option of avoiding the disease.

And furthermore, if you decide for your child that you do not want them vaccinated either, are you protecting their freedom to a long and healthy life? They aren’t making the choice for themselves either way – so talking about protecting freedoms could go either way. It can kind of mirror the abortion debate – whose freedoms do we protect? The parents who don’t believe in vaccines, or the children who might be protected by receiving them. Arguments could go both ways, I know, from those who believe vaccines may be more dangerous than what they protect us from. But numbers don’t lie. 50 years ago scores of children were paralyzed or died from Polio. How many people do you know with Polio today?

And your argument that just “the weak” should be immunized and that “the strong” don’t need to be is sort of … funny. I mean, weren’t “the strong” once young? Aren’t “the strong” going to be elderly one day? Doesn’t about 50% of “the strong” population become pregnant at some point? Because ALL of us, at some time or another, will fit at least one of your definitions of “the weak” (the very young, the elderly and the pregnant) – and you suggest that “the weak” be vaccinated – wouldn’t that still include all of us? I mean – who would fall into the category of “the strong?” 20-something men who were born into the world as 20-something men? It just doesn’t add up… sorry. You can’t skip being a new-born.

That’s all :)