Top | Newest First | Oldest First
TheProphet · M
midnightrose · F
No. I’ve wondered about it, though. Correct me if my understanding is inaccurate.
The things that cause these diseases aren’t gone. The vaccine protects against it making a person sick. It makes them “immune.” Right? If it’s still around, it can be around or on anybody. Couldn’t it? Those people just won’t feel the effects. Wouldn’t that make [i]everybody[/i] a danger?
Some people have horrible reactions to vaccinations. It’s a medical procedure like anything else, to prevent death and prolong life. Sometimes it’s more harm than good for an individual.
Every person should be able to make that choice for themselves and their children. Nobody should be forced to risk their child’s life for something used as a preventative measure. We don’t even know if they [i]will[/i] get sick. People want to treat them as if they’re already diseased, though.
If we will arrest parents for this? Will we also arrest parents for second-hand smoke, which is known to cause cancer? How about not being prepared for a tornado or other natural disaster?
These diseases are caused by nature. There are ways to try and prevent it, but nothing is a guarantee. We’re all going to die of something. It is an inevitable part of life.
There are risks either way you look at it. People are willing to let someone else’s child be collateral damage so [i]they[/i] can be protected. Is their life any less important? Everybody is doing what they think is best [i]for them[/i] (or what they are led to believe is best anyhow). I say, let em be.
The things that cause these diseases aren’t gone. The vaccine protects against it making a person sick. It makes them “immune.” Right? If it’s still around, it can be around or on anybody. Couldn’t it? Those people just won’t feel the effects. Wouldn’t that make [i]everybody[/i] a danger?
Some people have horrible reactions to vaccinations. It’s a medical procedure like anything else, to prevent death and prolong life. Sometimes it’s more harm than good for an individual.
Every person should be able to make that choice for themselves and their children. Nobody should be forced to risk their child’s life for something used as a preventative measure. We don’t even know if they [i]will[/i] get sick. People want to treat them as if they’re already diseased, though.
If we will arrest parents for this? Will we also arrest parents for second-hand smoke, which is known to cause cancer? How about not being prepared for a tornado or other natural disaster?
These diseases are caused by nature. There are ways to try and prevent it, but nothing is a guarantee. We’re all going to die of something. It is an inevitable part of life.
There are risks either way you look at it. People are willing to let someone else’s child be collateral damage so [i]they[/i] can be protected. Is their life any less important? Everybody is doing what they think is best [i]for them[/i] (or what they are led to believe is best anyhow). I say, let em be.
View 1 more replies »
midnightrose · F
@SW-User Ok, should smokers be confined to stay home/pay fines since nobody should have to get sick from lung cancer or asthma attacks?
What if they got periodically checked for immunity/disease, would that make them less of a threat? Why would you penalize them for a choice they’re completely within their rights to make, and when they aren’t even [i]known[/i] to be a danger to others.
What if they got periodically checked for immunity/disease, would that make them less of a threat? Why would you penalize them for a choice they’re completely within their rights to make, and when they aren’t even [i]known[/i] to be a danger to others.
SW-User
@midnightrose It varies from state to state but, smokers who don't adhere to the no smoking law, DO pay a fine. The difference between smoke and viruses like the measles is the measles is highly contagious, smoke is not. Plus smoke is everywhere, smoke stacks from factories let off smoke, fire does too. And yes I agree, smoke is dangerous. People CAN get asthma and lung cancer from smoke whether it's from a smoker or from the environment. But people who don’t get their child vaccinated because they are anti-vacc are potentially putting others in danger. Especially the ones who can’t get vaccinated because of some allergy, the young, and the elderly. So if these people come into contact with a person who has the measels or mumps then they’re screwed. So that's why I said, if parents don't want their kids vaccinated against a virus that can do some major damage to the body then they should be fined or homeschool their child.
midnightrose · F
@SW-User I understand what you're saying about those with allergies, the young, and the elderly. Of course, nobody desires to be a danger to anybody. They will only be a danger [i]if[/i] they carry the virus. My question before was does the vaccine prevent the virus from being on a person who has been vaccinated or does it only prevent them from getting sick from the virus? I would think it could still be in the environment whether somebody is vaccinated or not, so the threat is still there regardless was my original point. I understand the concern if only those who haven't been vaccinated can carry the virus, but only if they have actually been infected. Otherwise, I see no reason to cast them away from society because they [i]might[/i] be a threat.
ImpeccablyImperfect · 51-55, F
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
Tuscan · 70-79, M
if vaccinations were mandatory and a child was harmed by the vaccination would the health authority then be charged with administering a noxious substance?
Although vaccinations are for the most part safe there are small percentages who suffer brain damage and even death as a direct result of them, even if the chances are only one in a million that would translate to a large number of children if vaccination was mandatory and for those children the damage is 100%
Although vaccinations are for the most part safe there are small percentages who suffer brain damage and even death as a direct result of them, even if the chances are only one in a million that would translate to a large number of children if vaccination was mandatory and for those children the damage is 100%
Graciebaby · F
@Tuscan Bill Gates, bless him has taken it upon himself to reduce human population.
Where better to start depopulation by infecting the young.
Do you ever read the "FREE PRESS" at all Tuscany?????
Where better to start depopulation by infecting the young.
Do you ever read the "FREE PRESS" at all Tuscany?????
Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M
ImpeccablyImperfect · 51-55, F
@Solenya In what world is it ok to make it mandatory to vaccinate, yet give parents the freedom to choose to give their kids McDonald's every day, or to let them drink pop, or to fill them with all manner of processed crap??? There is no way in hell that a government should be allowed to take away a parent's right to make an informed and (arguably) [i]healthy[/i] choice regarding their child's well-being. Any parent who has chosen not to vaccinate has gone to [b]considerable[/b] and [b]exhaustive[/b] lengths to make an educated and informed choice.
just my [i]humble[/i] opinion :)
just my [i]humble[/i] opinion :)
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@Picklebobble2 Solid logic and common sense. Well done, you are part of the 1% among sentient life on earth who possesses these things. Humanity would have been at a much better place if more people thought like this.
Fangirlsarah1996 · 26-30, F
Graciebaby · F