U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-31-2015, 09:33 AM
 
Location: BC, Arizona
1,170 posts, read 749,125 times
Reputation: 2377

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post

Mandating anyone to have chemicals injected into their body by a private company goes against everything this country stands for. The issue is not whether vaccines are effective or not, it is about freedom.
The issue IS about vaccines working, what a patently absurd statement. Do you object to preventing kids from attending schools with guns? That limits freedom. Seat belts? Standardized curriculums? Speed limits?

You have the freedom not to vaccinate. It is paired with the freedom to homeschool.

Moderator cut: personal - off topic

This is science. Pure and simple. Don't like science? Don't want to participate in a rational public health model and save your child and those too vulnerable to vaccinate from preventable life threatening diseases? Then homeschool your kid. Freedom is not without limits, thank goodness.

Last edited by Marka; 08-01-2015 at 06:10 AM..

 
Old 07-31-2015, 10:33 AM
 
8,546 posts, read 5,275,208 times
Reputation: 9115
The freedom to say no to having something injected into your body and the bodies of your children is inherent and should not be tied with coercive tactics such as barring access to public education. Do we own are bodies or does the government own them? The answer is clear to me but obviously not clear to those who wish to give up all of our rights to choose.
 
Old 07-31-2015, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,623 posts, read 17,691,118 times
Reputation: 18718
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
The freedom to say no to having something injected into your body and the bodies of your children is inherent and should not be tied with coercive tactics such as barring access to public education. Do we own are bodies or does the government own them? The answer is clear to me but obviously not clear to those who wish to give up all of our rights to choose.

You're free to not vaccinate yourself and your kids.

Understand that you're not free to infect vulnerable members of the public.

As with almost anything, there's a compromise to be made. It's your choice, but you can't have it both ways.
 
Old 07-31-2015, 10:55 AM
 
8,546 posts, read 5,275,208 times
Reputation: 9115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
You're free to not vaccinate yourself and your kids.

Understand that you're not free to infect vulnerable members of the public.

As with almost anything, there's a compromise to be made. It's your choice, but you can't have it both ways.
You as a human being have no inherent right nor should you have any expectation to be free from coming into contact with infectious disease. You can do what you can to limit your risk and for you that decision may involve deciding to vaccinate for every VPD. You don't however have the right to mandate that everyone else do the same.
 
Old 07-31-2015, 11:50 AM
 
Location: A place that's too cold
4,101 posts, read 4,060,633 times
Reputation: 10088
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
You as a human being have no inherent right nor should you have any expectation to be free from coming into contact with infectious disease.

You can do what you can to limit your risk and for you that decision may involve deciding to vaccinate for every VPD.

You don't however have the right to mandate that everyone else do the same.
I completely disagree with your first sentence. Regarding the first, I absolutely expect infectious disease experts to continue making society safer from seriously harmful infectious diseases. That's one of the primary goals within the public health field.

Second sentence, yep, correct.

Third sentence, partly right. No one is mandating forced vaccinations, but in keeping with the goal of public health, as I already mentioned, strongly encouraging vaccinations reduces exposure to VP infectious diseases for society as a whole.

There's a difference of opinion here, obviously, on whether denying access to public school for unvaccinated kids (without medical reasons). But considering the fact that the risk of vaccinations are immensely lower than the risk of VPD outbreaks, lawmakers in Cali (and other states) have voted for the lower risk option.

In every state, one side is going to be unhappy, either those who agree with the vaccination requirement for public school, or those who don't. In seeking to accomplish the greater good (reduction in VPDs) and in weighing the societal risks of vac vs not vac, the requirement to be vax'd to attend public school is a very reasonable one. Just because some people aren't happy with the law does not negate the factual reasonableness of such a public health law.
 
Old 07-31-2015, 12:02 PM
 
8,546 posts, read 5,275,208 times
Reputation: 9115
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
I completely disagree with your first sentence. Regarding the first, I absolutely expect infectious disease experts to continue making society safer from seriously harmful infectious diseases. That's one of the primary goals within the public health field.
You should not however have any inherent expectation to be free from coming into contact with infectious disease. Vaccinations or not, you will always face this risk. Even if every single person on the planet was vaccinated you would still face this risk. Protect yourself as best as you can but forcing people to inject themselves so that you can feel slightly safer should not be a part of the equation.

Quote:
Third sentence, partly right. No one is mandating forced vaccinations, but in keeping with the goal of public health, as I already mentioned, strongly encouraging vaccinations reduces exposure to VP infectious diseases for society as a whole.
Vaccines are being required in order to attend public school without any option for exemptions. That is a mandate.

Quote:
There's a difference of opinion here, obviously, on whether denying access to public school for unvaccinated kids (without medical reasons). But considering the fact that the risk of vaccinations are immensely lower than the risk of VPD outbreaks, lawmakers in Cali (and other states) have voted for the lower risk option.
People have the right to weigh the risks for themselves. In the case of Rhode Island mandating HPV vaccines for all 7th graders, the risk of getting cervical cancer is low and it's not something that you can catch by sitting in a classroom with another student who has it. The vaccine is not risk free and parents have reported serious reactions to it. People have the right to weigh the risk for themselves.

Quote:
In every state, one side is going to be unhappy, either those who agree with the vaccination requirement for public school, or those who don't. In seeking to accomplish the greater good (reduction in VPDs) and in weighing the societal risks of vac vs not vac, the requirement to be vax'd to attend public school is a very reasonable one. Just because some people aren't happy with the law does not negate the factual reasonableness of such a public health law.
I disagree. It is not reasonable. I'm not happy and it's not a reasonable law. It's very intrusive to force people to inject substances into their bodies. That is more often not the path to good overall health in my view. What's next, forced hand washing? That does more to prevent the transmission of illness in school then forced vaccination. Forced healthy eating? I'd actually support forced hand-washing over forced vaccination any day since it's not intruding into people's bodies.
 
Old 07-31-2015, 12:34 PM
 
Location: A place that's too cold
4,101 posts, read 4,060,633 times
Reputation: 10088
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
What's next, forced hand washing? That does more to prevent the transmission of illness in school then forced vaccination. Forced healthy eating? I'd actually support forced hand-washing over forced vaccination any day since it's not intruding into people's bodies.
For now I'm going to address only your points above. Forced hand washing? YES! Ever been on a cruise ship? You don't enter a dining area without accepting a squirt of hand sanitizer from the posted staff person (even if you tell them you just washed 30 seconds ago!) In fact, every single time you re-board the ship after being ashore, you must sanitize your hands. I would absolutely agree with something similar in public schools and other public places. For the record, I'd prefer monitored soap & water 20-second hand washing over sanitizer squirts.

And forced healthy eating? Anything to push people that direction! Higher taxes on junk food. Remove junk food from school cafeterias. Remove junk food from eligibility for SNAP. Discounted health insurance premiums for in-range BMI and other health indicators.

Just like no one is going to tie you down and inject you with a vaccine, no one is going to tie you down and force-feed you eggplant and salmon. But CONSEQUENCES, in both instances, should encourage people to make the healthier choice.
 
Old 07-31-2015, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,552 posts, read 26,166,023 times
Reputation: 26580
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
You should not however have any inherent expectation to be free from coming into contact with infectious disease. Vaccinations or not, you will always face this risk. Even if every single person on the planet was vaccinated you would still face this risk. Protect yourself as best as you can but forcing people to inject themselves so that you can feel slightly safer should not be a part of the equation.
It is not a matter of feeling "slightly" safer. It is a matter of feeling significantly safer. We do indeed have an expectation that preventable risks will be minimized. A high level of vaccination is needed to preserve herd immunity and prevent vaccine preventable diseases that have been eliminated, like measles, from becoming endemic again.

Quote:
Vaccines are being required in order to attend public school without any option for exemptions. That is a mandate.
Yes, it is a mandate, and it is legal and reasonable. The only exemption should be for a valid medical reason.

Quote:
People have the right to weigh the risks for themselves. In the case of Rhode Island mandating HPV vaccines for all 7th graders, the risk of getting cervical cancer is low and it's not something that you can catch by sitting in a classroom with another student who has it. The vaccine is not risk free and parents have reported serious reactions to it. People have the right to weigh the risk for themselves.
Serious reactions, unconfirmed to actually be caused by the vaccine and reported by parents that are desperate to blame a child's illness on something, are a poor reason not to vaccinate. It is interesting that you prefer to believe anecdotes from parents and not the science that shows what those parents believe to be true is not.

You also continue to insist that the only thing we need to be concerned about is cervical cancer. Why do you ignore all the other cancers caused by HPV? Even warts, while not fatal, are uncomfortable, embarrassing in a sexual relationship, and do not always go away without treatment, which is painful.

In a previous link, a RI health official explained that the state has decided to treat HIV like any other vaccine preventable disease by including all the recommended childhood vaccines in its mandate. That is a good thing. The more diseases we can prevent, the better.

In the case, the person "weighing the risk" about the vaccine is not the person who is being left unprotected by not being vaccinated. It is a child who cannot make the decision for himself.

Quote:
I disagree. It is not reasonable. I'm not happy and it's not a reasonable law. It's very intrusive to force people to inject substances into their bodies. That is more often not the path to good overall health in my view. What's next, forced hand washing? That does more to prevent the transmission of illness in school then forced vaccination. Forced healthy eating? I'd actually support forced hand-washing over forced vaccination any day since it's not intruding into people's bodies.
If you do not want to vaccinate, do not vaccinate. Vaccination and hand washing prevent different things. Hand washing will not protect against many vaccine preventable diseases. Vaccination and hand washing are not mutually exclusive. Your "view" on the best path to good overall health does not mean a thing to the organisms that cause vaccine preventable diseases.
 
Old 07-31-2015, 01:18 PM
 
5,661 posts, read 3,206,067 times
Reputation: 6641
HPV Vaccine is Recommended for Boys | Features | CDC

Is this to mandatory for public schools also? My guess is that a LOT of 11 year old boys are having unprotected sex, with THEMSELVES. Are they going to get cancer from that too? Sorry, to get a bit gross on this one. Old enough to remember all those diseases they said you could get from that in decades past. lol

I am sure all the "anti-vaxer" males would have a few choice comments on this one. lol
 
Old 07-31-2015, 01:24 PM
 
8,321 posts, read 8,599,004 times
Reputation: 25983
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
You should not however have any inherent expectation to be free from coming into contact with infectious disease. Vaccinations or not, you will always face this risk. Even if every single person on the planet was vaccinated you would still face this risk. Protect yourself as best as you can but forcing people to inject themselves so that you can feel slightly safer should not be a part of the equation.

Vaccines are being required in order to attend public school without any option for exemptions. That is a mandate.

People have the right to weigh the risks for themselves. In the case of Rhode Island mandating HPV vaccines for all 7th graders, the risk of getting cervical cancer is low and it's not something that you can catch by sitting in a classroom with another student who has it. The vaccine is not risk free and parents have reported serious reactions to it. People have the right to weigh the risk for themselves.

I disagree. It is not reasonable. I'm not happy and it's not a reasonable law. It's very intrusive to force people to inject substances into their bodies. That is more often not the path to good overall health in my view. What's next, forced hand washing? That does more to prevent the transmission of illness in school then forced vaccination. Forced healthy eating? I'd actually support forced hand-washing over forced vaccination any day since it's not intruding into people's bodies.

You have a right to have the opinion that "people have the right to weigh risks for themselves" and that "this is not a reasonable law".

You have the right to seek judicial review of such laws for their constitutionality and to try and get enough signatures to put this law on the ballot for a referendum. Although, you may see this correctly as a "fool's errand".

You have the right to choose to homeschool your children and still refuse to vaccinate them.

You don't have a right to ignore the law or send your kids to public school without vaccinating them (if you live in California)

That's the way we do things in our society. People who can't accept that had better find another society in which to live.

The legislature and the courts have spoken on these issues. They, not each individual, have the final word.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top