• 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!

Mandatory vaccination

Should vaccines be mandatory?

  • yes

    Votes: 54 56.8%
  • no

    Votes: 36 37.9%
  • not sure

    Votes: 5 5.3%

  • Total voters
    95
I provided peer reviewed science. I provided examples of vaccines that have been taken off the market after being found to be unsafe. You ignore that evidence.. from the FDA by the way.



Yep.. and guess what.. you fall right into their category. You have founded a position not based on actual science and logic... but on your faith.. and that's a faith in government.

I am not ignoring any evidence. The instances of such harm are minuscule compared to the benefit of spectrum wide vaccination. Of course there are issues, nothing in the universe is 100% perfect..nothing. We play the odds to our advantage. That's the smart thing to do. You advocate for accepting lower odds.

I would venture to say that you have a higher chance of getting into a life changing car accident than you do from any comparable affects from a vaccine for which you are eligible to take.

The faith is in the system of scientific thought. It has nothing to do with government, although government should be informed by and act according to the best available consensus science. A concept which has been thrown into the dumpster by the current administration. Most scientists are appalled by the recent turn of political events and with good reason.
 
I am not ignoring any evidence. The instances of such harm are minuscule compared to the benefit of spectrum wide vaccination. Of course there are issues, nothing in the universe is 100% perfect..nothing. We play the odds to our advantage. That's the smart thing to do. You advocate for accepting lower odds.

I would venture to say that you have a higher chance of getting into a life changing car accident than you do from any comparable affects from a vaccine for which you are eligible to take.

The faith is in the system of scientific thought. It has nothing to do with government, although government should be informed by and act according to the best available consensus science. A concept which has been thrown into the dumpster by the current administration. Most scientists are appalled by the recent turn of political events and with good reason.

Scientific thought is not based on faith. the science is that instances of harm are not miniscule. It depends on the vaccine. Which you don't want to acknowledge.

I advocate for better odds... You advocate for lower odds based on nothing but your ignorance of the science.

I would venture to say that you have a higher chance of getting into a life changing car accident than you do from any comparable affects from a vaccine for which you are eligible to take.

AND you would have a much much higher chance of getting into a life changing accident than you do from a life changing disease because there is no mandate to be vaccinated. In fact.. you have a greater chance of being harmed by a vaccine.. than you do then being harmed because there is no mandatory vaccination.
 
Because the general public has reason to be protected from those who are not vaccinated. It's that simple.

Then get vaccinated. It is THAT simple.
 
Scientific thought is not based on faith. the science is that instances of harm are not miniscule. It depends on the vaccine. Which you don't want to acknowledge.

I advocate for better odds... You advocate for lower odds based on nothing but your ignorance of the science.

AND you would have a much much higher chance of getting into a life changing accident than you do from a life changing disease because there is no mandate to be vaccinated. In fact.. you have a greater chance of being harmed by a vaccine.. than you do then being harmed because there is no mandatory vaccination.

Which commonly administered vaccine is causing all these very dangerous reactions? It shouldn't be such a well held secret. I have recently received the Shingles vaccine, having had chickenpox as a child. I get annual flu shots. I received Prevnar 13. I had the full battery of available inoculations when I was a child. Tetanus shots. Booster shots. Nothing worse than maybe a sore arm for nearly all people is what happens.

Is my doctor ignorant of the science too? He must be according to you. Either that or he is in on another conservative conspiracy theory.

The anti-vaxxers don't want any of those protections.

It is you and those like you who are perpetuating this unwarranted fear. Your fear is not based on medical science. Just like global warming denial is not based on science.
 
Which commonly administered vaccine is causing all these very dangerous reactions? It shouldn't be such a well held secret. I have recently received the Shingles vaccine, having had chickenpox as a child. I get annual flu shots. I received Prevnar 13. I had the full battery of available inoculations when I was a child. Tetanus shots. Booster shots. Nothing worse than maybe a sore arm for nearly all people is what happens.

Is my doctor ignorant of the science too? He must be according to you. Either that or he is in on another conservative conspiracy theory.

The anti-vaxxers don't want any of those protections.

It is you and those like you who are perpetuating this unwarranted fear. Your fear is not based on medical science. Just like global warming denial is not based on science.

Currently none that I am aware of. In the past? There have been a number.

.. the issue is whether "Should Vaccines be Mandatory".

You claim YES. and you claim that "VACCINES ARE SAFE".. and that's simply not true. The science does not support that.

And therefore.. the question is.. WHO should decide whats best medically for you? A government official that has no knowledge of you and your needs and issues... or should it be a decision between you and your doctor.

Your doctor is probably very aware of the science. THATS why he has not recommend every vaccine for you. Only those that make the most sense. If you were to travel out of the country or otherwise be more at risk.. then he may/ or she.. may recommend others.

But how about you ask him/her... "should the government make the smallpox vaccination mandatory now".. I bet you a dollar to donuts if he has a clue.. he will say NO.. it should not be mandatory.

And that's because the risk benefit isn't appropriate.

That not unwarranted fear.. that understanding the best available science and using logic.

As I have stated.. the anti-vaxxer.. no vaccines ever blah blah.. is illogical and stupid...

BUT so is the "vaccines are safe and should be mandatory position".. is illogical and ignores the best available science.


So what makes the most sense? You know what the science says would happen if we got rid of the Mandatory vaccine? THERE WOULD BE NO INCREASE IN RISK OF DISEASE.. and why? Because people in general are smart and responsible and can make good decisions with their physicians. And it will allow those people that are at risk for a reaction or bad reaction. to decide with their physician not to put themselves or their children at risk. And yep it would allow the anti vaxxer crowd to not vaccinate.. so what? those two populations together are so statistically small that there would be no additional risk. Especially when you consider that the mandate is ONLY for school children in public school.. AND that even being vaccinated doesn't confer 100% immunity.

In addition.. removal of the mandatory requirements decrease the risk of a politician who is being lobbied heavily by a pharma company to simply order a mandatory vaccine simply to keep his donors happy.. regardless of the need or science or risks.

I favor a system where people have personal choice and are at less risk.

You favor a system that mandates peoples heathcare procedures and puts people at more risk.
 
Currently none that I am aware of. In the past? There have been a number.

.. the issue is whether "Should Vaccines be Mandatory".

You claim YES. and you claim that "VACCINES ARE SAFE".. and that's simply not true. The science does not support that.

And therefore.. the question is.. WHO should decide whats best medically for you? A government official that has no knowledge of you and your needs and issues... or should it be a decision between you and your doctor.

Your doctor is probably very aware of the science. THATS why he has not recommend every vaccine for you. Only those that make the most sense. If you were to travel out of the country or otherwise be more at risk.. then he may/ or she.. may recommend others.

But how about you ask him/her... "should the government make the smallpox vaccination mandatory now".. I bet you a dollar to donuts if he has a clue.. he will say NO.. it should not be mandatory.

And that's because the risk benefit isn't appropriate.

That not unwarranted fear.. that understanding the best available science and using logic.

As I have stated.. the anti-vaxxer.. no vaccines ever blah blah.. is illogical and stupid...

BUT so is the "vaccines are safe and should be mandatory position".. is illogical and ignores the best available science.


So what makes the most sense? You know what the science says would happen if we got rid of the Mandatory vaccine? THERE WOULD BE NO INCREASE IN RISK OF DISEASE.. and why? Because people in general are smart and responsible and can make good decisions with their physicians. And it will allow those people that are at risk for a reaction or bad reaction. to decide with their physician not to put themselves or their children at risk. And yep it would allow the anti vaxxer crowd to not vaccinate.. so what? those two populations together are so statistically small that there would be no additional risk. Especially when you consider that the mandate is ONLY for school children in public school.. AND that even being vaccinated doesn't confer 100% immunity.

In addition.. removal of the mandatory requirements decrease the risk of a politician who is being lobbied heavily by a pharma company to simply order a mandatory vaccine simply to keep his donors happy.. regardless of the need or science or risks.

I favor a system where people have personal choice and are at less risk.

You favor a system that mandates peoples heathcare procedures and puts people at more risk.

As I have stated numerous times, I do not think vaccines should be mandated by the government. That is not my position. The doctor patient relationship IS the determining factor and should remain so.

I do support the option for organizations and institutions to mandate vaccination with special exclusions permissible. That's the way it is done in public schools and is the way I would prefer it to remain.

The people who according to their doctor should not receive a particular inoculation should not be mandated to do so. I can't imagine that being the case, and no one is arguing for such a situation.

I stand by the rigorous scientific study which endorses the use of particular vaccines. Those vaccines are safe within known limits uncertainty. They pass clinical trials. Are they 100% certain to be without harmful side affects in all cases? Of course not. Nothing is.

You seem to understand the argument of the anti-vaxxers to be irrational. We are on the same page with regard to them.

We are on the same page with regard to government mandate of vaccines. It can not be a law that you must vaccinate, however there can and should be secondary consequences for not doing so, because other people are tangentially involved in the decisions you make for yourself and your children.
 
Then get vaccinated. It is THAT simple.

Not everyone CAN get vaccinated and vaccines are not 100% effective. So it's not that simple. Disease spreads for a know reason. How can you argue that you should be permitted to willingly subject other people to the potential consequence of your negligence?
 
Not everyone CAN get vaccinated and vaccines are not 100% effective. So it's not that simple. Disease spreads for a know reason. How can you argue that you should be permitted to willingly subject other people to the potential consequence of your negligence?

A person who chooses to not be vaccinated wont spread a disease that they dont have any more than one that cant get vaccinated. I know logic is not going to work when people are having emotional hissy fits though...
 
A person who chooses to not be vaccinated wont spread a disease that they dont have any more than one that cant get vaccinated. I know logic is not going to work when people are having emotional hissy fits though...

The diseases which are essentially eliminated from 1st world countries still exist in the world. People move about, they travel and some of them get infected with those diseases. They bring it back, sometimes unknowingly to them.

When you use logic which doesn't account for all the relevant information, the logic may be valid, but the conclusion may be wrong. That's what you are doing.

I am fine with the personal liberty argument alone as the justification for not mandating vaccination, but please don't try to argue the epidemiology. It makes you a science denier.
 
When you use logic which doesn't account for all the relevant information, the logic may be valid, but the conclusion may be wrong. That's what you are doing

I am doing what you are doing, actually.




please don't try to argue the epidemiology. It makes you a science denier.

this is the type of conclusion that makes rational discussion almost impossible.
 
I have every right to catch smallpox and/or polio, and spread it to your children, if I want to. None of the government's business. [/sarcasm]
 
I have every right to catch smallpox and/or polio, and spread it to your children, if I want to. None of the government's business. [/sarcasm]

I agreed with you until the last word...
 
I agreed with you until the last word...

Are you trying to be contradictory just for the sake of argument? None of the governments business? I am the government in this country and it is my business if you intentionally or negligently inflict harm on me or others like me, which are all the other citizens of this country.
 
I am doing what you are doing, actually.






this is the type of conclusion that makes rational discussion almost impossible.

What you are doing is not what I am doing. I am acting based on favorable odds. You refuse to act regardless of the odds.
 
the fact of the matter is that the discussion on this board is WHETHER VACCINATIONS SHOULD BE MANDATORY... and that's the premise we have been working around. Whether its right to require my child to be vaccinated to go to school.

The fact of the matter is that YOU have equated school's requiring their students be vaccinated with vaccinations being mandatory. So that's the premise we've been discussing. Don't come at me with your little red herrings because your argument falls apart. There is no law that I'm aware of forcing you to vaccinate. If you don't vaccinate your kids, the government doesn't come and throw you in jail or fine you or make you where a sweater with a scarlet S on it.

And as it relates to school, what I said stands. Some require vaccinations, not all, not even all Public Schools. And even in those that "require" it, they have many exemptions outside of medical reasons. There are all sorts of ways around it. But the SCOTUS did rule that a school can require vaccinations, so it's on them. You have the freedom to choose public, private, or homeschool and within each of those is a multitude of variance to accommodate your decisions. But don't expect everyone to kowtow to you just because you want to choose something that can jeopardize the health of others and they are put off by that.

Define exactly what that medical exemptions is.

Exemptions made by a medical professional. For example, if a doctor examines family history and determines that particular vaccinations have a higher risk of severe reaction. Or if someone had a vaccine with a severe reaction and recovered from it, the doctor may exempt that individual from all future vaccinations. There's likely a plethora of data and reasons that a doctor would warn against vaccinations or where it becomes apparent that vaccinations can result in severe reaction.

I have a patient whose child was vaccinated with the MMR. the next day. he suffered a fever. A day later he was in the hospital with paresis of his legs and signs of meningitis. He survived and now has leg paresis and has to wear braces on his legs because of foot drop. that was over a year ago.

The CDC.. have investigated and the findings are "inconclusive".

This woman has a younger son... should they be vaccinated? Would YOU make that determination for her? I won't and I am a provider.

Why do you think you should be able to make that determination for her?

Inconclusive would mean that they couldn't directly link the vaccination to what happened. It could have been coincidental as well. Not many people like to consider that possibility because it's not satisfying. If something goes wrong, they want a definitive reason as to why and they will make sure there is one, whether it's the actual cause or not.

I think that a doctor should examine the personal and family medical history and make an informed choice as to the course for vaccinations.
 
I am the government in this country and .

You are the government?

it is my business if you intentionally or negligently inflict harm on me or others like me, which are all the other citizens of this country

Dude... for ****s sake. A person that does not get vaccinated and gets a disease and that disease is passed to another is not "INTENTIONALLY INFLICTING HARM" on anybody.

None of the governments business?

Correct...

What you are doing is not what I am doing. I am acting based on favorable odds. You refuse to act regardless of the odds.

Why do you keep arguing this with me... I support vaccinations. :roll:
 
You are the government?

The citizens of the U.S. are the government. We are a self governed people. We elect people to office who represent US. I vote for people who most closely align with me on the issues.

Dude... for ****s sake. A person that does not get vaccinated and gets a disease and that disease is passed to another is not "INTENTIONALLY INFLICTING HARM" on anybody.

That's like saying a drunk driver did not intentionally harm or kill someone is an accident. They did by their negligence, or selfish disregard for the welfare of others.


Why do you keep arguing this with me... I support vaccinations. :roll:

You support vaccinations for yourself only. You also support the negligence of people who will not vaccinate when there is no scientifically or medically valid reason not to. It may be their right not to, for whatever concocted reason they choose, but their decision is not supportable by the evidence..they make a poor choice which can negatively impact others. You agree that it is wise to vaccinate...when they don't and they are no different from you how can their decision also be wise?
 
Last edited:
The fact of the matter is that YOU have equated school's requiring their students be vaccinated with vaccinations being mandatory. So that's the premise we've been discussing. Don't come at me with your little red herrings because your argument falls apart. There is no law that I'm aware of forcing you to vaccinate. If you don't vaccinate your kids, the government doesn't come and throw you in jail or fine you or make you where a sweater with a scarlet S on it.

And as it relates to school, what I said stands. Some require vaccinations, not all, not even all Public Schools. And even in those that "require" it, they have many exemptions outside of medical reasons. There are all sorts of ways around it. But the SCOTUS did rule that a school can require vaccinations, so it's on them. You have the freedom to choose public, private, or homeschool and within each of those is a multitude of variance to accommodate your decisions. But don't expect everyone to kowtow to you just because you want to choose something that can jeopardize the health of others and they are put off by that. .

Its not a matter of anyone kowtowing. Its a matter of freedom. You wish to have the government make the medical decisions for people. Sorry.. but school is compulsory.. and if public school is your only real option because of your finances.. then a government mandate to have vaccination to go to school means that vaccinations are mandatory. there is really no getting around that fact.

And your justification is what? "jeopardizing the health of others"...

Except that's not the case... who am I jeopardizing? not you.. if you chose to vaccinate and certainly not those that cannot vaccinate because the number of people that would choose not to vaccinate is not significant enough to jeopardize the population.

the reality is that you are placing more people at risk by having a government official make the medical decisions for the family.

Exemptions made by a medical professional. For example, if a doctor examines family history and determines that particular vaccinations have a higher risk of severe reaction. Or if someone had a vaccine with a severe reaction and recovered from it, the doctor may exempt that individual from all future vaccinations. There's likely a plethora of data and reasons that a doctor would warn against vaccinations or where it becomes apparent that vaccinations can result in severe reaction.

And what criteria are they to use to make that "higher risk"... 10%.. 5%.. 1%... ? Like I stated. I am unsure of what to tell my patients family.

Inconclusive would mean that they couldn't directly link the vaccination to what happened. It could have been coincidental as well. Not many people like to consider that possibility because it's not satisfying. If something goes wrong, they want a definitive reason as to why and they will make sure there is one, whether it's the actual cause or not.

I think that a doctor should examine the personal and family medical history and make an informed choice as to the course for vaccinations.

they have.. the medical professions are not willing to make the choice for the family because there is no clear risk benefit ratio. Its an unknown.. the medical professionals think that it should be left up to the mother.

Why do you think that the government should force the physicians to make the decision for her?
 
The citizens of the U.S. are the government. We are a self governed people. We elect people to office who represent US. I vote for people who most closely align with me on the issues.



That's like saying a drunk driver did not intentionally harm or kill someone is an accident. They did by their negligence, or selfish disregard for the welfare of others.




You support vaccinations for yourself only. You also support the negligence of people who will not vaccinate when there is no scientifically or medically valid reason not to. It may be their right not to, for whatever concocted reason they choose, but their decision is not supportable by the evidence..they make a poor choice which can negatively impact others. You agree that it is wise to vaccinate...when they don't and they are no different from you how can their decision also be wise?

It is nothing... and I mean NOTHING, like drunk driving. That analogy is horrible. Drunk drivers are DRUNK... they have the disease, so to speak. An unvaccinated person that does not have the disease will not infect anybody...
 
It is nothing... and I mean NOTHING, like drunk driving. That analogy is horrible. Drunk drivers are DRUNK... they have the disease, so to speak. An unvaccinated person that does not have the disease will not infect anybody...

What about an unvaccinated person who does have the disease? Can they infect anyone? They can be contagious without even being aware of it.

It is exactly like drunk driving. Both are behaving negligently with disregard for the consequences to others resulting from their poor, selfish choices. What about the yahoos who fire a gun into the sky without regard for where that bullet may land?

When you catch the flu, SOMEONE GAVE IT TO YOU. We can for the most part prevent that from happening for many diseases. Those who will not vaccinate don't care if they give it to you. They only care about themselves.
 
What about an unvaccinated person who does have the disease? Can they infect anyone? They can be contagious without even being aware of it.

It is exactly like drunk driving. Both are behaving negligently with disregard for the consequences to others resulting from their poor, selfish choices. What about the yahoos who fire a gun into the sky without regard for where that bullet may land?

When you catch the flu, SOMEONE GAVE IT TO YOU. We can for the most part prevent that from happening for many diseases. Those who will not vaccinate don't care if they give it to you. They only care about themselves.

OK then... :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom