Require parents who don’t want a child vaccinated to get a science lesson

[Further]

They really should send in jack booted thugs to drag kids away from their homes and force them to take these injections, right?

At this point, no. As long as the lack of vaccinations does not viably threaten a pandemic, then no. But if the numbers were to rise to a point at which the health and safety of the society were at risk, or if the disease needing to be vaccinated were much quicker spreading and more deadly, something like ebola were to infect our populous, then at that point yes, immunization should become a requirement.

Right now, there is no need to make it a requirement, and so it is not. This does not mean that there is no risk of a worsening of viral/pathogen outbreakes that will require mandatory action.

I can't recall where I read it, I did a search and could not find the source, but I remember there was a meeting recently of futurists and other scientists and they were in agreement that the biggest threat to life as we know it is not an asteroid, not nuclear meltdowns, not ......, but a simple pathogen mutating and devastating our world.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm just saying the consequences were not as obvious, nor was anyone crying the fears of imagined side effects.

The evidence of polio was everywhere. With the Mellon money to fuel a PR campaign, and easy access to vaccination, people went for it. It was worth the risk to pretty much everyone.

A flu shot is $10, but people are more scared of the needle and the side effects of the shot than the risk of getting the flu. The flu kills 1/2 million a year.

I remember they said a flu shot wouldn't assure you'd not get the flu last year.

So people are fine at assessing the risk.

 

[Denny Crane]

At this point, no. As long as the lack of vaccinations does not viably threaten a pandemic, then no. But if the numbers were to rise to a point at which the health and safety of the society were at risk, or if the disease needing to be vaccinated were much quicker spreading and more deadly, something like ebola were to infect our populous, then at that point yes, immunization should become a requirement.

Right now, there is no need to make it a requirement, and so it is not. This does not mean that there is no risk of a worsening of viral/pathogen outbreakes that will require mandatory action.

I can't recall where I read it, I did a search and could not find the source, but I remember there was a meeting recently of futurists and other scientists and they were in agreement that the biggest threat to life as we know it is not an asteroid, not nuclear meltdowns, not ......, but a simple pathogen mutating and devastating our world.

It wouldn't be a simple pathogen, but something exotic like Ebola.

They do the chicken little thing every year about bird flu mutation causing a pandemic or epidemic. Read below.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/25/university-of-minnesota-flu-vaccine-study

If there's anything on this earth that you have a Natural Right to, it is what you decide to do with your own body. In the case of minors, Parents have the right to make medical decisions. Anything less is being literally owned by someone else: a slave.

The slippery slope leads to forced abortion and other evils a State can do.

I choose Liberty. Or give me death. Ya know?

 

[Further]

It wouldn't be a simple pathogen, but something exotic like Ebola.

They do the chicken little thing every year about bird flu mutation causing a pandemic or epidemic. Read below.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/25/university-of-minnesota-flu-vaccine-study

If there's anything on this earth that you have a Natural Right to, it is what you decide to do with your own body. In the case of minors, Parents have the right to make medical decisions. Anything less is being literally owned by someone else: a slave.

The slippery slope leads to forced abortion and other evils a State can do.

I choose Liberty. Or give me death. Ya know?

As I see it nobody is suggesting that we have vaccinations be mandatory. Just that if you opt to not have your children vaccinated, then you should be shown a video about the scientific reasoning for getting vaccinations and to demonstrate there is no justifiable link between autism and vaccination.

But, aside from that, if you live in a community, you benefit from the community, there may be requirements to remain in the community. For some communities, that means that you can't paint your front door red (a neighborhood community) while in others it might mean that you may not tattoo your body (Amish community). It is your choice to remain part of that community or to leave that community. If having a red door is important to you, move across town. If having a tattoo is important, then leave the Amish. Likewise, if you are in a city and they determine that for the safety and well-being of the society vaccinations are required, then I agree that you should be able to opt out, but there may be repercussions like being forced out of the city. It's your body, but the disease you may carry and mutate will affect everyone around you. They should have the right to protect their bodies from you.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Likewise, if you are in a city and they determine that for the safety and well-being of the society Christianity is required, then I agree that you should be able to opt out, but there may be repercussions like being forced out of the city. It's your soul, but the faith you may carry and practice will affect everyone around you. They should have the right to protect their souls from you.

Is there a huge difference?

 

[Further]

Is there a huge difference?

I would answer YES, death vs no death.

But I do understand that some believers would say that hell is worse than death.....

I think thats bull.

Lets say an ebola varient breaks out that kills 75% of those infected. Are you really saying that a community should not have the right to demand everyone in the community be vaccinated against the varient? All it takes is one of the 25% that don't die to be infected and have the virus mutate and kill everyone who was vaccinated.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I would answer YES, death vs no death.

But I do understand that some believers would say that hell is worse than death.....

I think thats bull.

Lets say an ebola varient breaks out that kills 75% of those infected. Are you really saying that a community should not have the right to demand everyone in the community be vaccinated against the varient? All it takes is one of the 25% that don't die to be infected and have the virus mutate and kill everyone who was vaccinated.

The point is that rights are rights and are unconditional; once they become conditional, then they are privileges that can be granted and rescinded. Once you begin infringing upon human rights in the name of "the public good", who is to say where the line is drawn?

 

[Eastoff]

The point is that rights are rights and are unconditional; once they become conditional, then they are privileges that can be granted and rescinded. Once you begin infringing upon human rights in the name of "the public good", who is to say where the line is drawn?

Have you started shouting fire in a crowded theatre? Life is not black and white. Sometimes it's okay to kill, isn't that against the ten commandments?

 

[crandc]

Bullshit. We live in a society. We are interdependent whether Denny wants to see it or not. You don't have the right to kill another person. Or rape them (although some here think otherwise). You can't say I want to fuck someone and I have the right to and I don't care if I have to beat the shit out of her to do it. You can't drive drunk. You can't say I have the right to drink all I please, dammit, and drive 90 MPH on the freeway and screw everyone else. You do not have the right to deliberately put other people in danger. You can make up crap about jack booted thugs that doesn't exist and that no one is talking about or you can exercise some of that famous personal responsibility to act in a responsible manner. Or does personal responsibility just mean ending food stamps because children should be personally responsible for feeding themselves? And isn't it an exercise of personal responsiblity to make INFORMED decisions rather than ignorant ones?

 

[Further]

The point is that rights are rights and are unconditional; once they become conditional, then they are privileges that can be granted and rescinded. Once you begin infringing upon human rights in the name of "the public good", who is to say where the line is drawn?

And my point is that this is an issue that has the potential, given particularly harmful strains, to kill tens, even hundreds of millions of people. It can't be left up to the individual, because by the time that massive death is evident there may not be time to stop the spread of the dastardly pathogen. It will takes specialists in bioinformatics, virology, microbiologists, and more, to know when we get to a point that immunization should be required. I don't want to ever see that day arrive, I don't want that day to be taken lightly, but it also needs to be realized that a day like that could come and if we don't take heed of the scientists warnings and implement immunization protocols than we could all be dead. That's why it's so important that we observe and analyze the actions of the CDC in times of calm, so that when an outbreak is predicted, we can trust the source.

 

[magnifier661]

Bullshit. We live in a society. We are interdependent whether Denny wants to see it or not. You don't have the right to kill another person. Or rape them (although some here think otherwise). You can't say I want to fuck someone and I have the right to and I don't care if I have to beat the shit out of her to do it. You can't drive drunk. You can't say I have the right to drink all I please, dammit, and drive 90 MPH on the freeway and screw everyone else. You do not have the right to deliberately put other people in danger. You can make up crap about jack booted thugs that doesn't exist and that no one is talking about or you can exercise some of that famous personal responsibility to act in a responsible manner. Or does personal responsibility just mean ending food stamps because children should be personally responsible for feeding themselves? And isn't it an exercise of personal responsiblity to make INFORMED decisions rather than ignorant ones?

Unless you have the right to abortion. That is a life in a woman's belly, no?

 

[Further]

And rights have conditions all the time. The right to arms is limited in scope, no private nukes for example. The right to free speech, except cases like yelling fire in a movie theater or inciting violence. Right to assembly, unless it is in the way of something else. Right to representation unless you are a felon. There are all sorts of limits on our rights. Too many I think, but they are common as can be. There is no difference why in the case of preventing the deaths of millions that this might be a time to limit those rights.

 

[Denny Crane]

And rights have conditions all the time. The right to arms is limited in scope, no private nukes for example. The right to free speech, except cases like yelling fire in a movie theater or inciting violence. Right to assembly, unless it is in the way of something else. Right to representation unless you are a felon. There are all sorts of limits on our rights. Too many I think, but they are common as can be. There is no difference why in the case of preventing the deaths of millions that this might be a time to limit those rights.

Natural Rights are unconditional.

They are given by the Creator, not by a grant from govt.

I do not mean Creator in any religious sense.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Have you started shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

If I wanted to, I could. It would only be the result of that speech which would be actionable (inciting a riot), not the speech itself.

 

[Further]

Natural Rights are unconditional.

They are given by the Creator, not by a grant from govt.

I do not mean Creator in any religious sense.

Which natural rights? Freedom of worship? Not if you subscribe to human sacrifice, even if the sacrificial lamb agrees to it. The right to have a voice in your government? Felons cant vote so their voice is not heard. The right of property? what if there are animals from the endangered species list on the land? Life? death penalty. Liberty? don't steal cows. pursuit of happiness? depends on what brings that happiness, not if its dog fighting.

I really don't know what Natural Rights you are talking about. John Locke be damned.

 

[crandc]

So if the creator is not religious, who is he/she/it and how did you decide what he/she/it gave?
Did he/she/it give me rights?
What if you think you have the right to harm me? Do I have the right to not be harmed?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Likewise, if you are in a city and they determine that for the safety and well-being of the society Christianity is required, then I agree that you should be able to opt out, but there may be repercussions like being forced out of the city. It's your soul, but the faith you may carry and practice will affect everyone around you. They should have the right to protect their souls from you.

Is there a huge difference?

Hahahaha. Yes.

Bullshit. We live in a society. We are interdependent whether Denny wants to see it or not. You don't have the right to kill another person. Or rape them (although some here think otherwise). You can't say I want to fuck someone and I have the right to and I don't care if I have to beat the shit out of her to do it. You can't drive drunk. You can't say I have the right to drink all I please, dammit, and drive 90 MPH on the freeway and screw everyone else. You do not have the right to deliberately put other people in danger. You can make up crap about jack booted thugs that doesn't exist and that no one is talking about or you can exercise some of that famous personal responsibility to act in a responsible manner. Or does personal responsibility just mean ending food stamps because children should be personally responsible for feeding themselves? And isn't it an exercise of personal responsiblity to make INFORMED decisions rather than ignorant ones?

Who here thinks rape is fine and dandy? I must have missed that one..

 

[crandc]

Who here thinks rape is fine and dandy? I must have missed that one..

The ones who say the woman is a lying slut....that the nanny was asking for it...
But please, let's not go off on that because I don't want 100 lying slut posts on this thread.

 

[magnifier661]

The ones who say the woman is a lying slut....that the nanny was asking for it...
But please, let's not go off on that because I don't want 100 lying slut posts on this thread.

I'm a lying slut!

 

[crandc]

We've all heard of "Typhoid Mary". Was she within her rights to infect others? If a person with an easily communicable disease is in a position to infect others, not just that, but where infecting others is inevitable, is that their natural right or does society have the right to stop him/her? Is there any personal responsibility to not deliberately cause extreme harm to others? (I was going to say "not harm others" but we all do; if you are the last one on the elevator so someone else has to wait for the next one, you've harmed them. If you get the job and the other applicants didn't you've harmed them. And so on. Impossible to never harm others, so I amended to deliberately cause extreme harm, not tripping over someone's foot.)

 

[Denny Crane]

Which natural rights? Freedom of worship? Not if you subscribe to human sacrifice, even if the sacrificial lamb agrees to it. The right to have a voice in your government? Felons cant vote so their voice is not heard. The right of property? what if there are animals from the endangered species list on the land? Life? death penalty. Liberty? don't steal cows. pursuit of happiness? depends on what brings that happiness, not if its dog fighting.

I really don't know what Natural Rights you are talking about. John Locke be damned.

Locke got it right.

Life, Liberty, Property.

YOUR body being YOUR Property.

Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

 

[Denny Crane]

un·al·ien·a·ble (n-ly-n-bl, -l--)
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away;

 

[Denny Crane]

So if the creator is not religious, who is he/she/it and how did you decide what he/she/it gave?
Did he/she/it give me rights?
What if you think you have the right to harm me? Do I have the right to not be harmed?

The Creator is Nature.

 

[Eastoff]

Locke got it right.

Life, Liberty, Property.

YOUR body being YOUR Property.

Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

So imagined risk of autism outweighs real risk of death?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The ones who say the woman is a lying slut....that the nanny was asking for it...
But please, let's not go off on that because I don't want 100 lying slut posts on this thread.

You're very simple minded about some things.

 

[Eastoff]

You're very simple minded about some things.

stop antagonizing. There's more than enough silliness from the anti-vaccination line of logic.

 

[Further]

Locke got it right.

Life, Liberty, Property.

YOUR body being YOUR Property.

Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

I agree up to a point. These "rights" are noble and should be upheld as much as possible, but there are times where my rights and your rights clash. Is your right to not be poked with a needle if you don't want it greater than my right to not be killed or harmed by a pathogen? I just don't think it's as easy of a situation as you make it out to be.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Is your right to not be poked with a needle if you don't want it greater than my right to not be killed or harmed by a pathogen? I just don't think it's as easy of a situation as you make it out to be.

Who ever said that you have a right to not be killed by a pathogen?

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree up to a point. These "rights" are noble and should be upheld as much as possible, but there are times where my rights and your rights clash. Is your right to not be poked with a needle if you don't want it greater than my right to not be killed or harmed by a pathogen? I just don't think it's as easy of a situation as you make it out to be.

They are inalienable.

Like the right to inhale and exhale.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

They are inalienable.

Like the right to inhale and exhale.

Your right to exhale germs you could have been vaccinated against ends at the tip of your nose; if my child gets polio from your kid or whatever, I should be able to sue you for every cent my kid might have made as a professional football player.