• 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!

California Law Requires Vaccinations to Attend School.

But even there the threat is very, very small. The last outbreak was 100 people out of millions because, despite the anti's, herd immunity is still largely intact.

Second, if the anti-vaxxers had their own school, that's better, and then a measles outbreak gets all of those kids but hopefully doesn't spread to others. But as is those anti's put at risk those with weakened immunity and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.

As I said, I see your point of view and recognize it's legitimate, but I fall on the other side. I see no problem with the choice they're given. No vaccines is fine, but don't increase the risk for others, so stay home for school.

But again, that's great until they are 18, then what? What happens when they go to work with others who have infants? Have cancer? Or are immune compromised?
 
But again, that's great until they are 18, then what? What happens when they go to work with others who have infants? Have cancer? Or are immune compromised?

I'm not getting your point. I strongly support vaccinations and don't see a problem with requiring parents to either vaccinate their child or home school them. I don't know the numbers but my assumption is the few who can home school and elect to do so will not pose a significant risk to herd immunity. It's certainly a better option than allowing unlimited 'conscience' objections in my view. And I also don't see an acceptable alternative. I wouldn't approve forcibly administering a vaccine. But if a, e.g., public school or private employer won't hire you because you elect NOT to have them, fine with me. You have a choice and that choice has consequences. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
 
Last edited:
Most people who get arrested and are subsequently charged with a crime may spend some time "in jail" while waiting to appear before a judge.

You are the one who brought up the issue of prison, not me. If you don't like the answers don't try to derail the issue.
It's not a derail. I'm trying to figure out how on earth you are ok with an assumption of guilt that can send you to prison but not ok with homeschooling, as alternatives to "invading my body."

Assumed guilt good.
Homeschool bad.

I don't understand.



Umm, excuse me? You read the post, what exactly are you asking me here?

You claim to have a natural immunity. How do you know?
 
Last edited:
Well, all infants are morons and we subsidize education for them so they won't be morons in the future. Having an educated populace is a public good, IMHO. And there are ways to ensure an educated public with a variety of subsidized programs, including home schooling.
A society should have a method of reducing the likelihood of infectious disease outbreaks, or reducing the impact.

Yes, we pay money to educate morons. We don't pay money to help infants continue ****ting in their pants into adulthood.

And we don't pay money so that idiots can endanger their own children, and the children of others, with their moronic decision. We do have a method for reducing the likelihood of outbreaks: making unvaccinated children be homeschooled!
 
You claim to have a natural immunity. How do you know?

In reference to childhood disease if you catch one, let it run it's course, and recover from it, your body develops antibodies which typically prevent you from getting that particular disease again. I have been exposed to vectors of childhood diseases several times over my life and never suffered again.

BTW, what exactly do you think happens when you get vaccinated as a child? Have you ever been re-vaccinated for those same childhood diseases in your lifetime? Have you ever caught any of the childhood diseases you were exposed to again? Perhaps if I said "acquired immunity" you'd accept it then?

As for your confusion about a choice between blood test or presumption of intoxication, I've already explained it. If you remain confused, do your own research on the subject.
 
In reference to childhood disease if you catch one, let it run it's course, and recover from it, your body develops antibodies which typically prevent you from getting that particular disease again. I have been exposed to vectors of childhood diseases several times over my life and never suffered again.

BTW, what exactly do you think happens when you get vaccinated as a child? Have you ever been re-vaccinated for those same childhood diseases in your lifetime? Have you ever caught any of the childhood diseases you were exposed to again? Perhaps if I said "acquired immunity" you'd accept it then?

As for your confusion about a choice between blood test or presumption of intoxication, I've already explained it. If you remain confused, do your own research on the subject.

Immunity can wear off. Sorry, I assumed you were aware of this.
 
Immunity can wear off. Sorry, I assumed you were aware of this.

I am aware of it. However, what's that got to do with the price of rice in China? I could tell you that I caught a cold once when I was a little child, stopped participating in annual Flu shots for over 30 years ago, and despite constant exposure have never caught a cold again after the first experience. That's mere anecdotal information, because as you say immunity can wear off. Still, most people retain their immunities after exposure to most childhood disease, and the few that don't can re-vaccinate if they so choose.

I am not personally opposed to being vaccinated. But in the case of these families, why must the law require vaccination or home schooling, but prohibit at least private schooling without vaccination so that if they want they can form a community school and send their kids to one? After all, they still have to pay taxes used for public schools, and must work to do so, preventing any real choice about home schooling under such a law.
 
Last edited:
"Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a hotly contested California bill to impose one of the strictest school vaccination laws in the country in the wake of an outbreak of measles at Disneyland late last year.

California now joins West Virginia and Mississippi as the only states without a personal-belief exemption for vaccines. Medical exemptions will still be available for children with serious health issues. When considering exemptions, doctors may take family medical history into account.

Effective the 2016-17 school year, children whose parents refuse vaccination and are not granted a medical exemption must be homeschooled. School-age children who currently claim a personal-belief exemption will need to get fully vaccinated by kindergarten and seventh grade, the state's two vaccine checkpoints. The law applies to both public and private schools, as well as daycare centers."

What's next for California's contentious vaccine law

So, in order to attend either public or private school in California, all children who don't have a specific medical exemption must now be fully vaccinated against all childhood disease.

On the surface this seems to be a reasonable public safety measure designed to "protect the children." However, IMO it just one more step down the road of Nanny-State policies designed to violate individual liberty in the name of public security.

My argument isn't that vaccinations are inherently bad, although as with any pharmaceutical product there is ALWAYS a risk of allergic reaction in a section of the population; nor do I buy into the position that vaccinations cause Autism.

My argument is about the erosion of the right to be secure in one's physical person from seizure and invasion. A person's physical body is their evidence of existential individuality; the basis from which all claims of individual liberty and inherent rights flow. Forcible invasion of a person's body for ANY reason is a direct assault on their liberty. History demonstrates that once you give a government that kind of power over the individual, it is a slippery slope leading to all sorts of horrors. (See Compulsory Sterilization, Nazi experimentation, etc.)

It is one thing to lock someone up for a violent act for a period of incarceration, but quite another to require individuals to submit to blood tests, DNA extraction, or the forcible injection of substances into the body because other people think it will make THEM safer.

In this case, voluntary vaccination serves to protect you and your children from infection. Compelling someone else to do so? I don't think your concerns trump their rights to choose not to.

That's fine, but they risk the loss to attend a publically funded school. They can still pick a publically funded education via computer home schooling if they so choose.
 
Yes, we pay money to educate morons. We don't pay money to help infants continue ****ting in their pants into adulthood.

And we don't pay money so that idiots can endanger their own children, and the children of others, with their moronic decision. We do have a method for reducing the likelihood of outbreaks: making unvaccinated children be homeschooled!

I am at a lost to understand why you would think that. Our government continues to subsidize people who are unable or unwilling to support themselves well into adulthood through old age. We have numerous programs to subsidize poor parents.

I realize that you are just trying to direct angry words against those parents who don't believe in vaccinations but that is no reason to make completely absurd statements. Besides, you are making a completely unfounded assumption that home schooled children are unvaccinated, or even tend to be.
 
I am aware of it. However, what's that got to do with the price of rice in China? I could tell you that I caught a cold once when I was a little child, stopped participating in annual Flu shots for over 30 years ago, and despite constant exposure have never caught a cold again after the first experience. That's mere anecdotal information, because as you say immunity can wear off. Still, most people retain their immunities after exposure to most childhood disease, and the few that don't can re-vaccinate if they so choose.

I am not personally opposed to being vaccinated. But in the case of these families, why must the law require vaccination or home schooling, but prohibit at least private schooling without vaccination so that if they want they can form a community school and send their kids to one? After all, they still have to pay taxes used for public schools, and must work to do so, preventing any real choice about home schooling under such a law.

Certain choices threaten the public and sometimes the government steps in to restrict such a choice.

Collecting unvaccinated children together in a private school just for unvaccinated children actually makes things worse. For those children.

I guess the ultimate question that comes up is how much are you allowed to endanger your child? It's one thing if you were making this decision to put yourself at risk, but a child who has no choice in the matter?
 
I am at a lost to understand why you would think that. Our government continues to subsidize people who are unable or unwilling to support themselves well into adulthood through old age. We have numerous programs to subsidize poor parents.

I realize that you are just trying to direct angry words against those parents who don't believe in vaccinations but that is no reason to make completely absurd statements. Besides, you are making a completely unfounded assumption that home schooled children are unvaccinated, or even tend to be.


Uhh, what? I didn't assume homeschooled children were usually unvaccinated. Rather, unvaccinated children would be homeschooled. Because of the law this thread is about?

The morons are the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, not the parents who choose homeschooling. While the former end up in the latter group as a side effect, only the first group is the morons. Hope this helps. I think you are just so eager to attack a pro-vaccination person you just didn't read very carefully. I'm going to skip right past your implication that poor parents are morons, because that's not even worth it.
 
"Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a hotly contested California bill to impose one of the strictest school vaccination laws in the country in the wake of an outbreak of measles at Disneyland late last year.

California now joins West Virginia and Mississippi as the only states without a personal-belief exemption for vaccines. Medical exemptions will still be available for children with serious health issues. When considering exemptions, doctors may take family medical history into account.

Effective the 2016-17 school year, children whose parents refuse vaccination and are not granted a medical exemption must be homeschooled. School-age children who currently claim a personal-belief exemption will need to get fully vaccinated by kindergarten and seventh grade, the state's two vaccine checkpoints. The law applies to both public and private schools, as well as daycare centers."

What's next for California's contentious vaccine law

So, in order to attend either public or private school in California, all children who don't have a specific medical exemption must now be fully vaccinated against all childhood disease.

On the surface this seems to be a reasonable public safety measure designed to "protect the children." However, IMO it just one more step down the road of Nanny-State policies designed to violate individual liberty in the name of public security.

My argument isn't that vaccinations are inherently bad, although as with any pharmaceutical product there is ALWAYS a risk of allergic reaction in a section of the population; nor do I buy into the position that vaccinations cause Autism.

My argument is about the erosion of the right to be secure in one's physical person from seizure and invasion. A person's physical body is their evidence of existential individuality; the basis from which all claims of individual liberty and inherent rights flow. Forcible invasion of a person's body for ANY reason is a direct assault on their liberty. History demonstrates that once you give a government that kind of power over the individual, it is a slippery slope leading to all sorts of horrors. (See Compulsory Sterilization, Nazi experimentation, etc.)

It is one thing to lock someone up for a violent act for a period of incarceration, but quite another to require individuals to submit to blood tests, DNA extraction, or the forcible injection of substances into the body because other people think it will make THEM safer.

In this case, voluntary vaccination serves to protect you and your children from infection. Compelling someone else to do so? I don't think your concerns trump their rights to choose not to.

I used to think we had rights too.....it seems we're way behind the times.... not even lefties believe in our rights anymore.
 
Uhh, what? I didn't assume homeschooled children were usually unvaccinated. Rather, unvaccinated children would be homeschooled. Because of the law this thread is about?

The morons are the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, not the parents who choose homeschooling. While the former end up in the latter group as a side effect, only the first group is the morons. Hope this helps. I think you are just so eager to attack a pro-vaccination person you just didn't read very carefully. I'm going to skip right past your implication that poor parents are morons, because that's not even worth it.
Wow! Went right over your head, I guess. So never mind.
 
The difference is that a person in prison has (typically) caused a direct harm for which he is being punished. No one is supposed to be sent to prison when he hasn't done anything wrong, but MIGHT do something wrong.

Ref your point on direct harm – what is your opinion on indirect harm – where you have inadvertently, due to lack of vaccination, yet you are infected, caused serious health injuries to person(s) or caused a person(s) to die, yet you are unaware of the harm you caused.
 
Ref your point on direct harm – what is your opinion on indirect harm – where you have inadvertently, due to lack of vaccination, yet you are infected, caused serious health injuries to person(s) or caused a person(s) to die, yet you are unaware of the harm you caused.

Short answer? That's what tort law is for. Sue them in the civil court system. (Long answer would involve inadvertent harm from intentional criminal acts.)
 
Last edited:
That's what tort law is for. Sue them in the civil court system.

A change in the question.
Ref your point on direct harm – fully infected – the disease has blossomed, you leave the house, interact with others; you have knowingly placed others at risk due to your lack of vaccination. Deliberately caused injuries to person(s) & or caused a person(s) to die.
 
A change in the question.
Ref your point on direct harm – fully infected – the disease has blossomed, you leave the house, interact with others; you have knowingly placed others at risk due to your lack of vaccination. Deliberately caused injuries to person(s) & or caused a person(s) to die.

Again, that would depend on the circumstances. For example, every time you get sick and instead of staying home you go to a hospital for treatment, that simple act will "knowingly placed others at risk." This would be a tort.

On the other hand, let's say you find out that you are HIV positive. That your reaction is to go out and seek unprotected sex with random partners in order to intentionally infect them with HIV. That would fall under the criminal codes.
 
Again, that would depend on the circumstances. For example, every time you get sick and instead of staying home you go to a hospital for treatment, that simple act will "knowingly placed others at risk." This would be a tort.

On the other hand, let's say you find out that you are HIV positive. That your reaction is to go out and seek unprotected sex with random partners in order to intentionally infect them with HIV. That would fall under the criminal codes.
Let us say you have the measles and go shopping at the mall.
You are also coughing and sneezing quite often.
You are a clear and distinct threat to persons with a suppressed immune system
 
In many cases a tort would not work. I believe many are infectious before the rash shows. It is a public safety hazard. If they don't want to get shots, or are unable to receive them, they can still access a free education at home. That is their choice.
 
Let us say you have the measles and go shopping at the mall.
You are also coughing and sneezing quite often.
You are a clear and distinct threat to persons with a suppressed immune system

Same if you had a common cold or the flu or any number of communicable infections by dieses not covered by vaccination. :shrug:
 
Let us say you have the measles and go shopping at the mall.
You are also coughing and sneezing quite often.
You are a clear and distinct threat to persons with a suppressed immune system

EVERYONE is a distinct threat to persons with a suppressed immune system. Our skins literally crawl with disease vectors that can pose a potential threat to other people, especially those with a suppressed immune system. People cough and sneeze for all sorts of reasons, even after getting flu vaccinations. Should we all walk around in self-contained NBC suits to insure that no one is ever at risk?

Parent's typically keep their kids home when they get the measles, chicken pox, etc. Parent's also send their kids to school when they suffer from minor symptoms of illness, for example the cold or flu. Very few people intend to cause harm as a result. Your argument is extreme. It is safer to keep a child with an immune system deficiency home-schooled than to blame refusal to vaccinate as a reason to home school an otherwise healthy child.
 
Same if you had a common cold or the flu or any number of communicable infections by dieses not covered by vaccination. :shrug:
People undergoing Chemo know this. No vaccine for the cold, but for others there are. So the point is what?
 
EVERYONE is a distinct threat to persons with a suppressed immune system. Our skins literally crawl with disease vectors that can pose a potential threat to other people, especially those with a suppressed immune system. People cough and sneeze for all sorts of reasons, even after getting flu vaccinations. Should we all walk around in self-contained NBC suits to insure that no one is ever at risk?

Parent's typically keep their kids home when they get the measles, chicken pox, etc. Parent's also send their kids to school when they suffer from minor symptoms, for example the cold or flu. Very few people intend to cause harm as a result. Your argument is extreme. It is safer to keep a child with an immune system deficiency home-schooled than to blame refusal to vaccinate as a reason to home school an otherwise healthy child.

My points are not extreme. Generally does not prevent infections. And there is a period before the symptoms are known.
 
How many people died of the measles last year in America? How can you justify forcing medical treatment on the population because of measles?
 
And how does forcing vaccines on kids that attend public schools stop measles outbreaks at Disneyland? Does the governor realize that people from all around the globe visit Disneyland?
 
Back
Top Bottom