Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right

[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.