Nope, it's an argument for the latter.
There's a huge difference between requiring children to get vaccinated to attend things like public schools and forcing everyone in the country to vaccinate against their will. The former makes perfect sense. The latter is not even close to being reasonably enforceable.
Former Argument: Requiring children to get vaccinated.
Latter Argument: Forcing everyone in the country to vaccinate against their will.
You are arguing
for the former argument, not the latter.
It also becomes enforceable if the government steps in and decides to remove custody from the parents while citing a vested concern for the health and safety of the general public as well as the child in question, which has happened in certain cases in the past.
Cases like what you are referring to are public record. Can you name a few? We aren't even asking you to give us the court records, a quick Google search can do that for us.
But if this is the case, then it's dangerous to do, as cases like that can apply to anything and everything. I can use such cases to remove
your children from
your home because you smoke cigars, and blah blah health safety of second hand smoke blah blah cancer blah blah.
See what happens when stupid cases are brought up like this? It can be easily turned against those who wants to use the government as their arm of enforcing their principles and morals onto others.