Where do my rights end and yours begin?

[Lovebug]

i hope that they don't, and that they don't need to.

I hope not either, but they should think about the consequences. Their very own child can be at great risk.

 

[Helix]

I hope not either, but they should think about the consequences. Their very own child can be at great risk.

and at somewhat preventable risk, as well. this whole anti-vax BS since Wakefield's fake study in the 1990s has been very frustrating.

 

[independentusa]

I prefer positive persuasion as opposed to restrictions. After all, the parent of an immune-suppressed child will not logically depend on thinking other children are all immunized to protect her child. That would be unwise.

The best way to handle the immunization thing is to educate parents, but not to restrict their movements (in my opinion).

It's a slippery slope. When parents cannot enroll non-immunized students, how close are we to banning non-vaccinated people from grocery stores or other public places? When flu season comes around, I get a flu shot, but I know many adults who do not. Yet, the flu can kill as many as 45,000 people in a year. Much more dangerous than a few kids not being immunized when we have herd immunity in society.

If I was a parent of a child with weakened immunity, the last thing I'd do would be to take her to public school, the grocery store, the movies, etc., if there was a risk of any sort of outbreak. After all, a common cold could take her down, and there's no vaccine for that. What I wouldn't do is insist that non-immunized children not be allowed to attend because I want my child to be safe. That would be wrong to my mind.

So you are saying we take the right of the child away who is immune compromised rather than the stupid parent who is against vaccinations. That is essentially what you are saying, or it appears to be what you are saying. I say, no vaccinations, then no public schools. It does not take the parents right to not vaccinate their children, it just lays out the consequences of that decision. As others here have said, there are other options for their education for their children including online schools.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The first of those rights is "life". CHildren who are not vaccinated can take that right, life, away from some children who have immunity deficiencies.

Again, you can held liable if you harm others or don’t take precautions to prevent harm. Doesn’t mean the government can force you to give up your right to choose.

 

[Beaudreaux]

We are not limiting their right to choose not to vaccinate. Like any choice we make it has consequences. So you make the choice not to vaccinate and I agree you have that right, but, the government has the right to safeguard other children from your choice. That does not limit your choice.

I agree with you here. The government not only has the right, but in fact has the duty to protect life, health and safety of others by setting rules, such as requiring children in public schools to be vaccinated. Public schools, but not private schools or home schools.

Look, I personally think that if I had not gotten my kids vaccinated I would have failed them as a father. But I respect the right of others to exercise their right not do so. I think they’re wrong, but as you can see by my posts in this thread, I will defend their rights as vehemently as I would defend my own rights, because if I agree that their rights aren’t protected, then mine aren’t either.

 

[VanceMack]

#ButHispanics

ok, just in case you really don't know, let's read my initial argument for comprehension.



did part of that seem unclear to you?

Of course I read your comment. And I very clearly responded to your comment. So you can continue to do your cute "look at me I'm all snarky and tough" bull**** or you can answer the question.

 

[Rosie1]

When my dad was growing up, his 16 year old brother died of polio. When my mom was growing up, they had to shoot my grandpa's best hunting dog, due to rabies. Thanks to medical research, we now have all kinds of preventative vaccines. I had my child vaccinated, as a toddler. Our family gets annual flu shots, etc. I have the dog vaccinated every year. And I've vaccinated the horses myself. People who don't believe in vaccinations are idiots. There is no logical argument.

 

[Lursa]

you still have the right to believe unscientific anti-vaxxer woo spewed by people who haven't taken an entry level immunology course. you do not have the right send your unvaccinated kids to the school incubators, putting other kids and all of the rest of us at risk, though.

And schools at least, still have the prerogative to prevent kids without legitimate reasons for non-vaccination from attending.

I hope they continue to do so and that more schools do so to protect students.

 

[Lursa]

If you choose to vaccinate your kids then you have nothing to fear from unvaccinated kids.

Except for the kids that legitimately cannot be vaccinated, or all the kids that take it home to their infant, unvaccinated brothers and sisters, or to their elderly grandparents, etc. The more unvaccinated, the more the risk increased for all those demographics.

We've discussed this before...your dismissal of the effects on other demographics and the cumulative effects on society in general were noted.

 

[HowardBThiname]

So you are saying we take the right of the child away who is immune compromised rather than the stupid parent who is against vaccinations. That is essentially what you are saying, or it appears to be what you are saying. I say, no vaccinations, then no public schools. It does not take the parents right to not vaccinate their children, it just lays out the consequences of that decision. As others here have said, there are other options for their education for their children including online schools.

The need to control others is strong in you.

An immune-compromised child has a right to a society that caters to it? I don't think so.

The immune-compromised child has the right to a public education, just as every other child, but that right to an education does not extend to forcing other parents to take steps they feel (rightly or wrongly) put their children at risk. Or steps that violate their religious beliefs.

Your "no vaccinations no public schools" violates the ideas that parents should be able to make the decisions they feel are in the best interest of their children. And we know for a fact that vaccines can have detrimental effects, which is why we passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

The only way your idea would come close to making sense is if we could show that vaccines never had a negative impact. But, we can't, therefore, we really can't force parents to vaccinate their kids. As I said previously, the best way to approach the situation is by educating and positive persuasion. Not the draconian rules you want to enforce.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Except for the kids that legitimately cannot be vaccinated, or all the kids that take it home to their infant, unvaccinated brothers and sisters, or to their elderly grandparents, etc. The more unvaccinated, the more the risk increased for all those demographics.

We've discussed this before...your dismissal of the effects on other demographics and the cumulative effects on society in general were noted.

It's true that with fewer vaccinated there's more risk, but I'm still a big proponent of choice. And, the fact is, vaccines have known potential side effects, and although most are very mild, there is the occasional one that is severe. And for that reason right there, we have to allow parents (rightly or wrongly) to decide for their own children. Without the punishment of taking away a public school education.

Educational campaigns are more productive than restrictions. You're right that kids can carry viruses home to infants, the elderly, etc., but because there is a risk of an adverse vaccine reaction, when you insist on vaccines, you only shift the risk from one person to another -- minimal as that risk might be.

And, that would be wrong.

Our laws as they are set up right now are just fine. Most public schools require vaccines but they still allow opting-out for a few reasons. It's not an all-or-nothing rule and most parents vaccinate.

It's all good.

 

[Lursa]

It's true that with fewer vaccinated there's more risk, but I'm still a big proponent of choice. And, the fact is, vaccines have known potential side effects, and although most are very mild, there is the occasional one that is severe. And for that reason right there, we have to allow parents (rightly or wrongly) to decide for their own children. Without the punishment of taking away a public school education.

Educational campaigns are more productive than restrictions. You're right that kids can carry viruses home to infants, the elderly, etc., but because there is a risk of an adverse vaccine reaction, when you insist on vaccines, you only shift the risk from one person to another -- minimal as that risk might be.

And, that would be wrong.

Our laws as they are set up right now are just fine. Most public schools require vaccines but they still allow opting-out for a few reasons. It's not an all-or-nothing rule and most parents vaccinate.

It's all good.

This response completely ignores the effect of 'herd immunity' which reduces the overall risk to all for contagion. The more vaccinated, the fewer exposed, period. Again, they can do skin tests for some allergies to some vaccines first, further reducing the risk of reactions...and kids/people that are at higher risk of reaction, per their Drs, would not be required either.

 

[Ikari]

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/2002221983142615/
This is a video showing the reaction of what those who are against vaccinating their children at a hearing where some of their "rights" have been reduced. My question is where do you stand on where do these peoples rights not to vaccinate their children begin and where do they end. I think that if they don't want their children vaccinated, then keep them out of the public where they can infect children whose illnesses don't allow them to be vaccinated. Keep them out of public schools. If private schools allow them that is fine with me. Don't take them to public areas where they can infect other children. The problem is, these people want both, the right not to vaccinate and the right to take their un-vaccinated children anywhere. That I believe is where their rights end, where they can cause harm to others.

I would say something along similar lines. No law to force vaccination, but one cannot pretend that their choices have no consequences. You may choose not to vaccinate, but public schools should require vaccination (barring valid medical exception). Private schools can make their own choice, daycare, etc. may have rules requiring vaccinations as well.

There are medical reasons not to vaccinate, but I think those are relatively rare. But in those cases, I do think exceptions can be made.

 

[HowardBThiname]

This response completely ignores the effect of 'herd immunity' which reduces the overall risk to all for contagion. The more vaccinated, the fewer exposed, period. Again, they can do skin tests for some allergies to some vaccines first, further reducing the risk of reactions...and kids/people that are at higher risk of reaction, per their Drs, would not be required either.

I addressed herd immunity in post #94, I know exactly what it is. And sure, they could do tests to reduce the likelihood of side effects, but a predisposition to allergies does not compromise the totality of the complications.

So, even though the risk of immunizing can be reduced, it cannot be completely negated. Therefore, we cannot force the vaccines. We can educate and we can encourage. But, we cannot place the well-being of one child over another. We can't even (ethically) place the well-being of 100 children over one child. And when it comes to parental rights and their children's health, government control is a sticky wicket.

When parents understand the risks, they will most often choose to vaccinate, but, just as a woman should never be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy just because some feel as though it's not her right to harm the fetus, neither should any parent be forced to vaccinate a child because others fear that child might carry a communicable disease one day. Rights matter and choice matters. I chose to vaccinate my kids but I have no right to insist than another parent must vaccinate just because I did. There is no moral high ground in forcing parents to vaccinate. And, thankfully, most school districts recognize that fact and have opt-out measures.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

SNIPPED

In your example of anti-vaxers, you can sue them if you can prove that their unvaccinated child, and the decision they made to not vaccinate their child, caused you or your family harm. Their freedom of religion, or whatever right they use as the basis for that choice is not being limited or at any point. The results of their actions, while exercising their rights, can be held legally liable if it causes someone harm or creates a tort. We can't legislate morality, or outlaw religious beliefs. We can only legislate liability for harm done by people's actions.

Lemme guess, if you can't afford the lawyers or all the time off from work to pursue such tort, tough luck, am I right?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Lemme guess, if you can't afford the lawyers or all the time off from work to pursue such tort, tough luck, am I right?

No. There are numerous groups, including the local DA’s office, lawyers needing pro bono hours, or the ACLU, that can help you. Freedom takes sacrifice, and taking time off from work may the sacrifice you have to make.

No one is forcing you to defend your own rights. You have to decide what your priorities are. Read my sig below.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No. There are numerous groups, including the local DA’s office, lawyers needing pro bono hours, or the ACLU, that can help you. Freedom takes sacrifice, and taking time off from work may the sacrifice you have to make.

No one is forcing you to defend your own rights. You have to decide what your priorities are. Read my sig below.

Not the least bit interested in your sig, as I have read it before and found it both noble and darwinian. Funny how it can be both at the same time but then again that's how most things pan out. The darwinian aspect comes into play when the average working stiff can't find enough available lawyers who will work pro bono, because they're already swamped.
Ever look into the current status of the public defender's office in most cities? Start there.

With regard specifically to my child being harmed by someone else's irresponsible decision on vaccination, my child never had the chance to make the choices in the first place. And I have the entirely reasonable expectation that the public schools would offer a modicum of safety, which is precisely why they require shot records from all enrolled.

Out in public however, outside of public schools, my child is again at risk, through no choice of his own or mine.
"No one is forcing you to defend your rights - have to decide what your priorities are" my rosy red ass.
If my priorities are working to earn enough to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table, and that leaves me without enough resources to take up the slack to account for the lack of available pro bono legal help, it's not because I "made poor choices".

We're done. You may not be, as most darwinian types are also last word freaks.
By all means, carry on.

 

[Helix]

Of course I read your comment. And I very clearly responded to your comment. So you can continue to do your cute "look at me I'm all snarky and tough" bull**** or you can answer the question.

since i stated that it's my opinion that parents don't have the right to put many others at risk by placing unvaccinated children in schools, wouldn't that include Hispanics? once you guess, i'll tell you the answer.

 

[Helix]

And schools at least, still have the prerogative to prevent kids without legitimate reasons for non-vaccination from attending.

I hope they continue to do so and that more schools do so to protect students.

yeah, same here. some kids are allergic to eggs and can't be vaccinated, which makes it even more dangerous when people believe bloggers and unscrupulous scientists like Wakefield and then don't vaccinate their own kids. those allergic kids are forced to depend on herd immunity.

 

[jaeger19]

You do realize that there are some children who because of their illnesses can not be vaccinated. These children have immune deficiencies. To be around children who are not vaccinated could cause them to die.

Yep.. I understand completely.

The argument is that unvaccinated people make the rest of the population unsafe. Well.. since that child cannot be vaccinated.. then therefore.. he should not be allowed to go to school.. for whatever reason.

Please explain why an unvaccinated child for say religious reasons or because they are immune... are LESS of a risk than someone who is unvaccinated because of a parents choice?

 

[jaeger19]

how so?

/QUOTE]

by being unvaccinated of course. Is that not the argument? That being unvaccinated puts others at risk and therefore if you unvaccinated.. you should not be allowed in school?

because that child has NO choice...

Bingo.. so the argument that that the reason for an unvaccinated kid being a threat and so shouldn;t be allowed in school is disproved.

You let a kid who is unvaccinated because of immunosuppression in school..

You don't let a kid who is unvaccinated because of parent choice in school. Both are unvaccinated... the only reason for letting one in and refusing the other.. is because you don't like the reason for not being unvaccinated. The fact that they are unvaccinated doesn;t make the difference (since both are).. is really what you find acceptable.

vaccination is the most effective tool we have to prevent measles, mumps, and a plethora of other contagious diseases"

Yep.. so? the fact is that vaccination has risks.. especially depending on the vaccination etc. Not all vaccinations are safe.. some have even had to be taken off the market.. and some are available but only in dire emergencies. the point being that the decision whether to vaccinate your child should be between your physician and you.. not made by a school board.. or a governor who say gets money from a pharmaceutical company that produces the vaccine.

numbers for one...there are very few children world wide who can not be vaccinated due to a physical limitation...paranoia on the other hand could run rampant

The actual number of people that choose to go unvaccinated in the US is extremely small. Particularly when they are educated by a physician or other medical professional. This worry about paranoia and rampant unvaccination if vaccination is not mandatory is about as valid as the argument that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

 

[jaeger19]

You need shot records to enroll in school

at one time you needed to pass a reading test to vote.

 

[jaeger19]

It works just like a live teacher

Obviously you haven't had kids who did school online education.

 

[jaeger19]

this is not about punishing anyone, it is about the well being, safety and health of society in general

if one chooses to be a part of society, then one must adhere to certain rules which protect the majority of the tribe

otherwise...be gone

sure it is.

Again... an unvaccinated kid.. is allowed in school because he has an autoimmune deficiency.

Another.. Unvaccinated kid.. is NOT allowed in school because he is not vaccinated because of his parents choice.

It has nothing to do with well being, safety or health. BOTH children are unvaccinated.

The difference is whether you agree why they are unvaccinated. That's punishment for your belief.. not because it "protects the tribe".

 

[vegas giants]

at one time you needed to pass a reading test to vote.

That's nice