posted by O-Trap
In his defense, I can see a nuance between the two.
First, there's a distinction between the two with regard to the forgone conclusion that results:
If you don't put food in a child's body, they will die. The odds are 100%.
If you don't put vaccines in a child's body, the child might be fine, as might all the children around him or her. It's not definitive that the child will die or even experience any detriment whatsoever.
Second, vaccinations are single, one-offs. Feeding is ongoing.
You can't prosecute the parents for not feeding a child until it causes articulable harm. If I send Johnny to bed without dinner because he set the cat on fire, I don't think I can be prosecuted.
As to that second point, I could see a link made based on that idea of harm. Just like with food, maybe parents should be able to be prosecuted if their failure to do so results in harm.
No I agree... We shouldn't prosecute them until their kid is injured or dies. We currently don't.... But we need to. And after it happens enough anti-vaxxers will fear the repercussions and abide. Will all? Of course not. But facing punishment, I think you'll see the ball shift in the other direction.