• 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!

Rich, White and Unvaccinated

They ARE mandatory if the government demands that they are if you go to school. Even if one can opt out "due to personal objection".. because usually that personal objection is only if you belong to a religion or culture that expressly forbids such.. such as a Jehovah witness.

Wrong.
There are religious objections and there are personal objections.
"I don't want to have my clod vaccinated for personal reasons " is included in personal objections.

Almost all states grant religious exemptions for people who have religious beliefs against immunizations. Twenty states allow philosophical exemptions for those who object to immunizations because of personal, moral or other beliefs.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx
 
Last edited:
If you don't charge the parents for the public schooling that you exclude their children from and re willing to have the kids grow up outside the school system for the ones whose parents cannot afford private schools.....

We are. Parents are obligated to provide an education for their children if they do not take advantage of the public school system. If they do not choose private school, then they must homeschool. And that responsibility fall on them, legally and ethically. Why should their decisions endanger society at large unnecessarily?
 
Might want to check that "libertarian" lean there....:doh


I did, it's solid.


Basic tenet of Libertarianism is "non-coercion", people should be free to do as they wish, however if those actions infringe on the rights of others such as the right to life, reasonable restrictions are appropriate.

Libertarianism is not anarchy.
 
Aiming and forcing are not the same thing. As I said. There are conditions, where you would want to force the population to immunize totally. That is, however, the exception.

Can you please expand on this and describe the conditions that make the 'exceptions?'

I have a library on epidemiology, approx 40 much-loved volumes, it is a favorite subject, ever since microbiology in college. This is not something I have seen covered, so please do explain.
 
Being in pharmacy I've learned not to prop up the MD's as the know-all medical gods many want to portrey them as. I've seen them do a lot of really really stupid stuff, and among them is this doctor advocating against vaccines.

The whole rich, white, anti-vax thing is a problem. It's a culture of sorts, these rich new-age organic families get bought by buzzwords and mom groups that push a "I won't inject non-natural toxins into my child" in regards to vaccines. They cling to debunked "science" like the autism risk or quote a chemical name in a vaccine that happens to be a big word to push for why it's all dangerous. High emotion, low information.
 
Let's just ignore the fact that HPV infection rates for teenagers have dropped by more than half

Well he didnt say they'd never get it, but perhaps 10 yrs old is too young. Hard to say. Kids do have sex earlier and earlier :(
 
These diseases never went away in many parts of the world. The reason that these disease are "coming back" to the US is largely because of the influx of immigrants from countries that have little or no vaccination and have poor healthcare standards.

Honestly.. in evaluating the threat of this issue. I think we have way more to fear the influence of big pharma in pushing vaccinations that are not beneficial and may be harmful in the long run (especially the ones that don;t give you full immunity like the flu vaccines) than we do because a few people don't want to vaccinate their children for even polio.

I am not aware of big pharma 'pushing' vaccines that are not the generally common ones for the diseases endemic to the American population. If the HPV one is being pushed as such, I'd want more info. I do think 10 is too young but there may well be data that support it. I dont know.
 
Its highly possible that if you are prone to get HPV in such a way as to be diagnosed (usually when you are symptomatic), It means that your immune system is more susceptible to cancer.

Roughly 75% of the population is infected with HPV of some type or another. 75% of the population will not be diagnosed with cancer.

Think on that and get back to me.

Folks.. this is why I worry about pushing vaccinations... its like a religion with some people.

Seriously? If there was a vaccine for ANY cancer that conferred a 25% rise in immunity people would be all over it.

The reaction risks of such a vaccine would have to be very high for people to decline it.
 
Disallowing children to go to the school their parents are paying for is coercion in any book I know. That is totally unrelated to the question of whether or not it might be justifiable.

But then you neglect the individual choices of those that DO send their kids to that school and have every right to expect their kids to be protected. The ones that DID choose to vaccinate (if they can, but again, not all kids can have the vaccines)...you would allow these people to abbrogate the rights of the others. Why?
 
Two or three non immunized persons in a population otherwise immune do not constitute a serious health concern except in very few cases. Saying so is either uninformed or a lie. There are arguments, but in almost every case they will not be the health issue but a type peer group pressure against otherness or a kind of free riding.

Really? Exactly how do you think the recent upsurge in measles has occured? You are the one uninformed. Let's see something from the mainstream medical community to back up your claim.

And btw, if your kid is one of those 'very few cases,' it still means *everything* to that life and your family. So you go on and on about 'individuals' undergoing force, yet these people, very few or not, are afffected against their will. So do you discount their rights?
 
Coercion entails force of some kind. And denying a child schooling that his parents are forced to pay for is "force" whether you like to admit it or not. It is quite immaterial how many steps are between this point and police becoming active.

The parents have options, choices. If they cannot comply with public health guidelines, then they have to use those alternate choices.
 
If the parents of the others agree to vaccination, there is no necessity in the large majority of cases to force the minority to bow to the herd.

That's a pantload of BS for sure. Then you are discussing the minority taking advantage of the majority in order to decrease personal risk to their own kids...all the while their decision, as proven by things like the resurgence of measles and whooping cough, still endanger everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. Why should it "fail"? There is no reason to make kids face a decision of leaving or bowing, where everyone else is immunized. Contagion is extremely improbable and it is only to demonstrate a point in almost every case. Of course, the bigots will hate it, but that is the way they are.

Exactly what do you have to back that up, with facts? Again, the resurgence of many childhood disease like measles and whooping cough prove you wrong.
 
You know.. a point of that. If your child has a serious decreased immune system (so they could not be vaccinated with .. it would not make sense to send them to public school regardless of vaccination.. there are certainly WAY WAY WAY more common life threatening bacteria etc that would pose a greater risk than whether his friend little Jimmy has been vaccinated for mumps, measles and rubella.

That may be true, but many parents try to mainstream their kids as much as possible. Besides all 'reactions' are not equal...today many vaccines are available with different preservatives, for ex. But in the past, if someone was allergic to horse serum or eggs, they could not get certain vaccines. That doesnt mean they couldnt attend school or work because of a 'compromised immune system.'

There can be more than one reason, besides a compromised immune system, that a person may find the risks of vaccination higher than others.
 
Wrong.
There are religious objections and there are personal objections.
"I don't want to have my clod vaccinated for personal reasons " is included in personal objections.



http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx

Please prove that because it does not appear so

here is 2015 Texas law:


Exclusions from compliance are allowable on an individual basis for medical contraindications, reasons of conscience, including a religious belief, and active duty with the armed forces of the United States. Children and students in these categories must submit evidence for exclusion from compliance as specified in the Health and Safety Code, §161.004(d), Health and Safety Code, §161.0041, Education Code, Chapter 38, Education Code, Chapter 51, and the Human Resources Code, Chapter 42.
(1) To claim an exclusion for medical reasons, the child or student must present a statement signed by the child's physician (M.D. or D.O.), duly registered and licensed to practice medicine in the United States who has examined the child, in which it is stated that, in the physician's opinion, the vaccine required is medically contraindicated or poses a significant risk to the health and well-being of the child or any member of the child's household. Unless it is written in the statement that a lifelong condition exists, the exemption statement is valid for only one year from the date signed by the physician.
(2) To claim an exclusion for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief, a signed affidavit must be presented by the child's parent or legal guardian, stating that the child's parent or legal guardian declines vaccinations for reasons of conscience, including because of the person's religious beliefs. The affidavit will be valid for a two-year period. The child, who has not received the required immunizations for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs, may be excluded from school in times of emergency or epidemic declared by the commissioner of public health.

Now.. if i can just say.. "I don't want to have my clod vaccinated "...

why the heck would I be required to submit evidence from a physician?

I'll tell you why.. because to have a you have to have what the state considers a legitimate "reason of conscious" to get an exemption UNLESS you have a medical reason supported by a physician.
 
That may be true, but many parents try to mainstream their kids as much as possible. Besides all 'reactions' are not equal...today many vaccines are available with different preservatives, for ex. But in the past, if someone was allergic to horse serum or eggs, they could not get certain vaccines. That doesnt mean they couldnt attend school or work because of a 'compromised immune system.'

There can be more than one reason, besides a compromised immune system, that a person may find the risks of vaccination higher than others.

Yes in the past you might have a point.. but not now.

but here is the thing.. you are right.. a person may find the risks of vaccination higher than others. Who should define what risk is acceptable? Should the determination be between you and your physician?.. or should the government and its lobbyists decide?
 
I did, it's solid.


Basic tenet of Libertarianism is "non-coercion", people should be free to do as they wish, however if those actions infringe on the rights of others such as the right to life, reasonable restrictions are appropriate.

Libertarianism is not anarchy.

My decision to vaccinate my children in no way affects your decision to vaccinate your children nor their health.
 
Yes in the past you might have a point.. but not now.

but here is the thing.. you are right.. a person may find the risks of vaccination higher than others. Who should define what risk is acceptable? Should the determination be between you and your physician?.. or should the government and its lobbyists decide?

The govt already accords that 'power' to the physicians. I'm not aware of any school districts that override a doctor's decision on whether or not a child should be excused from a vaccination.
 
The govt already accords that 'power' to the physicians. I'm not aware of any school districts that override a doctor's decision on whether or not a child should be excused from a vaccination.

Actually it generally stipulates to the physician what constitutes an exemption. For example a previous reaction. Or specific immunosuppression from certain conditions or treatments
 
Actually it generally stipulates to the physician what constitutes an exemption. For example a previous reaction. Or specific immunosuppression from certain conditions or treatments

Seems reasonable....what do you think? I imagine, I hope, that those stipulations are developed by a committee of medical professionals, rather than bureaurocrats.
 
My decision to vaccinate my children in no way affects your decision to vaccinate your children nor their health.


However your decision to NOT vaccinate your children, which I believe is your right. I also believe it's my right to not want disease carrying little kids around the schools I am by compulsion required to send my kid to.

You can be stupid to you and your family on vaccinations, you do not have a right to endanger my kids because of your poor choices.
 
Disallowing children to go to the school their parents are paying for is coercion in any book I know. That is totally unrelated to the question of whether or not it might be justifiable.



Nonsense..... You do not have a right to create a danger to others.
 
Nonsense..... You do not have a right to create a danger to others.

In a class, where all but one are vaccinated, there is no danger to others. That is why you get the shot in the first place. The one in danger could be the kid that wasn't immunized ! Because she didn't have the shot !.
The reason you don't like the idea must be an other. Why not figure out, what really disturbs you.
 
Back
Top Bottom