Vaccination

[Bullet Magnet]

No, you cannot.

[Wings of Fire]

Your argument is that people do not have the right to take personal decisions regarding their child's health if it goes against scientific and medical evidence. Their rights as parents are voided by their child's right to good good health.

Insert the proposition 'Death is unhealthy, and abortion goes against scientific and medical evidence for a healthy and living baby' and suddenly you're arguing that parents don't have the right to hurt babies through ignorance, but do have the right to kill potential babies through ignorance (Assumption: Anyone willing to have their baby aborted without a damn good reason is ignorant to the value of the life growing inside them).

Now, I disagree with abortion but I do think it needs to be legal. Potential parents need the right to make their own decision about what to do. Even if that decision disgusts me. Even if that decision is ignorant, or maliciously casual. The responsibility is on society and the medical profession to help around the issue to ensure people are informed and responsible both before, during and after the event.

Unless I'm very mistaken, this is basically what OANST is arguing for innoculation.

[Manco]

I could use the exact same argument against abortion.

That has nothing to do with this, but I wanted to say it anyway.

I think that depends on whether you class an unborn zygote as another human body.

[Wings of Fire]

I think that depends on whether you class an unborn zygote as another human body.

You'd have to be sociopathic not to.

This is one of my two most controversial beliefs.

[Manco]

You'd have to be sociopathic not to.

This is one of my two most controversial beliefs.

Potential is not actual. I don’t think that’s a particularly sociopathic way of looking at things.

[Bullet Magnet]

Your argument is that people do not have the right to take personal decisions regarding their child's health if it goes against scientific and medical evidence. Their rights as parents are voided by their child's right to good good health.

That is a false comparison, because the foetus has a substantial impact on the health and liberty of the mother and her rights to her own body. Until such a time as the foetus can survive physically distinct from the mother, either naturally or by medical incubation, it is an unarguable biological fact that foetal gestation and sustenance is inextricable from the body of the mother. The very health of a foetus requires the direct coercion of the mother’s body, and while this coercion is in process, the mother reserves the right to terminate her pregnancy.

Whilst a born child is an entirely separate entity whose inoculation has no impact whatsoever on the parent's health or right to her body, except in the case that the parent is not vaccinated and catches pertussis from their own unprotected and recently infected child. Shortly before it coughs its lungs out and expires in their own desperately clutching arms.

Assumption: Anyone willing to have their baby aborted without a damn good reason is ignorant to the value of the life growing inside them.

The value of the foetus must remain subjective. It is a life within a life, and whether it is a welcome guest is entirely the mother's discretion.

[MeechMunchie]

The value of the foetus must remain subjective. It is a life within a life, and whether it is a welcome guest is entirely the mother's discretion.

Now this is an opinion I can get behind.

Oh wait, we're having an another abortion topic, aren't we? I tell you, when you least expect them...

[OANST]

Unfortunately, while I agree with your thoughts that this is a health risk you absolutely are talking about personal freedoms, as well as parental. What if the children refuse the shot? Is it now the state's job to hold the child down against both its and its parent's wishes to administer a shot that has a chance of causing bodily harm? You don't think that the family has the right to refuse that kind of treatment? To refuse something that is much more likely to do good than harm, but could still possibly do harm?

That's okay, though. You don't need to agree. The sane people aren't going to let you have your way. It's pointless to even discuss it. You're positive that not getting the fucking vaccinations is going to bring down civilization. You'll make your cardboard sign, and stand on the street corner, and the rest of us are going to continue to ignore you, not because you're wrong about the dangers, but because you would replace the dangers of disease with the dangers of fascism.

[Bullet Magnet]

I'm going to ignore the accusations of fascism and madness, and the straw man fallacy, because they are utterly ridiculous and manage to insult yourself more than I.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, because when I get tired of typing it I can copy-paste it: This affects everyone, and the safety of everyone utterly trumps the so-called right renege on your parental and social responsibility to not unleash a brood of potential plaguebearers and Typhoid Marys on the local schools, playgrounds, malls, churches, universities, office blocks, hospitals, cinemas, airports...

I don't want to have to be afraid of what little Billy brought back with him from his holiday in Kenya or wherever. Because that is how the school outbreaks usually start.

[OANST]

The madness allusions are just for fun, but the fascism is deadly serious. I'm not saying that you are politically a fascist, but this is clearly a policy that would be adopted under fascist rule, and steps over half a dozen very clear human rights boundaries. But now you've gone to the lengths of fear mongering to try to bring your point home, and that insults you much more than I.

Oh, and you would never have to worry about what Billy brought back from Kenya because Billy isn't allowed to visit Kenya without having had his shots. Know a little bit about the policies before speaking about them.

[MeechMunchie]

One of my friends went to Poland without proper vaccinations and brought back pulmonary tuberculosis. It infected half the school.

I was sitting right next to her. I was fine. Woo for vaccination.

I don't expect this to alter the argument, but just because there's a policy it doesn't mean people always follow it. Even well-intentioned people can fall through the administrative cracks.

[Bullet Magnet]

The madness allusions are just for fun, but the fascism is deadly serious. I'm not saying that you are politically a fascist, but this is clearly a policy that would be adopted under fascist rule, and steps over half a dozen very clear human rights boundaries. But now you've gone to the lengths of fear mongering to try to bring your point home, and that insults you much more than I.

Oh, and you would never have to worry about what Billy brought back from Kenya because Billy isn't allowed to visit Kenya without having had his shots. Know a little bit about the policies before speaking about them.

I'm not fear mongering. Everything I have said has already happened and is happening now. And people do go abroad without their recommended inoculations, most of which are for specific tropical diseases and not the basic childhood set. I know they do, because most of the outbreaks I read about are exactly that.

That a policy might exist in a fascist society does itself make that policy fascist or bad. I expect motoring speed limits would be implemented in a fascist society as well, viciously trampling on our rights to use our own property as we see fit for no good reason. Other than for the protection of ourselves and others.

And any human right that actually harms humanity instead of actually protecting it is not worth the page it is written on. As it is, it appears to be the other way around. From the Convention on the Rights of the Child:

The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to

Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.
budget, policy and law makers.

Children have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad
for them. Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents,
unless this might hurt the child.

Children have the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally. Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents, or anyone else who looks after them.

Children have the right to good quality health care – the best health care possible – to safe drinking water, nutritious food, a clean and safe environment, and information to help them stay healthy. Rich countries should help poorer countries achieve this.

And in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

[Phylum]

[enchilado]

I've never had a vaccination.

[Havoc]

Depends on the sort of vaccination. I'm not having myself injected with something that was developed in a lab less than a year ago and I downright refused to get the vaccination against the swine flu a few years back.

Speaking of which: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/V...609/story.html

[Nate]

I downright refused to get the vaccination against the swine flu a few years back.

Leaving aside the fact that it was uneccessary because swine flu wasn't actually that dangerous to a healthy, non-pregnant adult, why did you refuse it? It was no different to any other flu vaccine.

[Havoc]

Because like with all flu shots, they are made without being properly tested, especially the swine flu ones that had to be rushed everywhere because of the proclaimed pandemic. Long term effects are unknown, stuff like that. For all you know people could start dropping dead in a few years because of that.

Medication is a good thing, but only when it has been proven to work without side effects over a lot of years. And even then I try to be as independent on medication as I possibly can be. I tend to have faith in my immune system.

In the end I do believe I got that flu during my vacation to Las Vegas because I was horribly sick when I got home and even passed out at some point. But I'll take that above taking an untested drug any day.

[OANST]

I'm not fear mongering. Everything I have said has already happened and is happening now. And people do go abroad without their recommended inoculations, most of which are for specific tropical diseases and not the basic childhood set. I know they do, because most of the outbreaks I read about are exactly that.

That a policy might exist in a fascist society does itself make that policy fascist or bad. I expect motoring speed limits would be implemented in a fascist society as well, viciously trampling on our rights to use our own property as we see fit for no good reason. Other than for the protection of ourselves and others.

And any human right that actually harms humanity instead of actually protecting it is not worth the page it is written on. As it is, it appears to be the other way around. From the Convention on the Rights of the Child:











And in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Oh, you absolutely are fear mongering. You start by making the problem sound more wide spread than it is. Acting like there are tens of thousands of people in each individual country that refuse to have their children or themselves vaccinated simply out of ignorance. And then you started trotting out doomsday scenarios. "The science is in!" What fucking science? The science that says that diseases are bad? Wow. Holy shit, genius. Diseases are bad. Who would of thunk of it. So let's replace a biological disease with a societal disease. Let's replace it with fascism. And don't give me your faggotry about how it doesn't make the policy fascist just because fascists would institute it. Okay, if fascists instituted a law stating that you can't set people on fire it would certainly not make the law a "fascist" law. But the law you want instituted is the kind of law that would only be instituted by a fascist state.

You are saying that personal freedom must be given up for the betterment of the state. We don't have the right to keep ourselves, or our children from receiving injections that may harm them because to do so would harm the biological health of the state. But why stop there? Why stop with biological health? The Jews are harming the economic health of the state by controlling all the banks, and driving us, the good indigenous people into financial ruin. This is what I'm told by some of our greatest minds, and most eloquent speakers. Let's purge them for the good of the state. Oh, and we as people need more land if we are going to thrive. Let's fucking take it.

Slippery slope arguments are bullshit, but what you are talking about skips the slope, and dives directly into authoritarian fascism. I won't have it. I'd rather get typhoid. I'd also rather you get typhoid.

[Wings of Fire]

Potential is not actual. I don’t think that’s a particularly sociopathic way of looking at things.

I do. I haven't managed to be persuaded otherwise yet.

Remember: I'm pro-choice and pro-responsibility. That's my point here.

[STM]

On the foetus point, I like BM's idea that it is down to the woman. But there's still the debate you could have where the woman could terminate the baby until the umbilical cord is detached. I thin that for perhaps the last ten weeks before pregnancy or something, the baby is developed enough to be classed as a baby, not a foetus. That being said my understanding of birth and related human biology is limited and if someone can provide substantial evidence for or against I would take it on board.

On the inoculation subject, unless you have an allergic reaction to the drug, you should have to be vaccinated, you are putting yourself, your child and others that aren't vaccinated at risk. I think BM said earlier that diseases that were almost extinct 20 yeats ago are rampaging once again because the vaccinated population is decreasing or at least plateauing. That's just stupid for a first world country.

[Wings of Fire]

But there's no abortion argument here. I was simply stating that responsibility doesn't exist without choice and advancement doesn't exist without responsibility.

[T-nex]

For the record I agree with oanst's solution to all this. His suggestion of forcing people that havent been vaccinated out from social activities, keeping the personal rights intact while also giving people a choice, is a lot more humane.

No matter how little risk vaccines pose, if they pose a risk, forcing people to take them is horrible. It literally means that you are ok with a small percentage of people getting sick or possibly worse from vaccines for the greater good. And that train of thought is scary.

But what do I know. I'm not a scientist...


And I don't advocate refusal of vaccines either, but I also don't think people should be forced into them.

[MeechMunchie]

I guess you could make vaccination a mandatory part of national healthcare. People would be pretty eager to get their shots if you couldn't get into a hospital without one. Obviously A&E would be an exception, but since the risk of transmission in hospitals is massive it seems sensible enough.

[Nepsotic]

Vaccinations don't give you autism.

[OANST]

I guess you could make vaccination a mandatory part of national healthcare. People would be pretty eager to get their shots if you couldn't get into a hospital without one. Obviously A&E would be an exception, but since the risk of transmission in hostipitals is massive it seems sensible enough.

This also seems fair to me. People need to be given incentive to comply with the norm. Also, the idea I put forward earlier about not allowing children into public schools with out vaccines is not really a hypothetical. In America you cannot attend school with out showing that you have received certain shots. They just won't let you attend.

[MeechMunchie]

Vaccinations don't give you autism.

No, they don't; you were born like that.

[Nepsotic]

Seriously, though. A lot of people don't give their kids vaccinations because they think it gives you autism, it doesn't.

[OANST]

The science is in!

[STM]

Actually some inoculations have shown to correlate to autism levels where parents have given them to their children too early. My mother works with children with special needs and attends quite a number of courses, I think she was taught this if I remember correctly.

[OANST]

The science is out!