• 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]

Deuce said:
Yes, side effects can be similar but milder and shorter-lived. Influenza can literally kill you.
Click to expand...

So can the adverse reactions to a vaccine...
 
Lursa said:
Do you think then, that if your child is not vaccinated, that schools should be able to refuse them entry? Because realistically they are endangering other kids. (Again, no vaccine is 100% and there are also those kids that cannot be vaccinated.)
Click to expand...

Yes they should be allowed in and no they are not endangering other kids... that is just silly.

But then wouldnt you appreciate more those parents that get their kids vaccinated so that yours would have less chance of exposure?
Click to expand...

I have always stated that vaccines for the majority are a good thing.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Then you are truly an idiot with no understanding of math. I'm willing to bet the number of kids who die from vaccines doesn't even break 100 a year. If it even breaks double disgets. The only exception should be if a real doctor says that the kid would die from vaccination, and for those exceptions they would be fine because a 95 percent vaccinated society would protect them

If you call a healthy society fascism then so be it, go live in freedom in Somalia
There is no constitutional right to neglect your child it's not in there
Click to expand...

Yeah, because when someone says they don't want to live in a country that forces medical treatments on their citizens they clearly want to live in Somalia. And not getting your kid a shot for something that might happen is not neglect.

In fact under the constitution units of government can compel inoculation

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Click to expand...

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David Friedman
 
Lursa said:
Back to that 'greater good' thing tho, abortion has no negative affects on society (that I'm aware of) yet epidemics do. Aside from body count, the effects on the economy and even national security are profound.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Medical privacy is what matters in that case and in this situation as well. If pro-choicers will not accept that then that leaves open the door that pro-lifers can make an argument against abortion too...
 
Bodhisattva said:
There will be a Roe v Wade type of Constitutional challenge regarding medical privacy... I wonder how Pro-Choice advocates like Minnie will respond.
Click to expand...

If you start making a habit of applying someones logic in a universal manner they will start calling you a black and white thinker, because apparently being illogical and making random exceptions to your logic flow is how you're supposed to think. It is however true though that once the government can invade your privacy for vaccines there is no reason to expect that can't do so for other reasons.
 
Lursa said:
Do you think then, that if your child is not vaccinated, that schools should be able to refuse them entry? Because realistically they are endangering other kids. (Again, no vaccine is 100% and there are also those kids that cannot be vaccinated.)
Click to expand...

Here is some info on US schools regarding vaccinations.


In 1922 the constitutionality of childhood vaccination would be examined in the Supreme Court case Zucht v. King. The court decided that a school could deny admission to children who failed to provide a certification of vaccination for the protection of the public health.[31] In 1987, a measles epidemic occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona and another court case, Maricopa County Health Department vs. Harmon, would examine the arguments of an individuals right to education over the states need to protect against the spread of disease. The court decided that it is prudent to take action to combat the spread of disease by denying un-vaccinated children back to school until the risk for the spread of measles was confirmed.[31]

Currently, in a push to eradicate Pertussis, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella, and Hepatitis B from the population, schools across the United States require an updated immunization record for all incoming and returning students.

While all states require an immunization record, this does not mean that all students must get vaccinated. Opting out is a state-by-state law; some states allow parents to opt out for a variety of reasons, but all states do require an immunization record at schools.

Some of the exemptions for opting out of vaccination is due to medical conditions that increase the risk of having an adverse health effect or reaction due to the vaccine. Other reasons consist of religious beliefs and personal philosophical opposition to mandatory vaccination.

As of 2014, 48 states allow religious exemptions except for Mississippi and West Virginia and some states even require proof of religious membership.

In addition, only 18 states allow personal philosophical opposition to vaccination as a form of exemption.[32]

Overall,there are ethical debates and objections to the required school vaccinations laws because of different religious or philosophical beliefs and the infringement on individual liberties still persist.[33][34]
Click to expand...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy
 
Henrin said:
If you start making a habit of applying someones logic in a universal manner they will start calling you a black and white thinker, because apparently being illogical and making random exceptions to your logic flow is how you're supposed to think. It is however true though that once the government can invade your privacy for vaccines there is no reason to expect that can't do so for other reasons.
Click to expand...

Agreed and as I state a little better in post #504
 
Bodhisattva said:
Agreed and as I state a little better in post #504
Click to expand...

Indeed. If a woman's privacy is important in terms of her abortion rights then why is it not important in term of vaccines? Because, like I said, selective reasoning. They set out something like "we have a right to privacy" and then start marking down where it applies and where it doesn't as if that logically flows at all. It's really all old hat that many peoples politics are shaped around.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You forgot the middle aged housewives who read blogs.
Click to expand...

Hell...someone is keeping US magazine, the Enquirer, News of the World, Midnight Star, TMZ, People, and all those other rags in fresh ink.
 
VanceMack said:
Hell...someone is keeping US magazine, the Enquirer, News of the World, Midnight Star, TMZ, People, and all those other rags in fresh ink.
Click to expand...




Funny story, I'm usually home by 6 watch the channel 2 news, alot of the time, I don't notice when it ends and all of the sudden tmz is on. I stare at it blankley for about 5 minutes then ask the wife "what the **** are they talking about"?


It makes no sense.
 
Lursa said:
:doh The risk of death from measles for infants is small because until recently, infants no longer came into contact with measles...it was almost eradicated from the US. Now it has been re-introduced and is circulating. So there is a much higher chance of them contracting it. And it is very dangerous for infants and can lead to blindness and other harm even if they dont die.
Click to expand...
Yes, instead of an infinitesimally low chance of dying from measles, infants now have an extraordinarily low chance of dying from measles. I'd be much more worried about winning the Lotto.

There's plenty reason enough to get kids vaccinated without fearmongering and spreading greatly exaggerated claims.
 
Bodhisattva said:
So can the adverse reactions to a vaccine...
Click to expand...

What are the percentages of adverse reactions to MMR? What is the fatality rate?
What are the health affect of a male catching the mumps later in life?
Do we set aside the polio vaccine as well.

http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/measles-mumps-and-rubella-mmr-vaccine
The mumps virus usually causes swelling in glands just below the ears, giving the appearance of chipmunk cheeks. Before the vaccine, mumps was the most common cause of both meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain and spinal cord) and acquired deafness in the U.S. In men, mumps can infect the testicles, which can lead to infertility.

Rubella is also known as German measles. It can cause a mild rash on the face, swelling of glands behind the ears, and in some cases, swelling of the small joints and low-grade fever. Most children recover quickly with no lasting effects. But if a pregnant woman gets rubella, it can be devastating. If she's infected during the first trimester of pregnancy, there's at least a 20% chance her child will have a birth defect such as blindness, deafness, a heart defect, or mental retardation.
 
JANFU said:
What are the percentages of adverse reactions to MMR? What is the fatality rate?
What are the health affect of a male catching the mumps later in life?
Do we set aside the polio vaccine as well.

Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine
The mumps virus usually causes swelling in glands just below the ears, giving the appearance of chipmunk cheeks. Before the vaccine, mumps was the most common cause of both meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain and spinal cord) and acquired deafness in the U.S. In men, mumps can infect the testicles, which can lead to infertility.

Rubella is also known as German measles. It can cause a mild rash on the face, swelling of glands behind the ears, and in some cases, swelling of the small joints and low-grade fever. Most children recover quickly with no lasting effects. But if a pregnant woman gets rubella, it can be devastating. If she's infected during the first trimester of pregnancy, there's at least a 20% chance her child will have a birth defect such as blindness, deafness, a heart defect, or mental retardation.
Click to expand...

The human race survived just fine for thousands upon thousands of years without vaccinations...
 
Bodhisattva said:
The human race survived just fine for thousands upon thousands of years without vaccinations...
Click to expand...

Guess you want to throw out all medicines as well?
 
Taylor said:
Yes, instead of an infinitesimally low chance of dying from measles, infants now have an extraordinarily low chance of dying from measles. I'd be much more worried about winning the Lotto.
Click to expand...

But that's only because the vast majority of the country aren't whack job anti-vaxers and get their kids vaccinated. If we all were as ill informed and irrational as them the chances of infants dying of measles and all the other diseases nearly eradicated by vaccines would increase and become serious health threats, again.

We can't afford to pander to science denying crazy people or treat their views on vaccinations as anything remotely approaching respectable. If widely adopted, their advice would have serious harmful affects on public health.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The human race survived just fine for thousands upon thousands of years without vaccinations...
Click to expand...
That depends on how you define "fine."

Polio was a dreadful disease that crippled or killed people. Smallpox is so deadly that it's been weaponized. Ebola can likely be mitigated by vaccines. The Bubonic Plague wiped out anywhere from 30-60% of Europe's population, and probably killed 100 million people.

No one is suggesting that the entire human race will be eradicated by diseases that can be prevented by vaccines. But there should be no question that vaccines, despite the handful of adverse effects, have spared millions of lives and a great deal of suffering.
 
Visbek said:
there should be no question that vaccines, despite the handful of adverse effects, have spared millions of lives and a great deal of suffering.
Click to expand...

Agreed...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom