• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vaccine Critics Turn Defensive Over Measles [W:1210]

Apples and giraffes. And the people who matter (the Black Robes) disagree with you. The relevant precedent was set in 1905 - Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't ever figure out how to post links to .pdf files, but an extensive discussion is titled, "Mandatory Vaccinations: Precedent and Current Laws" from the Congressional Research Office, May 21, 2014. Here's a quote from the challenger in Jacobson:



Sounds like many of the arguments made on this thread, which the Supreme Court rejected in favor of the government having the ability to protect the common welfare. I can't imagine any court could find otherwise as it's a core purpose of government and the powers of a police state.

All it would take is a challenge from a family that has a child die from the vaccination. Of course, the medical industry will not diagnose as such and the Pharmacuetical industry will never admit the vaccine might be the cause so having evidence is next to impossible to challenge... it is a multi-billion dollar industry along with a majority population that vaccines work and that want to railroad the rights of a minority population that suffers from vaccinations so nothing will change.
 
{{{Shrug}}} You are free to travel. But you can't go to another country unless you have a passport. Is that banning your freedom to travel?

Given that the latest epidemics come from people who traveled overseas and brought the disease back with them, seemed like another good place to stop the outbreaks from happening. I always thought people who went overseas got fully vaccinated anyway, but apparently they don't.

I don't care if you like the idea or not. Just was offering it up as another way to cut down on people making the rest of us sick.

If banning the passport due to not being up to date with vaccines is occuring... yes.
 
My thoughts...

We have not only prevented small pox epidemics but we eradicated the disease.
I had to have a smallpox vaccination before I started school in the early 1950s but my children who are in their 30s and early 40s did not need the vaccination because the disease was eradicated.

Our goal should be to eradicate measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, whooping cough , polio diphtheria, so children and adults of future generations do not have worry about epidemics of those diseases anymore.

There will always be diseases, and sometimes getting sick can help our immune system. I need to find the study I found before but it showed that one of there is a vaccine for has shown to provide us with some increased immunity against something else if we contracted it rather than getting the vaccine. It isn't a normally deadly disease, but the other thing it helps build our immune system against is bad.
 
All it would take is a challenge from a family that has a child die from the vaccination. Of course, the medical industry will not diagnose as such and the Pharmacuetical industry will never admit the vaccine might be the cause so having evidence is next to impossible to challenge... it is a multi-billion dollar industry along with a majority population that vaccines work and that want to railroad the rights of a minority population that suffers from vaccinations so nothing will change.

I'm not sure any of that is true. Certainly there is a real risk of allergic reaction and death with vaccines. But that wouldn't be sufficient for the challenge - it's been 100 years and the law is still good - because the benefits to public health are so obvious and overwhelming versus the small risks.

And it's not that the public "believes" vaccines work - they DO work. Period.

Finally, if someone is known to 'suffer' from vaccines - e.g. are allergic to them, have suffered severe side effects in previous vaccines - they can and do get exceptions to the mandates.
 
I'm not sure any of that is true. Certainly there is a real risk of allergic reaction and death with vaccines. But that wouldn't be sufficient for the challenge - it's been 100 years and the law is still good - because the benefits to public health are so obvious and overwhelming versus the small risks.

SCOTUS overturns its bad decisions. Precedent. Brown v Board 1954 overturned 1996 Plessy v Ferguson

And it's not that the public "believes" vaccines work - they DO work. Period.

They work for the majority...

Finally, if someone is known to 'suffer' from vaccines - e.g. are allergic to them, have suffered severe side effects in previous vaccines - they can and do get exceptions to the mandates.

Sad fact is that is too late for a lot of kids... an exception is no good when you have brain damage or dead.
 
SCOTUS overturns its bad decisions. Precedent. Brown v Board 1954 overturned 1996 Plessy v Ferguson

I wouldn't characterize a decision that allows government to protect the common welfare, with documented successes over generations, as a bad decision.

They work for the majority...

No, they have worked to eradicate a horrible disease like polio, and nearly eradicate several other major risks to public health, saving hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives in this country, many millions worldwide.

You're pointing out that this comes at a small risk. That is true, but the risk is simply overwhelmed by the obvious, massive, life saving benefits.

Sad fact is that is too late for a lot of kids... an exception is no good when you have brain damage or dead.

I'm not sure what to say. Without vaccines it would be too late for hundreds of thousands of more kids, not to mention the brain damage for may more from the diseases we've nearly eliminated, birth defects, life long complications, plus all the savings in sickness and suffering of millions of others who suffered no permanent effects.

The closest analogy I can think of are seat belts and airbags. No doubt they both have killed passengers who might have survived if they'd been thrown from the car, but anyone looking at those exceedingly rare exceptions to justify not wearing a seat belt or to disarm their airbags is irrational - the risks FAR outweigh obvious and proven benefits. And so we require them in all cars now and have laws that mandate use. Because of them more are alive. I think that's a good thing.
 
I wouldn't characterize a decision that allows government to protect the common welfare, with documented successes over generations, as a bad decision.

Forcing people to violate their bodies IS a bad decision.

No, they have worked to eradicate a horrible disease like polio, and nearly eradicate several other major risks to public health, saving hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives in this country, many millions worldwide.

Yeah... that is the majority.

You're pointing out that this comes at a small risk. That is true, but the risk is simply overwhelmed by the obvious, massive, life saving benefits.

No. The risk is HUGE for those affected. That is the point. The selfishness of the majority just chalks that up to a, "hey, you just have to take one for the team" and that is bull****.

I'm not sure what to say. Without vaccines it would be too late for hundreds of thousands of more kids, not to mention the brain damage for may more from the diseases we've nearly eliminated, birth defects, life long complications, plus all the savings in sickness and suffering of millions of others who suffered no permanent effects.

Nobody said to make vaccines illegal. Your argument is bunk. If you want protection from the diseases then get vaccinated. Simple. Forcing others though should be illegal. It certainly is immoral.

The closest analogy I can think of are seat belts and airbags. No doubt they both have killed passengers who might have survived if they'd been thrown from the car, but anyone looking at those exceedingly rare exceptions to justify not wearing a seat belt or to disarm their airbags is irrational - the risks FAR outweigh obvious and proven benefits. And so we require them in all cars now and have laws that mandate use. Because of them more are alive. I think that's a good thing.

Most airbag deaths are children in front facing seats in the front seat... something avoidable. You can also turn off airbags or not wear a seat belt. Once you take the vaccine it is too late to do anything about it.
 
Forcing people to violate their bodies IS a bad decision.

It's saved more lives than anything discovered in the last 150 years. It's a modern miracle. And it doesn't work with some participation.

Yeah... that is the majority.

Yeah, OK, if 99.99% or more is the "majority" then we agree.

No. The risk is HUGE for those affected. That is the point. The selfishness of the majority just chalks that up to a, "hey, you just have to take one for the team" and that is bull****.

The selfish are IMO the minority who socialize the risks of vaccines to others and enjoy the just miracle benefits of living in a world where these diseases have been all but eradicated. And the risk simply isn't "huge." It's objectively real but miniscule by any reasonable measure.

Nobody said to make vaccines illegal. Your argument is bunk. If you want protection from the diseases then get vaccinated. Simple. Forcing others though should be illegal. It certainly is immoral.

I think we've about beat this subject to death. I'm sure people have mentioned about 100 times on this thread that 1) vaccinations do not always work, 2) in some cases the protection degrades over time, and 3) many people cannot get vaccinated because of various health reasons. Etc. It's been said too many times to make it worth repeating again to be ignored again.

Most airbag deaths are children in front facing seats in the front seat... something avoidable. You can also turn off airbags or not wear a seat belt. Once you take the vaccine it is too late to do anything about it.

Most but not all deaths. And we mandate seat belts, and airbags, and we have laws that punish those who don't wear seatbelts. They've saved many lives, many more serious injuries, many $10s of billions in healthcare costs. And yet there is a risk that a seatbelt or airbag will kill you. Sounds like vaccines, but not nearly as effective as vaccines.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree - neither of us is saying anything not already said many times on this thread. Peace.
 
The selfish are IMO the minority who socialize the risks of vaccines to others and enjoy the just miracle benefits of living in a world where these diseases have been all but eradicated. And the risk simply isn't "huge." It's objectively real but miniscule by any reasonable measure.

I think we've about beat this subject to death. I'm sure people have mentioned about 100 times on this thread that 1) vaccinations do not always work, 2) in some cases the protection degrades over time, and 3) many people cannot get vaccinated because of various health reasons. Etc. It's been said too many times to make it worth repeating again to be ignored again.

All I can say is, once you (plural) have had your child almost die due to a vaccine then I will listen to your argument with any real interest. Until then... blah.

That said, vaccines work for the majority and are a good thing... they should simply NOT be mandatory. Making them mandatory is immoral and should be illegal.
 
{{{Shrug}}} You are free to travel. But you can't go to another country unless you have a passport. Is that banning your freedom to travel?

Given that the latest epidemics come from people who traveled overseas and brought the disease back with them, seemed like another good place to stop the outbreaks from happening. I always thought people who went overseas got fully vaccinated anyway, but apparently they don't.

I don't care if you like the idea or not. Just was offering it up as another way to cut down on people making the rest of us sick.

This doesn't seem like a terrible idea. If you are going to travel overseas to somewhere where the possibility of getting a disease like this exists, then you should have to show proof of vaccinations to get a passport. While I'm not sure of the legality of the action, it would certainly cut down on the risks associated with the anti-vaccination movement.
 
All I can say is, once you (plural) have had your child almost die due to a vaccine then I will listen to your argument with any real interest. Until then... blah.

That's not a legitimate standard, but I understand your position. Although a mother whose infant was infected and died of a a preventable disease from someone who chose not to get vaccinated would have the opposite view.

That said, vaccines work for the majority and are a good thing... they should simply NOT be mandatory. Making them mandatory is immoral and should be illegal.

It's fine that you oppose mandates, but it cannot be immoral to mandate policy that is proved to save lives and suffering with incredibly small risks, especially when that mandate is an essential part of vaccines working effectively - the near universal coverage is what makes them effective.
 
All I can say is, once you (plural) have had your child almost die due to a vaccine then I will listen to your argument with any real interest. Until then... blah.

That's not a legitimate standard, but I understand your position. Although a mother whose infant was infected and died of a a preventable disease from someone who chose not to get vaccinated would have the opposite view.

Exactly. If Bodhisattva's child had gotten extremely ill from measles from someone who wasn't vaccinated - while his child was too young to get the vaccine - he would have been arguing the other side and saying "All I can say is once you have had your child almost die due to someone not getting a vaccine...."
 
No, you shouldn't. That is simply ridiculous. It is an appeal to emotion to deny people their rights based on the probability of contracting a disease that you yourself are almost certainly protected against.

We should certainly be allowed to ban the unvaccinated (by choice) from places that have regular contact. It isn't an appeal to emotion. It is an appeal to logic. What moron refuses to vaccinate today? There is no logical reason to do otherwise, barring known allergies.
 
My thoughts...

We have not only prevented small pox epidemics but we eradicated the disease.
I had to have a smallpox vaccination before I started school in the early 1950s but my children who are in their 30s and early 40s did not need the vaccination because the disease was eradicated.

Our goal should be to eradicate measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, whooping cough , polio diphtheria, so children and adults of future generations do not have worry about epidemics of those diseases anymore.

Anyone who can convince those idiots of that simple concept deserves a peace prize. Instead of someone who does nothing anyway.
 
We should certainly be allowed to ban the unvaccinated (by choice) from places that have regular contact. It isn't an appeal to emotion. It is an appeal to logic. What moron refuses to vaccinate today? There is no logical reason to do otherwise, barring known allergies.

No. It is an appeal to emotion because most of the things we vaccinate against today are rarely fatal diseases, particularly by themselves. It is a fear of death and watching other people suffer. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing (it certainly shows a lot of compassion), it is still based in emotion. The main emotion being fear.
 
That's not a legitimate standard, but I understand your position. Although a mother whose infant was infected and died of a a preventable disease from someone who chose not to get vaccinated would have the opposite view.

I think that it is legitimate... and that mother would have to deal with it. Life is not fair.

It's fine that you oppose mandates, but it cannot be immoral to mandate policy that is proved to save lives and suffering with incredibly small risks, especially when that mandate is an essential part of vaccines working effectively - the near universal coverage is what makes them effective.

It is immoral to mandate, or force, that a parent inject their child with something that might harm them.

The disease you may or may not get but it is Russian Roulette to force a person to vaccinate. The two are not comparable...
 
Exactly. If Bodhisattva's child had gotten extremely ill from measles from someone who wasn't vaccinated - while his child was too young to get the vaccine - he would have been arguing the other side and saying "All I can say is once you have had your child almost die due to someone not getting a vaccine...."

Wrong. I would understand that that living life is a risk. No adult should be compelled by force to do anything. Helmets should not be mandatory nor should seat belts either... and CERTAINLY not forcing a violation of an individuals body. You can assume the worst of somebody like me if you like but it is not only nice but it is illogical.
 
Wrong. I would understand that that living life is a risk. No adult should be compelled by force to do anything. Helmets should not be mandatory nor should seat belts either... and CERTAINLY not forcing a violation of an individuals body. You can assume the worst of somebody like me if you like but it is not only nice but it is illogical.

And I as pointed in another thread in the US we do not have unlimited rights regarding our body.

From Roe VIII
The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination)

ETA:

I do not think the worst of you.
And I am sorry your daughter became very ill after her MMR vaccination.
 
Last edited:
And I as pointed in another thread the right to privacy is not an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases.

The right to privacy is not an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases.

From Roe VIII

And as I countered that point that Decision is immoral and wrong and can and should be challenged and overturned just as 1896 Plessy was overturned in 1954.
 
I Don’t Vaccinate My Child Because It’s My Right To Decide What Eliminated Diseases Come Roaring Back!!!

The decision to cause a full-blown, multi-state pandemic of a virus that was effectively eliminated from the national population generations ago is my choice alone, and regardless of your personal convictions, that right should never be taken away from a child’s parent. Never.

Say what you will about me, but I’ve read the information out there and weighed every option, so I am confident in my choice to revive a debilitating illness that was long ago declared dead and let it spread like wildfire from school to school, town to town, and state to state, until it reaches every corner of the country. Leaving such a momentous decision to someone you haven’t even met and who doesn’t care about your child personally—now that’s absurd! Maybe I choose to bring back the mumps. Or maybe it’s diphtheria. Or maybe it’s some other potentially fatal disease that can easily pass among those too young or too medically unfit to be vaccinated themselves. But whichever highly communicable and formerly wiped-out disease that I opt to resurrect with a vengeance, it is a highly personal decision that only I and my family have the liberty to make.
 
And I as pointed in another thread in the US we do not have unlimited rights regarding our body.

From Roe VIII


ETA:

I do not think the worst of you.
And I am sorry your daughter became very ill after her MMR vaccination.

We don't have unlimited rights on anything... but violating bodily sovereignty is important enough to not take lightly. It is a dangerous precendent to set. Slippery Slope arguments in this case are relevant. In order to prevent crime perhaps they install tracking deviced IN every person, as an example.

I know that you don't minnie... you are, as far as I can tell, a very sweet and genuine person and I appreciate that. :)
 
FYI... Trolling is against the rules.

So don't troll. Are you turning yourself in or something? The article I cited is an Onion article, and it pretty much covers how utterly ridiculous the anti-vaccine arguments are.
 
Back
Top Bottom