Hey, Guess Where Your Freedom To Swing Your Arm Ends? My reply to Peggy O’Mara

The other day I stumbled across this blogpost, which is basically a verbatim post of an article by Peggy O'Mara, editor of Mothering magazine (a woman with whose rhetoric I have been somewhat unimpressed since reading a well-known article of hers in which she interrupted her prolonged diatribe about what we should be doing about our babies' sleep to tell us not to listen to experts who didn't know our babies.  I'm willing to bet that, to this day, she hasn't spotted the contradiction there.)  I couldn't decide which I found more objectionable – her skewing of the facts and figures in the name of 'informing' parents, or her attitude towards freedom of choice – but, either way, I hadn't actually planned to blog about it, purely due to the so-many-blog-topics-so-little-time factor.  However, thanks to my darling husband giving me the much-treasured Mother's Day treat of an hour on my own while he takes the children to the garden centre, I actually had a chance to sit down and write comments on some of the blog posts I've been wanting to comment on; and the comment I wrote for that post got longer, and longer, until before I knew it I realised I had a whole blogpost on my hands and might as well go ahead and post it as such.  So, this is my reply to Peggy O'Mara's article 'The Assault On Freedom Of Conscience'.

………………….

I'm all in favour of people having
freedom of choice, up to a point. But the point in question is the
point at which their freedom of choice impacts significantly upon the
lives of others. And, despite Peggy O'Mara's ridiculous claim in
her penultimate sentence, parents are *not* the only ones who have to
live with the consequences of these particular choices. Their
children also have to live – or die – with them.

In the case of choices about vaccines,
other people are also affected. No, Peggy O'Mara, no-one is trying
to claim that the vaccines are 100% effective – just that they
greatly reduce a child's risk of catching a disease, if they come
into contact with it. As, indeed, your own figures show. (The vast
majority of children are vaccinated, so, if the total number of
measles cases is split around evenly between the vaccinated and
unvaccinated groups, the rate of measles must be *much* lower in the
vaccinated group.) But they don't provide 100% protection (as,
again, your own figures show), and some children will be unable to
have them for health reasons anyway. So, if you allow measles to
start circulating again by providing a pool of unvaccinated children
who can pass it around, then some other children *will* be affected.

I don't know an awful lot about the US
Constitution, so please stop me if I'm wrong – but I suspect that,
while protecting your right to hold and to voice a minority opinion,
it does not protect your right to act on that opinion willy-nilly if
doing so is going to be harmful to others. If, say, your minority
opinion happens to be that small children are perfectly safe being
held on an adult's lap in a moving care instead of being restrained
in a car seat, you can hold that belief all you like but you'll find
that acting on it will bring you both public censure and legal
sanction. Not because the big bad government are meanies trying to
interfere with your sacred freedom of choice, but because, as the old saying
has it, your freedom to choose where to swing your arm ends where
someone else's nose begins.

Of course, it's necessary to draw a
balance between parents' rights to make their own choices and their
children's rights to be free from harm, and I certainly wouldn't want
to see a world in which it was acceptable to force all parents to
bring their children up exactly in line with State diktat. But
freedom of choice does not exist in a vacuum – some choices *are*
potentially harmful to other people, and that's not an issue we can
simply sweep under the carpet. Choices carry responsibilities.
Choices carry potential consequences for people apart from the person making them. We do need to find the best balance we can between allowing parents to parent unhindered, and stepping in where their ways of so doing may have major adverse impacts upon their children.  But Peggy
O'Mara is simply ignoring the other half of that dilemma.  She is trying to present this issue as though the choices she
discusses were purely individual ones that don't affect anyone beyond
the person making them, and that is manifestly untrue.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Grr, argh

5 responses to “Hey, Guess Where Your Freedom To Swing Your Arm Ends? My reply to Peggy O’Mara

  1. Granny C

    I am so glad you managed to find the time for this one. Love XX to the best Mum I know on Mother’s Day. Granny C

  2. I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who stated that freedom of speech does not extend to one’s right to (falsely) yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
    And it’s even more dangerous to exercise your First Amendment rights when you’re an idiot who who does her research at Google U and makes dangerous claims how exclusive breastfeeding is protective against HIV infection. I’m sure Christine Maggiore and her daughter EJ would love to comment on that one. Oops…

  3. Anon

    Your response was a lot more measured and respectful than I ever could have managed. I really think people who are this deluded are dangerous.

  4. Mind you, Peggy’s latest missive (about Hanna Rosin’s article) is almost sane in comparison:
    http://mothering.com/guest_editors/quiet_place/quiet_place.html
    Now, if only she and the LLL would busy themselves with getting the US gov’t to get with the program of providing mothers with the wherewithal to nurse and work, instead of bullying American mothers with stupid, fraudulent PSAs and urging them to SAHM…

  5. Ana

    How sad to hear such a arrogant, uninformed response to issues you clearly are too judgmental to actually investigate for yourself. Your smug, careless blog has no intention of conveying any measure of truth on issues that are vital to our children and our parenthood. Informing oneself on the consequences of vaccinations and having the intellectual capacity to actually question a vaccine schedule I presume, for you, is tantamount to what?…a dirty revolutionary act? Oh, I guess we dare not do such a thing, right? And to use the ridiculous example of not strapping in a child to a car seat is just outrageous and indicative of the thoughtlessness of your writing. Clearly, any idiot can “blog.” You’re right on one thing: your freedom to write such nonsense is truly a danger to our society.
    And to Esther: what a despicable, vile comment you make. What do you really know about Christine and her daughter…have you actually taken the time to investigate the TRUTH, the evidence? I can bet that you have done no such thing, nor intend to do so. Are any of you parents? I cannot imagine being in the company of mothers lacking intellectual rigor, curiosity and most importantly, compassion and understanding. But the most troubling thing about reading the blog response and comments is the insidious spite running through it, so much so that I am compelled to post…the first time I have ever done so with any blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s