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.
The fact of the matter is THEY ARE NOT MANDATORY. If you object, you can fill out a waiver.
7 9. This section shall not apply to children whose parent, parents, or
8 guardian hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary
9 to the practices herein required, and no certificate OF IMMUNIZATION
10 shall be required as a prerequisite to such children being admitted or
11 received into school or attending school.
Many people take their religion seriously: For those people, what if their objections are sincerely not necessarily religious in nature as they see it? That's the purpose of the philosophical objection.
But that would run against the grain of the escalating, capricious, top-down, invasive declarations affecting the direction of the collective apparatus.
I got a polio, DTP (and one or two other tets years later, because they wear out), smallpox, and rubella (so as not to be infecting any pregnant women). It's possible I minimize the chances of withered limbs, paralyzed diaghram, having to cover smallpox scars with a burlap sack, and having my heart stopped by complications from a rusty nail. They win my seal of approval, I'll be happy for their continuing availability to all and if asked, I'll endorse the products. I think that's enough. Don't you?
Ctrres -- I understand that you do not believe that these vaccines should be mandatory. Why subject someone else to the prospect of "withered limbs, paralized diaphram, having to cover scars with a burlap sack and having their hearts stopped by complications from a rusty nail? Those who choose not to vaccinate from these serious illnesses are not making a decision that will hurt only themselves. They are making the decision for those who are too young to make an informed choice. Would it be right for me to decide that I really don't want my daughter to wear a seatbelt on the highway? She is my daughter, but she is not my property and I should not be allowed to put her in danger simply because I am her parent. If putting the seatbelt on her is determined to be safer, I should be made to put her seatbelt on. Same thing with the vaccines.
Widespread vaccination also helps to protect those who are too young to receive a vaccine. That is one of the reasons why it's a public health issue.
Ctrres -- I understand that you do not believe that these vaccines should be mandatory. Why subject someone else to the prospect of "withered limbs, paralized diaphram, having to cover scars with a burlap sack and having their hearts stopped by complications from a rusty nail? Those who choose not to vaccinate from these serious illnesses are not making a decision that will hurt only themselves. They are making the decision for those who are too young to make an informed choice. Would it be right for me to decide that I really don't want my daughter to wear a seatbelt on the highway? She is my daughter, but she is not my property and I should not be allowed to put her in danger simply because I am her parent. If putting the seatbelt on her is determined to be safer, I should be made to put her seatbelt on. Same thing with the vaccines.
Widespread vaccination also helps to protect those who are too young to receive a vaccine. That is one of the reasons why it's a public health issue.
Seatbelts are not an ingested mixture of unproven, toxic and undocumented substances. They're not analogous; the two might both be theories of protection (both with attendant risks), but that's where the similarities end.
This is a quantitative and qualitative issue, cost/benefit weighted with a lot of historical pedigree. I just don't ascribe the same level of importance to a flu vaccination (informed in part by the context of today's medical business and media climate) as to a polio or rubella vax. It's a sensible idea to limit the amount of foreign gunk--both mineral and animal--that is intramuscularly syringed into your, or your neighbors, bodies. That's just common sense.
Just because you choose to imbibe every hot, novel vaccine that comes down the pike doesn't give you the right to subsequently announce that, because it's good enough for Pete Piper, it's good enough for everyone else. Those are familial decisions, not social decisions writ large because it makes Pete Piper sleep better at night. Public health is a little more complicated than that.
There are numerous injuries, even deaths, reported of subjects who took the kinds of vax that you deem not simply a public health necessity, but a mandate. So what is achieved?
I wasn't talking about the flu vaccine. I never said I thought it should be mandatory. I was referring to Polio, DTP, smallpox and rubella-the vaccines that you received. I know that you are not for mandatory vaccination for these serious illnesses, but I don't think you clearly explained why. (I think in your previous post you were referring to the flu vaccine.)
I wasn't talking about the flu vaccine. I never said I thought it should be mandatory. I was referring to Polio, DTP, smallpox and rubella-the vaccines that you received. I know that you are not for mandatory vaccination for these serious illnesses, but I don't think you clearly explained why. (I think in your previous post you were referring to the flu vaccine.)
Any vaccine is not without personal risk. I have reservations about mandating someone else come to the same conclusions after informed decision about a vax that I do. Dictating that a neighbor likewise take that innoculation.
I don't see anything wrong with the status quo on those; I rather like it. But it has been demonstrated that some public agencies want to elevate the significance of every vax du jour into the same league.
Still, what's fine for me isn't necessarily for others. What I received also likely wasn't the same concoction available to my peers.
With my siblings and classmates, I received first the Salk, then all stages of the Sabin polio vaccines.
Haven't seen much polio lately, although I understand some parents are resisting (or oblivious to the availability of) the vaccinations. It arose in epidemics, crippling and killing children and adults, but due to the cooperation of my parents' generation of moms and dads, the industrialized societies have effectively reduced the occurence to statistically insignificant levels. I said "statistically insignificant" because if the rare case hits your family, it is extremely significant.
It's hard to think of a stronger argument for innoculation than the absence of smallpox and the near absence of polio.
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.
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.
