Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right

[Melanbee]

Excuse me for arguing that we shouldn't just roll over because mother nature is trying to off us. Or for mentioning that mother nature absolutely will punish you for my bad choices, and vice versa.

You're not excused for your hysterics.

Or we could vaccinate.

We already do that. We just don't force people to have them.

What we can when we can? Like vaccinating?

Yes, see above.

Absolutely, unless you kill it entirely by way of massive campaigns of vaccination.

Which is clearly possible even without mandatory vaccinations.

Or we could just kill it by way of massive campaigns of vaccination.

Again, clearly possible without mandatory vaccinations.

That we could prick a prick with a needle one time and potentially forestall or avoid massive loss of life does.

No, it does not. Your opinion does not give you the right to dictate what another does with their own body.

Yet we mandate what people can and can't do (even with regards to their own bodies) especially when it concerns others all the time. This is different how?

Have you ever heard me agree with any such mandates? It's a tenuous connection at best, anyway. Telling someone they cannot rape someone else prevents a violent crime. Forcing a vaccination prevents something that can otherwise be prevented and can also cause the person to get the disease rather than develop immunity to it.

---

Invasive procedure? Way to use scarier words than could ever be offered with a straight face. :holds out his arm and rolls up his sleeve:, "damned invasive vaccinations!"

Don't be a douchebag. It is invasive. Look up the word. It is entering your body. It opens up your bloodstream to pathogens. It is by definition invasive.

---

Smarter and hotter than your sister. I like.

Not for you. *whips out spray bottle and squirts 5th*

---

In other words you do, unless you weasel your way around it. This isn't something that I can get behind, know what I mean?

What about medical reasons? Do you consider that weaseling?

Spray bottle? He's got to be better to flirt with than...ahem..."the one". Who I am currently debating the finer aspects of cheating with. The only debate I like to be part of is the ones where I am right.

[Shell B]

This is straight from the CDC. Note that they say the risk is minimal, but still there. Also note that I never said it was common, simply possible. If you're all right with infecting some people to suit your ideals, that is fine. It's your opinion.

Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications (which sometimes contain the number of reports received by VAERS, and allow the reader to infer that all of them represent genuine vaccine side-effects). Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking acetaminophen before or after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths. The Institute of Medicine in its 1994 report states that the risk of death from vaccines is "extraordinarily low."

"Extraordinarily low" does not mean "it's a myth."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mis...cinescause

[The Grand Nudger]

And the carrier is doing what, exactly? Potentially infecting some people to suit their ideals.

---

As I said, I do understand. This is a place where ideology and practicality can clash hard. I'm a big fan of preserving ideology in the face of opposition but this particular opposition, infectious disease, is too much heat for ideaology, imo. If we're going to argue for the right to go un-vaccinated we must accept that we are at the very least, enablers of whatever the consequences may be. We can't say "I'm for everyone's rights (specifically this one) but against the possible outcomes of choosing ideology over practicality in this instance simultaneously". Well, obviously we can, but it's irritating to no end. A government mandate is not a bad idea just because the government mandates it. It actually has to be a bad idea, which vaccination is not.

[Shell B]

And the carrier is doing what, exactly? Potentially infecting some people to suit their ideals.

Yep. That has to do with their own bodies. Which of the following do you propose we ban so that you can have a consistent opinion?

1. Unprotected sex by people who have been sexually active in the past year.

2. Unprotected sex by people who have not been sexually active, but who have not been tested since they began abstaining.

3. Driving by anyone who wears glasses. I mean, what if they fall off?!?!

4. Having trees in your yard. (They can fall over during hurricanes.)

5. Not brushing your teeth.

6. Not washing your hands.

7. Leaving your house if you have a cold.

The list goes on Rhythm. All of these things can hurt others and have reaching implications.

Honestly, diseases are part of the natural world. Yes, we should try to save ourselves, but what is the point if you live in a world where everything is regulated?

---

As I said, I do understand. This is a place where ideology and practicality can clash hard. I'm a big fan of preserving ideology in the face of opposition but this particular opposition, infectious disease, is too much heat for ideaology, imo. If we're going to argue for the right to go un-vaccinated we must accept that we are at the very least, enablers of whatever the consequences may be. We can't say "I'm for everyone's rights (specifically this one) but against the possible outcomes of choosing ideology over practicality in this instance simultaneously". Well, obviously we can, but it's irritating to no end.

I'm not against the possible outcomes, so you can cease being irritated. I realize that I cannot control the world. I realize that infectious diseases are going to happen. Outbreaks suck and I certainly don't want to be caught in one. Am I against them? Fuck no. I might as well be against life itself if I want to be against death by natural causes.

Also, I do not think it is a bad idea just because the government mandates it. It is a bad idea because it involves injecting your body with a foreign substance and it should not be mandatory.

[The Grand Nudger]

And the carrier is doing what, exactly? Potentially infecting some people to suit their ideals.

Yep. That has to do with their own bodies. Which of the following do you propose we ban so that you can have a consistent opinion?

1. Unprotected sex by people who have been sexually active in the past year.

2. Unprotected sex by people who have not been sexually active, but who have not been tested since they began abstaining.

3. Driving by anyone who wears glasses. I mean, what if they fall off?!?!

4. Having trees in your yard. (They can fall over during hurricanes.)

5. Not brushing your teeth.

6. Not washing your hands.

7. Leaving your house if you have a cold.

The list goes on Rhythm. All of these things can hurt others and have reaching implications.

Honestly, diseases are part of the natural world. Yes, we should try to save ourselves, but what is the point if you live in a world where everything is regulated?

It's rough isn't it, deciding where it begins and ends. It's similarly rough taking the stance that it begins nowhere. Vaccinations, infectious disease, and our history with outbreaks and epidemics might justr put this one in a different box than trees falling on cars Shell, or brushing our teeth (though that ones pretty crucial too). You aren't going to give anyone smallpox by not flossing, your tree will not be giving anyone the measles anytime soon. Etc etc etc. Don't trot out the word hysterics (again) and then respond like this.

I'm not against the possible outcomes, so you can cease being irritated. I realize that I cannot control the world. I realize that infectious diseases are going to happen. Outbreaks suck and I certainly don't want to be caught in one. Am I against them? Fuck no. I might as well be against life itself if I want to be against death by natural causes.

Also, I do not think it is a bad idea just because the government mandates it. It is a bad idea because it involves injecting your body with a foreign substance and it should not be mandatory.

You can't control the world, but you can be immunized, and you can expect others to take similar precautions. This isn't an issue of controlling the world.....looks up at the hysterics remark...again.

Yes, injecting your body with a known substance of demonstrated effect and little to no possibility of harm with immense benefits for the entirety of mankind. All with extremely rigorous testing and control procedures in place. Bad idea to make something like that mandatory. Can I ask you a question, how do you feel about the pasteurization of milk?

[Shell B]

It's rough isn't it, deciding where it begins and ends. It's similarly rough taking the stance that it begins nowhere. Vaccinations, infectious disease, and our history with outbreaks and epidemics might justr put this one in a different box than trees falling on cars Shell, or brushing our teeth (though that ones pretty crucial too). You aren't going to give anyone smallpox by not flossing, your tree will not be giving anyone the measles anytime soon. Etc etc etc.

You have to take into account that not being vaccinated does not mean that you will inevitably contract the disease. You can't just say that people who are not vaccinated are going to give people smallpox. In fact, the vaccination can give other people small pox! When my ex-husband was vaccinated for the small pox before he went to Iraq, we were allowed to kiss, touch each other or sleep together for several days. He had to wash his own clothes and do his own dishes.

Don't trot out the word hysterics (again) and then respond like this.

Oh, I will. Because . . . what is below is nowhere near no vaccine = mass murderer! A fucking small percentage of the population not getting vaccines has, historically, had nowhere near the impact you project.

You can't control the world, but you can be immunized, and you can expect others to take similar precautions.

No, I can't. I can be immunized, but I cannot expect shit from other people. I'm not Captain fucking Planet.

This isn't an issue of controlling the world.....looks up at the hysterics remark...again.

You keep reading it. It won't change the fact that trying to control what every person does with their own body is trying to control the world.

Yes, injecting your body with a known substance of demonstrated effect and little to no possibility of harm with immense benefits for the entirety of mankind.

Oh, yes. For the entirety of mankind. A population reduction would be beneficial too. That didn't stop you from having children. Would you have liked me to have saved you and the rest of mankind from yourself and saved those resources for other people? No? Good, because I wouldn't want to do that. Such is life.

All with extremely rigorous testing and control procedures in place.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. There are precautions, but let's not pretend the medical community doesn't fuck up every now and then.

Bad idea to make something like that mandatory. Can I ask you a question, how do you feel about the pasteurization of milk?

What does that have to do with anything? Did I say I hate vaccines? A more appropriate question would be, "How do I feel about people having the ability to choose whether their milk is pasteurized or not." My answer to that would be, "Let them drink milk however the fuck they want to drink it."

We never talk about things on which we agree. I fear you are argumentative. By that I mean, I fear you are a lot like me. I still like you, even if you are an opinion elitist. /kidding (Don't you dare go on a tangent about that. I really am kidding.)

[The Grand Nudger]

You have to take into account that not being vaccinated does not mean that you will inevitably contract the disease. You can't just say that people who are not vaccinated are going to give people smallpox. In fact, the vaccination can give other people small pox! When my ex-husband was vaccinated for the small pox before he went to Iraq, we were allowed to kiss, touch each other or sleep together for several days. He had to wash his own clothes and do his own dishes.

Oh absolutely, absolutely. A single potential carrier in a vast sea of immunized people is not likely to ever contract a specific disease. A large group of people, however, approaches the level of eventuality. (and we're ignoring the possibility of more virulent strains here btw) Here you are trotting out the "gives others smallpox/gives smallpox" thing again. Little no no possibility, when recorded the severity is low and much better overall than simply contracting smallpox out of the blue. People take precautions when they receive vaccinations (and are directed to do so), those who are not vaccinated are taking what precautions? This is anti-vaxxer shit.

Oh, I will. Because . . . what is below is nowhere near no vaccine = mass murderer! A fucking small percentage of the population not getting vaccines has, historically, had nowhere near the impact you project.

No, it isn't, but it is negligence that can very easily lead to massive loss of life. You're actually referencing the success of vaccinations (the steady decline of specific infectious diseases in the face of vaccination) in an effort to undermine the argument for mandatory vaccinations? It's having the opposite effect, on me at least.

No, I can't. I can be immunized, but I cannot expect shit from other people. I'm not Captain fucking Planet.

I have higher expectations of others, clearly. I don't think that insisting that they receive vaccinations is an unreasonable request.

You keep reading it. It won't change the fact that trying to control what every person does with their own body is trying to control the world.

Yeah, because we are so totally the world. (I know, I know, cheap jabs). Again, I'm not attempting to control the world, I'm just asking you, Shell, why it is unreasonable of me to attempt to control something that we can control, that is universally beneficial, and cannot seriously be argued to be harmful in any way shape or form, whatsoever.

Oh, yes. For the entirety of mankind. A population reduction would be beneficial too. That didn't stop you from having children. Would you have liked me to have saved you and the rest of mankind from yourself and saved those resources for other people? No? Good, because I wouldn't want to do that. Such is life.

Would it? Can you save mankind by saving me from myself? Vaccinations have demonstrated benefits for a specific problem. Care to make the case for population control as a procedure with demonstrated benefits that solves a specific problem?

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. There are precautions, but let's not pretend the medical community doesn't fuck up every now and then.

I would, because that's the situation. It doesn't safeguard against fuck-ups completely but no one claimed that it did.

What does that have to do with anything? Did I say I hate vaccines? A more appropriate question would be, "How do I feel about people having the ability to choose whether their milk is pasteurized or not." My answer to that would be, "Let them drink milk however the fuck they want to drink it."

We never talk about things on which we agree. I fear you are argumentative. By that I mean, I fear you are a lot like me. I still like you, even if you are an opinion elitist. /kidding (Don't you dare go on a tangent about that. I really am kidding.)

Well, as you said, we have a massive disagreement here, so I thought it might be useful to pick a subject with a hell of a lot of parralels that we were likely to agree on, and then you could show me where the two programs were different, and why those differences mattered. A proxy issue. We decided not to let people drink milk however they wanted it because it represented a massive threat to our health that was costing us tons of money and lives. Not only did we mandate that un-pastuerized milk is not for human consumption, we prevented producers from even selling it legally without express agreement and labeling that it was pet food. So, we told people what they could or could not voluntarily introduce into their system (the foreign substance being milk), what state that substance had to be in before it could be introduced, what a property owner could do with his property (the cows and the milk) and what he could do with the product on the market (economic control). It worked. It was hugely successful. It is hailed as one of the greatest public health programs ever devised or implemented anywhere. Still..there are protesters....

(unfortunately for my brilliant plan, you figure people should be able to drink milk in the raw...so...probably won't help..lol)

:late edit: As far as why we get into such disagreements, my other option is to waste my time disagreeing with Chippy...I prefer you..lol.

[Shell B]

Oh absolutely, absolutely. A single potential carrier in a vast sea of immunized people is not likely to ever contract a specific disease. A large group of people, however, approaches the level of eventuality. (and we're ignoring the possibility of more virulent strains here btw)

And that is my point. Just as sex education is proven more effective than abstinence, vaccination education may prove more effective than attempting to force compliance. With that in mind, most people do get vaccinated, so it may eventually happen, as it has with other diseases, that no one gets the disease, vaccinated or not. Giving people an option is not going to inevitably lead to the medical thriller doom you present.

Here you are trotting out the "gives others smallpox/gives smallpox" thing again.

Huh?

Little no no possibility, when recorded the severity is low and much better overall than simply contracting smallpox out of the blue. People take precautions when they receive vaccinations (and are directed to do so), those who are not vaccinated are taking what precautions?

They don't have to take precautions and you should not be able to make them.

This is anti-vaxxer shit.

Bullshit, though they do have a point. It is their right to refuse. I'm not anti-vaccination. I'm anti-forced medicine of any kind.

No, it isn't, but it is negligence that can very easily lead to massive loss of life.

That is very, very unlikely. Pandemics have never been that deadly. Even the 1918 endemic and the plague were only deadly because of pneumonia, which can now be treated with antibiotics.

You're actually referencing the success of vaccinations (the steady decline of specific infectious diseases in the face of vaccination) in an effort to undermine the argument for mandatory vaccinations?

Yes, I absolutely am. I am arguing that the intelligent use of vaccinations by most of the population will suffice. Quarantining sick individuals prevents spread of infection when it happens and the list goes on.

I have higher expectations of others, clearly.

Yes, I don't see why you have any expectations of people you don't even know.

I don't think that insisting that they receive vaccinations is an unreasonable request.

Wanting them to is not unreasonable. Insisting that they do is overstepping.

Yeah, because we are so totally the world. (I know, I know, cheap jabs).

If you prefer me change that to "you are trying to control everyone," I would be more than happy to do that.

Again, I'm not attempting to control the world, I'm just asking you, Shell, why it is unreasonable of me to attempt to control something that we can control, that is universally beneficial, and cannot seriously be argued to be harmful in any way shape or form, whatsoever.

Because whilst making that argument you are imposing your will on others, which is the precise argument I am sure you make against pro-lifers. It's fucking hypocritical. And, yes, if it has been harmful for even one person, it can be argued to be harmful. Why the fuck do you think sick people shouldn't take vaccinations? They certainly aren't fucking candy. It has to be an informed decision.

Care to make the case for population control as a procedure with demonstrated benefits that solves a specific problem?

Why would I? I have absolutely no desire to impose population control on people. Care to cherry pick what risks to humans you care to regulate by forced medical procedures? Hey, forced sterilizations of people with genetic disorders would eradicate those disorders! Let's do that!! Fuck, yeah. World police!

I would, because that's the situation. It doesn't safeguard against fuck-ups completely but no one claimed that it did.

So . . . those "fuck-ups" are acceptable as long as it is for the greater good? Haha, fuck your right to life and health if it has the slight potential to hurt my right to life and health.

Well, as you said, we have a massive disagreement here, so I thought it might be useful to pick a subject with a hell of a lot of parralels that we were likely to agree on, and then you could show me where the two programs were different, and why those differences mattered. A proxy issue. We decided not to let people drink milk however they wanted it because it represented a massive threat to our health that was costing us tons of money and lives. Not only did we mandate that un-pastuerized milk is not for human consumption, we prevented producers from even selling it legally without express agreement and labeling that it was pet food. So, we told people what they could or could not voluntarily introduce into their system (the foreign substance being milk), what state that substance had to be in before it could be introduced, what a property owner could do with his property (the cows and the milk) and what he could do with the product on the market (economic control). It worked. It was hugely successful. It is hailed as one of the greatest public health programs ever devised or implemented anywhere. Still..there are protesters....

Yeah, if you want to eat something that can kill you, that is your fucking choice. I am also okay with suicide and don't consider it murdering yourself. Sure, it was successful. Is it necessary to force everyone? No.

(unfortunately for my brilliant plan, you figure people should be able to drink milk in the raw...so...probably won't help..lol)

Yep, I do. I wouldn't do it and I certainly wouldn't give it to my children. Do I think people should have a choice what they want to do to themselves . . . yup.

:late edit: As far as why we get into such disagreements, my other option is to waste my time disagreeing with Chippy...I prefer you..lol.

I don't blame you.

[Nine]

The issue here for me is that I don't see children as a parents property to do with what they will.

And I think the best interests of a child should be kept as the child is incapable of making an informed decision. And seems the massive advantages for the child and others of vaccination it is my opinion that parents should not be able to choose as it is against the best interests of the child.

I think that children need to be protected from this attitude they are property and from the stupidity of their parents as a consiquence of this.

And if someone has an issue with this idea on the grounds parents bring a child into this world. By the same thinking you would have a right to kill your child as its you created him/her.

Parents opinions should fit nowhere into this. If a parent decieded that they think that 'their' child doesn't need to go to the doctors after breaking an arm the parent would be arrested.

Hope that what I have said makes sense seems Tis almost 4am.

[Autumnlicious]

I immunize my children for everything except Influenza. That vaccination is just plain silly.

You are gravely misinformed, willfully ignorant, or plain stupid.

Influenza is not something to be ignored. I could list several flu pandemics, but part of me thinks you're too deluded to change your stupid beliefs despite the risks you are exposing your children to. Influenza is quite mutable and has similar tendencies to the common cold in hybridizing with other flues.

However, vaccines are still effective if the flu one catches has a root or parent that the vaccine was derived from.

To put it simply, the influenza vaccine knocks out a whole subfamily of influenza that the CDC determines as 'most common'. By extension, you are able to better fight off an influenza infection despite being in different cities, states, etc,.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2N2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_flu

A lot of people do not recognize that some vaccinations are live viruses and you are actually injecting yourself with a virus that your body has to fight off. Our bodies develop antibodies to it off...and if we are successful in the fight we are now immune. Hence, why if you have had the chicken pox you do not need to be vaccinated.

You're indulging in a form of naturalistic fallacy, that our bodies will "take care of themselves" in creating antibodies.

I'd like to point out that people who caught polio either "develop antibodies to it off", after all polio has a 95% rate of doing nothing to infected patients.

The other 5% isn't so lucky -- here's a lucky one:



Also, "live viruses" in a vaccine are "attenuated" viruses. In other words, purposefully weakened and damaged viruses that posses the same signature as the harsh, nasty, virulent forms.

Furthermore, you can request a killed virues vaccine, which is mostly just virus parts to train your immune system to recognize. It doesn't imprint the signature of the virus into your immune systems memory (like an attenuated one would) because it's just a bunch of proteins instead of the whole virus capsid.

In other words, you're wrong.