Vaccinations and Religious Exemptions

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I plan to use Euthanasia before Dementia, I hope.

What do you want to use young people in China for?

 

[Woberts]

The only valid exemption I could see is if someone is allergic or has a bad reaction to vaccines. Some vaccines are also dangerous to take. The flu vaccine for instance has mercury in it. The body over time cannot get rid of Mercury efficiently.

The amount of mercury in vaccines is miniscule. There's more mercury in tuna than in vaccines, for example. About 18 times less, in fact.

 

[Woberts]

What else do you believe the government should have authority to do to your children against your will?

But the gov'ment stopping those gays from marrying, that's ok?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The only valid exemption I could see is if someone is allergic or has a bad reaction to vaccines. Some vaccines are also dangerous to take. The flu vaccine for instance has mercury in it. The body over time cannot get rid of Mercury efficiently.

Mercury USED to be in vaccines in a preservative caled Thimerosal. It WASN'T in the form of pure mercury, but part of a chemical compound. You know how chlorine is a deadly poison, and sodium is a deadly poison, but combined they make table salt? The mercury in vaccines was like that.

However, basic chemistry aside, because of a public backlash after the fear mongering campaigns of Wakefield et al, vaccines no longer use thimerosal as a preservative. It is my understanding that there are no currently used vaccines that contain mercury, in any form, and no vaccine has ever contained mercury in a raw form or as an active component.

 

[Prestor John]

I think they are pretty objective terms.

Not at all.

I condemn the practice of mutilating the genitals of newborn females and would consider it child abuse.

On the other hand, I condone the practice of circumcision for newborn males.

There are those who believe both practices are harmful and should be considered child abuse.

Which parents should drawn the line on which practice is harmful?

 

[Ellen Brown]

Not at all.

I condemn the practice of mutilating the genitals of newborn females and would consider it child abuse.

On the other hand, I condone the practice of circumcision for newborn males.

There are those who believe both practices are harmful and should be considered child abuse.

Which parents should drawn the line on which practice is harmful?

Going to get clinical here:

Male Circumcision originated in the Old Testament. I wonder what God's purpose for it was? Was it for hygiene, or cerimonial to signify something? Apparently "Smegma" occurs in both male and female mammals. This might be the origin of Male Circumcision. IE to make hygiene easier on the penis head??? Oddly, the same sort of issue exists on the female Clitorus and that makes me wonder if that is the origin of some kinds of Female Circumcision???

Neither procedure would be necessary in modern cultures, but I can imagine awful hygiene problems if one lived where adequate clean water was NOT available.

Years ago, a non-circumcised penis in a woman's partner was thought to contribute to cervical cancer.

Clinical demeanor OFF:

I was just attempting to bring some facts into the discussion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not at all.

I condemn the practice of mutilating the genitals of newborn females and would consider it child abuse.

On the other hand, I condone the practice of circumcision for newborn males.

There are those who believe both practices are harmful and should be considered child abuse.

Which parents should drawn the line on which practice is harmful?

Well sure. That's because female genital mutilation destroys the body's ability to function normally (enjoy sex). Circumcision on the other hand is merely cosmetic. It is like getting a baby's ears pierced, which some cultures do.

I'm pretty convinced that those who would outlaw all forms of circumcision are a little touched in the head. They are either bigotted against Muslims and Jews, or they are not reasoning well. Mostly the latter. So? I'm not going to allow laws to be dictated by irrational people.

 

[Prestor John]

Well sure. That's because female genital mutilation destroys the body's ability to function normally (enjoy sex). Circumcision on the other hand is merely cosmetic. It is like getting a baby's ears pierced, which some cultures do.

I'm pretty convinced that those who would outlaw all forms of circumcision are a little touched in the head. They are either bigotted against Muslims and Jews, or they are not reasoning well. Mostly the latter. So? I'm not going to allow laws to be dictated by irrational people.

So, you would be the one making the decisions about which surgeries are necessary?

You would be the one placing judgments and labels on people for having a difference of opinion?

You would be the one to dictate that those who disagree are ignorant or bigoted?

You would be the authority on what is or is not rational?

So you would be the Fuhrer?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, you would be the one making the decisions about which surgeries are necessary?

You would be the one placing judgments and labels on people for having a difference of opinion?

You would be the one to dictate that those who disagree are ignorant or bigoted?

You would be the authority on what is or is not rational?

So you would be the Fuhrer?

Well I live in a democracy, so I vote just like all citizens vote for representatives, who then pass the laws.

 

[Prestor John]

Well I live in a democracy, so I vote just like all citizens vote for representatives, who then pass the laws.

And you believe that all these decisions about how parents should raise their children should be up tot eh voters to decide and the government to enforce?

 

[Polymath257]

And you believe that all these decisions about how parents should raise their children should be up tot eh voters to decide and the government to enforce?

No, it is NOT a case of *all* decisions being made by the government. But the government *does* have the right, indeed the responsibility, to ensure that parents provide minimal care to their children. That includes making sure the children are fed, clothed, and not abused, for example. I see no good reason why that minimal care should not include medical care, as defined by medical professionals.

 

[Ellen Brown]

No, it is NOT a case of *all* decisions being made by the government. But the government *does* have the right, indeed the responsibility, to ensure that parents provide minimal care to their children. That includes making sure the children are fed, clothed, and not abused, for example. I see no good reason why that minimal care should not include medical care, as defined by medical professionals.

I support that completely, except they should be more careful about giving Mental Health Providers too many rights.

 

[Prestor John]

No, it is NOT a case of *all* decisions being made by the government. But the government *does* have the right, indeed the responsibility, to ensure that parents provide minimal care to their children. That includes making sure the children are fed, clothed, and not abused, for example. I see no good reason why that minimal care should not include medical care, as defined by medical professionals.

Like forcing hormones into your prepubescent children if they believe they are members of the opposite sex?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Like forcing hormones into your prepubescent children if they believe they are members of the opposite sex?

Does "the government" do that? Let alone without parental consent?

You'd have a citable example of something like that before making such an extreme claim, obviously?

 

[ecco]

And you believe that all these decisions about how parents should raise their children should be up tot eh voters to decide and the government to enforce?

If I'm not mistaken, you are in favor of the Government making decisions about whether or not a pregnant woman has the right to receive an abortion.

 

[ecco]

Like forcing hormones into your prepubescent children if they believe they are members of the opposite sex?

Yet I'll bet you are OK with forcing prepubescent children into "rehabilitation centers" if they believe they are members of the opposite sex or are attracted to members of the same sex.

 

[Polymath257]

Like forcing hormones into your prepubescent children if they believe they are members of the opposite sex?

No. That isn't something that is generally considered to be medically necessary. Do you have an example of where such treatment was forced, against parental wishes?

 

[Ellen Brown]

Like forcing hormones into your prepubescent children if they believe they are members of the opposite sex?

Heh, you don't even need to do that. Some Counselor just has to "say" you are and it is into the TG machine for you. True story.

 

[Prestor John]

Does "the government" do that? Let alone without parental consent?

If you had been following the discussion then you would know that I never made the claim that the government actually does this.

We are discussing whether or not the government should have the power to vaccinate all children, even if it is against the wishes of their parents.

My argument has been that that position is a "slippery slope" which will inevitably lead to major violations.

Polymath257 said, in the comment I had responded to,

"But the government *does* have the right, indeed the responsibility, to ensure that parents provide minimal care to their children. That includes making sure the children are fed, clothed, and not abused, for example. I see no good reason why that minimal care should not include medical care, as defined by medical professionals."

All it takes is someone with authority (not even necessarily with a medical background) to determine that hormonal treatments should be defined as "minimal care" for a confused prepubescent child and - *BAM* - suddenly Polymath257 is advocating that the government can force this on children against the will of their parents.

You'd have a citable example of something like that before making such an extreme claim, obviously?

You should just pay attention better.

If I'm not mistaken, you are in favor of the Government making decisions about whether or not a pregnant woman has the right to receive an abortion.

I do believe that the governing body should do all within their power to prevent murder.

Yet I'll bet you are OK with forcing prepubescent children into "rehabilitation centers" if they believe they are members of the opposite sex or are attracted to members of the same sex.

You bet wrong.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If you had been following the discussion then you would know that I never made the claim that the government actually does this.

Then why'd you bring it up? Within the framework of commonly understood rhetoric, that certainly appeared to be what you were claiming. You now appear to be backpedaling, having been called on a claim you can't support.

You should just pay attention better.

I'm paying attention just fine, which is why I'm calling you on your claim about people doing and saying something that no one is either doing or advocating.