What, that you have the right to infect others? That's exactly what you're arguing for.
So nonsensical... it hurts.
And that's what's nonsensical here.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"In a Wise Move, New York Finally Ends Religious Exemptions for Required Vaccines"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
And that's what's nonsensical here.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
If a parent would like his/her child's body to be allowed admittance into a public school or daycare facility, then this person's child should be vaccinated as required by law. Otherwise, this parent should stay home herself/himself and take care of his/her non-immunized child.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
The issue here is the state's right to ban non-vaccinated children from public schools, any reasonable person would agree the state has the right to ban non-vaccinated children from public schools in order to prevent a communicable disease outbreak.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
I own shares of a big pharma company GSK developing a vaccine against ebola, please let us hope this will work.
Ebola vaccine - Wikipedia
GlaxoSmithKline - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
This is one battle where medical science and the public health safety prevailed against religious or personal belief objections, there are still 45 of 50 states where a parents ' religious or personal beliefs can exempt his/her child from having to be vaccinated in order to attend any of their state's public schools.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx
Shad
Veteran Member
NHS up here never transferred any records to those doing the vaccines m y school. They were clueless.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Many people can have adverse reactions to the ingredients in vaccines. Vaccines like any medicine, carry certain risk factors for vulnerable people regardless.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/whats-measles-vaccine-n301891
Measles isn't exactly the bubonic plague here , and I'm a firm believer that parents are the ones that should be making these decisions.
It should be the persons, or in the case of a minor the parents, decision on what drugs/chemicals/vaccines/medicines are injected into their body or not. Doesn't matter what their reason is.
Actually, the plague is now easier to treat (simple antibiotics) than measles (which is a virus). And measles is NOT a disease which should be taken lightly. The risk of neurological complications, deafness, or even death are real.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Again, they don't have to. They only have to get vaccinations if their parents want them to go to public school. People not being vaccinated have turned areas of human congregation into contagion zones. Since education is required for children by not vaccinating one's kids and demanding that they be allowed to go to public schools one is demanding that they may have to be exposed to their child's illnesses. Some people cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. Those people have an excuse. Also children are the ultimate victims of their parents superstitious beliefs. If children are not vaccinated and exposed to the ill children of other kids that were abused by their parents too and became ill as a result then they will become part of the problem. Children with compromised immune systems have to rely on herd immunization and anti-vaxers take that away.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
There's actually no major religion prohibiting vaccinations against communicable disease; personal belief against vaccination of public school children unreasonably puts them at a way greater risk of contracting and spreading communicable disease. In the U.S., there are currently 45 of 50 states where a parents ' religious or personal beliefs can exempt his/her child from having to be vaccinated in order to attend any of their state's public schools. Believe me, if the $2,000 child tax credit were only allowed for parents whose legal dependent children met C.D.C. immunization requirements, then there'd be fewer parents who'd object to having their children immunized in accordance to federalized public safety laws.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
I'm a shareholder of a pharma company that's developed a vaccine which is a highly promising candidate for immunizing people against the highly infectious and lethal Ebola virus, if this vaccine gets FDA approved and widely used, then my Glaxo Smith Kline stock should appreciate nicely in value.
"When tested in Phase 1 clinical trials in the United States and the United Kingdom in 2014, the NIAID/GSK investigational Ebola vaccine proved to be safe and induced an immune response. The vaccine candidate began Phase 2 testing in February 2015 through the launch of the PREVAIL I trial (Partnership for Research on Ebola Virus in Liberia). The randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial enrolled 1,500 participants. It was originally designed to advance to a Phase 3 trial among 28,000 volunteers but was scaled back because the decline in new Ebola cases made it impossible to conduct the larger study. Findings presented in February 2016 indicate the vaccine was well-tolerated and induced an immune response."
Ebola Vaccines | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Last edited:
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
The problem with that is, vaccination isn't a personal issue. It's a public health issue.
Every decision not to vaccinate heightens the risk of being infected for everyone. Even the vaccinated are put at risk because the more a disease spreads throughout a population, the more likely it is to mutate and become a version of itself that a vaccinated immune system won't recognize.
Whatever choices you make that only affect your child, I don't know and I don't care.
But the decision not to vaccinate threatens me, and I think my government ought to protect me when you and likeminded people decide to turn your children into biological weapons.
I want refusal to vaccinate one's children to carry the same punishment as starving your children.
At least starving your child only affects your child. But pass and enforce that law, and watch measles cases drop.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Of course.
However no vaccine is 100% cure all either. That's why a booster shot is recommended for measles. This should and ought to be a medical issue between a family and their physician to hash out, not a state involved issue past educating people about the dangers and risk and certainly not resorting to threats of fees and fines for the non-compliant which is what socialists seem to only know how to do anyways.
Regardless, most people would get immunized no matter what anyways , with those actually against the vaccine are likely going to be in very low numbers in the first place which would for the greater part, moot the issue by default.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't think it's quite that dire as it's being made out to be. Sure you'd be notably dumb for not taking the vaccine which is why most people got the vaccine under their own free terms, even with the knowledge the actual mortality rate for measles is quite low.
Anyways let history speak for itself. There was no need for any type of government interference then and there is certainly no reason or need for it to be any different now.
Vaccine History: Developments by Year | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Measles can be stopped and curtailed just as effectively without any forced
mandate like they successfully did in the 50s to begin with, requiring only simple information and education of the risk and consequences. There was absolutely no reason for having state control then , and there's no reason for state control now unless it's primarily intended to institute the tools to eradicate a persons free practice of religion and the free rein for parents to raise their own children without undue interference and intrusion from the socialist state.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Misinformation spreads more rapidly than it used to because of social media. any idiot can circulate fraudulent charts and articles about vaccines and autism, and people cling uncritically to the opinions of celebrities in a way they wouldn't have in the 50s.
And let's be clear about something. There is no religion on Earth whose tenets are violated by vaccination. Not one. People claiming religious exemption are fraudulently using their religion as a shield against doing the right thing because Jenny McCarthy said vaccines made her son autistic (they didn't).
So the idea that enforcing vaccination is a tool to eradicate a persons free practice of religion is absolute nonsense.
As for undue interference and intrusion... we would expect a reasonable person who noticed a parent starving their children to call CPS. To have the government interfere. As far as I'm concerned, refusing to vaccinate one's children is on the same level, worse because it effects the well being of other people. That would be due interference.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Hey if you're inoculated then there's nothing to worry about. It's not an issue.
Let those who don't inoculate each other deal with their own problems.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Like I said earlier , it wasn't an issue in the 50s. The fact that there's more social media and misinformation doesn't really change anything.
There's no reason in hell to have the government intruding on private families and dictating to parents what they can and cannot do aside from informational educational campaigns. I wouldn't even be against a "free" inoculation Clinic or some other government incentive for parents to bring in their children.
Unless it's turned into a ravaging superbug, the mortality rate from measles is still pretty low.
Most people are going to inoculate their children anyways regardless.
I do agree with you on one thing, I can't see any religion that would have a dictate against receiving immunizations that I'm aware of. It does seem like a BS excuse to have .
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
A vaccine for the measles was originally developed in the 50s.
Measles was declared eliminated in the US in 2000. That is, a lack of continuous transmission for 12 months.
In the first six months of this year, the number of reported cases in the US is greater than 1000. Compared to 372 cases in all of last year. 120 cases the year before that. 86 cases the year before that.
Absolutely social media and misinformation has something to do with this.
The more people refuse to vaccinate, the faster it will spread, the more people will die from it. It's an entirely preventable disease, if we immunize ourselves. When it comes to putting other people at risk, it is no longer a private matter.
Measles needs 90-95% of the population to be immunized for herd immunity to effectively protect everyone else. If millions of people decide "most people are going to inoculate their children anyways, so I'm going to exercise my right as a private parent to leave my child vulnerable against otherwise entirely preventable diseases", you'll find immunization levels below where they ought to be, and now you've got a public health crisis.
I'm glad we could find some common ground.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The problem is that there are those that cannot be inoculated. The CDC even tells you who should not get inoculated and why. Here is a link for measles:
Who Should not Get Vaccinated | CDC
Those that do not get inoculations due to superstitious beliefs put those innocent people at risk.