posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 05:37 PM
I don't have kids, but if I did I would get them vaccinated. I had all my vaccinations...you know, the basics: worms, parvovirus, etc. Now stick with
me here, because the following sentence might take some concentration. I am willing to bet that if some child were forced into a vaccination and some
adverse reaction caused them to die, the parents whose child would have gotten sick had the dead child not been forced to vaccinate would care about
the dead child about as much as the dead child's parents would have cared about some other children getting sick, had their child not died of course.
So parents want other children to vaccinate, not caring whether vaccinations are 100% safe. If some other child gets sick, too bad, as long as their
child doesn't get sick. Selfish in my opinion, because they care nothing about the children who will suffer extremely negative reactions. If vaccines
were 100% safe that would be one thing, but unfortunately this is not the case where certain vaccines are concerned. Some vaccines are safer than
others essentially, and it just depends on which one we are referring to in particular.
However, with all that said, a parent should realize that if their child is not vaccinated then that means they are susceptible to certain diseases.
Thus these children should not be allowed to interact with other children, if only to keep their child from getting sick. And a parent whose child
cannot have a vaccination should also keep their child from interacting with other children until they are old enough or healthy enough to get
vaccinated. That is what I would do anyway, considering I would not make a bet as to whether someone beyond my control is vaccinated.
And yes, people should be able to determine what they put in their bodies. But this is not the main issue. The main issue, as the person who made the
driving on the wrong side of the road analogy pointed out, is which laws are acceptable and which are not. Forced vaccinations are a necessity. They
keep the majority of the population healthy. But as I said, I think the true numbers regarding adverse effects should be put out their for consumption
and debate. I do not want the government to say these vaccinations are 100% safe for instance, if this is not the case. But with that said, the
chances of a negative reaction are probably pretty slim, while the chances of contracting the illness from not being vaccinated is higher. So it is a
numbers game. Now if the vaccination is for something that is not life-threatening, then I think this makes a difference as well. If it simply makes a
child sick, and there is a chance of the vaccination being harmful, then I don't think vaccinations should be forced. Essentially it is saying that
the majority must vaccinate to protect the minority, or those children who might die if the catch a disease that is not fatal in healthy children, but
is fatal if a certain condition is present. But again it depends upon both the efficacy and the chance of a negative reaction in healthy children,
compared with the efficacy and chance of a negative reaction in those children who cannot get vaccinations.
As far as illicit substances are concerned, people should also be able to determine what they consume. Yet part of the problem is the fact that people
are not thinking clearly when using certain substances. They say addiction is a disease, and whether this is true or not, the fact of the matter is
that a person who is addicted will not be making a conscious choice over whether or not to use a substance, but instead will be chemically driven to
usage of the substance. As far as public assistance and not wanting your tax dollars to be used for the bad decisions of someone else, EVERY public
assistance program has people who are there because of their choices. It is not as if drug use would be the only reason someone needs assistance.
Other bad choices could land someone in a similar position, where they need assistance. The issue there is law, and what types of people are being
helped, not what people choose to put in their bodies, at least in my opinion. And then there is the fact that not all drug users are on public
assistance. A significant portion of users contribute to society, they have jobs, pay taxes, etc...I think focusing on your tax dollars being used for
drug addicts, while ignoring the mass-wasting of money by the federal government, would also be ridiculous. Meaning that the main focus should be on
the billions going overseas to other nations, monies being spent on useless wars to make a minority rich, etc., is where focus should be.
The public assistance programs have actually been shown to be the best course of action for a nation as well. Those countries who have used public
monies to get addicts on their feet actually save money in the long run, and the economy and nation as a whole will benefit. So nobody should be
concerned about their tax dollars being spent on such things, unless the programs being used are ineffective, in which case they should be altered,
abolished, or new ones added.