• 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!

Should children be required to vaccinate in order to attend School?

Should children be required to vaccinate in order to attend School?


  • Total voters
    60
Yes, unless a valid medical reason is provided.
 
Well, I see you have diverted from "the only children affected" falsehood....to "authoritarianism". Keep moving those goalposts without even having to remember what your argument was.

Those un-immunized children are not being forced, they don't have to go to a public school.

Not changing the goalposts at all - my point remains valid. If the vaccine doesn't work for a particular child, that's not the fault of the child who wasn't innoculated. Perhaps, if they contract the illness, they got it from another vaccinated child who was unfortunate enough not to have it work or they got it from one of the children who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons. Are you also banning the vaccine didn't take and the medically excused children from attending schools?

But hey, I appreciate that as a card carrying liberal, you're mandated to the will of the collective and you're all for someone else running your life and you also like dictating how other people live their lives, so you're fine with it - others aren't. We'll see how this plays out in the courts.
 
It is a matter of the public health - so vote YES.

Lursa does have a point about a valid medical reason - and that would be the sole exception but it would have to be more than just fear and belief .
 
Not changing the goalposts at all - my point remains valid. If the vaccine doesn't work for a particular child, that's not the fault of the child who wasn't innoculated.
Sure, those intentionally not being immunized bear no responsibility for spreading a disease.


Perhaps, if they contract the illness, they got it from another vaccinated child who was unfortunate enough not to have it work or they got it from one of the children who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons.
Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be its name, amen) swooped in and spread measles!

Are you also banning the vaccine didn't take and the medically excused children from attending schools?
The whole idea is to reduce the chances of anyone contracting these diseases, not to keep reducing ones argument to absurdity. But keep relying on absolutes to justify your positions. Perfection would be wonderful, but to argue that since perfection is not achievable we should keep weakening the (extremely successful) immunization scheme to placate a few irrational contrarians is absurd.

But hey, I appreciate that as a card carrying liberal, you're mandated to the will of the collective and you're all for someone else running your life and you also like dictating how other people live their lives, so you're fine with it - others aren't. We'll see how this plays out in the courts.
Yawn...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
 
Yes, public health overrides your philosophical or religious beliefs.

I guess religious freedom really doesn't matter after all then, if you force people to act against their beliefs. Hmmmm where have I heard that before? Also what about the problem of kids being allergic to some vaccination ingredients? I know people allergic to eggs can't have the flu vaccine. My youngest cousin, who turns 3 next month, is allergic to just about darn near everything, including eggs. Its a catch 22 for some people.
 
Recently, California passed a law requiring all children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public and private schools. Otherwise they MUST be home-schooled. That makes it one of only three states with this requirement and no “personal-belief” exemption.

The question is: Should children be compelled to vaccinate in order to attend school or not. Please explain your reasoning.

No. It's not placing anybody at risk except those who refuse to be vaccinated. It's nanny state mentality at the expense of parental rights. I support vaccinations, think people like Michelle Bachman are nuts and think everyone should get them but the government has no business being a dictatorship in the United States....except when other people's safety or expense is at risk.
 
I guess religious freedom really doesn't matter after all then, if you force people to act against their beliefs. Hmmmm where have I heard that before? Also what about the problem of kids being allergic to some vaccination ingredients? I know people allergic to eggs can't have the flu vaccine. My youngest cousin, who turns 3 next month, is allergic to just about darn near everything, including eggs. Its a catch 22 for some people.

In this case public health interests override ridiculous religious or personal beliefs. I never said anything about getting rid of medical exemptions, obviously you cannot give someone who is allergic a vaccine. In order for your youngest cousin to be safe, the maximum number of people possible have to have the vaccine.
 
No. It's not placing anybody at risk except those who refuse to be vaccinated. It's nanny state mentality at the expense of parental rights. I support vaccinations, think people like Michelle Bachman are nuts and think everyone should get them but the government has no business being a dictatorship in the United States....except when other people's safety or expense is at risk.

Even people who are vaccinated can become vulnerable as the virus can mutate if it is not eradicated. It also reduces the effectiveness of herd immunity which means people who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons are no longer safe.
 
Absolutely yes.

Because of mandatory vaccinations over the past decades, polio, pertussis, smallpox, measles, diptheria were effectively wiped out, with few or no cases reported each year. Since this internet fear campaign has begun, people have stopped vaccinating their perfectly healthy children. The result? Ten infants too young to be vaccinated died of whooping cough in California alone last year. Measles has made a resurgence this year, along with all the dangerous side affects, including death, that this serious illness can cause. Children who have legitimate medical allergies to vaccines are now at immense risk of being infected by playmates who were not allergic, but not vaccinated because their parents made a "choice".

Should parents have a "choice"? Sure. But if they choose to keep their own children vulnerable to diseases like polio, measles, whooping cough, etc., then they have no right to expose other people's children who are allergic to vaccinations or are too young to be vaccinated. Keep their kids out of schools, daycare, public summer camps, and other places where children gather. Home school them, or choose a private school that has no qualms about bringing in viruses and diseases that will be brought home to younger siblings. Apparently, these parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are unconcerned about other children in the household who are too young for such protection anyway.

Seriously, this is one thing that really grinds my gears. After decades of finally ridding our kids of these dangerous diseases, a bunch of paranoid internet "experts" have single-handedly managed to begin unraveling all the health strides that were made during my lifetime. Guess how I "choose" to salute these people.
 
I guess religious freedom really doesn't matter after all then, if you force people to act against their beliefs. Hmmmm where have I heard that before? Also what about the problem of kids being allergic to some vaccination ingredients? I know people allergic to eggs can't have the flu vaccine. My youngest cousin, who turns 3 next month, is allergic to just about darn near everything, including eggs. Its a catch 22 for some people.

There are non-egg-derived vaccines, available upon request from your doctor. And even egg-derived vaccines are safe if you have allergies, you may just get a mild skin reaction.
 
I do not think we have much choice here, the answer has to be yes.

We are sending our kids to school and they will be exposed to whatever the others there have, and this all becomes a matter of public safety for these kids. There are too many communicable diseases have been largely eradicated or at least put under control by immunization. I understand those with a medical condition of some sort may not be able to participate in immunization and an opt out is reasonable for those cases, but that should not be extended to those of philosophical or "religious" beliefs wanting to opt out for whatever reason. It goes against my Libertarianism, but our schools are nothing more than a Petri Dish pooling of whatever they all have and then bring to school to share. There is not enough legitimate reasoning to place kids in danger because a handful of parents want to opt out of Hepatitis B, or Influenza, or other immunizations for their kids.

This is perfectly stated. Ditto.
 
I posted this in another thread earlier this year. It still applies, IMO, and this is why I fully understand the reasoning behind making it mandatory, but still cannot bring myself to endorse it...

"...we have done very well with vaccines thus far. No complaints from me. I am a pro-vaxxer, not an anti-vaxxer. But... what if some vaccine in the future IS dangerous? Is the entire population screwed because the mandatory vaccine made things even worse? We've had good results so far, but will we always have good results? We're human, we simply don't do everything right.

The government does have a healthy history of lying to us. 1950s atomic testing being just one prime example. I said it once and I'll say it again, we have had good results thus far, but if something did go wrong, would they be honest with us?"
Answering my own post...

One thing in favor of mandating it is that I do not believe for one second that all the people claiming religious objection really have religious objection. For many, I'd bet more than half don't have religious objection, it's just a ruse to keep people from questioning them.

I have no way to prove this, of course, just a gut feeling.
 
Anytime we have to weigh public health and the safety of cancer patients, infants, and those that are immune compromised and thus depend on herd immunity, against idiots, well I am going to go with public health and the safety of cancer patients, infants and the immune compromised. If you want to be an idiot and not vaccinate your kids, then you are free to do so, but you are going to have to home school them.
 
No. It's not placing anybody at risk except those who refuse to be vaccinated. It's nanny state mentality at the expense of parental rights. I support vaccinations, think people like Michelle Bachman are nuts and think everyone should get them but the government has no business being a dictatorship in the United States....except when other people's safety or expense is at risk.

The post quoted above is a perfect example of the ignorance in the anti-vax movement.

Actually, it places anyone at risk that is currently immune compromised when you refuse to vaccinate your kids. For example, infants, and cancer patients depend upon herd immunity because they are either too young to get all vaccinations or in the case of a cancer patient, immune compromised and thus cannot be vaccinated until they are in remission. Thus they depend upon everyone else being vaccinated. It is a public health issue.
 
I would add that vaccines are statistically some of the safest medical treatments available. For example, the risk of severe complications from Ibuprofen is an order of magnitude greater than from an MMR vaccine.
 
Anytime we have to weigh public health and the safety of cancer patients, infants, and those that are immune compromised and thus depend on herd immunity, against idiots, well I am going to go with public health and the safety of cancer patients, infants and the immune compromised. If you want to be an idiot and not vaccinate your kids, then you are free to do so, but you are going to have to home school them.

Well, infants don't go to public school. At risk cancer patients and other "immune compromised" can be "home schooled" for THEIR safety if you REALLY want to eliminate their risks. That leaves vaccinated students, and the children of anti-vaxxers who pose no risk to the vaccinated.

Of course if you insist that's too much of an imposition and you'd prefer to "punish" anti-vaxxer families for their "selfishness" then the law should allow those parents to set up their own private school rather than limit them to home-schooling. Just saying.
 
Yes, a child not being vaccinated has direct implications on the health of surrounding children, and it's not an issue where the individual can choose to opt out of what society is doing because of their personal beliefs.

I noticed that a lot of people stated that the only exemption should be for medical reasons. I'm in agreement, but it's worth noting that some people believe vaccines cause Asperger's or other nonsense, and genuine medical exemptions have to filter out that nonsense.

For public schools yes but I believe the state has no right to mandate this for private schools. That being said every kids unless they are allergic should be vaccinated.

So students enrolled in private schools don't have a right to a healthy environment where they don't have to worry about being infected by preventable diseases?

I guess religious freedom really doesn't matter after all then, if you force people to act against their beliefs. Hmmmm where have I heard that before? Also what about the problem of kids being allergic to some vaccination ingredients? I know people allergic to eggs can't have the flu vaccine. My youngest cousin, who turns 3 next month, is allergic to just about darn near everything, including eggs. Its a catch 22 for some people.

That's twisting the definition of religious freedom. Religious freedom grants one the right to hold any religious beliefs and practice those beliefs. It does not give one the right to carry out societally unacceptable actions in the name of their religion. Several states prohibit employers and landlords from discriminating against gays even when the employer/landlord holds religious objections. Human sacrifice is not legal, even though several religions involve sacrifice. Terrorist involved in 9/11 committed those atrocities in the name of Islam; should they have been granted a free pass in the name of religious freedom?

Choosing to opt out of vaccinations is no different. Not being vaccinated damages herd immunity and increases the chances of surrounding children being infected with preventable diseases. Preventing outbreaks of diseases certainly outweighs allowing people to "express themselves" through endangering the health of others.

Answering my own post...

One thing in favor of mandating it is that I do not believe for one second that all the people claiming religious objection really have religious objection. For many, I'd bet more than half don't have religious objection, it's just a ruse to keep people from questioning them.

I have no way to prove this, of course, just a gut feeling.

A quick browse through Wikipedia indicates that no major religions are opposed to vaccinations. Christian scientists take issue with it, and some Muslims and Jews object to vaccination, even though Judaism and Islam are not officially opposed to vaccinations.

The larger issue is "personal objections," which 18 states allow, while 48 states allow religious objections. The percentage of people with genuine religious objections in the U.S. is miniscule, while many more people object to vaccinations based on vaguely based personal reasons, most often based on common misconceptions about vaccines.
 
Recently, California passed a law requiring all children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public and private schools. Otherwise they MUST be home-schooled. That makes it one of only three states with this requirement and no “personal-belief” exemption.

The question is: Should children be compelled to vaccinate in order to attend school or not. Please explain your reasoning.



Of course. I had whooping cough last year because some stupid people did not vaccinate their kids!
 
Yes, unless the child has a valid medical reason to avoid the vaccination. It's important to maintain herd immunity to protect kids that can't get vaccines.
 
Well, infants don't go to public school. At risk cancer patients and other "immune compromised" can be "home schooled" for THEIR safety if you REALLY want to eliminate their risks. That leaves vaccinated students, and the children of anti-vaxxers who pose no risk to the vaccinated.

Of course if you insist that's too much of an imposition and you'd prefer to "punish" anti-vaxxer families for their "selfishness" then the law should allow those parents to set up their own private school rather than limit them to home-schooling. Just saying.

It is not a question of punishment. It is a public health issue. With questions of public health you have to weigh rights of one group over another. In this case as I stated we have to weigh the rights of anti-vaxers against those that for medical reasons are depending on herd immunity. The antivaxxers lose that one. Welcome to modern civilization.
 
The post quoted above is a perfect example of the ignorance in the anti-vax movement.

Actually, it places anyone at risk that is currently immune compromised when you refuse to vaccinate your kids. For example, infants, and cancer patients depend upon herd immunity because they are either too young to get all vaccinations or in the case of a cancer patient, immune compromised and thus cannot be vaccinated until they are in remission. Thus they depend upon everyone else being vaccinated. It is a public health issue.

Since this mandate is specific to the school campus environment, my response was how it affected those in the classroom. It's not likely that infants, geriatric patients, etc. would be in schools. You do made a good point though. In that spirit it would seem to make sense to outlaw smoking in America.

Another great companion to this and other public school mandates is to offer school choice options so that there can be cost neutral alternatives to families who prefer to not have the government exercise more authority on how they choose the raise their kids on a wide range of issues, but that's another topic.
 
There are non-egg-derived vaccines, available upon request from your doctor. And even egg-derived vaccines are safe if you have allergies, you may just get a mild skin reaction.

Well my cousin is a doctor so he probably knows about them. Still next time I see them I will let them know.
 
Since this mandate is special to the school campus environment, my response was how it affected those in the classroom. It's not likely that infants, geriatric patients, etc. would be in schools.

Another great companion to this and other public school mandates is to offer school choice options so that there can be cost neutral alternatives to families who prefer to not have the government exercise more authority on how they choose the raise their kids on a wide range of issues, but that's another topic.

There are no cancer patients in public school? There are no immune compromised kids in public school? I remember one of my classmates being treated for leukemia when I was in 7th grade. He depended upon everyone being vaccinated around him and thus there being herd immunity. Not a problem back then because we did not have a bunch anti-vax idiots getting their medical advice from celebrities, arguments from ignorance, and thoroughly discredited studies.

Frankly the school requirement is simply the stick used to bring up vaccination rates to the levels needed to safe guard public health. We adopted two girls from China, they could not come to the United States until they were current on their vaccinations. There is a reason for that. In my opinion these idiots that want the freedom not to vaccinate should pack it up and move to a country with a public health system more conducive to their personal views like DR Congo or Haiti.
 
Back
Top Bottom