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.
I don't know. I 'm not particularly interested but those who favor mandates without exemptions for things like HPV are extremists in my book.
We are not talking about choice. We are talking about coercion. Big difference.
Is it all right for anti-vaccinationists to harrass and stalk people who do not agree with them? Dr. Pan got death threats! Are those the people whose opinions about vaccines you are going to respect?
No one can be coerced into vaccinating his child. Either he fears the vaccine will harm his child and the risk is too great, so he does not vaccinate, or he feels that the risk of the vaccine is smaller than the benefit of his child public attending school and has him vaccinated.
Is it all right for anti-vaccinationists to harrass and stalk people who do not agree with them? Dr. Pan got death threats! Are those the people whose opinions about vaccines you are going to respect?
It's not all right for anyone to stalk and harass people. Don't lump in everyone into the same pot. Those nuts do not represent the vast majority of people who forgo some or all vaccines. You know that, right? I don't even know who Dr. Pan is, nor have I ever heard about these stalkers anywhere expect for here on this thread. I don't know who the stalkers are either. I did my own research, read study after study after study. I looked at diseases rates, death rates, complication rates. I listened to people who believe that their children were vaccine injured. I learned how to lessen complications in some instances. I spoke to several doctors and one naturopath. I weighed all of the info and I made my decisions. Vaccination decisions are not easy and I did not make them lightly. Nor did I make them based on other people's opinions.
Quote:
No one can be coerced into vaccinating his child. Either he fears the vaccine will harm his child and the risk is too great, so he does not vaccinate, or he feels that the risk of the vaccine is smaller than the benefit of his child public attending school and has him vaccinated.
C'mon, people can be coerced when they are not in a position to homeschool and the threat of losing access to public education is being taken away. Of course the law is coercive.
eta: I also had never heard of the "anti-vaxxer wall of shame" group. Found it in the article that Juram shared. Not exactly a bastion of maturity on the part of the "pro-mandate" movement now is it. Extremists and immature people on both sides.
Last edited by MissTerri; 08-04-2015 at 04:10 PM..
In my view, RI's method is just a broader approach to public health, not outside of it. In the long run, a decision not to vaccinate a child against HPV does affect others in the community, especially when the current social milieu is much more relaxed toward sexuality and multiple lifetime partners are probably the norm rather than the exception. Parents who expect a child - male or female - to stay a virgin until marriage and marry a virgin have their heads in the sand.
If we are going to only include vaccination against diseases that can be transferred in the classroom, why mandate tetanus vaccine? You do not catch tetanus from another person.
If the HPV vaccine were as dangerous as some try to portray it I would feel differently. The truth is that it is actually very safe and highly effective.
I think that in the course of discussing mandates we have lost track of the fact that we give all vaccines to protect the recipient of the vaccine, too.
RI is taking the long term view.
Regarding tetanus being mandated, isn't that simply because it is included with the diptheria and pertussis vaccine? If I'm wrong on that, and DP is indeed available without the T, then I would feel the same about tetanus vac mandate as I do about HPV vac.
And yes, I understand that people commonly have multiple sex partners prior to marriage, but I believe it is up to each individual to voluntarily protect him/herself from STDs. I don't want or need the government to do that for me.
I don't think most of us have "lost track of the fact that we give vaccines to protect the recipient of the vaccine." But since the original controversy discussed in this thread was about the mandate, we're talking a lot about herd immunity as it relates to public health. If there were no such thing as herd immunity, or if there were vaccines ONLY for diseases like tetanus and HPV (not airborne), then I would be completely opposed to any mandates. Vaccines would then be like any other aspect of health care: up to the individual.
I do not view RI as taking a "long view." I view it as an extreme overstep of the state's role. If one believes that the state should legislate matters of individual health, they should start with cigarettes, junk food, alcohol, sedentary jobs, on and on. If one believes that the state should legislate matters of sexually transmitted illnesses, oh my, what a Pandora's box. Make sex outside of marriage illegal? Sex without a condom illegal? Public registries for STDs?
Far better to simply stick with matters of actual public health.
Very true..... If this garbage is so good,WHY ARE PRO-VACCINE PEOPLE WORRIED?
Because you and the rest of the mouth-breathing collective continually fail to comprehend that there are those who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate health reasons as has been stated no less than a hundred times in this thread.
Its not about me, its not about you, its about the newborns, kids with cancer, those with allergies, compromised immune function and other individuals with medical issues that prohibit vaccination or greatly reduce its effectiveness. When you vaccinate as many healthy people as possible, you offer up protection to those individuals as well. That way as a society, we all get protection from disease, kind of how you don't hear about people having to fight off smallpox anymore.
We had a full year with no measles cases reported in the U.S. in 2000, since then we've been sliding backwards, year by year the cases grow, meanwhile the states with the most strict vaccine requirements haven't had a measles case since the first Bush was president.
Is it all right for anti-vaccinationists to harrass and stalk people who do not agree with them? Dr. Pan got death threats! Are those the people whose opinions about vaccines you are going to respect?
No one can be coerced into vaccinating his child. Either he fears the vaccine will harm his child and the risk is too great, so he does not vaccinate, or he feels that the risk of the vaccine is smaller than the benefit of his child public attending school and has him vaccinated.
According to the CA Constitution, every child has a right to an education. Are they going to amend the Constitution to say they are only have that right if the child has certain vaccinations? Are they going to amend it to say that they only have that right if the parents bow to every demand the state decides to make? No? Then they are 100% going against the state constitution.
C'mon, people can be coerced when they are not in a position to homeschool and the threat of losing access to public education is being taken away. Of course the law is coercive.
For about the hundredth time, no choice is without tradeoffs.
Frankly instead of worrying about homeschooling because they deny their child vaccinations, the parents should be MORE worried about them contracting (and spreading) deadly preventable diseases. Having junior learning at the kitchen table doesn't seem like the biggest inconvenience but I guess parents can "choose"...
According to the CA Constitution, every child has a right to an education. Are they going to amend the Constitution to say they are only have that right if the child has certain vaccinations? Are they going to amend it to say that they only have that right if the parents bow to every demand the state decides to make? No? Then they are 100% going against the state constitution.
Keep up. It's clearly been found to be legal. Homeschooling using state curriculum is an education.
You don't understand the difference between choice and coercion, clearly.
It seems to me that you don't. The choice is clear and evident to any rational thinking adult. I can A. vaccinate my kids and have them attend public or private school or I can B. homeschool them.
Pretty cut and dry, as straightforward as it gets. Now its time for mom and dad to put on their big boy and big girl pants and find the choice that they think is best for their family.
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.
