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.
Then you are not for choice. Choice is ... choice. Everyone's individual decision is respected and accepted.
You are provaccine, not choice.
Thanks for your honesty. It's appreciated.
Your choice to not vaccinate is 100% in effect. I support your choice 100%. Do not vaccinate your kid or yourself if you don’t want to.
That’s what choice is. You get to choose. If choice were not in effect, there wouldn’t be any unvaccinated kids. Since there are, parental choice must be in place and working. You’re attempting to prove that since there are consequences to that choice that it negates your choice. It does not. It just means your choice has consequences.
You still get to choose not to vaccinate, you're just mad because you don’t also get to choose to avoid the consequences of that choice.
Do you believe a person should have the choice to smoke on an airplane?
Choice is something one has when their choice does not have an impact on the well-being of others. It has been stated ad nauseam on this forum that those who are infectious carrying diseases that we have vaccinations for, can endanger the health of infants, immuno-suppressed, or those fighting cancer.
Why do you anti-vax people keep going in circles? Give it up already. You are all a health risk to our society and, as such, will be subject to certain ordinances or quarantine mandates.
Your choice is: get vaccinated or quarantine yourself or children according to mandates. Got it?
Wrong. The current order is for those who have measles or who have been exposed to measles in NYC quarantine themselves. It says nothing about quarantining unvaccinated people just because.
Also being unvaccinated does not mean that someone is “carrying disease”. You really have said some weird things throughout this conversation.
People like you are a threat to civil liberties and freedom of choice.
Your choice to not vaccinate is 100% in effect. I support your choice 100%. Do not vaccinate your kid or yourself if you don’t want to.
That’s what choice is. You get to choose. If choice were not in effect, there wouldn’t be any unvaccinated kids. Since there are, parental choice must be in place and working. You’re attempting to prove that since there are consequences to that choice that it negates your choice. It does not. It just means your choice has consequences.
You still get to choose not to vaccinate, you're just mad because you don’t also get to choose to avoid the consequences of that choice.
Why are you continually bringing what you think my emotional state is into this discussion?
You have no idea how I feel. You, however, are appearing quite angry right now. Shall I bold, underline and ital? Does that trump bold and underline?
Choice means just that. I'm not sure you understand that. Choice does not mean what you think. Choice does not mean what I think.
It means we can do what we choose. Use any font style you want. Doesn't make what I am writing not true.
EVERY law is based on compelled decision making. Are you against all laws? Should we do away with drunk driving laws since they compel people not to drink and drive? After all, those laws takes away someone’s right to choose for themselves.
Unless you’re against all laws, then you’re just cherry picking the school vaccine laws because they may (or do) effect you directly. There’s no difference in those laws and a million others. You still have choice, but that choice may lead to consequences you don’t like.
That’s it works in a society where laws are in place to attempt to insulate us from the choices of others.
I’m against laws that take away informed consent and the ability to make health decisions based upon health history and available information due to the threat of not being able to obtain one’s right to an education unless they say yes to all vaccines that the ACIP says that they must get.
The world is not black in white. There are shades of gray. This is where I draw my line in the sand.
Anyone can report to VAERS. The parent or patient can do it.The information on how to do it is given out every time someone gets a vaccine. It's the law.
Doctors are well aware of side effects. Most are very mild, like soreness at the injection site and get better with only symptomatic treatment.
You really, really, really need to give up on he PI. It does not say what you claim it does.
Have you been to medical school? I assure you the doctors who administer them know how to use them. They would also know if vaccines were killing their patients. They are not.
Yes, vaccines are under continuous surveillance through VAERS and the VSD.
Herd immunity applies to vaccine induced immunity just as much as it does to immunity due to disease. It is not "just a theory" in the way you are trying to trivialize it. The vaccine coverage needed to establish herd immunity varies with the infection. For measles it is about 95%.
Frankly, the anti-vax gurus do deserve to be mocked for all the dangerous misinformation and pseudoscience they spew. Wakefield is a good example. That man has deaths on his hands and refuses to admit it.
Any of us are much more likely to have a child or grandchild injured by a vaccine preventable disease if the anti-vaxers have their way. Shall we discuss the obscene things anti-vaxers have said to parents who lost children to VPDs?
No, Hannah Poling was not awarded compensation for autism. I quoted the judge's ruling. here it is again:
""Respondent has conceded that petitioners are entitled to compensation due to the significant aggravation of Child Doc/77’s (Hannah Poling) pre-existing mitochondrial disorder based on an MMR vaccine Table presumptive injury of encephalopathy."
Do you see the word autism anywhere in that sentence?
And California is ready to remove medical exemptions.
There is a bill that positions public officials as the arbitors to deny or approve medical exemptions. The public official would not have access to the child's medical history, would not examine the child and would not speak to the child's doctor.
The doctor has no say. The public official decides.
But the public official -- who is NOT a medical or healthcare provider BTW -- would be the one to approve or deny the exemption. Let's guess ... what will most public officials do?
And those reading this thread can really see it. I'm really grateful for this thread in that aspect. Can really see the lengths and distortions and gymnastics to really try to prove a point.
Dishonest isn't the half of it. I used to read with a grain of salt. Now, I just glance through. Don;t bother with it because I know most of it is twisted and full of propaganda.
I’m against laws that take away informed consent and the ability to make health decisions based upon health history and available information due to the threat of not being able to obtain one’s right to an education unless they say yes to all vaccines that the ACIP says that they must get.
The world is not black in white. There are shades of gray. This is where I draw my line in the sand.
They can still get a education. All states have free online programs. The curriculum can be done nights and weekends if a parent works outside the home. Home schools co-ops are another option. I know someone who works full time and her kids are homeschooled. She belongs to a co-op and in exchange for her kids attending M-F, she provides enrichment opportunities on weekends throughout the year.
The decision to not vaccinate doesn’t mean a child will be uneducated.
They can still get a education. All states have free online programs. The curriculum can be done nights and weekends if a parent works outside the home. Home schools co-ops are another option. I know someone who works full time and her kids are homeschooled. She belongs to a co-op and in exchange for her kids attending M-F, she provides enrichment opportunities on weekends throughout the year.
The decision to not vaccinate doesn’t mean a child will be uneducated.
You don’t get it and only will if it directly impacts someone in your own family. I’m done arguing about it.
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.
