"Parents who do not vaccinate their children should go to jail"

[Nietzsche]

This is new to me, so please help me understand.

How do you know this? Is there any disease/virus that has been wiped off the face of the earth because of vaccines?

Allow me to fix that statement a bit.

You can wipe a human virus off the face of the earth. It will still exist in the wild(likely to anyway) but the 'version' that would exist would not be transmittable to humans. Yes, it leaves open the possibility it could jump from an animal to us, but species-leaping is extremely difficult for viruses. When you factor in just how many types of pathogens and such exist out there(not even including the ones we don't know about), seeing something jump from say a bird to a person is exceedingly rare. Yes, H1N1 did that. But that is once in a blue moon.

 

[Poisonshady313]

This is new to me, so please help me understand.

How do you know this? Is there any disease/virus that has been wiped off the face of the earth because of vaccines?

smallpox

 

[averageJOE]

smallpox

Small pox is still alive and well.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Small pox is still alive and well.

In a vial in a lab, if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't occur naturally. The last case of small pox in the world was in 1977. We no longer vaccinate for it because nobody will ever get it. Why? Vaccination.

 

[tomato1236]

No tax benefits for families or churches with kids who are not immunized against the most essential diseases.

Haha "tax benefits"? Oxymoron.

 

[gnomon]

I'm a religious woman whose children's vaccinations are up to date.

I'm also a woman who values my constitutional freedoms. Though I do not personally agree that it's wise to refrain from vaccinating, I respect that my home state values the constitutional right to religious & personal freedom even if it angers or freaks others out.

Parents who choose not to vaccinate their children don't owe you or I an explanation as to their logic behind their decision. I sure as hell am not obligated to define or justify such logic.

Laws regarding such matters should be reasonable and serve to protect children while upholding constitutional freedoms. The folks who aren't vaccinated are at greater risk for infection than the folks who are, right?

They owe us every explanation.

Just like the religious parents who decide to forego given medical advice and choose to rely on faith healing to heal children of very serious illnesses.

Every religious believer is absolutely obligated to justify their belief on any given issue.

Always and absolutely.

Any conviction otherwise just leaves the rest of society to dismiss and even oppress such religious views.

If an individual cannot provide a reasonable and logical argument for what they do but merely relies upon tradition than every concept currently held untenable, such as not allowing the women the right to vote, slavery, racial and ethnic oppression........all of them are just as reasonably held and defended by religion as the argument against vaccination if the argument rests upon religious beliefs.

Never should we accept a religious answer as worthy of anything. There is a tremendous backload of historical malfeasance supported by the idea of religious and cultural integrity.

I don't care if it's the Judaic tradition of circumcision to the allowing children to die by refusing a blood transfusion among some Jehovah's Witnesses to the idea of ethnic superiority that has a long history of religious and cultural backing.

A reasonable argument must always be provided.

There is no other human moral course to take.

You value your freedoms. I value the freedoms of those children who are being raised by fools.

edit: I'm sorry if that seems kind of a harsh response Dawny. And perhaps a bit hyperbolic but it is not too much so. It's just that we, as reasonable human beings, must be willing to set aside traditional concepts in the face of new information.

edit: This post was edited due to my own recognized rudeness.

 

[dawny0826]

The problem with that is, it's not a matter of anger of freaking others out. It's a matter of putting the lives of others at risk.

There is no logic behind their decision.

You can't have it both ways. Choosing not to vaccinate puts everyone at risk.

Besides... whose religion actually prohibits vaccinations? Only one I can think of is Christian Science. But even they allow their members to choose medical treatment... which means the choice to refuse vaccinations is not a religious one, but a personal one. So there is no threat to "free exercise thereof" there.

Also... this is the sort of situation where you should be reminded that rights aren't absolute. Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it is a danger to public safety.

Same logic applies to vaccines. Being allowed to opt out of them is a danger to public safety.


Yes. They're also at greater risk for helping viruses survive long enough to mutate to a strain that vaccines weren't designed to protect, thereby putting both vaccinated individuals and non vaccinated individuals at risk.

It doesn't matter whether these choices are logical to you and I. Should we deny parents their freedoms to make choices for their children? Do we deny religious freedoms?

Measles was pretty much eradicated in the United States. The children who weren't immunized in the United States weren't a problem until exposed to people outside of the US with the disease.

According to the CDC, the measles vaccination is 95% effective in a single dose.

Source: Vaccines: VPD-VAC/Measles/FAQ Disease & Vaccine

I remain comfortable with my stance. Those who are not vaccinated are at greater risk for infection than those who are. When state laws include a contingency to an exemption, allowing for the exclusion of those who are not immunized during an outbreak - THOSE children are less likely to be infected. Statistically, the majority who are immunized aren't of greatest concern during such an outbreak.

I'm educated on the laws and procedure in my state and am comfortable with them and I have two daughters in public school. They're vaccinated. I feel no reason to push to limit the rights of other parents, who I believe should have the freedom to seek exemption if they deem it best for their children.

 

[dawny0826]

They us every explanation.

Just like the religious parents who decide to forego given medical advice and choose to rely on faith healing to heal children of very serious illnesses.

Every religious believer is absolutely obligated to justify their belief on any given issue.

Always and absolutely.

Any conviction otherwise just leaves the rest of society to dismiss and even oppress such religious views.

Yes, I am right.

If an individual cannot provide a reasonable and logical argument for what they do but merely relies upon tradition than every concept currently held untenable, such as not allowing the women the right to vote, slavery, racial and ethnic oppression........all of them are just as reasonably held and defended by religion as the argument against vaccination if the argument rests upon religious beliefs.

Never should we accept a religious answer as worthy of anything. There is a tremendous backload of historical malfeasance supported by the idea of religious and cultural integrity.

I don't care if it's the Judaic tradition of circumcision to the allowing children to die by refusing a blood transfusion among some Jehovah's Witnesses to the idea of ethnic superiority that has a long history of religious and cultural backing.

A reasonable argument must always be provided.

There is no other human moral course to take.

You value your freedoms. I value the freedoms of those children who are being raised by fools.

edit: I'm sorry if that seems kind of a harsh response Dawny. And perhaps a bit hyperbolic but it is not too much so. It's just that we, as reasonable human beings, must be willing to set aside traditional concepts in the face of new information.

As previously stated, I've no interest in criticizing the logic of parents who opt out of immunizations for their children, when, I know that my children have an excellent percentage of not being infected by a child who has measles or chicken pox or the plethora of other diseases they were immunized against.

I didn't realize that this thread was aimed to poke at religious parents. Do you happen to have access to statistics that depict the number of people who opt out of immunizations due to religious reasons?

 

[gnomon]

As previously stated, I've no interest in criticizing the logic of parents who opt out of immunizations for their children, when, I know that my children have an excellent percentage of not being infected by a child who has measles or chicken pox or the plethora of other diseases they were immunized against.

I didn't realize that this thread was aimed to poke at religious parents. Do you happen to have access to statistics that depict the number of people who opt out of immunizations due to religious reasons?

I'm more concerned with the parents who have opted to allow their children to die to easily battled illnesses because they claim faith healing. Or the numerous children who have died due to the lack of blood transfusions because certain Jehovah's Witnesses didn't believe in such based upon their religious beliefs. Or the numerous other atrocities allowed by societies based upon a demand of respect of religious beliefs.

You don't understand.

The argument that a select group of people in a society be allowed an exemption due to their religious belief, or even their cultural belief, absolutely demands a reasonable argument to support it. You have not stated one bit of evidence in this thread to argue against it and that is a fact.

Please address the argument that those who possess a religious belief should be granted over others.

Why should people who hold a "religious belief" receive an exemption over those who demand the same exemption but do not argue a "religious belief"?

 

[Bunyip]

In a vial in a lab, if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't occur naturally. The last case of small pox in the world was in 1977. We no longer vaccinate for it because nobody will ever get it. Why? Vaccination.

Sure, but the fact is that smallpox still exists and in a number of far, far more lethal and communicable forms. It has been weaponised. Now I do realise that it is currently contained, but existing in a number of weaponised forms is not the same thing as being eliminated.

Were it ever to escape containment the populations immunity to it will already have waned and the results would be catastrophic.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It doesn't matter whether these choices are logical to you and I. Should we deny parents their freedoms to make choices for their children?

Certain choices don't belong to parents. For example, education is mandatory. Vaccination ought to be as well.

Do we deny religious freedoms?

No religion actually prohibits vaccination. Those who claim exemptions on religious grounds have no scriptural or doctrinal basis for doing so. They just pull the religion card and say "Go ahead, I dare you to prohibit my 'free exercise thereof'". It's an abuse of the concept of religious freedom, and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Measles was pretty much eradicated in the United States. The children who weren't immunized in the United States weren't a problem until exposed to people outside of the US with the disease.

And until it's pretty much eradicated in the world (like smallpox), US children should continue to be vaccinated for it.

I remain comfortable with my stance. Those who are not vaccinated are at greater risk for infection than those who are. When state laws include a contingency to an exemption, allowing for the exclusion of those who are not immunized during an outbreak - THOSE children are less likely to be infected. Statistically, the majority who are immunized aren't of greatest concern during such an outbreak.

Choosing not to vaccinate weakens herd immunity, putting vaccinated people at risk as well.

I'm educated on the laws and procedure in my state and am comfortable with them and I have two daughters in public school. They're vaccinated. I feel no reason to push to limit the rights of other parents, who I believe should have the freedom to seek exemption if they deem it best for their children.

Like yelling fire in a crowded theater, I don't believe anyone has a right to put anyone else in danger.

 

[averageJOE]

In a vial in a lab, if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't occur naturally. The last case of small pox in the world was in 1977. We no longer vaccinate for it because nobody will ever get it. Why? Vaccination.

The military still to this day vaccinates for it. I got mine in 2009. The disease is still out there.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Sure, but the fact is that smallpox still exists and in a number of far, far more lethal and communicable forms. It has been weaponised. Now I do realise that it is currently contained, but existing in a number of weaponised forms is not the same thing as being eliminated.

Were it ever to escape containment the populations immunity to it will already have waned and the results would be catastrophic.

ok

 

[Poisonshady313]

The military still to this day vaccinates for it. I got mine in 2009. The disease is still out there.

The vaccine for it is not the disease itself. And as bunyip explained, actual smallpox exists in a weaponized form, which is why the military vaccinates for it.

But children do not get vaccinated for it because it has ceased to be a thing that people catch and die from.

 

[dust1n]

Haha "tax benefits"? Oxymoron.

Which is why it's such a benefit to pay no taxes because one worships an imaginary being in the air.

 

[Bunyip]

The vaccine for it is not the disease itself. And as bunyip explained, actual smallpox exists in a weaponized form, which is why the military vaccinates for it.

But children do not get vaccinated for it because it has ceased to be a thing that people catch and die from.

Unless there is some sort of mistake - and it escapes control. Then the consequences will be apocalyptic.

How often do people make such mistakes? History tells us that it is very often. The probability that at some point in the future weaponised smallpox is released back into the environment is disturbingly high.

 

[Bunyip]

The vaccine for it is not the disease itself. And as bunyip explained, actual smallpox exists in a weaponized form, which is why the military vaccinates for it.

But children do not get vaccinated for it because it has ceased to be a thing that people catch and die from.

Don't forget that vaccines are made from the disease itself. Small pox vaccines contain smallpox.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Don't forget that vaccines are made from the disease itself. Small pox vaccines contain smallpox.

Normally you're right. But small pox is different. Smallpox is caused by the Variola virus. The Vaccinia virus is what is contained in the smallpox vaccine.

 

[Bunyip]

Normally you're right. But small pox is different. Smallpox is caused by the Variola virus. The Vaccinia virus is what is contained in the smallpox vaccine.

Sure, but vaccinia is used because it is so closely related to variola. Vaccinia is also highly communicative - which is seen as an advantage by immunologists.

 

[Nietzsche]

Unless there is some sort of mistake - and it escapes control. Then the consequences will be apocalyptic.

How often do people make such mistakes? History tells us that it is very often. The probability that at some point in the future weaponised smallpox is released back into the environment is disturbingly high.

...

You clearly don't know the intricacies Biological Weapons handling. In Russia, the only state other than America with relevant reserves of Weaponized(or any) Smallpox, these facilities are in Siberia. The only possible place more destructive to the Variola virus would be Antarctica. Even if it were somehow taken out of the concrete, ICBM-shielded bunkers, it would die a swift death in the Siberian Tundra.

In America, these samples are kept in the desert, normally in areas used previously for nuclear testing. Why? Because the latent radiation adds another layer of protection against any samples that try to escape.

Russia might be **** at keeping their nuclear weapons under watch, but Bioweapons are a completely different thing. There are very real possibilities that if a sample was released, well, who would be most harshly affected first? In both the US and Russia the labs are designed to keep that **** in, and if all else fails, to burn.