No more exemptions!

PPBart · Apr 20, 2015

I think our government all too often goes overboard with nanny-state initiatives... but in this instance I think the Aussies are right and our govt should follow suit!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ounces-end-to-religious-exemptions/ar-AAbhr0S

Jack · Apr 20, 2015

Yep, right after that we should start funding abortions and forcing hobby lobby to hand out birth control. Religious freedom should be universal.

olivs260 · Apr 20, 2015

On the short list that the federal government should require registration for...

olivs260 · Apr 20, 2015

Jack said:
Yep, right after that we should start funding abortions and forcing hobby lobby to hand out birth control. Religious freedom should be universal.

So... somebody else should be allowed to put my children in danger? The government's sole purpose should be to protect its citizens.

whitsend · Apr 20, 2015

olivs260 said:
So... somebody else should be allowed to put my children in danger? The government's sole purpose should be to protect its citizens.

I'll start this by saying, my kids are vaccinated.

But if I don't vaccinate my kids against X, and you vaccinate your kids, when my kids get X, how is that a danger to your kids who is vaccinated?
Since your kid is vaccinated, wouldn't he be protected?

Cripsol · Apr 20, 2015

whitsend said:
I'll start this by saying, my kids are vaccinated.

But if I don't vaccinate my kids against X, and you vaccinate your kids, when my kids get X, how is that a danger to your kids who is vaccinated?
Since your kid is vaccinated, wouldn't he be protected?

Well said

mpl006 · Apr 20, 2015

whitsend said:
I'll start this by saying, my kids are vaccinated.

But if I don't vaccinate my kids against X, and you vaccinate your kids, when my kids get X, how is that a danger to your kids who is vaccinated?
Since your kid is vaccinated, wouldn't he be protected?

Not sure how old your kids are but you do remember that it is a series of shots and they aren't vaccinated the day they are born right? My son just had his 15 month check-up and had the third or fourth round of two different vaccines and will have to have boosters for those between the age of 2 and 4 so there are plenty of chances for someone that is getting vaccinated to contract something from someone who wasn't vaccinated.

olivs260 · Apr 20, 2015

whitsend said:
I'll start this by saying, my kids are vaccinated.

But if I don't vaccinate my kids against X, and you vaccinate your kids, when my kids get X, how is that a danger to your kids who is vaccinated?
Since your kid is vaccinated, wouldn't he be protected?

Even if that's the case, what about my grandchildren (God willing)? What about my great-grand children. The only way to eliminate certain fatal viruses is by vaccinations. Do some research. We have FAR fewer cases of debilitating or deadly illnesses now than we had only 100 years ago. I'm sorry if one in thousands of parents believe these urban myths. But EVEN IF they were true, how many tens or hundreds of millions of lives do you think have been saved thanks to immunizations? Sure, nobody wants it to be MY CHILD. But consider the odds. 50,000,000 - 1? Not like I've ever done the math, but... seriously???

olivs260 · Apr 20, 2015

*cough cough Polio*

Jack · Apr 20, 2015

Scott, I just don't see the remote possibility of someone being sick overriding the first amendment. To me it is no different than making everyone eat pork before getting on a plane.

Fred_G · Apr 20, 2015

olivs260 said:
Even if that's the case, what about my grandchildren (God willing)? What about my great-grand children. The only way to eliminate certain fatal viruses is by vaccinations. Do some research. We have FAR fewer cases of debilitating or deadly illnesses now than we had only 100 years ago. I'm sorry if one in thousands of parents believe these urban myths. But EVEN IF they were true, how many tens or hundreds of millions of lives do you think have been saved thanks to immunizations? Sure, nobody wants it to be MY CHILD. But consider the odds. 50,000,000 - 1? Not like I've ever done the math, but... seriously???

You sure do trust your gubment a lot. I like what Jack said a couple of posts up.

The Public Health Service started working on this study in 1932 during the Great Depression, in collaboration with the Tuskegee Institute, a historically black college in Alabama. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama. Of these men, 399 had previously contracted syphilis before the study began, and 201[2] did not have the disease. The men were given free medical care, meals, and free burial insurance for participating in the study. None of the men infected was ever told he had the disease, nor was any treated for it with penicillin after this antibiotic became proven for treatment. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for "bad blood", a local term for various illnesses that include syphilis, anemia, and fatigue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

You will have to excuse me when I question whether the gubment is doing good, or goblin. Are vaccines bad? No, in general.

olivs260 · Apr 21, 2015

Jack said:
Scott, I just don't see the remote possibility of someone being sick overriding the first amendment. To me it is no different than making everyone eat pork before getting on a plane.

What on earth does this have to do with the first amendment? It's about making sure people DON'T DIE IN A TERRIBLE WAY.

Fred_G said:
You sure do trust your gubment a lot. I like what Jack said a couple of posts up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

You will have to excuse me when I question whether the gubment is doing good, or goblin. Are vaccines bad? No, in general.

Yeah, I'm quite aware of that, and it was atrocious. But you know what? Now we know what to do when somebody gets syphillis. It's terrible what the government did and I certainly am not saying I agree with it by any means, but in the end, lesser of two evils, I guess. LOTS of humans have suffered for medical advancement. Look up Unit 731 for example. It's absolutely horrific. But we DID benefit as a human species from it. Terrible things will happen. Why not at the very least benefit from what we can't stop?

sliguns · Apr 21, 2015

"If government can mandate that children receive vaccines, then why shouldn’t the government mandate that adults receive certain types of vaccines? And if it is the law that individuals must be vaccinated, then why shouldn’t police officers be empowered to physically force resisters to receive a vaccine? If the fear of infections from the unvaccinated justifies mandatory vaccine laws, then why shouldn’t police offices fine or arrest people who don’t wash their hands or cover their noses or mouths when they cough or sneeze in public? Why not force people to eat right and take vitamins in order to lower their risk of contracting an infectious disease? These proposals may seem outlandish, but they are no different in principle from the proposal that government force children to be vaccinated."

Jack · Apr 21, 2015

olivs260 said:
What on earth does this have to do with the first amendment? It's about making sure people DON'T DIE IN A TERRIBLE WAY.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Redd508 · Apr 21, 2015

mpl006 said:
Not sure how old your kids are but you do remember that it is a series of shots and they aren't vaccinated the day they are born right? My son just had his 15 month check-up and had the third or fourth round of two different vaccines and will have to have boosters for those between the age of 2 and 4 so there are plenty of chances for someone that is getting vaccinated to contract something from someone who wasn't vaccinated.

Sounds to me that if theres a chance to catch x from nonvaccinated then theres just as much chance to catch x from vaccinated. So whats the point?

mpl006 · Apr 21, 2015

Redd508 said:
Sounds to me that if theres a chance to catch x from nonvaccinated then theres just as much chance to catch x from vaccinated. So whats the point?

I agree with you that if a person has a disease, they can transmit it just as easy no matter if they are vaccinated or not, but that was not what I nor whitsend was saying.

The point I was making is that there is a difference in being vaccinated, not vaccinated and in the process of being vaccinated. If there is a three year old at the daycare that my son goes to or a 10 year old at the walmart that we go to, or whatever aged kid that did not get a vaccine at where ever we happen to be with him at this point of his life, and they got "x" from someone after the age that the vaccine would have more than likely kept them from contracting "x", my son is at risk of getting "x", even though he is getting vaccinated.

Going back to what whitsend said about a vaccinated kid not being able to contract a disease. It is possible for the partially vaccinated and even fully vaccinated person to contract a disease from someone who is not vaccinated, although it is much much less likely if they have been fully vaccinated.

WildBillKelso · Apr 21, 2015

Some very popular vaccines are given a few months after birth so vaccinating other, older children helps protect the newborns through herd immunity. With the very pervasive MMR vaccine, in which the "R" stands for Rubella, aka German measles; wide administration of that protects the unborn from horrible growth defects. See the horrible effects of Rubella on the unborn here.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_rubella_syndrome

Redd508 · Apr 21, 2015

mpl006 said:
I agree with you that if a person has a disease, they can transmit it just as easy no matter if they are vaccinated or not, but that was not what I nor whitsend was saying.

Thats not exactly the point i'm trying to make. I'll elaborate and see where we stand. My focus isnt that the infected can transmit. My point is that if the vaccinated is immune then it shouldnt matter if my kid is sick because yours is protected and mine is my responsibility to take care of. But if the vaccinated is still succeptible to the sick then what has the vaccine benefited you? If the vaccinated can still be infected then you are in just as much danger of contracting the illness from the previously vaccinated as you are from the unvaccinated. I understand that not all vaccines are bad but not all are necessarily beneficial.

mpl006 · Apr 21, 2015

Redd508 said:
Thats not exactly the point i'm trying to make. I'll elaborate and see where we stand. My focus isnt that the infected can transmit. My point is that if the vaccinated is immune then it shouldnt matter if my kid is sick because yours is protected and mine is my responsibility to take care of. But if the vaccinated is still succeptible to the sick then what has the vaccine benefited you? If the vaccinated can still be infected then you are in just as much danger of contracting the illness from the previously vaccinated as you are from the unvaccinated. I understand that not all vaccines are bad but not all are necessarily beneficial.

I don't think it is that black and white. Like I said, there are times while getting immunized that you are still susceptible to catching a disease. Also, for some vaccines, the immunization will wear down slightly through the years, hence the need for booster shots.

To me, a good analogy would be to compare someone who drives their car over 100,000 miles a year and someone who drives two or three times a year. The odds of the person who drives 100,000+ miles of getting in a wreck is much much higher than the person who drives two or three times a year; however, it is still possible for the person who drives two to three times to get in a wreck. So while it is still possible to get in a wreck, catch the disease, the chance is greatly reduced for the person driving two to three times a year, the vaccinated person, versus the one who drives over 100,000, the unvaccinated person.

As to if I think the government should say whether or not my child has to be vaccinated, I'm on the fence. I agree that I want the government out of my daily life as much as possible, I understand the argument that if we get vaccinated, and keep up with the vaccines, the risk of infecting infants with something that might cause a little discomfort with an otherwise health adult but cause death or permanent disabilities in that infant goes down greatly.

Redd508 · Apr 21, 2015

Theres too many variables in that to draw any definite conclusions. Im of the mind that vaccines in and of themselves can be dangerous or problematic. Gardasil is a prime example. As to the car analogy i have to disagree. It is more akin to the idea that driving a few times a year is like leaving home a few times a year. Less exposure to the outside world equals less opportunity for infection. Conversely it also means less natural antibodies and a more vulnerable immune system. I'm of the mind that a healthy diet and regular exercise, limited meds if not absolutely needed and more exposure to nature ( sans germex ) for the most part will promote a stronger natural immune response and lessen the need for chemical innoculants. We make ourselves weaker to the point of needing the meds if we follow the govt guidelines.

No more exemptions!

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

-Global Mod-

*Banned*

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Log in

Forum statistics

Banned