|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2007 : 19:40:40 [Permalink]
|
And not to muddy the waters... but who says the damn thing is safe? Our government?
Peace
Joe |
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 19:53:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
And not to muddy the waters... but who says the damn thing is safe? Our government?
Peace
Joe
The same people that say aspirin is safe. Actually, the CDC and FDA have both approved and recommended its use. Also, there is no thimerosal or mercury in the vaccine and it is made from the protein coats, so it is non-infectious. I would say it is safer than the Influenza vaccine.
Waters un-muddied. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/09/2007 19:54:24 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 22:31:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I don't believe this has been discussed, and I hope the reason behind this is not because everyone agrees. I think it's a horrible, sad, and possibly stupid situation when a parent chooses not to vaccinate their child and the child suffers because of it. But as long as that parent is attempting to act in the best interest of their child, that is, there is no malicious intent, how can you say that the government should be able to go against the parents wishes?
Because per the Constitution, we - collectively - grant the government certain powers that only we - collectively - can take away, not individuals who happen to disagree.
And because purposefully unvaccinated people can and do infect both the not-yet-vaccinated and the few people for whom vaccination didn't "take," it's a public health issue, not a personal health issue.
Even more so with the current insurance situation, wherein almost every case of cervical cancer makes my insurance rates and/or taxes rise just a little bit. Multiply over all preventable diseases for which parents studiously withhold the vaccine from their kids, and it's not just disease spread but lots of money one needs to consider.
In our society we praise individualism, but if a parent decides that what's in the "best interest" of their child is to increase the risk for all the other kids and adults in the community with preventable diseases and preventable expenses (respectively), then I'd have to consider that parent a danger to society.
Unfortunately, all we've come up with so far as punishment of such sociopathic behaviour is to prevent the kids from partaking in this wonderful ( ) public-school system we've got. But oddly enough, I have a feeling that there's a strong correlation between withholding vaccines and home schooling. 'Cause if you (the general 'you', not you in particular, Ricky) don't trust the government to properly safeguard your kid's life, it's unlikely that you trust the goverment to educate your kid to your standards.
We need a law with more teeth. Don't want to vaccinate your kids? Fine, then you don't get the child tax credit, either. Uncle Sam needs the extra $1,000 bucks a year just to deal with the long-term and wide-spread consequences of your shortsighted actions, and those of the others like you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 23:59:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I don't believe this has been discussed, and I hope the reason behind this is not because everyone agrees. I think it's a horrible, sad, and possibly stupid situation when a parent chooses not to vaccinate their child and the child suffers because of it. But as long as that parent is attempting to act in the best interest of their child, that is, there is no malicious intent, how can you say that the government should be able to go against the parents wishes?
Because per the Constitution, we - collectively - grant the government certain powers that only we - collectively - can take away, not individuals who happen to disagree.
And because purposefully unvaccinated people can and do infect both the not-yet-vaccinated and the few people for whom vaccination didn't "take," it's a public health issue, not a personal health issue.
Even more so with the current insurance situation, wherein almost every case of cervical cancer makes my insurance rates and/or taxes rise just a little bit. Multiply over all preventable diseases for which parents studiously withhold the vaccine from their kids, and it's not just disease spread but lots of money one needs to consider.
In our society we praise individualism, but if a parent decides that what's in the "best interest" of their child is to increase the risk for all the other kids and adults in the community with preventable diseases and preventable expenses (respectively), then I'd have to consider that parent a danger to society.
Unfortunately, all we've come up with so far as punishment of such sociopathic behaviour is to prevent the kids from partaking in this wonderful () public-school system we've got. But oddly enough, I have a feeling that there's a strong correlation between withholding vaccines and home schooling. 'Cause if you (the general 'you', not you in particular, Ricky) don't trust the government to properly safeguard your kid's life, it's unlikely that you trust the goverment to educate your kid to your standards.
We need a law with more teeth. Don't want to vaccinate your kids? Fine, then you don't get the child tax credit, either. Uncle Sam needs the extra $1,000 bucks a year just to deal with the long-term and wide-spread consequences of your shortsighted actions, and those of the others like you.
Withholding certain privaledges is not the same as forcing. I agree with your post Dave, but what about forcing, meaning punishment for non-compliance, like what happens when children recieve no schooling home or public. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 00:45:48 [Permalink]
|
| With the feelings of entitlement that many people have today, Neurosis, the withholding of privileges is exactly the same thing as punishment. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 03:19:37 [Permalink]
|
| Yea, but I think that is melodramatic and stupid. Entitlement is the best advertising strategy, "you deserve a new car with all the features", but I think it is basically lying by most definitions of deserve, especially the one we use in a capitalist society. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 08:58:18 [Permalink]
|
| Well, no, I'm saying that if most people are being given some privilege, then the few who don't get the same privilege - because they're not meeting the requirements - will feel as though they're being punished, even if the law is written so that actually they're just not being rewarded. Reward and punishment are relative to the societal norms, after all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 14:19:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Ok, that was below the belt.
But understand, Robb, that there are lots of uneducated Bible litteralists who actually believe that BS. As a Christian yourself, I think it is your duty to your fellow brothers and sisters in faith to educate them in matters like this. It's not like they are interested to listen to reason, when reason comes from evil Atheists with a Commie agenda.
Maybe, But the kind of people you are talking about will just call me an atheist commie anyway. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 14:27:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Uh... ok. That has nothing to do with my post. The position of a person against the vaccine is that it will incourage sexual activity by removing one more threat that sex may have before an early sexually active age like 13-18 (vaccine given at 9-12 years). The argument is that protecting the potentially sexually active will encourage them to have sex.
I did not say it was a good argument and I did not say that teenagers think about the consequences. Actually, I have the opposite view. Teenagers don't use protection and don't think about the consequences, thus I am a fan of sex education which includes contraception and a fan of the vaccine.
I too am a fan of sex education which includes contarception. I am not a fan of our schools teaching this. It is my job as the parent.
quote:
Not to nit-pick, but what will you teach them it says? Girls (women) are property in the Old Testament, the maid servents take the place of barren wives (that would be a fun birds and bees), there are clothing restrictions and lust issues with cleavage (can't buy them those American Eagle tight jeans or low cut tops when they get to be teenagers), probably need to keep the biblical "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this"" which puts them in dresses (which is good because the teenage boys lust after the tight jeans anyway, in fact the dresses should be long, the longer the better), you can't forget to tell them that their menstrual cycle makes them unclean, Heres a good night time story:
Numbers 31:1-54
Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins. Wonder what their gonna do with them?
In the NT good old paul explains that women are good for sex Romans 1:27, Jesus explains that if something makes you sin (lust and fornication?) cut it off, here he gives guys the go ahead, Matthew 18:12, but what about the girls, no balls to cut off off... wait, clitorectomy. That is probably best anyway since Paul suggests everyone be abstanent, 1 Cor 7:5. That procedure certainly would be advantages to keep this advice and it isn't dangerous with modern technology (doubt you'll convince the good doc though).
I would guess you really are just gonna tell them what your pastor says about sex and not the bible.
I get your point. This is a discussion for another thread. But in the end it is a matter for my wife and I to decide on. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 17:14:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Up to this point, I thought you were disagreeing with me. I was talking about the government forcing children to get vaccinated, not encouraging through the withholding of privileges such as tax cuts. I'm all for such encouragement, but I am against forced vaccinations as HalfMooner had stated.
Then what would you consider "forcing?" Encouragement through the withholding of the privilege of freedom? I'm talking about finding a punishement severe enough that all kids get vaccinated. If the tax burden isn't enough - and you seem to indicate that it won't be - then we need something more severe.
We can do a "reverse boy-in-the-bubble," and have the government put a tax lein on the parents for the equipment, so that if they fail to pay it, they'll go to jail.
Or how about "Quarantine Schools?" We'd only need a few, they can be made cheaply from decommissioned oil tankers and be run like Federal prisons, except any time a kid gets fully vaccinated, they can leave.
What's going to be the solution to the problem that keeps all of our kids and our kids' kids (and so on) safe from the sociopaths and paying less for health-care? If a thousand bucks a year per unvaccinated kid isn't going to do it, what will? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 17:44:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
And not to muddy the waters... but who says the damn thing is safe? Our government?
Peace
Joe
The same people that say aspirin is safe. Actually, the CDC and FDA have both approved and recommended its use. Also, there is no thimerosal or mercury in the vaccine and it is made from the protein coats, so it is non-infectious. I would say it is safer than the Influenza vaccine.
Waters un-muddied.
The FDA and the CDC... Our government..... When it comes to the government, I am skeptical.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 18:08:07 [Permalink]
|
Hey Dave, while I agree with part of what you are saying, I do not look at HPV the same as Hep B, measels, mumps, HIV, etc. There is no public risk from HPV other then the choices one makes. However there is a huge risk from TB and we still let these folks walk around. Ditto for Hep A, B, C.
Sure, we give them drugs, but we don't force them to take them.
We also do not ENFORCE infection control within healthcare settings. If this was enfored, then VRE would never have become endemic, and could have been stopped, or at least considerably slowed.
Look at the freakin' chicken pox vaccine. I am now forced to get the vaccine before sending my child to school. WHat happens when my child is 30 years old and maybe the anti-bodies are decreased enough so she gets chicken pox. Little chance of any problems at 4, serious long-term to permanent health implications at 34. Chicken pox kills less people then dunkin drivers. TO force that vaccine for public health and not permanently incarcerate these menaces to society is pretty lame.
In the case of HPV vaccine, it should be the choice of the parent on whether to get it or not. Me, I am lucky, I don't have to worry about it for a bit. When my child is old enough, we will discuss it. We will have a better idea of all the implications, and she will choose whether to get it or not.
As far as the medical costs associated with it, I say we counter it by refusing medical aid to to impaired drivers and ridding ourselves of frivilous lawsuits. Where does one draw the line? Smokers with COPD or cancer? Obese people with heart disease? People with Diabetes who refuse to take care of themselves and end up with kidney failure? People who injure or make themselves ill participating in at-risk behavior?
How about we put a $10 a bottle of beer, $20 bottle of liquer/wine, $10 pack/smokes, required $2,000,000 policy to participate in hang-gliding, parachuting, permanent incarceration for menaces to society (drunk/impaired drivers).
etc.etc.etc
Peace
Joe
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 19:56:49 [Permalink]
|
Just a couple points of clarification here.
OI, any increase or decrease in the infectious disease burden affects everyone, regardless of one's moral filter you choose to view infections through. The idea any of these infections only matter to the individual neglects to consider those 6 degrees of separation (to use the concept) between us.
And just an FYI for folks, state vaccine laws vary considerably. Some states don't allow for any exemptions except medical including not allowing religious exemptions while other state laws allow parents to opt out of giving kids vaccinations without an explanation. Kids would be sent home during outbreaks if unvaccinated.
For states with liberal opt out policies, the point in making the vaccines required can sometimes just be a way of saying parents need to opt out rather than opt in. For states with only medical exemptions, people object to vaccine requirements regardless of their moral filters. But the laws remain in place and I am unaware if they have withstood court challenges.
I've argued with my religious brother about these laws which intervene in parental control. You can't beat your kids or neglect their medical care. Withholding vaccines can result in the death of the child. What affects one's choice of where the line gets drawn between neglecting care for a sick child or neglecting a life saving vaccine? People have all sorts of reasons this is OK, that isn't. There are moral grounds, there are parental control issues, public health issues, public expense issues, and bad medicine beliefs about the vaccines themselves. It's worse when the vaccine is new on the market since it hasn't been as thoroughly tested as a vaccine that has been given to millions. And it's always a concern that a new vaccine will be required indeed because the company that stands to profit lobbied the government for the law.
My personal bias is to require the vaccines as long as the science supports their use. The kids shouldn't have to suffer because the parents make a particular bad choice** to withhold a vaccine, and, society has a right to require its citizens to participate in decreasing the infectious disease burden. If you wait until these kids are adults making their own decisions, the evidence is very clear you will have missed a lot of opportunity to prevent disease. Kids have sex, it's a fact that hasn't changed despite the Evangelical movement and the abstinence only sex education programs. Again, that's what the science shows. If you don't agree, do/find more research.
**Bad choice based on the science, not just my opinion it's a bad choice.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/10/2007 20:06:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
