Firstly I am generally a fan of vaccination, although I do use an extended schedule and say no thanks to things like the rotavirus vaccine and flu nasal spray. I said yes to the MMR after much deliberation because I think that Measles is worth vaccinating against.
I understand the arguments about herd immunity and so on, but I am strongly against compulsory vaccination (overt or by indirect means such as withdrawal of education) for reasons that have been articulated previously in this thread. Mainly, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the state can effectively seize ownership of a person's body and force a medical procedure (with risks) onto them for the greater good, not least because if something does go wrong it can be next to impossible for the state to firstly acknowledge the link and secondly give the appropriate level of support. These threads always seem to gloss over the risks of vaccination ("if a few kids get damaged" and so on) or treat vaccine damaged people as almost a myth. Serious adverse effects are usually around the 1:50,000 mark, (and much more common with things like the HPV vaccine), which I think is a lot more common than people realise. I also agree that it usually impossible to know ahead of time which children will react badly because next to no research is done on this. For some reason that I can't understand many seem to argue that, while a child suffering complications from disease is a tragedy that must be avoided at all costs, a child damaged by a vaccine is just one of those things and an acceptable loss. Until vaccine damage is seen as being as unacceptable as disease damage there will never be any significant interest in predicting which children will react badly, and we will all be expected to roll the dice. As it stands, by the time parents realise that their child reacts badly to vaccines, they have already reacted badly, and may already be injured. Even then, as various stories attest, it can be hard to get HCPs to acknowledge the link.
Administering a vaccine generally means giving a medical intervention (with associated risks) to someone who is not sick, may never become sick, or may not suffer complications if they do become sick (even with Measles, which I vaccinated against, the vast majority of people come through unscathed). This alters the risk/benefit considerations (for that individual) massively when compared to other medical interventions when someone is already sick. It also makes the ethics a bit messier - for instance we expect children to have a live nasal flu spray, with the risks associated with that (up to 1:10 chance of fever and muscle aches, up to 1:100 chance of allergic reaction just to name the more common ones) for the benefit (primarily) of elderly people. This is even assuming it is effective, and there are massive question marks over that. Withdrawing education (or a driving licence 
) because a parent said no to that would be outrageous.
It's also worth remembering that up to 5% of people who have the MMR aren't immune because it didn't work (that's about one per class), and that immunity wears off (all immunity, although vaccine-mediated immunity wears off a little faster) so adults, especially older adults, are as much of a carriage risk as unvaccinated children. We don't routinely check that a vaccine 'took' and so, frankly, no-one knows if a vaccinated child is susceptible or not. I do agree though that parents who 'dose and dump' are irresponsible and are a risk to immunocompromised.