Apples and giraffes. And the people who matter (the Black Robes) disagree with you. The relevant precedent was set in 1905 - Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't ever figure out how to post links to .pdf files, but an extensive discussion is titled, "Mandatory Vaccinations: Precedent and Current Laws" from the Congressional Research Office, May 21, 2014. Here's a quote from the challenger in Jacobson:
Sounds like many of the arguments made on this thread, which the Supreme Court rejected in favor of the government having the ability to protect the common welfare. I can't imagine any court could find otherwise as it's a core purpose of government and the powers of a police state.
{{{Shrug}}} You are free to travel. But you can't go to another country unless you have a passport. Is that banning your freedom to travel?
Given that the latest epidemics come from people who traveled overseas and brought the disease back with them, seemed like another good place to stop the outbreaks from happening. I always thought people who went overseas got fully vaccinated anyway, but apparently they don't.
I don't care if you like the idea or not. Just was offering it up as another way to cut down on people making the rest of us sick.
My thoughts...
We have not only prevented small pox epidemics but we eradicated the disease.
I had to have a smallpox vaccination before I started school in the early 1950s but my children who are in their 30s and early 40s did not need the vaccination because the disease was eradicated.
Our goal should be to eradicate measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, whooping cough , polio diphtheria, so children and adults of future generations do not have worry about epidemics of those diseases anymore.
All it would take is a challenge from a family that has a child die from the vaccination. Of course, the medical industry will not diagnose as such and the Pharmacuetical industry will never admit the vaccine might be the cause so having evidence is next to impossible to challenge... it is a multi-billion dollar industry along with a majority population that vaccines work and that want to railroad the rights of a minority population that suffers from vaccinations so nothing will change.
I'm not sure any of that is true. Certainly there is a real risk of allergic reaction and death with vaccines. But that wouldn't be sufficient for the challenge - it's been 100 years and the law is still good - because the benefits to public health are so obvious and overwhelming versus the small risks.
And it's not that the public "believes" vaccines work - they DO work. Period.
Finally, if someone is known to 'suffer' from vaccines - e.g. are allergic to them, have suffered severe side effects in previous vaccines - they can and do get exceptions to the mandates.
SCOTUS overturns its bad decisions. Precedent. Brown v Board 1954 overturned 1996 Plessy v Ferguson
They work for the majority...
Sad fact is that is too late for a lot of kids... an exception is no good when you have brain damage or dead.
I wouldn't characterize a decision that allows government to protect the common welfare, with documented successes over generations, as a bad decision.
No, they have worked to eradicate a horrible disease like polio, and nearly eradicate several other major risks to public health, saving hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives in this country, many millions worldwide.
You're pointing out that this comes at a small risk. That is true, but the risk is simply overwhelmed by the obvious, massive, life saving benefits.
I'm not sure what to say. Without vaccines it would be too late for hundreds of thousands of more kids, not to mention the brain damage for may more from the diseases we've nearly eliminated, birth defects, life long complications, plus all the savings in sickness and suffering of millions of others who suffered no permanent effects.
The closest analogy I can think of are seat belts and airbags. No doubt they both have killed passengers who might have survived if they'd been thrown from the car, but anyone looking at those exceedingly rare exceptions to justify not wearing a seat belt or to disarm their airbags is irrational - the risks FAR outweigh obvious and proven benefits. And so we require them in all cars now and have laws that mandate use. Because of them more are alive. I think that's a good thing.
Forcing people to violate their bodies IS a bad decision.
Yeah... that is the majority.
No. The risk is HUGE for those affected. That is the point. The selfishness of the majority just chalks that up to a, "hey, you just have to take one for the team" and that is bull****.
Nobody said to make vaccines illegal. Your argument is bunk. If you want protection from the diseases then get vaccinated. Simple. Forcing others though should be illegal. It certainly is immoral.
Most airbag deaths are children in front facing seats in the front seat... something avoidable. You can also turn off airbags or not wear a seat belt. Once you take the vaccine it is too late to do anything about it.
The selfish are IMO the minority who socialize the risks of vaccines to others and enjoy the just miracle benefits of living in a world where these diseases have been all but eradicated. And the risk simply isn't "huge." It's objectively real but miniscule by any reasonable measure.
I think we've about beat this subject to death. I'm sure people have mentioned about 100 times on this thread that 1) vaccinations do not always work, 2) in some cases the protection degrades over time, and 3) many people cannot get vaccinated because of various health reasons. Etc. It's been said too many times to make it worth repeating again to be ignored again.
{{{Shrug}}} You are free to travel. But you can't go to another country unless you have a passport. Is that banning your freedom to travel?
Given that the latest epidemics come from people who traveled overseas and brought the disease back with them, seemed like another good place to stop the outbreaks from happening. I always thought people who went overseas got fully vaccinated anyway, but apparently they don't.
I don't care if you like the idea or not. Just was offering it up as another way to cut down on people making the rest of us sick.
All I can say is, once you (plural) have had your child almost die due to a vaccine then I will listen to your argument with any real interest. Until then... blah.
That said, vaccines work for the majority and are a good thing... they should simply NOT be mandatory. Making them mandatory is immoral and should be illegal.
All I can say is, once you (plural) have had your child almost die due to a vaccine then I will listen to your argument with any real interest. Until then... blah.
That's not a legitimate standard, but I understand your position. Although a mother whose infant was infected and died of a a preventable disease from someone who chose not to get vaccinated would have the opposite view.
No, you shouldn't. That is simply ridiculous. It is an appeal to emotion to deny people their rights based on the probability of contracting a disease that you yourself are almost certainly protected against.
My thoughts...
We have not only prevented small pox epidemics but we eradicated the disease.
I had to have a smallpox vaccination before I started school in the early 1950s but my children who are in their 30s and early 40s did not need the vaccination because the disease was eradicated.
Our goal should be to eradicate measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, whooping cough , polio diphtheria, so children and adults of future generations do not have worry about epidemics of those diseases anymore.
We should certainly be allowed to ban the unvaccinated (by choice) from places that have regular contact. It isn't an appeal to emotion. It is an appeal to logic. What moron refuses to vaccinate today? There is no logical reason to do otherwise, barring known allergies.
That's not a legitimate standard, but I understand your position. Although a mother whose infant was infected and died of a a preventable disease from someone who chose not to get vaccinated would have the opposite view.
It's fine that you oppose mandates, but it cannot be immoral to mandate policy that is proved to save lives and suffering with incredibly small risks, especially when that mandate is an essential part of vaccines working effectively - the near universal coverage is what makes them effective.
Exactly. If Bodhisattva's child had gotten extremely ill from measles from someone who wasn't vaccinated - while his child was too young to get the vaccine - he would have been arguing the other side and saying "All I can say is once you have had your child almost die due to someone not getting a vaccine...."
Wrong. I would understand that that living life is a risk. No adult should be compelled by force to do anything. Helmets should not be mandatory nor should seat belts either... and CERTAINLY not forcing a violation of an individuals body. You can assume the worst of somebody like me if you like but it is not only nice but it is illogical.
The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination)
And I as pointed in another thread the right to privacy is not an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases.
The right to privacy is not an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases.
From Roe VIII
The decision to cause a full-blown, multi-state pandemic of a virus that was effectively eliminated from the national population generations ago is my choice alone, and regardless of your personal convictions, that right should never be taken away from a child’s parent. Never.
Say what you will about me, but I’ve read the information out there and weighed every option, so I am confident in my choice to revive a debilitating illness that was long ago declared dead and let it spread like wildfire from school to school, town to town, and state to state, until it reaches every corner of the country. Leaving such a momentous decision to someone you haven’t even met and who doesn’t care about your child personally—now that’s absurd! Maybe I choose to bring back the mumps. Or maybe it’s diphtheria. Or maybe it’s some other potentially fatal disease that can easily pass among those too young or too medically unfit to be vaccinated themselves. But whichever highly communicable and formerly wiped-out disease that I opt to resurrect with a vengeance, it is a highly personal decision that only I and my family have the liberty to make.
And I as pointed in another thread in the US we do not have unlimited rights regarding our body.
From Roe VIII
ETA:
I do not think the worst of you.
And I am sorry your daughter became very ill after her MMR vaccination.
What a drama filled FAIL.
lollerz.
FYI... Trolling is against the rules.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?