Why do you care what she/he puts in their body?!

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.

It is because everyone thinks they are important.

Everyone thinks that their voice should be heard.

Politically correctness is killing our society.

I've been giving this matter some thought having seen a couple of recent threads on here. It's been quite an eye-opener to see how belligerent people can become just by discussing what they or others choose to eat or not eat.

I actually don't care what other people consume or don't consume although if someone asks or shows an interest in members' opinions I'll say why I do or don't consume this or that in case my experience is helpful to someone else.

But, just try ever starting a sentence with the words 'I don't...' and see how fast people are prepared to jump on you. They just get so defensive and leap to the conclusion that just because you don't do something or consume something then you are somehow accusing them of wrong-doing if they actually do that thing.

As if just because you don't, you think everyone else shouldn't either.

How does it makes sense to get aggressive with someone who has given some thought to a matter and decided to refrain form indulging in a particular activity? How is it fair to immediately accuse that person of hypocrisy if one can find something else that they do that one doesn't approve of? Or if one considers that an inconsistency has been discovered?

No-one can be perfect and yet some people are being shouted down just for trying to be a better person and trying to make a good difference to the world. Many of us here deplore the behaviour of humanity in general so why pick on a person who tries to behave in a way that they think is more befitting?

Some people really do accept that others can make their own decisions about what is right or wrong and can tolerate a difference of opinion without being subjected to loud justifications and accusations of being holier than thou.

I don't want to see anyone criminalised for taking particular substances because I do believe what a person puts into their own body is their own business. There are a lot of things that we'd be ill-advised to consume but it's not illegal to consume them. All I'd ask is that anyone under the influence refrains from driving or otherwise making a nuisance of themselves to the rest of us. That seems fair to me and no more than I'd ask of someone who wanted to drink alcohol.

On the subject of vaccines and medication - I'd just say that so long as a person reserves their own right to refuse any sort of vaccine or treatment that they didn't fancy then it would seem like a good idea to respect the rights of others to refuse what seems unsafe or unnecessary to them.

I care because I'd like to see our society healthier, happy and with less chronic or easily preventable illnesses. I care because close to 40% of my wages are lost in taxes, some of which go towards medical care for people that made bad lifestyle choices, such as becoming obsese from too much junk food, needing lung transplants after a life of chain smoking, or picking up easily preventable diseases such as measles and whooping cough. I care because when I have to catch the train to work every morning, I want to be able to sit comfortably in my seat without having to squish together and become more closely acquainted with my new travel buddy than I'd like, and without needing to worry about whether I'll pick up some contagious disease from someone in the carriage who thought they were too good for that yellow fever shot before they went to south-east asia during monsoon season. I care because I take my time to education myself on topics before I go off on a rant, and it makes my blood boil to see ill-informed or uneducated people blowing hot air about things they haven't properly researched themselves, other than what they see on anti-vaccination websites.

originally posted by: hearows
a reply to: imnotanother

The foundational elements in your position are in direct controversy with prevailing scientific fact and most direct interpretations of the constitution. I'm a big fan of both.

I'm a big fan of the Constitution too. And science. Real science. Scientists? Not so much. We humans -- including scientists -- are imperfect beings simply trying to understand an entire universe with its many variables who often tell half-truths and mis-truths and sometimes outright lies, based on their own ignorance and biases, especially where money and power are involved.

But I obviously missed something in the Constitution. Do tell... where in the Constitution does it give the government authority to inject anything into my body... especially for someone else's benefit? It doesn't, and any interpretation that says it does is completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the 4th Amendment does guarantee our right to be secure in our person, and the 9th Amendment guarantees ALL RIGHTS to the people that are not SPECIFICALLY granted to the government.

So, again, please show me where in the Constitution it gives anyone the authority to inject my body with anything. Perhaps you can point me in the direction of a SCOTUS decision declaring the same? SCOTUS is, after all, the sole judge of Constitutional interpretation, correct?

I'm also a big fan of Natural Law and Natural Rights, the heart and soul of our Constitution. Perhaps you can tell me how forcing injections of diseases into healthy people for someone else's perceived good is acceptable within Natural Law?

And then perhaps you can tell me how we can trust a profit-motivated industry which has been caught numerous times in fraudulent practices can be trusted explicitly to always provide a quality product to ensure the health of the victim -- oops! I meant patient, of course -- will not and cannot be negatively impacted?

originally posted by: LordGoofus
I care because I'd like to see our society healthier, happy and with less chronic or easily preventable illnesses. I care because close to 40% of my wages are lost in taxes, some of which go towards medical care for people that made bad lifestyle choices, such as becoming obsese from too much junk food, needing lung transplants after a life of chain smoking, or picking up easily preventable diseases such as measles and whooping cough. I care because when I have to catch the train to work every morning, I want to be able to sit comfortably in my seat without having to squish together and become more closely acquainted with my new travel buddy than I'd like, and without needing to worry about whether I'll pick up some contagious disease from someone in the carriage who thought they were too good for that yellow fever shot before they went to south-east asia during monsoon season. I care because I take my time to education myself on topics before I go off on a rant, and it makes my blood boil to see ill-informed or uneducated people blowing hot air about things they haven't properly researched themselves, other than what they see on anti-vaccination websites.

It is not your business or your decision on what other individual puts in their body. You are not doing yourself or anyone else a favor by judging them, especially on the internet.
In your "caring", all of your reasons are very selfish. You say you want to see your society happy and healthier with less diseases. Do you get your blood boiling over the amount of toxic chemicals that are dumped into the oceans/rivers/lakes every day? Do you get upset about GMO foods? Biochemical Warfare? Pesticides? Medical Accidents that cause death?
Because maybe you should start there because your tax money most likely goes to supporting the continuation of one of the above.

As for me, I might be wrong in assuming that you are directing your comments about individuals being "ill-informed or uneducated" and simply mimicking another person's feelings from a "anti-vaccination site. But still to instantly assume that must be the the scenario is a bad choice by you. I care about my children. If I was a good sheep and in the herd, my kids would have 49 chances of dying or becoming brain damaged by the age of 6. Those are known side effects to receiving a vaccine. I am not going to assume the responsibility of killing my kids when they might not want that shot. I was fully vaccinated but NOT by MY choice.
It is your choice to take those 49 chances in the first 6 years and I really hope everything goes fine and smoothly and we can have that healthier future.
Until then, I will raise my vegetarian children (whom have never been sick) and teach them to be kind to the planet and everything that inhabits it.

a reply to: hearows

Actually, I don't think you pinpointed humanity very well--absolutely, if contracting an illness were as safe as the vaccine, people would still get the vaccine. Humanity, as a species, is rightly opposed to suffering, and contracting the illness would cause suffering when compared to the vaccine. That's the reason people get the flu shot if they prefer--it's not to protect society via herd immunity, as I've heard claimed before, but it's because they don't want to suffer through the flu.

originally posted by: hearows
a reply to: SlapMonkey
That was a really good post in my opinion, I had read it in the initial thread. My confusion here is if the anti vaccine movement led to a sharp drop in immunizations within a population where natural immunity is low, what would the medical costs end up being and would it be worth the potential risks and possible monetary effort? Is it a viable course of action to stop vaccinations altogether?

Thanks for the compliment on the post.

As for your concern about medical costs, severe symptoms from measles are very rare these days--even in people with no artificial immunization, and even in babies. We, sadly, live in a world where people go the emergency room because they have symptoms of the common cold, so when medical services are already abused in such a manner, the additional cost of treating symptoms of measles wouldn't amount to much at all, especially if we could rid our society of the ignorance as to the likelihood of severe reactions from this illness.

However, I don't believe that most "anit-vaxxers" (of which I am not necessarily one, I'm just a massive advocate for personal choice and better education of the public at large) want to stop vaccinations altogether, they just want to be able to do things like choose what goes in their bodies, they want toxic ingredients (no matter how slight) removed from the vaccinations, they want more exposure for potential issues derived from vaccinations, etc. Of course, as with any group, there are the fringe "absolutists" where it's either all or nothing, so I could be wrong.

I also don't believe that the anti-vaccine movement has led to a sharp decline in immunizations, but there has been a drop...and oddly enough, it's generally in areas with the highest average level of education. Go figure...and I'm not implying that this correlation is the reason, it's just an interesting fact.

Whether or not a person's personal choices are made via pure emotional response (like many are who get vaccinations for fear of death from measles or refuse vaccinations for fear of autistic-type side effects) or due to highly educated decisions, that choice should not be taken away. If someone is in fear of an unvaccinated kid infecting their child, they should get their child vaccinated, if possible. If it's not possible due to age or immune-system issues, they need to take proper precautions as that child's parent to reduce the exposure of that child to the illness--you know, like not taking your kids to Disneyland at the height of flu and other-illness season.

Much of life's ailments could be resolved with just common sense. When I'm sick, I stay my buttocks home and tell my kids that I'm a diseased leper and to stay away. But I also know that it's better for their and my immune system to naturally fight off these illnesses--it'll go a long way in actually having true lifelong immunity to these diseases without unnatural things being shoved into their blood.

Plus, you know...suffering a little during your lifetime builds character, right?

I'm not sure if you saw this video posted in this or that other thread, but if you have the time to watch the 104 minutes of it, or even the first 30, it's a good presentation:



I wish I could find who posted it and give them credit, but, alas...

a reply to: imnotanother

Here in America, where I and my family live, the rate of contracting and then dying from measles is less than 0.00% (per the numbers from the CDC). So, yes, in this case, that death rate is acceptable to me, not to mention I have a very good immune system and, according to my last check up at the doctor, I am in extremely good health (which isn't by accident).

I'll roll that dice for sure. And like I've mentioned in other comments, if I were to get sick, I'd take reasonable precautions not to spread what I have.

Each illness that has a vaccine needs to be weighed individually. The vaccine schedule that is recommended for our human bodies is ridiculous, especially when you use your proposed concern of possible side effects versus the fatality rate. Many of these diseases have minimal possible lasting effects (like measles), and the vaccinations don't last a lifetime like natural immunities produced by the immune system after contracting the illness. Compounding things is the increasing quality of healthcare; the availability of good healthcare really minimizes the chances of someone dying from complications of these illnesses.

a reply to: imnotanother

To the vege ? i say this .
Peopel who are vegetarian are usually doing it becuase it makes them feel righteous about themselves.
And then it makes them even feel better if they can make you feel bad about eating meat.

The drugs one yeah pot is ok but otherwise there is no way you will do hard drugs and not effect the people
around you freinds family co workers neighbors ect....

And vaccines yeah if you want one get one if not dont as long as they are not forced.

a reply to: imnotanother

that can be tough with measles, you are contageous 4 days BEFORE the rash shows up,so the person might seem to be sick but you don't know it's measles until the rash hits

Because what people put in their bodies effects everyone indirectly.

Alcohol and drunk driving accidents

Drugs and alcohol poor health and increased health care costs. Insurance rates go up.

Poor quality foods same poor health and increased health care costs that everyone has to pay for.

We have free will, but how we lead our lives effects everyone; like a ripple in a pond.

Peace,

RT

originally posted by: imnotanother
Why do you care what she/he puts in their body?!