• 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!

Vaccinations before School??

I did. And so did my kids. Its a requirement for NY college students. They are very healthy aside from soccer injuries. (Its always something, a knee, ankle etc..) I don't think vaccinations have any impact on those.

It was also mandatory for NY grade schools, high schools, etc. My kids were required to have all their vaccinations up to date before they could go to school.
 
Well, **** me. All of those awards that Jonas Salk won, the biological institute that he designed and had built - all of that was for naught, because all kids really needed to do was just wash their hands.

Hogwash.

... and don't forget the MUCH more important aspect of sewage treatment.
 
What part of 'not all vaccines work' which you posted, wasnt clear? You agreed that they dont.

What part of life aint fair for those that land on that square wasn't clear?
 
It was also mandatory for NY grade schools, high schools, etc. My kids were required to have all their vaccinations up to date before they could go to school.

Mine too.
 
But.. but.. Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey told them that vaccines are eeeeevil and they cause autism! I mean, surely a washed up playboy bunny and a mediocre "comedian" have to know more than doctors, right?

It's yet another part of the ingrained distrust of people with education that so many people in this country seem to have these days.
 
True. But that is not the protection afforded by the Constitution. But like in the other two responses, if you don't even know, which rights are protected here, you either have never thought about it or you have purposely ignored the issue. No problem with that, but either case makes it uninteresting to discuss it with you.

Except by pretending that making people vaccinate their kids is unconstitutional(which it isn't, by the way) that is the "right" you claim people have. They don't.

I'm more concerned with keeping kids safe then I am with your misinterpretation of the constitution.
 
That forced vaccinations should be illegal.

That taxes should be reduced for parents that do not vaccinate and are not allowed to send their kids to school.

That other people mind their own business...

Gee, do you think other people should "just mind their own business" when a child is being beaten/abused then? And yes, the two are morally equivalent, as both have a serious potential of placing the lives of a child or children in danger.

If anything, people who refuse to vaccinate their children should be taxed more
 
I realize your statist approach to individual rights. But you do surprise me that you might think of having read standard parables of our culture might be confused with intellectualism.

If someone's irresponsibility affects just them or just their child, that's unfortunate. When it affects hundreds of others, that's criminal. Your selfish preaching for "individual rights" is a misguided failure lacking of any intellectualism or morality.
 
You were politely asked to specify those Constitutional protections already. Now you refer to them again, without specifing which and how.

It seems that rather than explain your responses, you prefer to pretend like it's too complex to do so and so drop the discussion. That seems like an odd attitude on a discussion forum.

He's just trolling. If he had an intelligent response we'd have seen it by now.
 
Last edited:
Yes. It is also worth noting that dangerously severe allergic reactions to injectable substances start very, very fast. You'll begin to see it before you even leave the office. And your doctor will have the tools to reverse the reaction, in the vast majority of cases.

While especially extreme reactions do lead to death on extremely rare occasion (just like everything else in the world, from peanuts to aspirin), nearly all reactions can be treated on the spot.

Less severe reactions may take a couple hours, but you also would have plenty of time to get back to the doctor if need be, as the symptoms are slower and not as dangerous.

I have actually dealt with this myself. I had a cat who was severely allergic to something in vaccines. We were able to treat her immediately, and she was fine. This is the only reaction I have ever seen in any animal of any species -- it's rare. But yes, it happens. And she never got another vaccine again.

But because she was a cat and so many cats never get vaccines, she didn't benefit from herd immunity the way humans often do. And that meant I had to keep her quarantined from any other unknown cats for the rest of her life. Even if I pet a stray, I washed my hands and changed pants when I came in, because FeLuk can be caught even from saliva, and is invariably fatal once contracted.

If she'd been a human in a population of other humans, nearly all of whom were vaccinated, this wouldn't have been such a concern.

Good job avoiding what could have been a major cat-tastrophe!
 
It's yet another part of the ingrained distrust of people with education that so many people in this country seem to have these days.

I know. Sad, really, that people would rather believe Jenny McCarthy than the medical profession.
 
Parents should be able to refuse to vaccinate their children for any reason they see fit. Just like school boards are allowed to make policies to refuse acceptance of unvaccinated children.

There are many reasons not to do it, including religious reasons. The reason doesn't have to be logically satisfactory to scientists and statists. Medical procedures should always be 100% voluntary.

Anything less than that is not indicative of a free society.

Great, then the school should have the right to refuse your children's access to public services for scientific reasons. Your individual rights should not infringe on the rights of the entire population not to have to get sick and die.
 
There have been a couple vaccinations that have been brought into question with a overly slow response from the government that have contributed to this hysteria against vaccinating your children.

Get the shots.

With that said, I do not get flue shots anymore because I had 3 events where I had a extremely high fever and my body felt like a Mike Tyson punching bag for 4-5 days afterwards. I just roll the dice now.
 
Parents should be able to refuse to vaccinate their children for any reason they see fit. Just like school boards are allowed to make policies to refuse acceptance of unvaccinated children.

There are many reasons not to do it, including religious reasons. The reason doesn't have to be logically satisfactory to scientists and statists. Medical procedures should always be 100% voluntary.

Anything less than that is not indicative of a free society.

True but you also hit the other key point: that the schools should be able deny the unvaccinated kids entry.
 
History and common sense. Improved sanitation stops a fecal based disease not a vaccine. FDR got his by swimming in the Hudson with sewage strewn fecal matter...

Sorry, I've read several books on it. The vaccine stopped new cases almost in it's tracks while the environmental improvements went on.

FDR got his swimming where millions of other people swam.
 
Exact opposite Lursa. Mine is the counter to the "life should be fair to kids that vaccines dont work on and some kids cant get vaccines" argument because "that is what is best for society". :lol:

Well the results from a few decades of immunizations prove you're wrong, but you are free to believe what you want.
 
Then get vaccinated. Problem solved.
What part of 'not all vaccines work' which you posted, wasnt clear? You agreed that they dont.
What part of life aint fair for those that land on that square wasn't clear?
Because the "problem isnt solved" at all, as you implied, for those that do get sick.

So which is it? Problem solved or 'too bad, life isnt fair?'

Creating a higher risk pool is the opposite of solving the problem.
 
According to the Massachusetts Legislature, children must be vaccinated against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, and poliomyelitis before entering school unless there is some endangering reason to the child why they cannot have the vaccination. Many believe this should continue to stay a law, but in the past 20 years, this has been a question if this should stay a law as more and more parents are against vaccinating their children.

What are your thoughts?

No the law should not change. The law is based on public safety, health, facts and science.

Consult your doctor, if you child is normal and safe for vaccinations get them the vaccinations or choose not too and be negligent but at no time does the school have to let you endanger the rest of the children.

IMO its even a grey area you choosing to do that to your own child, I think it should be loosely regulated and clear limited circumstances of electing not to should be made.
 
No the law should not change. The law is based on public safety, health, facts and science.

Consult your doctor, if you child is normal and safe for vaccinations get them the vaccinations or choose not too and be negligent but at no time does the school have to let you endanger the rest of the children.

IMO its even a grey area you choosing to do that to your own child, I think it should be loosely regulated and clear limited circumstances of electing not to should be made.

That is the problem. The law is based on safety, health, facts and science. But it interferes with the protection of citizens by the Constitution in a totally general formulation. Otherwise, it's fine, if the government compensates for harm from the forced vaccination.
 
That is the problem. The law is based on safety, health, facts and science. But it interferes with the protection of citizens by the Constitution in a totally general formulation. Otherwise, it's fine, if the government compensates for harm from the forced vaccination.

No vaccine is forced. Put your kid in private school
 
Gee, do you think other people should "just mind their own business" when a child is being beaten/abused then? And yes, the two are morally equivalent, as both have a serious potential of placing the lives of a child or children in danger.

Holy Hell. No. The two are not even remotely morally equivalent. :roll:

One is intentionally causing harm and the other is not. Basic... BASIC logic.

If anything, people who refuse to vaccinate their children should be taxed more

They are being denied access to public goods. Why should they be taxed more and Superfly... a thanks for that post?
 
If someone's irresponsibility affects just them or just their child, that's unfortunate. When it affects hundreds of others, that's criminal. Your selfish preaching for "individual rights" is a misguided failure lacking of any intellectualism or morality.

So parents that send a sick kid with a cold to school are criminals?

Of course not.
 
Great, then the school should have the right to refuse your children's access to public services for scientific reasons. Your individual rights should not infringe on the rights of the entire population not to have to get sick and die.

For scientific reasons? Great!!

Prove scientifically that a disease free child has a disease and that it will spread to vaccinated children. Thank you.
 
Holy Hell. No. The two are not even remotely morally equivalent. :roll:

One is intentionally causing harm and the other is not. Basic... BASIC logic.



They are being denied access to public goods. Why should they be taxed more and Superfly... a thanks for that post?

Yes, they are. They both place your child's life at risk due to your own stupidity and ignorance.

Intentionally exposing your child to a huge host of horrific diseases is abusive, pure and simple.

They are placing their own children and other parents' children at risk. They are directly harming people, and there should definitely be a severe penalty for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom