It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should children have to get mandatory vaccinations to attend school?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:04 PM
A lot of people have asked me this question, should people who do not want their children to get these shots have to? What I was wondering is how many people think we should and why and how many people think we should not and why?

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by Brandon Levon

100% NO.

First, the government mandates that the children MUST attend school. Parents have no choice (unless they home school). The government has no business then mandating what parents must do in order to comply with the previous mandate to attend school.

Second, there is no way I trust the government's judgment regarding what vaccines my kids should have. Have you ever seen how much money drug companies contribute to campaigns? Could you ever really trust the politicians to be acting unbiasedly?

Third, the diseases for which the vaccines are given have been pretty much wiped out. It's not like there's an epidemic going on for any of these diseases.

Fourth, this is a privacy issue that violates two Amendments of the Constitution, the 1st and the 4th. It is unconstitutional to force people to do something that would be against their religious beliefs, and it's also unconstitutional to violate their medical privacy.

Fifth, it's just plain morally wrong to mandate at the point of a gun that small children have their bodies violated with viruses that could harm them.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:21 PM
No. Because most modern vaccines are preserved in mercury (or a derivative.)

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:26 PM
As a mother who is hesitant about giving my child vaccines....NO!

My daughter has had some....but its been 2 years since. And I am on the fence about getting her more before she enters school. I do NOT like the idea of it. However, I get so much information from both sides, I do not know what to do.

I do know that I don't want the government forcing her to have them.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:33 PM
No for me too.

One argument that I find is presented for mandatory vaccinations is that an unimmunised child can become infected and bring a disease to school and infect others. But if these vaccinations work, it should only be the unimmunised children at risk of contracting it.

So there should be freedom of choice.

[edit on 5/7/08 by NuclearPaul]

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:40 PM

Originally posted by homo_borg
No. Because most modern vaccines are preserved in mercury (or a derivative.)

That is no longer true. Most pediatric vaccines do NOT contain Thimerosal anylonger (except the flu shot, and they have infant type formulas that has the thimerisol removed).

The reason this country is NOT overrun by disease, and our infant mortality rate is low, is because we have been vaccinating. Not ever kid needs them (as long as most are vaccinated that creates a barrier against an epidemic), but if the majority stopped getting shots it would be a problem.

Plus the whole Thimerosal autism link is shaky at best. Rates of retardation went down drastically as the rates of autism rose. Coincidence? Or simply diagnosing kids differently? If they can blame the rates in autism on thimerisol maybe they should credit it with the lowering cases of retardation too.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:41 PM
yes they should. if you dont want to immunize then home school.

i dont have kids but i have 4 nephews from age 1-6. and uncle DaleGribble watches them every chance he gets. i for one dont want your kids Communicable Diseases because you dont think some thing is right. keep you filthy life habbits to your self. most everyone here has had there shots i would immagne and most of us turned out ok.

these terrible shots are the reason we dont have small pox, ect, ect..

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:46 PM
No absoutely not.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:08 AM
The question should be do you think they have ulterior motives because that is what I would like to know? I think it should be up to the parent since the kids who are vaccinated would not be affected.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:25 AM
reply to post by DaleGribble

Funny you should mention that. I believe (except for some cases) that the improvement in general hygine (along with discovering their methods of transmission) has been a prime contributer to the eradication of said afflictions. The same can probably said for the proposed link between flouridated water and cavities. And there's nothing inherently dirty about not vaccinating, but judging from your grammar and your flavor of logic it probably falls on deaf ears.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by RootMean

being full of Infectious disease is very dirty. and my flavor of logic and grammar still get my point across. flouridated water causes cavities because you are a dirty person that dosent brush and think its a good thing to have previtable disease.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:24 AM
It is funny flouride would get mentioned in this topic because I have been wondering if there is a connection with the shots and the flouride.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Sonya610

The reason this country is NOT overrun by disease, and our infant mortality rate is low, is because we have been vaccinating. Not ever kid needs them (as long as most are vaccinated that creates a barrier against an epidemic), but if the majority stopped getting shots it would be a problem.

Do you have any evidence of this?

I say the biggest reason we are not overrun by disease is because the water systems have become so advanced. Do you have any evidence that kids who weren't vaccinated suffer any higher incidents of disease in the U.S.?

When was there EVER an epidemic of any disease in the U.S.?

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:52 AM
Please. Don't rely too much on the FDA. It's a murderous institution!

Last year, a study published in the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons examined extensive data on vaccines in children. The astonishing conclusion: Children who receive just three vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal are 27-times more likely to develop autism, compared to children who get vaccinations containing no thimerosal.

The one bit of good news here is that parents can request thimerosal-free flu shots for their kids. The bad news is that they'd best do it right now because the number of immunizations without thimerosal will be limited and will even need to be special ordered by doctors who don't keep it on hand. The cost of the non-thimerosal shot will be considerably higher as well. Sounds a little crazy, doesn't it? Your child can have a normal flu shot, or - for a slight additional charge - they can provide a SAFER shot with one of the toxins removed. So… which would you like? With-toxin or without?

External link

More useful info:

Why aren't Americans lining up for vaccines?

Like the shingles vaccine, for instance. If you're over 60 and you had chicken pox as a child, you're vulnerable to a virus that may be lying dormant in the roots of nerves, ready to surprise you with a particularly painful resurgence. So why not roll up your sleeve for the shingles shot? Well, for one thing, the vaccine costs around $150, and some insurance carriers might not cover that. And for another thing, you can help prevent shingles with a vitamin supplement.

Merck's free vaccines?

Yeah, but…how can you make money by giving away vaccines? Turns out, it's pretty easy. You sell the vaccines to individual states, and then the states provide the vaccines for free. Nice one!

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by jamie83

here is one for ya.

oh and

wait there is more

thats strange we now get vaccinated for all of these and ill be damned we havent had an epidemic since.

here is a time line of all recorded since the 1600's

and there is still one more not mentioned. and sadly no vacine is made for it its called the liberal high horse...

[edit on 15amu62007 by DaleGribble]

[edit on 15amu62007 by DaleGribble]

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by jamie83When was there EVER an epidemic of any disease in the U.S.?

Do you have any clue about American history? Ever taken a guided tour of an 1800's cemetery? Take a guided tour of the old graves in New Orleans, Savannah, any old American city.

Diphtheria used to kill hundreds of thousands every year in America (and our population was much much lower then).

Yellow Fever epidemnics used to wipe out HUGE amounts of the population in many areas, some years it was fine, some years it would kill 10-20% of the population in some towns.

Measles affects 20 mil around the world each year, only about 150 cases show up in the U.S. because of vaccinations.

Polio was an indirect product OF improved sanitation. Prior to clean, sanitized water supplies virtually every human was exposed to polio, the mothers gave the immunity to their babies, the babies were exposed at such a young age with their mothers immunity they fought off the infection without dire results. When water supplies became sanitary and people were infected for the first time as older children or adults the results were dire.

The polio outbreaks of the 50’s were caused by generations that had NOT had exposure, and suddenly people were crippled as a result.

These diseases is still alive and well in Africa, India, and many other third world places. They are not gone, and you can bet they are crossing our borders all the time.

Oh and while your at it…you think American kids are so clean and sanitary? Here is a charming article; millions of American kids have worms too:

They include ascariasis, the most common human worm infection. It is caused by a parasitic worm that lives in the intestine, and infected just under 4 million people in 1974 according to the last survey, in the South and Appalachia.

Toxocariasis, a roundworm parasite transmitted in dog droppings, infected up 2.8 million poor black children living in inner cities, the South and Appalachia, Hotez said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates these roundworms, which can cause intestinal illness and blindness, infect up to 14 percent of the U.S. population.

Strongyloidiasis is caused by a threadworm that lives throughout the body and infects 68,000 to 100,000 people. It may cause a hyper-immune reaction in some people.

Cysticercosis caused by the pork tapeworm and giardiasis, a diarrheal illness caused by a one-celled parasite, are also common, Hotez said.

One threat to babies is cytomegalovirus, which infects 27,002 newborn annually, causing deafness and mental retardation.

"It's amazing what we tolerate," Hotez said. He noted the United States spends $1 billion a year preparing for outbreaks of diseases that have not occurred, including smallpox, anthrax and avian influenza.

"But these (other) diseases are occurring among voiceless people," he said. "It's an unintended form of racism in a sense. We need to make these disease household words."

Chagas disease, caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, infects as many as 8 to 11 million people in Latin America and may become a U.S. threat, Hotez said. "In Louisiana, almost 30 percent of the armadillos and 38 percent of the opossums are infected with T. cruzi, and a case of Chagas disease was recently reported in post-Katrina New Orleans," he wrote.

But as stated above, as long as MOST kids are vaccinated these diseases will remain under control. If you want to risk your kids life, then that is your business.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Sonya610]

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:17 AM
While ranting about vaccines, a little known fact is that vaccinating your adult cat or dog every year can in fact be very dangerous. Many vets know this but there is a LOT of money in it so they continue to push for it.

Yes they truly need them when they are babies, as there are a lot of super nasty diseases that will kill them quick. But vaccinating adult animals, particularly cats every year is a really bad idea. Their immunity is usually well established as adults, and it is a proven fact that cats can get cancer at the injection site. Booster shots ever 3 years are the recommendation of vets that know and worry about the health of their patients.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:59 AM
Yes, I believe in order to attend public school, your child should be up to date on his/her immunizations.

A few of you have stated that if you chose not to you would be only risking their lives. Not true. There are several kids who attend school who unfortunatly have immune issues for one reason or another. A childs life should not be at risk at school period. School should be a safe place where they can go and only wory about learning.

If you are that concerned with government mind control, to the point that you would not immunize your child, then you probably should not be sending them to public school either.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:59 PM
I would not want my children attending school with the students of drug dealers who refuse to vaccinate their children. I think it should definetly be mandatory, I think it is also awesome they are doing these cervical cancer shots as well because genital warts are not a cool thing.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:01 PM
I think you all have some very interesting points and I just wanted to thank you for your comments. Any of you who would like to add more comments please feel free to do so. I am sure it would be greatly appreciated by all of us even many who chose not to participate.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in