• 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 schools be allowed to refuse admission to unimmunized children?

Excon said:
Your comment is as asinine as it is wrong headed. Wishing ill will on others is a childish comment.

Good is subjective. You do not decide for others what is or isn't good.
You can say you recommend it.
You can say you think it is good.
You can even say it is beneficial.
But you do not decide for others what is or isn't good.



:lamo
That is not the way it works unless your child remains unimmunized.
And that child can be infected from one who was immunized as well.
Click to expand...

You are clearly unfit to be a parent if you are willing to put them and other children at risk. Facts are not opinions, there are no downsides to getting your child vaccinated, all you are doing is putting your child and others at risk.
 
Excon said:
The only ones health really being risked are those who did not get vaccinated, which is the risk that was accepted.
Click to expand...
Vaccines have dramatically reduced the number of people who get infectious diseases and the complications these diseases produce, the viruses and bacteria that cause vaccine-preventable diseases and death still exist. Without vaccines, epidemics of vaccine-preventable diseases would return. From the CDC
Prior to vaccination, between 13,000 and 20,000 polio cases of paralytic poliomyelitis were reported each year in the United States.

In 1996, because of a global effort to eliminate the disease through vaccination, there were only 3,500 documented cases of polio in the world. Wild polioviruses have been eliminated in the entire Western Hemisphere.

If we were to discontinue polio vaccination in the United States, immunity to polio would decline, leading to the risk of polio epidemics similar to those that occurred in the past.
Click to expand...
Before measles immunizations were available, nearly everyone in the United States got measles. There were about 3-4 million cases each year. An average of 450 measles-associated deaths were reported each year between 1953 and 1963.

In industrialized countries, up to 20 percent of people with measles are hospitalized, and 7-9 percent suffer from complications such as pneumonia, diarrhea or ear infections. Some people with measles develop encephalitis, and 1:1,000 people with measles die.

Widespread use of the vaccine has led to >95 percent reduction in measles.

Measles still occurs throughout the world, and is frequently imported into the United States. In 1995, there were 1.1 million deaths worldwide from measles. If vaccinations were stopped, 2.7 million deaths could be expected.

Stopping measles vaccination would probably lead to massive epidemics similar to those that occurred in the pre-vaccine era. Between 1989 and 1991, the number of reported measles cases rose sharply, with >55,000 cases, 11,000 hospitalizations and 120 deaths reported. The major cause of the outbreak was low rates of vaccination among preschool children.
Click to expand...
Not immunizing children is bad parenting
 
Carjosse said:
You are clearly unfit to be a parent if you are willing to put them and other children at risk. Facts are not opinions, there are no downsides to getting your child vaccinated, all you are doing is putting your child and others at risk.
Click to expand...
As you were already told. You do not decided for others what is good and what is not.
Learn that, as that is fact, not opinion.


Again.

Good is subjective. You do not decide for others what is or isn't good.
You can say you recommend it.
You can say you think it is good.
You can even say it is beneficial.
But you do not decide for others what is or isn't good.​

And stop with the foolish disparagement, especially as you clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about.
 
HenryChinaski said:
The only ones health really being risked are those who did not get vaccinated, which is the risk that was accepted.
Click to expand...
Vaccines have dramatically reduced the number of people who get infectious diseases and the complications these diseases produce, the viruses and bacteria that cause vaccine-preventable diseases and death still exist. Without vaccines, epidemics of vaccine-preventable diseases would return. From the CDC
Click to expand...
iLOL Like no ****, but that doesn't refute what I said.



HenryChinaski said:
Not immunizing children is bad parenting
Click to expand...
:lamo
That is your opinion. Their opinion is that immunizing is bad parenting.
 
Excon said:
As you were already told. You do not decided for others what is good and what is not.
Learn that, as that is fact, not opinion.


Again.

Good is subjective. You do not decide for others what is or isn't good.
You can say you recommend it.
You can say you think it is good.
You can even say it is beneficial.
But you do not decide for others what is or isn't good.​

And stop with the foolish disparagement, especially as you clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

How is stopping the spread of and elimination of harmful diseases, and protecting not only yourself but others not objectively good?
 
Excon said:
iLOL Like no ****, but that doesn't refute what I said.



:lamo
That is your opinion. Their opinion is that immunizing is bad parenting.
Click to expand...

Whether you like it or not by not vaccinating your child you are putting your child an others at risk, that is fact.
 
Excon said:
iLOL Like no ****, but that doesn't refute what I said.



:lamo
That is your opinion. Their opinion is that immunizing is bad parenting.
Click to expand...

You're that guy that always argues the opposite for the sake of arguing the opposite. "Water is wet" "No it's not" "Yes it is" "No it's not". You do it to be different. The CDC and reality disagrees with your nonsense.
 
katzgar said:
Your posting ignorance just stop
Click to expand...

Stop projecting.

Unlike you, nothing I said was based in ignorance.




independentusa said:
Do you have any understanding on how vacines work. If you did you would realize that vacinated children aren't carriers. Their bodies kill any disease they are vacinated for.
Click to expand...
Who are you speaking to, yourself?
Apparently so, as that simply isn't true.
Vaccinated people can be carriers.




RAMOSS said:
Except, of course, there are the people who because of compromised immune systems can NOT be immunized, and there is 'at home' younger siblings that are too young to be immunized yet.
Click to expand...
I see no such "except".

In all such instances of the above, the rates of infection are low.

Compromised immune systems? Two different categories here, known and unknown.
If known the person would not likely be attending school or having much contact with anyone.
And yes even family members can have compromised immune systems and be infected by the ir vaccinated child, yet still, the rates of infection are low.


Here is a suggestion/solution for the majority of those who do not want to get vaccinations.
The gov should listen to the complaints and require the pharmaceutical companies to revise/redevelop their vaccination formulas to remove the offending substances.
If they do that, the majority of those objecting would have no reason to object.​




Lord Tammerlain said:
It is at the core of the arguments you made
Click to expand...
No it is not.
It is irrelevant to the ideology that choice is paramount and Government force verboten.


Lord Tammerlain said:
Exposure for minor ones sure. But some are rather serious and exposure can lead to life long health issues or death. Would you want anyone to be exposed to Polio or other similar diseases when a simple vaccine could prevent it?
Click to expand...
What I want is irrelevant. But I am more than fine with choice and any possible consequences, you know, because that is what freedom is all about.


Lord Tammerlain said:
Those children with suppressed immune systems can go to schools with high immunization rates and be relatively safe from catching a disease. At a school with low immunization rates they can not take the risk and would have to stay home.
Click to expand...
Which should be for that parent to decide.


Lord Tammerlain said:
If the immunization rates drop, the risks for everyone increase not just the singular non vaccinated student. So yes students without a medical reason should be required to be vaccinated to attend public school
Click to expand...
No. The rates for the unimmunized increase, not the immunized. The rate that the immunized are susceptible is low.
When it comes to a mutation that the vaccination does cover they are all at the same statistical risk.


Here is a suggestion/solution for the majority of those who do not want to get vaccinations.
The gov should listen to the complaints and require the pharmaceutical companies to revise/redevelop their vaccination formulas to remove the offending substances.
If they do that, the majority of those objecting would have no reason to object.​
 
Ikari said:
That same risk exists regardless if the other children are immunized or not.

The greater risk is still to those who are not immunized.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean that the choice is made in a bubble and affects no one else. It does effect others,
Click to expand...
The argument "It does effect others", is incorrect.
It may have an effect on others. Those number are very small though.


Ikari said:
, and if it aggregates high enough we lose the herd immunization effects.
Click to expand...
Of course, the less that are immunized the more there will be who become infected because they remain unimmunized.


Ikari said:
Because of this, I think it's reasonable for public schools to have to require proper immunization barring medical exemption.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong here.
Personally I am all for vaccination/immunization and even recommend it. I am just for freedom from government force on this issue. The government should not have such power over citizens as a whole, regardless of it's benefits. (Citizens as a whole, not government employees.)
Such freedom necessitates freedom of choice.

And as it is, there are not that many (in relation to the whole), who are choosing not to get their children immunized/vaccinated.


Here is a suggestion/solution for the majority of those who do not want to get vaccinations.
The gov should listen to the complaints and require the pharmaceutical companies to revise/redevelop their vaccination formulas to remove the offending substances.
If they do that, the majority of those objecting would have no reason to object.​
 
HenryChinaski said:
You're that guy that always argues the opposite for the sake of arguing the opposite. "Water is wet" "No it's not" "Yes it is" "No it's not". You do it to be different. The CDC and reality disagrees with your nonsense.
Click to expand...
No. I do not argue for the sake of arguing the opposite, not my bag of tea. I argue specific arguments. In this case it was two specifics.
Government force is wrong because it does not equal freedom, and that the one who is at greater risk is the unimmunized.
Both of which, as already pointed out, have nothing to do with how I would personally choose or advocate.

The CDC? Hilarious.
1. Argument from authority. A logical fallacy.
2. The CDC is the government. What they think is irrelevant to the freedom/force argument made.
3. What they think also aligns with the other argument made. The unimmunized are at a greater risk.


Here is a suggestion/solution for the majority of those who do not want to get vaccinations.
The gov should listen to the complaints and require the pharmaceutical companies to revise/redevelop their vaccination formulas to remove the offending substances.
If they do that, the majority of those objecting would have no reason to object.​




Carjosse said:
How is stopping the spread of and elimination of harmful diseases, and protecting not only yourself but others not objectively good?
Click to expand...

iLOL
Good is a subjective term, beneficial is not.
Learn this.

Some folks believe that force is not "good" regardless of "benefit".


Carjosse said:
Whether you like it or not by not vaccinating your child you are putting your child an others at risk, that is fact.
Click to expand...
Why are you repeating back to me an argument I have made from the start? Do you really not know the position I have taken?

Here, let me help you out.

Excon said:
The unimmunized child is the one at risk of catching the disease,
Click to expand...
Excon said:
Those at a greater risk are not those who are immunized.
Click to expand...
Excon said:
Refusing immunizations puts the child at risk.
Click to expand...

Do you need more?

The unvaccinated/unimmunized are at a greater risk.


Here is a suggestion/solution for the majority of those who do not want to get vaccinations.
The gov should listen to the complaints and require the pharmaceutical companies to revise/redevelop their vaccination formulas to remove the offending substances.
If they do that, the majority of those objecting would have no reason to object.​
 
Carjosse said:
I hope you do not have children because you deserve to have them taken away. The only good reason to not get a vaccination is when the child physically is not able to. Give me one reason why child should not be vaccinated.
Click to expand...

the person's religion is opposed to such medical actions

what did i win?
 
Carjosse said:
Your rights end where mine begins, you do not have a right to infect other children with your child's diseases because of your stupid decisions.
Click to expand...

does that child with AIDS place your student/child at risk
that does not mean that AIDS afflicted child should be denied a public education
 
Carjosse said:
Whether you like it or not by not vaccinating your child you are putting your child an others at risk, that is fact.
Click to expand...

Not avoiding a risk is not creating a risk.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Vaccines have dramatically reduced the number of people who get infectious diseases and the complications these diseases produce, the viruses and bacteria that cause vaccine-preventable diseases and death still exist. Without vaccines, epidemics of vaccine-preventable diseases would return. From the CDC Not immunizing children is bad parenting
Click to expand...

that portion of your post is absolutely accurate

however, it is not unlawful to be a bad/stupid/ignorant parent
 
People do have the freedom to refuse, but freedom often comes at a price. If you want the freedom, you have to pay the price. The freedom to refuse getting the shots should be that you can't ake your children where others can catch the diseases you should be immunized against. And just for your info the shots we are talking about have been all "cleaned" up. Parents still read the fake news about the shots and believe.
 
It is in this situation. You cause a risk to others.
 
Henrin said:
Not avoiding a risk is not creating a risk.
Click to expand...

The unvaccinated child is at greater risk of injury or death, and increases the risk for those around them who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
 
Henrin said:
Not avoiding a risk is not creating a risk.
Click to expand...

You are not avoiding a risk by not vaccinating. You can only claim so IF you are proven allergic to the vaccine...in which case you would be allowed in the school AND you would be the individual the school would be concerned about protecting.

The school has a legitimate public interest in protecting their students. You do not. The school has liability if it allows unvaccinated children in. That is a risk. And that is why this is not "creating a risk," but avoiding it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Every kid has the right to an education, regardless of their parents or anyone else beliefs. But schools should implement a keep your child home when they are sick policy. Schools are germ factories and they spread illness through a population faster than paper money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom