While I understand the public outcry about a parents rights to decide what gets injected into their child's body, I also understand why some think everyone should be immunized.
Leaning toward the rights of parents to decide. Again, California leads the way at destroying rights. My bet is that Big Brother has a California birth certificate.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
I believe we both grew up when it was mandatory for kids to have ALL their shots before entering school, at least I did. That almost completely eradicated measles and chicken pox, except that we allow kids now to do whatever they want, and as well all know the minority's rule now, not the majority.
But then in this new day and age of air travel all it takes is one immigrant, legal or otherwise to bring these back, as seen in the Disneyland thing a while back. That one guy made 150 or so sick who may have infected others themselves by being sick or just carriers, they don't show symptoms but can pass the disease onto others.
So is one parents right more important than the majority? I don't know anything except we almost had it eradicated and because of these people who feel because they are special they shouldn't have to have the shot. I wonder how some of those parents feel now if the kids were at Disneyland and got infected? I am sure they will sue the park because their precious little child caught it there, even though if their kid had be inoculated before hand they would not have got it.
So it is really a crap shoot about who is more right and being it is a California law I am not a real fan of it as well, I don't think any law that has come out of California in the last 20 years that did anything good.
So I am also torn as to who is right.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Steve, I don't believe it's a situation of one's right versus the majority in this case, you and I (as parents) still have the right to immunize/protect our children from the "common" diseases. All we have to do is ensure our children are immunized. Should a parent choose to not get their child immunized, their child is the one at risk. I say that, all the while knowing that there are age restrictions on when immunizations are supposed to be given so, there will always be some unprotected children but, life is a gamble and unless someone develops some miracle drug that can be administered to a pregnant mother to protect a fetus from conception forward, that will always be the case.
----------------- Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-30-2015).]
Steve, I don't believe it's a situation of one's right versus the majority in this case, you and I (as parents) still have the right to immunize/protect our children from the "common" diseases. All we have to do is ensure our children are immunized. Should a parent choose to not get their child immunized, their child is the one at risk. I say that, all the while knowing that there are age restrictions on when immunizations are supposed to be given so, there will always be some unprotected children but, life is a gamble
Steve, I don't believe it's a situation of one's right versus the majority in this case, you and I (as parents) still have the right to immunize/protect our children from the "common" diseases. All we have to do is ensure our children are immunized. Should a parent choose to not get their child immunized, their child is the one at risk. I say that, all the while knowing that there are age restrictions on when immunizations are supposed to be given so, there will always be some unprotected children but, life is a gamble and unless someone develops some miracle drug that can be administered to a pregnant mother to protect a fetus from conception forward, that will always be the case.
----------------- Ron
Funny thing is getting immunized does not guaranty you will not get the disease, Amanda was immunized for the measles and still got it when she was in school, so yes life is nothing more than a crap shoot. So what's the point, if you get the shot you can still get it if someone else has it, granted a less severe case but you can still get it like Amanda did a few years back.
Well, that's pretty much a non-statement. Yep, herd-immunity does work to a certain extent but, again, those who choose to not immunize are still not guaranteed of not being infected.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Funny thing is getting immunized does not guaranty you will not get the disease, Amanda was immunized for the measles and still got it when she was in school, so yes life is nothing more than a crap shoot. So what's the point, if you get the shot you can still get it if someone else has it, granted a less severe case but you can still get it like Amanda did a few years back.
Steve
Steve, I fully agree and understand. It's pretty much a given that you can't immunize against a case of stupid but, it's still going around even though, the herd has been immunized.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Originally posted by blackrams: Steve, I fully agree and understand. It's pretty much a given that you can't immunize against a case of stupid but, it's still going around even though, the herd has been immunized.
I think it is still going around, Because there are those that aren't immunized, do legal immigrants have to be immunized before entering the country ?
How about those illegal immigrants who just walk across the boarder without ever being checked when coming, think they got all their shots ?
We do have a very lax immigration policy and what about all the students here on student visa's are they required to be inoculated?
Hey I still am not sure about this, if the parents should be able to say no for whatever reason, religious, or whatever. I think parent should be able to decide but what about those who never had that option available, like our ever increasing immigrant population?
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 06-30-2015).]
Illegals should be sent back, no question in my mind about that.
I would have to do more investigation/research as to your other questions, I assume that legal visitors must meet a minimal immunization standard but, don't know that for sure. But, all you can do is immunize your child, what another parent does is beyond your and my control. As I said previously, the child at greatest risk is the non-immunized child.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-30-2015).]
Originally posted by blackrams: life is a gamble and unless someone develops some miracle drug that can be administered to a pregnant mother to protect a fetus from conception forward, that will always be the case.
My guess is that would be as highly contested as current immunizations, if not more.
If you support anti-vax you should also be against mandatory quarantines for ebola infections. You know, for "freedom"...
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123: I think from now on anyone who is working with Ebola people when they come back need to be quarantined for at least a month before they are ever let out in public again ! We do it to our animals when they come from countries that have diseases we have already eradicated from our shores.
But, all you can do is immunize your child, what another parent does is beyond your and my control. As I said previously, the child at greatest risk is the non-immunized child.
The ability of the child to spread whatever disease it is, is a big risk as well.
About it being in your or my control, I mean , thats what this law in the books is about right?
Like Steve, I grew up in a time of measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio, chicken pox, meningitis, smallpox and diphtheria. The Salk Polio vaccine came about when I was in early elementary school. Though there were some dangers to the drug, in the 12 classroom school that I attended, housing all grades, I can still remember 3 persons who were crippled by polio. Today, I can't say that I know of any young person who has contracted the disease.
Often parents, including my own, would purposely expose us to measles, mumps or chicken pox in order to get the anti-bodies into our system. At the same time, if a child had one of these diseases, they were not allowed into school for a period of time while they were deemed contagious. Smallpox vaccinations were mandatory and a child wasn't allowed to start school without it. There were probably more, but I don't remember. Even if you had a shot record indicating vaccination, if you didn't have the scar, you got another during the health department's visit to the school in the early part of the school year. I have probably had about a dozen smallpox vaccinations between school and my military travels. Still no scar.
When some diseases can cause untold numbers of deaths, it might be best that a vaccination be required. Parents are often reluctant, not because the government requires it, but because of the possibility of the vaccine causing physical or mental side effects, or even death to their child. They're not willing to take that chance, but are willing to take the chance that the same might happen to their child and to others if their child contracts a disease. But a government and parents, both, must weight the balance of personal choice and freedom against the well-being of society, since we are a social species and make contact with untold numbers of persons to whom we could spread a disease that might cause death to another. I just can't see that it be mandatory for vaccinations against non-lethal diseases, though. In today's Me, Me world when everyone is concerned only about themselves, I can see where some mandatory vaccinations might be needed.
[This message has been edited by fierofool (edited 06-30-2015).]
My only question to you would be, is Ebola considered a disease that can be immunized against at this time? I know this wasn't addressed to me but, I just had to ask.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-30-2015).]
The ability of the child to spread whatever disease it is, is a big risk as well.
About it being in your or my control, I mean , thats what this law in the books is about right?
Yes, children do run a much greater risk of spreading infectious diseases. As I read the proposed law, children would not be allowed to be in schools, day care centers and a few other venues if not immunized. And yes, my children were immunized for all the things the doctor's recommended but, that was my wife's and my decision. I don't want to live in a Nanny State where Big Brother defines how I raise my child. I don't think most other folks do either. As we let our rights be eroded a little at a time, we will eventually be without any rights. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is all about individual freedoms and the rights of the individual. Is this for the common good, yes but, it also destroys the rights of parents to decide. Not much different than Libs wanting to take away our right to bear arms, it's for the common good of the nation.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
So far, I support this law. If the parents don't want to immunize their child, then they have to home school them. It makes sense to me. An unvaccinated child can bring in diseases that puts other children at risk that cannot be vaccinated, such as kids that have compromised immune systems or allergies to the vaccine.
It does not force them to vaccinate. There is still the option to home school.
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 06-30-2015).]
They don't have to, if they also want to keep their child from contacting other children.
But if they want to send them to school, then yes, they should be forced to be immunized. I'm not usually "it's what's best for society" and usually all about individual rights, but in this case every single moronic parent that decides against immunization is a threat to others. You get to decide your own health but you don't get to decide the health of others. Some people can't get immunized because of medical reasons, and they need the protection of herd immunity. You break the herd, you are placing others in harms way. Stay home or get shots.
Doug, I'm not arguing your point of view, but should that also require the need for the child to be totally isolated in the home for fear of contracting or spreading a disease? I do see the necessity that some not be vaccinated due to allergic reactions. My wife's highly compromised immune system prevents her from getting pneumonia or shingles vaccinations.
Originally posted by 2.5: I tend to too by default. Though, do they put other people at risk by not getting immunizations? Also are the reasons not to immunize legitimate?
My kid may be able to go back to school next year but due to the bone marrow transplant will not be able to have the immunizations yet. Your kid could kill my kid with a bad germ that is mostly preventable.
I have mixed thoughts on it....if ya google the damage done to girls by Guardasil, it will make ya think....on the other hand, vacinces DID eradicate polio...I dunno, I aint that smart....
Originally posted by blackrams: I don't want to live in a Nanny State where Big Brother defines how I raise my child. I don't think most other folks do either. As we let our rights be eroded a little at a time, we will eventually be without any rights. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is all about individual freedoms and the rights of the individual. Is this for the common good, yes but, it also destroys the rights of parents to decide. Not much different than Libs wanting to take away our right to bear arms, it's for the common good of the nation.
I agree about rights but my point about legitimate reasons was, what legitimate reason would a parent choose not to immunize against harmful diseases for an otherwise healthy child. (Rare cases of immune deficiency and recent surgery aside.) Fear it causes autism, fear of other secret things added to the immunization? It was mentioned also that there are choices, home school for example.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-30-2015).]
Originally posted by 2.5: I agree about rights but my point about legitimate reasons was, what legitimate reason would a parent choose not to immunize against harmful diseases for an otherwise healthy child. (Rare cases of immune deficiency and recent surgery aside.) Fear it causes autism, fear of other secret things added to the immunization? It was mentioned also that there are choices, home school for example.
Sorry, I can't answer that question. My wife and I decided to have our children immunized, that reduced their risk to the afore mentioned diseases. But, I do still support a parent's right to chose. I also believe that those same parents are responsible for the consequences of the decisions they make. Should the child catch one of the diseases and die, the responsibility lays in their laps but, that's still their right to decide.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
My kid may be able to go back to school next year but due to the bone marrow transplant will not be able to have the immunizations yet. Your kid could kill my kid with a bad germ that is mostly preventable.
Greg, yer kid could kill my kid with a skateboard accident....maybe we shouhld just stop having kids and skateboards and vacinices and risk altogether, be done with with the human species and their fears of what *could* happen...
guess what, it aint gonna happen......we are just temporary residents on this planet, and if ya try to erridicate nature then nature WILL bite back. NO 2 ways about it...YES medical science has come a long way in the past 50 years, but its not the end-all...I think the Natives and the naturiopaths had it right....did ya know MJ kills cancer ? coloidial silver kills viruses...
This planet gave us all we need to survive, its just a matter of knowig how to use it, and figting laws...
While we are at it. something as simple as asperin...ASA....its just willow bark tea in tablet form.
Doug, I'm not arguing your point of view, but should that also require the need for the child to be totally isolated in the home for fear of contracting or spreading a disease? I do see the necessity that some not be vaccinated due to allergic reactions. My wife's highly compromised immune system prevents her from getting pneumonia or shingles vaccinations.
That is a separate issue but a very valid one. The children that cannot get vaccinated due to medical reasons are allowed to attend school. Because of their special need, it puts an additional burden on the rest of the children, in this case everyone else must be vaccinated. This same situation exists with children with peanut allergies; the other children are not allowed peanut because of their allergy.
I guess it becomes a bigger policy question. How much of a burden on the majority of the children are we willing to accept for a few with special needs? So far the schools are siding with the kids with special needs.
Ignoring the pros and cons of immunizations, I'm surprised I haven't seen the "my body, my decision" argument used (or at least in that phrase).
Excellent Point.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Ignoring the pros and cons of immunizations, I'm surprised I haven't seen the "my body, my decision" argument used (or at least in that phrase).
Well, THAT I agree with.....Its MY body, MY mind, I'll do what the hell I want with it I want to---and screw you if you dont like it.....yer not in power, I AM....go frack yerself if ya think differently <not personally, the world in general>
I suggest some Ayn Rand reading....
Ya want to pt a needle into my arm???how about I put a bullet into yer head instaed ???? **** you.
Well, THAT I agree with.....Its MY body, MY mind, I'll do what the hell I want with it I want to---and screw you if you dont like it.....yer not in power, I AM....go frack yerself if ya think differently <not personally, the world in general>
I suggest some Ayn Rand reading....
Ya want to pt a needle into my arm???how about I put a bullet into yer head instaed ???? **** you.
Oh, come on. Don't be shy, tell us how you really feel about it.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Ignoring the pros and cons of immunizations, I'm surprised I haven't seen the "my body, my decision" argument used (or at least in that phrase).
I think the reason that isn't used is because people that don't get immunized aren't just a burden on themselves, but also on surrounding people. Sure, you can get yourself sick if you want. No, you don't have the right to put others in danger as a result. That's why the rule isn't that you must get immunizations period, just that you must get them to attend public school.
All those parents screaming it should be "optional" will be screaming the loudest that "the government didn't do anything" when THEIR kid or family falls victim as a result of contact with some "Typhoid Mary" who also exercised "their right" not to be immunized.
All those parents screaming it should be "optional" will be screaming the loudest that "the government didn't do anything" when THEIR kid or family falls victim as a result of contact with some "Typhoid Mary" who also exercised "their right" not to be immunized.
Not true at all. I may fall into this category, and I say the Gov buts in my business to often as it is now.
The law now requires parents claiming a "non-medical exemption" to either talk to a health care provider or view a pro-vaccine video on the internet. The law also changes the language from “religious exemption” to “non-medical exemption.” This change allows for a breadth of reasons why a parent or guardian may choose to claim an exemption.
Many still believe a discredited study showing a link between vaccinations and autism. There is a high exemption rate in Oregon. And half the people also claim a gluten allergy.
No, They should not.. but having said that, They should be on the hook for any medical bills of any one that gets sick because of their choice.. and before anyone starts "well, Obama care everyone has insurance,,"" yes they do, but the out of pocket deductible has gone through the roof, since the passing of the affordable healthcare act If you choose to not have your child immunized, and it causes others to get sick, then you foot the co-pay and out of pocket bills of those affected..
The other question I'd like addressed is, if you choose to not have your child immunized, then the insurance company doesn't have to cover the care if they should come down with it.. seems fair..
If I don't get my pet it's shots/ect and it happens to bite someone, and they get rabies, I'm on the hook for that persons care and cost.. why should it be any different with a child..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 07-01-2015).]
