Its not just a personal choice - Page 3

[serenbat]

2.  I reread Serenbat comment, and quite frankly, it could use some clarification.  She did not say "I don't care if weaker people die", she said "even with vaccines it comes down to the fittest in the end" which is a true statement.  Statistically, a vaccinated sickly child will probably not fare as well if they catch something as a healthy vaccinated child.

for those who don't understand it-and I don't know how to make it clearer

sooooooo worried about a VPD but you are MORE likely to die from a nonVPD as a adult, just look at children's age groups, now it's cancer (in certain ages) but even prior to vaccines wide spread use it was accidents and they still are up there- the CDC has it on their web site if those who are concerned can find the numbers there look

I said what is fact- all the vaccines in the world don't matter, natural selection trumps them all, history have proven that- only the fittest make it (genes and health)

 

[serenbat]

these two thought don't even go together!

I am not able to change another child's genetic make up and that is the key factor in their survival - it has absolutely nothing to do with caring for the less fit! Health is only one component- if you have crappy genes you can try but in the end natural selection (if it is a natural death) will most like be the major factor in survival- has thus far in history.

"Survival of the fittest," as a motto doesn't leave much room for caring about the less fit.

BTW "survival of the fittest" means something you must not understand if you think it is a motto all about the "natural" selection thing!

ETA-in each state death certificates are written differently but (as an example) if a person has life threatening disease and should contract a VPD on top of that, their death certificate mostly likely will say the original disease, not the VPD- at least it is that way in most cases in my state because they did not survive based on the life threatening disease (natural selection took over)

Edited by serenbat - 8/15/12 at 8:42pm

[littlec]

Please just admit that you are concerned about YOUR child, not the immunocompromised. Your child. That's who you care most about, just like I care about mine the most and will decide what medical procedures she gets based on what's best for her, not your kid. You vaccinate your kid all you want, but don't think it's up to me to fill my child with aluminum, formaldahyde, live viruses, antibiotics, msg, etc. because you are scared of VPD's. Let me ask you, are you afraid of MRSA, Tuberculosis, and the like? Do you ask adults in your area if they are up to date on the current vaccine schedule? Are you?

If you honestly want to discuss specific vaccines and diseases, I'm ready. Which one is most important to you?

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by littlec 

Please just admit that you are concerned about YOUR child, not the immunocompromised. Your child. That's who you care most about, just like I care about mine the most and will decide what medical procedures she gets based on what's best for her, not your kid. You vaccinate your kid all you want, but don't think it's up to me to fill my child with aluminum, formaldahyde, live viruses, antibiotics, msg, etc. because you are scared of VPD's. Let me ask you, are you afraid of MRSA, Tuberculosis, and the like? Do you ask adults in your area if they are up to date on the current vaccine schedule? Are you?

If you honestly want to discuss specific vaccines and diseases, I'm ready. Which one is most important to you?

Agreed.

OP, do you even care that many parents who don't vaccinate make that decision BECAUSE their children are already immunocompromised?  Or that there is a history of severe vaccine reactions in the family?  Or that the parents have simply done countless hours of research and came to a different conclusion that you did, and that they are still making the choice that they feel is in the BEST interests of their family?

My children will not be vaccinated further because of a serious vaccine reaction in my son.  I am not willing to risk a similar reaction (and the 8+ months of illness that followed) or worse in either of my children, because I am concerned about their health and lifelong well-being, as is their pediatrician who wholeheartedly agrees with my decision.  That doesn't make them a public health risk, any more than an adult who hasn't had every childhood vaccine in the current CDC schedule (that is, all of them) is.

[littlec]

Originally Posted by prettypixels 

While I find this sentiment to be beyond comprehension personally, I appreciate your honesty.  Thank you for telling the rest of the world you don't care about their children, or whether your kids get theirs sick or cause them to die of vaccine preventable diseases.  I really do appreciate that you aren't pussyfooting around or hiding behind "no such thing as herd immunity."  Thank you.

Caring about your child first or most does not mean you don't care about other children at all.

Do you care if my child gets sick or dies from a vaccine? What about those kids..the "extremely rare" reactions that cause children to die or be permenantly damaged as a direct result from vaccines? What about those children? Are they expendable to you? I really want  to know. You are so worried about the unvaccinated doing harm to the world, but I never see sympathy or concern for those who have children who have been injured or die from vaccines...and when I do, it's followed up with, "but they're so rare". Well, if your child suffered a rare reaction to vaccines, how would you feel then? Would you still want every single child under the sun vaccinated with whatever is on the CDC schedule at the moment? Would you be okay with your child giving his/her life for the "herd"?

[stik]

When you say "it comes down to the fittest" as a justification for an anti-vax position, you imply (and I hope you don't want to) that people who die, or would die, of VPDs are not worth saving, because they aren't fit.   The term has a nasty history.  It was used by the Nazis, and by the early 20th century eugenics movement in the US.  It was used to justify forced sterilizations, and apathy towards preventable deaths from disease. 

That's why people are upset. 

If that's not what you want to imply, you should not use Social Darwinist rhetoric to advance your position. 
 

[dbsam]

.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by stik 

When you say "it comes down to the fittest" as a justification for an anti-vax position, you imply (and I hope you don't want to) that people who die, or would die, of VPDs are not worth saving, because they aren't fit.   The term has a nasty history.  It was used by the Nazis, and by the early 20th century eugenics movement in the US.  It was used to justify forced sterilizations, and apathy towards preventable deaths from disease. 

That's why people are upset. 

If that's not what you want to imply, you should not use Social Darwinist rhetoric to advance your position. 
 

Wow, all that from one poster's opinion?  As the moderators have said ad nauseum, take issues up with individual posters over PM, not in threads.  This is WAY off topic.

[stik]

I fully agree that some people should not be vaccinated.  So does the CDC. 

You have to feel your own outrage about your own cause.  It doesn't make sense to ask the OP to feel it for you. 

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by stik 

I fully agree that some people should not be vaccinated.  So does the CDC. 

You have to feel your own outrage about your own cause.  It doesn't make sense to ask the OP to feel it for you. 

Nor does it make sense for the OP, AKA "Outraged Mom" to ask everyone else to feel her own outrage.

[stik]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Wow, all that from one poster's opinion?  As the moderators have said ad nauseum, take issues up with individual posters over PM, not in threads.  This is WAY off topic.

The comments I'm responding to appeared in this thread.  I am one of several to point out their problematic nature, and one of the more recent - I jumped in relatively late.  I feel strongly that the insertion of eugenic rhetoric into this conversation is very relevant to the conversation and to the original post. 

I don't PM.  I come to MDC to have conversations in public. 

[littlec]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Nor does it make sense for the OP, AKA "Outraged Mom" to ask everyone else to feel her own outrage.

Or to make choices based on her outrage.

[stik]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Nor does it make sense for the OP, AKA "Outraged Mom" to ask everyone else to feel her own outrage.

She's asking them to change their behavior to benefit public health.  It's a little over-the-top for MDC.  She seems to feel quite strongly. 

[Mirzam]

stik, oh the irony of your posts accusing the non vaxers here of being eugenicists when it is those in vaccination movement who are in fact  utilizing vaccines as a means of population control. 

[eireann]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

I've never heard anyone put it that way. That's a lot to consider. Thank you.

[serenbat]

you don't seem to get it- two children can get the exact same vaccine, one may have no issues and the other could and even die, same with a VPD, some died from (example-chicken pox) MANY did not, the fittest survived, that is what happened, how ever you spin it to meet your needs- the fittest do survive-natural selection at work- you call it what you want but to BLAME a parent for not vaccine is just NUTTYness, time and time again this being shown, the fittest do survive-naturally they over come what effects others

Everyday across the US two people can have the same exact infection and the same exact care and one can die and one not-what do you call that?

Natural selection didn't play a role in your mind?

Why do vaccers seem to always imply non do not care?? I don't get this- it is just spin!

where is YOUR proof that the vaccinated are healthier with a better survival rate? currently the longest living population group thus far in the US are the most under vaccinated..... the US has a hugh octarian population, the fittest among them have survived thus far 

 

frankly when you look at statistics children's cancer rates very HIGH! http://www.cdc.gov/features/dscancerinchildren/index.html

seems like children are the least healthiest but the fittest tend to survive childhood but I'm sure you see it differently

and this is what exactly???????????? are YOU implying that vaccines over ride your genetic make up?

you are spinning this to meet your justification, not what I or others are saying

Quote:

When you say "it comes down to the fittest" as a justification for an anti-vax position, you imply (and I hope you don't want to) that people who die, or would die, of VPDs are not worth saving, because they aren't fit.   The term has a nasty history.  It was used by the Nazis, and by the early 20th century eugenics movement in the US.  It was used to justify forced sterilizations, and apathy towards preventable deaths from disease. 

That's why people are upset. 

If that's not what you want to imply, you should not use Social Darwinist rhetoric to advance your position. 
 

Edited by serenbat - 8/16/12 at 4:00am

[Anca]

What puzzles me is why mothers who vaccinate are worried about the non-vaccinated kids. Isn't vaccine supposed to protect children? So if they get the immunity through vaccines, one shouldn't complain about non-vaccinated kids, because their child won't have any problems, at least this should be the logical explanation.

[serenbat]

What puzzles me is why mothers who vaccinate are worried about the non-vaccinated kids. Isn't vaccine supposed to protect children? So if they get the immunity through vaccines, one shouldn't complain about non-vaccinated kids, because their child won't have any problems, at least this should be the logical explanation.

yea, one would think so! 

 

given how you child can die so easily from a nonVPD I don't get this constant outcry....... must make them feel good attacking others 

 

seeing the same posters railing against antivaccers over and over again yet their child has so many other risks I don't get the mentality for the pro push agenda 

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by Anca 

What puzzles me is why mothers who vaccinate are worried about the non-vaccinated kids. Isn't vaccine supposed to protect children? So if they get the immunity through vaccines, one shouldn't complain about non-vaccinated kids, because their child won't have any problems, at least this should be the logical explanation.

This has been explained a ton of times on this board. Vaccines aren't 100%, so some kids who have received vaccines may still be susceptible. The more unvaccinated and potentially disease-prone kids they spend time around, the more likely that these kids will be exposed and get a VPD, and we don't know which kids they are. if everyone or nearly everyone in the population is vaccinated, the odds of anyone bringing VPD to these kids is a lot lower.

[Anca]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

This has been explained a ton of times on this board. Vaccines aren't 100%, so some kids who have received vaccines may still be susceptible. The more unvaccinated and potentially disease-prone kids they spend time around, the more likely that these kids will be exposed and get a VPD, and we don't know which kids they are. if everyone or nearly everyone in the population is vaccinated, the odds of anyone bringing VPD to these kids is a lot lower.

Well, if I tell you (and you can see it too) that I just joined today this forum, will you forgive me for not having the time to read the tons of explanations on this board?

So mainly, you would want me to vaccine my child for the just in case situations when vaccines don't do their job for who knows whose kids?