"the Supreme Court of the United States on February 20, 1905, 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." -bolding is mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
"States in the U.S. mandate immunization"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_vaccination

(February 27, 2012 at 11:32 am)Shell B Wrote: I don't think that. It contains cowpox. I am fully aware of that. That does not change the fact that it is dangerous. Saying "it is dangerous vaccination" =/= to saying "it can give you smallpox."

Shell, I was only replying to todays post because you seem to have missed when I replied to you yesterday when you said the smallpox vaccine contains the live virus and I wanted to know why you thought that. I am aware that it has been called the most dangerous vaccine but would you rather be sick for a while or dead forever? And just in case that doesn't impact you, would your family prefer you temporarily sick or permanently dead?

(February 27, 2012 at 11:38 am)Insanity x Wrote:

(February 27, 2012 at 11:36 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: What exactly is the point of discussion?

Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right
^^
Exactly what it says on the tin.

Has got a bit heated but still an interesting read none the less.

If my opinion matters, I'd say that children perhaps should receive vaccinations for certain diseases such as..I remember the Turkish names of most..Well...Tuberculosis, for example. I got vaccinated when I was only little.
For flu vaccinations, well, if there is an epidemic on the loose, only then, vaccinations may be made mandatory by the government and related departments, but other than, I think mandatory vaccinations should only be in schools, and maybe for workers of the public sector.

(February 27, 2012 at 11:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: "the Supreme Court of the United States on February 20, 1905, 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." -bolding is mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
"States in the U.S. mandate immunization"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_vaccination

Thank you for proving my point.

I thought your point was that you had a right to refuse vaccinations because it was your body. Apparently you do not. Or that policies of mandatory vaccination weren't the driving factor in the eradication of smallpox...apparently they were. Or that we didn't go around giving every tom dick and harry within reach (even far beyond our own borders) vaccines, apparently we did. Just what was your point Shell?

Quote:Shell, I was only replying to todays post because you seem to have missed when I replied to you yesterday when you said the smallpox vaccine contains the live virus and I wanted to know why you thought that.

My bad. I did get behind on replying. I believe I meant or wrote that it contains live virus because it does.

Quote:I am aware that it has been called the most dangerous vaccine but would you rather be sick for a while or dead forever? And just in case that doesn't impact you, would your family prefer you temporarily sick or permanently dead?

I certainly would, if there was a reason for me to be vaccinated. However, I don't presume to make the choice for anyone else. It should be noted that the more dangerous side effects are not temporary.

It should be noted that the effect of smallpox was not temporary.

(February 27, 2012 at 11:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: I thought your point was that you had a right to refuse vaccinations because it was your body. Apparently you do not.

Actually, you do. My point was never, "Throughout the history of mankind, human beings have always, everywhere, had the right to refuse vaccinations. It was always, "It is your body, you have the right to make informed decisions about it."

Quote:Or that policies of mandatory vaccination weren't the driving factor in the eradication of smallpox...apparently they were.

I don't see how you got that, either. My point was that it was not mandatory worldwide and yet it was still eradicated. You don't have to vaccinate people who will not come into contact with a virus. That's just fucking stupid. Now you're simply inferring what you can argue from arguments that are not what you are interpreting. I have always said that vaccinations are effective. I have always said that I am personally for them. I don't understand why you choose to argue those points when I never made them. You have to establish a reason why a forced vaccination that could potentially hurt someone is somehow better than letting that person get sick. If your argument is the great good, you have to establish why the greater good trumps individual good. It makes you and others happy isn't good enough. Why should one person sacrifice their happiness for anyone else if they do not choose to do so?

Quote:Or that we didn't go around giving every tom dick and harry within reach (even far beyond our own borders) vaccines, apparently we did. Just what was your point Shell?

No we didn't. Again, quarantines were often used in areas where vaccines were not mandatory and individuals refused them. What exactly was your point, Rhythm? "Vaccines are good!" Yeah, we got that. Are you ever going to establish why your will should be forced on someone else? Wasn't that your argument against the death penalty? Isn't that your argument against abortion policies?

---

(February 27, 2012 at 11:54 am)Rhythm Wrote: It should be noted that the effect of smallpox was not temporary.

Nope. So, you want me to make the choice for you? Possible death and scars or possible death and permanent neurological damage? The former is more likely, but I don't fucking care. I'm just going to decide for you. While I'm at it, since you think it is important, I'm also going to give it to your kids.

It is interesting to note that Britain appears to be the first place where it became mandatory. It also appears to be the last place there was an outbreak.

---

(February 27, 2012 at 11:44 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: If my opinion matters, I'd say that children perhaps should receive vaccinations for certain diseases such as..I remember the Turkish names of most..Well...Tuberculosis, for example. I got vaccinated when I was only little.

The CDC does not recommend a TB vaccination. In modern times, it is only a danger to those with weakened immune systems. Antibiotics worked wonders to eradicate the disease in many places. It also was not forcefully given.

Quote:For flu vaccinations, well, if there is an epidemic on the loose, only then, vaccinations may be made mandatory by the government and related departments, but other than, I think mandatory vaccinations should only be in schools, and maybe for workers of the public sector.

I completely agree. I would however edit that to say "if there is a deadly epidemic on the loose, individuals have a choice to get the vaccination and individuals who are sick should be quarantined.

(February 27, 2012 at 11:49 am)Shell B Wrote: My bad. I did get behind on replying.

No problem but don't let it happen again

Quote: I believe I meant or wrote that it contains live virus because it does.

But not the virus it vaccinates against. that would be found in variolation which is a crude (yet effective) way to vaccinate against smallpox. Considering that actually has smallpox (from ground up pox scabs) that is much more dangerous than any vaccine.

Quote:I certainly would, if there was a reason for me to be vaccinated.

What if time. Your new neighbor moved in next door with his wife and three children. They just arrived from Somalia to pursue the American dream (boy are they in for a shock). Unknown to them, they were infected with smallpox before they left Somalia. Just greeting them gives you exposure and now you are in danger of contracting a full blown case of smallpox. You pass it on to the neighbor boy down the street that hasn't been vaccinated because he has Leukemia. The next day, a friend of yours has a minor car accident and is admitted to the hospital for a few days. You visit them in the hospital and are exposing many people to smallpox, a few of them get it and die. How do you feel about your choice not to vaccinate? Truth be told, if one of those you exposed to smallpox is a member of my family, you really would be better off dying of smallpox than letting me get my hands on you.

(February 27, 2012 at 11:58 am)Shell B Wrote: Actually, you do. My point was never, "Throughout the history of mankind, human beings have always, everywhere, had the right to refuse vaccinations. It was always, "It is your body, you have the right to make informed decisions about it."

Compulsory vaccination was an informed decision.

Quote:I don't see how you got that, either. My point was that it was not mandatory worldwide and yet it was still eradicated.

By countries where it was, and by mimicing our policies even though we could not write their laws.

Quote:You don't have to vaccinate people who will not come into contact with a virus. That's just fucking stupid.

Sure is, but we're talking about vaccinating against diseases you are likely to come into contact with, and why it just might be a good idea to enforce the mandatory vaccination statutes much more strictly.

Quote:Now you're simply inferring what you can argue from arguments that are not what you are interpreting.

Care to be more specific?

Quote:I have always said that vaccinations are effective. I have always said that I am personally for them. I don't understand why you choose to argue those points when I never made them. You have to establish a reason why a forced vaccination that could potentially hurt someone is somehow better than letting that person get sick.

No, Shell, I don't, because that's already been established, by the Supreme Court....in the link i just gave you..........

Quote:If your argument is the great good, you have to establish why the greater good trumps individual good. It makes you and others happy isn't good enough. Why should one person sacrifice their happiness for anyone else if they do not choose to do so?

Happiness, wtf? Again, already established, in the same place that the above was established.

Quote:No we didn't.

Yes, we did, and I already gave you the link. The Supreme Court's (and subsequent State's) decisions in the matter, and the science that backs up those decisions aren't my will. You're the one arguing for someones personal will here, not me. What's the deal, you can't argue the issue directly and so you'd rather argue about me imposing my will? Well make another thread. I thought we were discussing public health policy, vaccinations, and whether or not those exemptions we allow are a good idea.

Care to elaborate upon the outbreak in Great Britain? What was the cause?