Vaccinations and Religious Exemptions

[Bradsmellslikebeef]

I support mandatory vaccination, because of the growing international problem of disease. As far as I know any religious objections to vaccinations is based on rather vague scriptural references.

I personally believe vaccinations should be required for all people regardless of religious beliefs or other reason not to receive them. I also believe this should be enforced by the government.

 

[Curious George]

There you go. It is nacient human life, a developing human being. Sure a zygote is not the same as a person. But where do we draw the line. You want to draw it at consciousness. But that would allow for infanticide.

Certainly you must agree that there is no developmental difference between a baby just prior to labor, and just after delivery.



A skin cell is like an arm -- it is clearly only a part. A zygote is the whole human being, but simply at an earlier stage of development.



Sorry, but it is not some "thing." It is nacient human life, and it is not the life of the woman, but a separate human being with rights of its own. I'm not saying that killing an embryo is murder. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the same thing as pulling a tooth or having a parasite excised.


20-35% of fetuses at 23 weeks gestation survive early birth. Advances in Medical Science have changed the abortion debate and the very effects of the Roe v. Wade arguments.

I really do enjoy that these two ideas have been connected in this thread.

Granted, abortions do not run the public health risk that ommission of vaccination does. Still in both cases we are addressing medical decisions of people and their families. The imposition of ones will on others is something that sgould be exercised with great caution and heavy limitations.

The idea that I cam force you to undergo or forgo medical procedures because the masses want such is a very extreme position.

Law must have limits.

 

[Curious George]

I personally believe vaccinations should be required for all people regardless of religious beliefs or other reason not to receive them. I also believe this should be enforced by the government.

Why not chip people too?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's a human organism, not a human being. Human being implies personhood, which, to me, at least, implies at the very least, consciousness.

It is a complete human being, albeit at a much earlier stage of development. I never said it was a person. I don't think i.e. that a zygote is a person, and I don't think that killing a zygote is murder (although I think it's wrong).

But even the person argument is slippery. When do we become persons? There is no clear line. Certainly there is no developmental leap that takes place during the journey down the birth canal.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We should be able to monitor peoples health with implants too. We can then know when someone is contagious or not.

There is no such technology.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, yes, you do believe that the voters (even the ignorant ones) should have a say in how a parent should raise their children.

only when harm/neglect is involved or harm/threat to others.

It's the same limit we put on other rights, i.e. we have freedom of speech but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

This is perfectly reasonable. Don't you see the common sense of it?

 

[aMirage]

It's a human right to refuse, whatever your opinion on it is irrelevant - rights are rights.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Granted, abortions do not run the public health risk that ommission of vaccination does.

Abortion ends another life every time.

Is it identical to murder? I don't think so. But how can it be right?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's a human right to refuse, whatever your opinion on it is irrelevant - rights are rights.

It's not a human right. It's presently a legal right. And that legal right may soon be taken away. No one has the human right to threaten the lives and health of other people.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is a complete human being, albeit at a much earlier stage of development. I never said it was a person. I don't think i.e. that a zygote is a person, and I don't think that killing a zygote is murder (although I think it's wrong).

But even the person argument is slippery. When do we become persons? There is no clear line. Certainly there is no developmental leap that takes place during the journey down the birth canal.

Then we're arguing about definition. I consider "personhood" as what makes a human being, you apparently believe mere biology does. I can make a case for protecting the life of a person, I have seen no compelling argument for regarding a mere biologically human organism as anything worthy of particularly special consideration. If you'd like to make such a case, I'm interested to hear it?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And that legal right may soon be taken away.

What evidence do you have for this claim, please?

 

[aMirage]

It's not a human right. It's presently a legal right. And that legal right may soon be taken away. No one has the human right to threaten the lives and health of other people.

#mybodymychoice

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then we're arguing about definition. I consider "personhood" as what makes a human being, you apparently believe mere biology does. I can make a case for protecting the life of a person, I have seen no compelling argument for regarding a mere biologically human organism as anything worthy of particularly special consideration. If you'd like to make such a case, I'm interested to hear it?

I think you gave a pretty good summary of our differences.

I won't make personhood a criteria, because it is difficult to define, and impossible to pin down when it arrives. IOW it is worthless as a criteria. You might as well have "when we get a soul" as a criteria.

On the other hand, we know what human means (as opposed to chipmunk or worm or redwood tree) and we know what a complete human organism is, as opposed to simply a part. Finally we know when a human organism is alive. And so, we can identify human life, from it's conception to its death, from its nacient state til its deterioration in old age.

If we must have dividing lines, they must err on the side of caution. For example, if we are going to grant rights to fetuses that can live outside the womb, we must grant rights to some fetuses that won't live outside of the womb, lest we accidentally kill some who would.

If we are going to have a crime called infanticide, it makes no sense to have conflicting stages of development. For example, we can't say that an eight month old baby that survived birth but is smothered is a victim of murder, but a nine month old fetus that is aborted just before labor ensues is not murder even though it is much more developed.

 

[Curious George]

There is no such technology.

If there were, you would have no qualms with mandatory implants?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What evidence do you have for this claim, please?

I read a lot of the "HEALTH" section of Google news, and there have been articles here and there over the last month about schools, districts, and states considering removing some or all of the exemptions.

Here are some that came up in an easy google search:

Hundreds protest against Washington state vaccine bill that would require measles shots

Mom Sues New York School District for Ejecting Unvaccinated Teens: "Asking Me to Go Against Everything I Believe In"

California, Mississippi, and West Virginia do not allow exemptions for personal or religious beliefs
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx

 

[IndigoChild5559]

#mybodymychoice

It's NOT just your body.

And when people do get sick with the flu or the measles or TB or whatever, it puts a burden on the entire medical system, which we all pay for with our taxes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

#mybodymychoice

It's NOT just your body.

And when people do get sick with the flu or the measles or TB or whatever, it puts a burden on the entire medical system, which we all pay for with our taxes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If there were, you would have no qualms with mandatory implants?

I don't have to cross that bridge yet. It WOULD be nice to have some way to objectively know if someone were contagious other than sneezing and coughing, which otherwise might just be allergies.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I read a lot of the "HEALTH" section of Google news, and there have been articles here and there over the last month about schools, districts, and states considering removing some or all of the exemptions.

Here are some that came up in an easy google search:

Hundreds protest against Washington state vaccine bill that would require measles shots

Mom Sues New York School District for Ejecting Unvaccinated Teens: "Asking Me to Go Against Everything I Believe In"

California, Mississippi, and West Virginia do not allow exemptions for personal or religious beliefs
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx

Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood what you were referring to.

 

[Curious George]

Abortion ends another life every time.

Is it identical to murder? I don't think so. But how can it be right?

So do periods and masturbation. I do not think that ending a life is always wrong. That however is irrelevant to my point. The law must still have limits. It may be considered wrong to speak poorly of another, but freedom of speech prevents the government from intervening on that basis alone.

This is because we recognize freedom of thought as a right of great value. Freedom of privacy is another highly regarded right.

Were the government to intrude on your medical decisions, then the government would be violating that right. The questions become, is this within the governments authority to regulate and for what reason is the government assertimg such authority. Merely to protect a life is not enough.

With mandatory vaccination the reason is public health. But complete compliance is not necessary in order for public health to be served. Hence sincere objections are honored.