• 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.

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
20,214
Reaction score
27,945
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"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.
 
Brown moving to the Right of all of those progressive Palo Alto helicopter parents who started this mess.
 
"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.

Do you also feel this way about speed limits and DUI laws?
 
Do you also feel this way about speed limits and DUI laws?

Speed limits do not invade my body.

DUI laws requiring blood tests I oppose, bit I have no problem with DUI laws that give a choice between voluntarily submitting to a blood test or accepting an automatic legal assumption that you were intoxicated at time of arrest.
 
Speed limits do not invade my body.

DUI laws requiring blood tests I oppose, bit I have no problem with DUI laws that give a choice between voluntarily submitting to a blood test or accepting an automatic legal assumption that you were intoxicated at time of arrest.

So you don't have a problem with a choice between vaccination and home schooling, I take it.
 
Seems reasonable. There appears to be an exception-if your personal values preclude vaccinations than you are not entitled to the government provided education and must be home-schooled. For many, this would be a win-win. Certainly I would think a libertarian would not want their children in public schools anyway. There should be government reimbursement/subsistence for the cost of the home schooling.
 
So you don't have a problem with a choice between vaccination and home schooling, I take it.

Actually I do, for the following reasons:

1. Homeschooling does not eliminate taxation to pay for other people's children to go to Public School.

2. Single parents would have a hard time complying.

3. Kids with medical exemptions can still go to school and cause all the problems people are citing to force this on personal exception families.

4. Enough children typically vaccinate to meet the requirements protecting all school children under "herd immunity," or did you not read the article?
 
Seems reasonable. There appears to be an exception-if your personal values preclude vaccinations than you are not entitled to the government provided education and must be home-schooled. For many, this would be a win-win. Certainly I would think a libertarian would not want their children in public schools anyway. There should be government reimbursement/subsistence for the cost of the home schooling.

No subsidy. Subsidizing morons is not a good strategy.
 
Actually I do, for the following reasons:

1. Homeschooling does not eliminate taxation to pay for other people's children to go to Public School.

2. Single parents would have a hard time complying.

3. Kids with medical exemptions can still go to school and cause all the problems people are citing to force this on personal exception families.

4. Enough children typically vaccinate to meet the requirements protecting all school children under "herd immunity," or did you not read the article?

You are ok with a choice between "invade my body" and "****ing prison," but not ok with a choice between "invade my body" and "homeschooling."

This seems weird from an alleged libertarian. I think you are making up justifications after the fact.
 
You are ok with a choice between "invade my body" and "****ing prison," but not ok with a choice between "invade my body" and "homeschooling."

This seems weird from an alleged libertarian. I think you are making up justifications after the fact.

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.
 
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.

But that's exactly what you are supporting when you say you are ok with th state ASSUMING guilt.
 
California Law Requires Vaccinations to Attend School

good. i had to have my vaccinations up to date before i could attend grad school. i guess California got tired of preventable measles epidemics.

if you want to believe Andrew Wakefield's discredited study, then homeschool your kids.
 
But that's exactly what you are supporting when you say you are ok with th state ASSUMING guilt.

Not at all. In the first place DUI does not result in PRISON unless actual harm has occurred during the act of driving while intoxicated.

Typically a person is arrested under DUI because the actions of the driver have demonstrated possible intoxication. In most jurisdictions he can be required to take a breath test which provides further support for this assumption. For final confirmation, a number of jurisdictions also require a blood test. You can refuse, but that is prima facie evidence of guilt and can be used at trial. You still get a trial you know, right?
 
good. i had to have my vaccinations up to date before i could attend grad school. i guess California got tired of preventable measles epidemics.

if you want to believe Andrew Wakefield's discredited study, then homeschool your kids.

Did you actually read the post? I specifically stated I do not accept the "autism" rationale.

BTW, when I was a kid the only vaccine I got was for polio. I got several of the normal childhood diseases. Like 99% of all kids who did, I survived each one will no ill effects, and retain natural immunity to all of them.

I am not arguing against vaccination. I am stating it should be a choice, not a compulsion, because it opens the door to other compulsory invasions that violate your body rights.
 
Not at all. In the first place DUI does not result in PRISON unless actual harm has occurred during the act of driving while intoxicated.

Typically a person is arrested under DUI because the actions of the driver have demonstrated possible intoxication. In most jurisdictions he can be required to take a breath test which provides further support for this assumption. For final confirmation, a number of jurisdictions also require a blood test. You can refuse, but that is prima facie evidence of guilt and can be used at trial. You still get a trial you know, right?

A trial where guilt has been assumed, so that's not really a trial.

You don't have to crash to go to jail for DUI.

Which is harsher, prison or homeschooling?
 
Did you actually read the post? I specifically stated I do not accept the "autism" rationale.

BTW, when I was a kid the only vaccine I got was for polio. I got several of the normal childhood diseases. Like 99% of all kids who did, I survived each one will no ill effects, and retain natural immunity to all of them.


Do you? Have you tried exposing yourself to those diseases?
 
Actually I do, for the following reasons:

1. Homeschooling does not eliminate taxation to pay for other people's children to go to Public School.

2. Single parents would have a hard time complying.

3. Kids with medical exemptions can still go to school and cause all the problems people are citing to force this on personal exception families.

4. Enough children typically vaccinate to meet the requirements protecting all school children under "herd immunity," or did you not read the article?

Two problems. Yes, they typically do, but from what I understand in CA there have been pockets of anti-vaxers who have created regions where herd immunity isn't working. And that exposes those who would vaccinate but cannot for health reasons (i.e. the most vulnerable in the population) to diseases they would otherwise avoid.

The other problem IMO is you're making a defense of freeloading in that the anti-vaxxers are enjoying the herd immunity that others who take the small risk of vaccines provide them and the rest of their community. IMO, those parents electing not to vaccinate are just being typically selfish, self entitled Americans, nothing more. They're riding the backs of 100s of millions who have gotten vaccinated and decided not to do their part. I don't think they're entitled to make that choice AND, if the anti-vaxxers are in great enough numbers, cause a risk of a real health crisis in the public schools.
 
Did you actually read the post? I specifically stated I do not accept the "autism" rationale.

BTW, when I was a kid the only vaccine I got was for polio. I got several of the normal childhood diseases. Like 99% of all kids who did, I survived each one will no ill effects, and retain natural immunity to all of them.

here's the problem with measles :

Measles May Weaken Immune System for Up to 3 Years, Study Contends: MedlinePlus

Scientists Crack A 50-Year-Old Mystery About The Measles Vaccine : Goats and Soda : NPR

not to mention that a greater number of parents relying on herd immunity puts vaccinated kids at risk, too. vaccinate your kids or homeschool them.
 
A trial where guilt has been assumed, so that's not really a trial.

You don't have to crash to go to jail for DUI.

Which is harsher, prison or homeschooling?

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.

Do you? Have you tried exposing yourself to those diseases?

Umm, excuse me? You read the post, what exactly are you asking me here?
 
No subsidy. Subsidizing morons is not a good strategy.

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.
 
Two problems. Yes, they typically do, but from what I understand in CA there have been pockets of anti-vaxers who have created regions where herd immunity isn't working. And that exposes those who would vaccinate but cannot for health reasons (i.e. the most vulnerable in the population) to diseases they would otherwise avoid.

The other problem IMO is you're making a defense of freeloading in that the anti-vaxxers are enjoying the herd immunity that others who take the small risk of vaccines provide them and the rest of their community. IMO, those parents electing not to vaccinate are just being typically selfish, self entitled Americans, nothing more. They're riding the backs of 100s of millions who have gotten vaccinated and decided not to do their part. I don't think they're entitled to make that choice AND, if the anti-vaxxers are in great enough numbers, cause a risk of a real health crisis in the public schools.

I guess my arguments are based on my firm belief as an individual that the typical nanny-state ideology of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" should be applied as sparingly as possible, because as a "one" I don't want to be interfered with unless I am actually causing a direct harm to "the many."
 
I guess my arguments are based on my firm belief as an individual that the typical nanny-state ideology of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" should be applied as sparingly as possible, because as a "one" I don't want to be interfered with unless I am actually causing a direct harm to "the many."

OK, and I understand the issue is which side of a very gray line we fall down on. But the difference between our arguments is whether the harm is "direct" which is your standard, or very real but indirect.

Do you think the anti-vaxxers would get vaccines if they were told they had to move to a population with no herd immunity at all, where all those diseases we've all but eradicated were present in large numbers and very likely to infect their children?

My guess is nearly 100% would get the vaccines, because the risk of disease is so far greater than risk of vaccinations. And for every one who would, they're just entitled freeloaders in my view who want others to take the small risks and but still enjoy the public health benefits of the efforts of others. Frankly, if they can get away with it, it's an excellent strategy because they get the best of both worlds - herd immunity from living in a first world country without exposing their children to ANY risk of vaccines. Fine but they don't get a public education.
 
OK, and I understand the issue is which side of a very gray line we fall down on. But the difference between our arguments is whether the harm is "direct" which is your standard, or very real but indirect.

Do you think the anti-vaxxers would get vaccines if they were told they had to move to a population with no herd immunity at all, where all those diseases we've all but eradicated were present in large numbers and very likely to infect their children?

My guess is nearly 100% would get the vaccines, because the risk of disease is so far greater than risk of vaccinations. And for every one who would, they're just entitled freeloaders in my view who want others to take the small risks and but still enjoy the public health benefits of the efforts of others. Frankly, if they can get away with it, it's an excellent strategy because they get the best of both worlds - herd immunity from living in a first world country without exposing their children to ANY risk of vaccines. Fine but they don't get a public education.

Well, if you look at the article it seems to indicate that the pockets of population in California with the lowest vaccination rates causing the offset of herd immunity are located exactly where the objectors currently reside. In effect, they currently live in the areas of most "threat" and have made the conscious decision to do so.

It follows that your guess about them rushing to get vaccinations would be incorrect, or would I be wrong?
 
Well, if you look at the article it seems to indicate that the pockets of population in California with the lowest vaccination rates causing the offset of herd immunity are located exactly where the objectors currently reside. In effect, they currently live in the areas of most "threat" and have made the conscious decision to do so.

It follows that your guess about them rushing to get vaccinations would be incorrect, or would I be wrong?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom