It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Bolded by me
originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: coldkidc
The anti-vaccination crowd thinks that if the pro-vaccination crowd have all of their children immunized then the unimmunized children should not pose a threat to them however this is a falsehood. For any number of reasons a child who has been immunized could still contract the disease, examples being the disease had mutated, antibodies did not develop in the child's body, etc.
originally posted by: hearows
a reply to: rickymouse
I'm certain there's no precedent to force someone who's allergic to a medicine to take it, so at least you're safe there.
originally posted by: ispyed
a reply to: jude11
Its called social responsibility. What right do parents have to allow their children to be vulnerable to what can be potentially dangerous diseases? What right do parents have to spread disease through their non vaccinated children?
It is socially irresponsible to not have your child vaccinated and the government quite rightly pressurises parents through the media to get vaccinated.
Although people do no like the government not getting your child vaccinated is not a very intelligent way to express your dis-satisfaction.