I am sorry for your troubles, but there is no evidence whatsoever for a link between autism and vaccination.
As Nietzsche said, even if there were... preventing polio alone would be reason enough to accept the risk, frankly.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Vaccination and Religious Beliefs
- Thread starter Madhuri
- Start date
As Nietzsche said, even if there were... preventing polio alone would be reason enough to accept the risk, frankly.
Contagious diseases do not work that way.
Even if they did, you would need rather more dangerous vaccines than those that actually exist for the price to justify not using them.
This is a debate, mate. You want to claim something, it's on YOU to back it up. Just some friendly advice. So thank you for providing the links.
Firstly, Lifesite isn't what I'd call credible. They're barely scientific literate as far as I can tell. Much more political than anything else.
Secondly, this is what I found from your own link that you provided (thanks) "In total only two fetuses, both obtained from abortions done by maternal choice, have given rise to cell strains used in vaccine development. Neither abortion was performed for the purpose of vaccine development."
And this which you yourself quoted "Two main human cell strains have been used to develop currently available vaccines, in each case with the original fetal cells in question obtained in the 1960s. The WI-38 cell strain was developed in 1961 in the United States, and the MRC-5 cell strain (also started with fetal lung cells) was developed in 1965 in the United Kingdom. No new or additional fetal cells are required in order to sustain the two cell strains."
So yes, they may contain such ingredients, but they don't go get an aborted fetus now and use it's cells to replicate the vaccine. They did it twice and then merely developed a workable vaccine in each instance. Oh how awful of them.
Now the way I see it, you can certainly push for vaccines to be made without using human cells (many are actually made with animal cells. But due to various animal illnesses, that is often not very viable.) But to ignore vaccines just because a couple of voluntary abortions were used 40 years ago, for the purpose of a prevention technique due to your own "morals" (however you define them) then you might as well not go to the hospital at all. I'm sure you're aware of various experiments done throughout the ages where unethical doesn't begin to cover it? But those experiments, although unethical and have not been practiced in decades (thankfully) lead to many discoveries and medical knowledge which we now possess.
Last edited:
I'm not the person you are asking this to, but I certainly do. People have a duty towards communal health, and this is safely within the boundaries of that duty.
Any society that accepts having an armed military would better expect its citizens to innoculate as well.
That's a very reasonable approach. At least some people out there are being responsible. Can I ask though, do you guys pay for your flu vaccine?
I'm not just talking about the flu. I have a friend who was a perfectly healthy baby until she had her shots and she got very sick from it. From what the family says, it was the vaccination that gave her rheumatoid arthritis. I have no way of knowing if this is for sure true of course, but that family certainly blames the vaccine.
There was also a friend of mum's who is a nurse, totally pro-vaccinations. Then she had a baby and got him vaccinated. He almost died from a reaction to it so she didn't vaccinate any of her following kids. I don't blame her for that, personally.
When I was a kid the whooping cough went through my school and it was shut down temporarily. I was one of the only kids not vaccinated and yet I was one of the only kids who didn't get it. I was also never immunised against the measles but had been around kids who were and they still got it..yet I never did get it. Not sure what to think of that tbh.
Having said that, I don't disagree with you. I'm much more in favour of vaccines than living in an environment with loads of preventable diseases.
I'd agree if there was an epidemic. But in a country like Australia, making vaccination forced seems a bit totalitarian to me. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
Yes. My opinion is that you can religiously opt out of anything that truly only affects you. Vaccinations is not one of those things.
Vaccinations are not forced in Australia. They are provided willingly and are generally free of charge. There is no law that says you have to get vaccinated, there are certain scenarios which has consequences for you if you don't get a child vaccinated though. A school is one such circumstance. A school is an environment which has a specific duty of care to it's students as a whole. This includes health and safety. An unvaccinated child poses an unnecessary risk to other students, so they are barred from school. (I don't know if the legislation covers things like the Flu vaccines or other things because I left school years ago and it didn't back then. But Polio, tetanus and other debilitating preventable diseases most certainly are.) Simple as that. It's a public safety thing.
Well we've also just had the No Jab, No Pay policy implemented. But I was asking in a more hypothetical manner.
Sorry, I'm a little unsure what you are asking.
I don't necessarily disagree that it is a bit authoritarian. I would need some specific information before opining about Australia's vaccines.
All the same, it seems to me that if people are expected to bleed and to pay taxes for their country, it is hardly unexpected that they should innoculate for their own good and that of the people they deal with as well.
Whether that should be forced or simply educated into their behavior is a more difficult matter. But I don't think it is excessive to deny public education for those who refuse vaccination of contagious diseases.
You're right, I didn't pose an actual question. Someone said earlier that they think kids who aren't immunised shouldn't be allowed to go to school. Someone else agreed. I didn't, particularly in a country like Australia where there isn't any disease epidemic for those particular common diseases that we vaccinate against. To make such a ban on kids, even if we're just talking hypothetically, seems totalitarian to me. But I'm happy for people to explain why it isn't totalitarian or why it's a really good idea for kids to be banned from school if they don't get immunised.
Oh thanks.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Yeah man. We pay for everything.
I think that education is more ideal. I don't like the idea of governments stifling more and more freedoms.
It's so expensive! I've had a few vaccines in the last 12 months and it's cost closer to $1000. If we're so interested in public health, how about making it affordable..
Umm, Herd Immunity, remember? This ban is not on things like the cold and flu (well, as far as I know) this is for things like Polio (which can cripple you for life) or Hep B/C or Tetanus or smallpox or other preventable horrifying illnesses. We can't just get all complacent and be like "oh well that's done with then. No need to be vaccinated anymore." That's how things like that come back!!!
Also, we've gone through several epidemics of sorts in the last few years down here in Aus. Whooping Cough was one that was alarming. Then we had the Meningocchoccal scare a few years prior to that and pretty much every Primary and High school was just like, okay now you kids are getting vaccinated!!! I think the newest one is well, I don't know exactly, but I remember hearing about some sort of epidemic of some sorts happening in Aussie hospitals amongst the kids.