or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Position paper on outlawing personal exemptions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Position paper on outlawing personal exemptions - Page 2

post #21 of 34
We could have a whole, fun spin-off thread about sexism in the vaccine issue---Male-Dominated Medical Establishment v. Ignorant Young Mommies, the latter whom are too stupid to evaluate critically any information from the Big Bad Internet and turn to Jenny McCarthy for advice.

ETA: Male-dominated doesn't always mean male *majority." An obstetric or pediatric practice with only female physicians may still represent a patriarchal worldview and engage in paternalistic practices.

Oh, and if you want immediate, concrete proof of all of the sexism, head to your favorite search engine and enter "Jenny McCarthy" and "bimbo."
post #22 of 34
Duplicate
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

The Polio thing is weird.  I do think vaccines had a role to play in the lessening of some diseases, and I would have thought Polio was one.  All the stats are very intresting to look at.   I tend to think this 95% thing is a number they pulled out of their butt.  They want close to everyone to vaccinate, so they pick a very high figure….it allows for effective scare-mongerring  through societal pressure if vaccine rates fall below 95%ish.  


 This is very telling - but more about the aap than anyone else.  

I think they are indulging to some degree in scientism  for this stance (wikipedia):

"Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively,[1]

[2]

[3]

 to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method
 and approach, and the view that empirical science
 constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[4]

 "

Why are they equating cultural, emotional, political and social context to irrationality?  They are many perfectly good cultural, emotional etc reasons to question vaccines.  Moreover, "parents immunization decisions" include those who vax - and I could make a very strong arguement that some of their decisions are based on things other than science.

Alas,  the aap is being a big ol hypocrit.  I am almost positive the reason they have come down in favour of circ is because 50%  of American baby boys are circ'ed, and they do not want to alienate those families. Their stance on circ is almost certainly cultural and political.  So they can make cultural and political decisions - but the rest of us are irrational for doing so. 

Does anyone ever thing the dislike to non-vaxxers boils down to a paternalistic, anti-parent type thing???  
                            

To answer your last question, I think it's even deeper than that.

A doctor once told me that doctors are the new priests. White coats have just replace cassocks and collars, but doctors still want to be the ones who control how you are born, how you live your life, how you give birth to and raise your children, what you put in your body, and even how you die. And just like the Early Church clergy, (ie the corrupt clergy when the Church was at its worst), a good many doctors aren't going to cede their power without a fight. Medical dogma is coming under as much questioning and scrutiny as early church dogma once did, and the more power-hungry doctors are lashing out to punish heretics and put them in their place--e.g. calling CPS if you want a second opinion and forcing you into their Exam Room-Confessionals if you opt out of vaccines so that you can be reprimended for your sins, (the latter is a new state law in WA and CA).

I'm a person of faith, btw, so I hope I didn't just come across as some religious bigot. I just call corruption where I see it.

Anyway, just musing aloud...
post #24 of 34
Duplicate again. Dammit. LOL!
post #25 of 34
This thread is getting so interesting! I guess it is bc I read on this site all the time, but I'm genuinely surprised when I find out my "crunchy" friends actually vaccinate. It seems like everyone should know this stuff by now. . .
post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


To answer your last question, I think it's even deeper than that.

A doctor once told me that doctors are the new priests. White coats have just replace cassocks and collars, but doctors still want to be the ones who control how you are born, how you live your life, how you give birth to and raise your children, what you put in your body, and even how you die. And just like the Early Church clergy, (ie the corrupt clergy when the Church was at its worst), a good many doctors aren't going to cede their power without a fight. Medical dogma is coming under as much questioning and scrutiny as early church dogma once did, and the more power-hungry doctors are lashing out to punish heretics and put them in their place--e.g. calling CPS if you want a second opinion and forcing you into their Exam Room-Confessionals if you opt out of vaccines so that you can be reprimended for your sins, (the latter is a new state law in WA and CA).

I'm a person of faith, btw, so I hope I didn't just come across as some religious bigot. I just call corruption where I see it.

Anyway, just musing aloud...

heres a link for you

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/217766-Modern-Medicine-The-Hidden-Influence-of-Beliefs-and-Fears

 

 

 

  •  

    Quote:
    • physicians have taken the place of priests;

    • vaccination plays the same initiatory role as baptism, and is accompanied by the same threats and fears;

    • the search for health has replaced the quest for salvation;

    • the fight against disease has replaced the fight against sin;

    • eradication of viruses has taken the place of exorcising demons;

    • the hope of physical immortality (cloning, genetic engineering) has been substituted for the hope of eternal life;

    • pills have replaced the sacrament of bread and wine;

    • donations to cancer research take precedence over donations to the church;

    • a hypothetical universal vaccine could save humanity from all its illnesses, as the Saviour has saved the world from all its sins;

     

post #27 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHinJersey View Post

People who don't vaccinate currently have every right to do so, and by doing so to benefit  off everyone else's  investment in the common good.

You realize this is a SUPPORT forum for nonvaxing parents...you are assuming nonvaxing parents are benefiting from parents who vax.  

post #28 of 34

http://www.mothering.com/community/a/vaccination-forum-guidelines

DH, This is a support only forum. You can find the rules for posting in the above link. Thanks.

 

 

I find the religious/priest comparisons quite fascinating. We thankfully have not run in to that yet and have a good family doctor who is supportive of us making our choices for our children.

post #29 of 34

Not naming names, but if you look at any member's post history, you will see there are some who visit MDC just to argue. Argue and mock, and that's about it.

post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Not naming names, but if you look at any member's post history, you will see there are some who visit MDC just to argue. Argue and mock, and that's about it.

Yep. Have fallen into said person's trap more than once. Doh!!
post #31 of 34
Thread Starter 
nm.  issue gone!  smile.gif

Edited by kathymuggle - 5/4/13 at 11:36am
post #32 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

We could have a whole, fun spin-off thread about sexism in the vaccine issue---Male-Dominated Medical Establishment v. Ignorant Young Mommies, the latter whom are too stupid to evaluate critically any information from the Big Bad Internet and turn to Jenny McCarthy for advice.
 

I actually like Jenny McCarthy.  Shhhhhh!!!  I read "Louder than Words" a number of years ago and really felt she captured some of the angst and heart-wrenching issues of having a child with autism.  I don't turn to McCarthy as a source for vaccine information, but as a storyteller, she is pretty darn good.  I also think she is fairly ballsy and has opened herself up to a lot of flack - something she did not have to do.  

 

I also have no issues with a parent (which is all she claims to be) saying what worked for her child and what didn't.  Goodness, she talks more about yeast in regards to her sons issues than vaccines - by far.  

 

Here is a link to the book.  I thought the reviews were really interesting.  It seems a lot of parents like it and a lot of people who work with those with autism do not.  

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/220563.Louder_Than_Words

 

 

In general:  I think the dismissal of Jenny McCarthy over the playboy issues is a load of crapola.  If you don't like her - fine.  Bringing up her playboy history though  shows your innate sexism or that you are trying to use sexism of others to turn them against JM.  She should be judged for her ideas and actions, not her playboy past.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/4/13 at 2:01pm
post #33 of 34
Fair enough! But I've never once heard you cite your data with, "See? It says so right here in Louder Than Words." winky.gif
Edited by Turquesa - 5/7/13 at 5:52am
post #34 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Fair enough! But I've never once heard you cite your data with, "See? It says so right here in Louder Than Words." :wino

That's because kathy said, " I don't turn to McCarthy as a source for vaccine information."

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Position paper on outlawing personal exemptions