Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

Of course. But you asked me a specific question about what is required to invoke a medical exception to vaccination such that we would let your kids into public school without the required shots. A signed form from your doctor, and not your own personal opinion is what is required.Unfortunately, many states allow other exemptions, many of which are Constitutionally unnecessary. But there are states who currently do not do this. You are free to disagree with your doctor of course. But that does not get you the relevant medical exemption. That isn't the standard people general use before the result to insult. And look, you managed to throw one here!

Really ringo?First of all, the location of the right to work as a part of the Canadian constitution pretty much settles the right/privilege issue in Canada. I believe the question is as well settled in the US. So what you have suggested, is that we change our view of rights/privilege.And now you admit that it is a suggestion that you don't defend in any way or have any opinion regarding whether the suggestion is good, but we need to break some eggs to make omelets.This level of wishy-washy is surprising even coming from you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I seriously hope that you didn't miss the intended humour in that comment.

Emotion and reason are not wholly separate things. The emotional response that I have to a sick child certainly impacts my reasoning about what I should do to prevent it from happening.

I suppose that there is a bit of estrogen interference going on here if that is what you mean but I take exception to the idea that my position isn't reasoned. If it isn't clear already, my position does not question the wisdom of vaccination so much as the wisdom of making it mandatory. Evidence of reason.First, I see a substantial difference between a disease that one has and a disease that you may contract. Secondly, I don't think that I have a right to tell anyone how they should approach their life or their death. Yes I get that their choices regarding vaccination will affect me but that is not my primary concern.Perhaps you have heard about this young aboriginal girl who recently died of something.I have no doubt that you are correct about this. A little bit of marathon reporting and a couple of sufficiently adorable victims ought to do it.I agree that taking this medicine is something that I should do and being able to make that decision is no trivial right. Certainly no more trivial than being able to sit where you like on the bus. Surrendering that right is absolutely a threat to liberty.

Yes. As I said, the right to a living should be divorced from the right to work.

So California just passed SB277, a bill that mandates vaccinations for children in order to attend daycare, public and private schools. There is quite a bit of opposition against it including my own family members. I've been getting quite an earful. There's a lot more to this than the efficacy of vaccinations back in the 50s. An emormous number are required that was never the case before, they all contain aluminum and some still contain mercury. I've been told I should see the movie "Trace Amounts" you can rent as a download.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's not true. The MMR vaccines used in the US, for example, do not contain any aluminium salts.

There is more aluminum in the foil on their heads.

I'm guessing that this information will not be helpful, but here it is nonetheless...Adjuvants and Vaccines | Vaccine Safety | CDC

quote:

---

Which vaccines contain adjuvants?
Aluminum is present in U.S. childhood vaccines that prevent hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP, Tdap) Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), human papillomavirus (HPV) and pneumococcus infection.

​

Monophosphoryl lipid A is included in one human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Cervarix.

​

Some vaccines do not contain adjuvants.

​

In some vaccines, the weakened or inactivated virus stimulates a strong immune response so no additional adjuvant is needed for it to be effective to protect against infections. In the United States, vaccines against measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, rotavirus, polio and seasonal influenza vaccines do not contain added adjuvants.

---

SB277 Brings California law on immunization in line with the immunization law in the vast majority of states. There is nothing particularly 'progressive' about the change in law.

Thank God. About time. If people do not want to vaccinate their kids they should certainly be free to not vaccinate them but only so long as they then do not insert them into public areas.People should be free to be fools as long as their foolishness does not endanger others.

That is one of the strangest responses to the dissenters. If all the Good Guys are vaccinated what is the threat of a few healthy unvaccinated ones in their midst? So far there hasn't been any threat from unvaccinated kids. Or adults for that matter, and most adults who may once have been vaccinated are no longer protected anyway so why the focus only on kids? Also, many of the people who are opposing this legislation have already had their kids vaccinated, just not up to the law's requirement of a huge number at once, such as three shots to an eight-week-old containing nine vaccines. Many parents had chosen to go on a delayed schedule so as not to overwhelm the child's system with the required schedule of 49 shots. (Nothing like what my generation had in number or potentially toxic content.) Many who are against this bill did vaccinate their kids but the kids had adverse effects so they don't want any more..You guys are defending the propaganda of the pharmaceutical companies, you know. Not the most traditionally liberal side to be on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It isn't a partisan knee-jerk reaction. It's the side that makes sense.

quote:

---

If all the Good Guys are vaccinated what is the threat of a few healthy unvaccinated ones in their midst?

---

If the number vaccinated falls too low there is a danger - to those who can't take the vaccinations or foe whom the vaccinations don't work.

quote:

---

So far there hasn't been any threat from unvaccinated kids. Or adults for that matter, and most adults who may once have been vaccinated are no longer protected anyway so why the focus only on kids?

---

You haven't heard about the measles outbreak in Disneyland ? Or the woman who recently died from the measles ? There's a threat.And surely you know how kids pick up diseases.

quote:

---

You guys are defending the propaganda of the pharmaceutical companies, you know. Not the most traditionally liberal side to be on.

---

Ahh, the "Pharma Shill gambit". No, we're defending public health. Do you think that's a bad thing ?

First, this poses a threat to babies who are too young to be vaccinated. Second, it poses a threat to people with compromised immune systems. And thirdly, it poses a threat to the unvaccinated children. Just because the parents are idiots, why should their children suffer? If the parents are Bad Guys, does that mean that their children aren't Good Guys? No. So all the Good Guys aren't vaccinated. If nutty adults could somehow unvaccinate themselves, that might have a certain justice to it. But they enjoy the protections of vaccination while putting their children at risk. The Bad Guys by and large are vaccinated: it's their children who are going to suffer.Your question represents the moral nadir of anti-vaxxer rhetoric: it tacitly assumes that so long as I've made sure that my kids are OK, it's unreasonable of me to care what happens to other people's kids; that I ought to be perfectly selfish and only care about my own. Would you apply that to anything else but vaccines? --- would you say "If you don't rape your children, what's your objection to other people practicing incestuous pedophilia?" Traditionally, liberals are on the side of the truth. And true things don't stop being true just because pharmaceutical companies agree that they're true.