This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
SW-User
@midnightrose then in that case parents who refuse to not get their kids vaccinated because of some anti-vaccination ideology they have should homeschool them/ pay a fine. No one should have to get sick with the mumps or the meseals.
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.