Autonomy as regards healthcare is - outside extreme circumstances such as a loss of capacity or abusive behaviour towards a child - one of the areas where we don’t have to do so. It’s not like paying taxes or following the law. Your rights stop where my body begins
But, again, that isn't what the law says. Schools, for instance, have the power to require children to be removed if they are infectious, and the government has powers in the event of a threat of serious infection and contamination including the right to impose restrictions on individual people to prevent the spread of infection.
I didn’t say “absolute” at all. I recognise that I can’t prevent iron or oxygen entering my child’s body. I maintain that I can prevent crack from doing so. All chemicals.
A rather obvious attempt to divert the point, which looks suspiciously like deliberate obtuseness to avoid answering it herculepoirot. You are saying parents should have the right to prevent vaccines entering their children's bodies, I said the corollary of the right to decide what you will or will not deliberately put into your child's body is the responsibility of deciding what you will do to protect them from harmful inputs that they can't avoid.
What I am saying is simply that, in a situation where I believe that my responsibility to you and my responsibility to my child are in direct conflict, I will always choose my child.
But that isn't the vaccine situation. It's not a question of whether the risk of damage to child A should outweigh the risk of damage to child B because child A is your child. it's whether the tiny risk of damage to child A outweighs the greater risk of much greater damage to children A, B and many, many others.