Of course he is. But he wants society to be able to control the bodies of prenant women because he "knows he's right" on that issue, just as he "knows he's right" on the question of vaccines. And even if he quotes conflicting rules ("Your body, society's choice" in the first case, and "My body, my choice" in the second case), the fact he "knows he's right" makes it totally okay to be inconsistent.Aren't you 'pro-life?'
it's retarded to indiscriminately vaccinate people; i mean, some people are immune to smallpox. more research should be done as well as available research applied to more cases before wasting resources on trying to get the impossible--a vaccination rate of 100%.
and vaccines often dont work; sometimes they even kill. sure fdr would've benefitted from the polio vaccine but that's only because he acted like a dumbass.
I'm neither anti-abortion nor anti-vaccine, but I don't think it's entirely inconsistent to be anti-abortion but also anti-vaccination (or at least pro-right to not vaccinate. In the case of abortion it isn't JUST a question of the mother's body, it's also a question of protecting the rights of the unborn fetus, a genetically unique human. Thinking people certainly can have (and should have, else they aren't all thinking) different opinions as to what weight each's rights should be accorded.Of course he is. But he wants society to be able to control the bodies of prenant women because he "knows he's right" on that issue, just as he "knows he's right" on the question of vaccines. And even if he quotes conflicting rules ("Your body, society's choice" in the first case, and "My body, my choice" in the second case), the fact he "knows he's right" makes it totally okay to be inconsistent.
I'm neither anti-abortion nor anti-vaccine, but I don't think it's entirely inconsistent to be anti-abortion but also anti-vaccination (or at least pro-right to not vaccinate. In the case of abortion it isn't JUST a question of the mother's body, it's also a question of protecting the rights of the unborn fetus, a genetically unique human. Thinking people certainly can have (and should have, else they aren't all thinking) different opinions as to what weight each's rights should be accorded.
Vaccinations are similarly conflicted. I don't think anyone seriously disagrees that the individual has the right to decide whether to be vaccinated, but given the need to vaccinate in childhood the serious question is whether parents have the right to make that choice for their children considering the overwhelming disparity in dangers between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Currently government doesn't come between the parent and the child on this issue. Whether or not to then allow the unvaccinated children into public schools is another question that must be answered, especially if the intentionally unvaccinated children (as opposed to the children of illegals who might not be vaccinated due to lack of opportunity in their native land) grows.
For most of us the question of whether to vaccinate is extremely simple. The question of what to do with parents who choose not to vaccinate is not at all simple.
Exactly right, and a good point. Which is why I suspect that before too long the right to not have your children vaccinated will go the way of other such rights, such as the right to not have your child subjected to modern, non faith-based medicine. Especially given the epidemic from Disneyland, since even if you put your child into private school the child will still interact with others in public places and many diseases for which we vaccinate were selected due to extreme ease of transmission. Someone else made another excellent point about diseases being much less likely to develop another strain which may be less susceptible to the vaccination if their potential pool is limited to those in which the vaccine was not successful in conferring immunity. So there are at least two ways in which one parent's decision to not vaccinate potentially endangers others parents' children. However, that's a matter of whether or not to allow non-vaccination; my point in the post you quoted was simply to point out that abortion and vaccination are not simple binary choices in which one is either all right or all wrong, much less issues which exactly track.If the choice was just limited to the adult, and the child there would be a stronger case. The issue, is that 1 child who is not vaccinated becomes a far greater risk to others for whom the vaccine may not have worked.
For every person that does not get the vaccine, you increase the risk to society. We don't live in an isolated world, so the actions of one, can effect others. It happens at work all the time. Someone with the flu comes in because they don't want to use his sick time. His choice then effects others, who did not consent.
When you are talking about sickness, you are talking about something that inherently can effect others. In a modern society, you can do a lot of damage with little choices.
Exactly right, and a good point. Which is why I suspect that before too long the right to not have your children vaccinated will go the way of other such rights, such as the right to not have your child subjected to modern, non faith-based medicine. Especially given the epidemic from Disneyland, since even if you put your child into private school the child will still interact with others in public places and many diseases for which we vaccinate were selected due to extreme ease of transmission. Someone else made another excellent point about diseases being much less likely to develop another strain which may be less susceptible to the vaccination if their potential pool is limited to those in which the vaccine was not successful in conferring immunity. So there are at least two ways in which one parent's decision to not vaccinate potentially endangers others parents' children. However, that's a matter of whether or not to allow non-vaccination; my point in the post you quoted was simply to point out that abortion and vaccination are not simple binary choices in which one is either all right or all wrong, much less issues which exactly track.
LOLShe makes some excellent points...
Dr. Suzanne Humphries - are vaccines safe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpC0Tbb3diI
Aren't you 'pro-life?'
Of course he is. But he wants society to be able to control the bodies of prenant women because he "knows he's right" on that issue, just as he "knows he's right" on the question of vaccines. And even if he quotes conflicting rules ("Your body, society's choice" in the first case, and "My body, my choice" in the second case), the fact he "knows he's right" makes it totally okay to be inconsistent.
I can't believe there's still people, specially children that haven't been vaccinated against measles.
Killing a non-person isn't murder, and a fetus isn't a person. I'm 100% certain that I'm right.Yes.
Murder is wrong.
When a society can justify genocide, there is some wrong with that society.
If you have no issue with forced vaccines, what else do you not have an issue with? Maybe sterilizing everyone below a certain IQ? Maybe sterilize certain groups of minorities?
It is for the overall good of the public, right?
So many politicians and others panicked over Ebola here, yet don't feel the same need to protect the public from morons who refuse to vaccinate children.
Well, "Dr." Chris Christie, expert in public health, is on the job.
It's going to be an uphill battle to convince people about vaccines.
http://nyti.ms/1z3vHen
Just look through the comments section. People either move the goal posts with their reasoning against vaccination or flat-out refuse to see the truth, constantly acknowledging old myths. To them, truth is what they believe. There was even a clip in the video showing Matt Lauer suggesting there was still "controversy" and Nancy Snyderman, NBC's health correspondent, shuts him down - stating unequivocally, there is no scientific controversy. The need for the media to play to 'balance' is terrible - there aren't always two valid sides. Sometimes, you just have nuts and science. We don't portray two sides on the moon landing issue.
And frankly, all this anti-vaccine stuff takes time and resources away from finding actual causes of autism spectrum disorders and other important public health issues.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued Monday that debate over whether to allow parents more choice in the vaccination of their children was a matter of "freedom," citing personal knowledge of kids "who wound up with profound mental disorders" after receiving immunizations for diseases like Hepatitis B and measles.
"I don't think there's anything extraordinary about resorting to freedom," the potential 2016 presidential candidate, who is a ophthalmologist, said in an interview with CNBC.
"We sometimes give five or six vaccines all at one time," he said of immunizations of newborns for Hepatitis B. "I chose to have mine delayed....Do I think it's ultimately a good idea? Yeah. So I had mine staggered over several months. I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children, who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I'm not arguing that vaccines are a bad idea, I think they're a good thing. But I think parents should have some input. The state doesn't own your children, parents own their children, and it is an issue of freedom. "
Don't worry, Dr. Rand Paul is in, too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/02/rand-paul-child-vaccinations_n_6599560.html
And he's a doctor (well, ophthalmologist).
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.
Regardless, a person should have the right to decide what goes into their body.
Then there are the pro-vaccine lies, that if you get vaccinated you "will" be protected, which a flat out lie.
choices involve consequences....live with it!!It is not a matter of "being wrong with people", it is a matter of others not respecting "my body my choice."
choices involve consequences....live with it!!
Not just jail time, but a fair sentence.Here's an idea. If an adult non vaccinated individual is contracts a disease and another catches it there's jail time. If it's a child of a parent who decides not to vaccinate then the parent takes the responsibility. Garnished wages, everything. No welfare to compensate. Take the chance, pay the penalty.
LOL
she makes some excellent points only if you are batshit insane.
2 mins in and its clear she has no understanding of how vaccines work.
Here's an idea. If an adult non vaccinated individual is contracts a disease and another catches it there's jail time. If it's a child of a parent who decides not to vaccinate then the parent takes the responsibility. Garnished wages, everything. No welfare to compensate. Take the chance, pay the penalty.
I assume their will be exceptions for people who have a valid medical contradictions to a vaccine.
Lol, that isn't valid.