or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Selective & Delayed Vaccination › The Case for Vaccine Choice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Case for Vaccine Choice - Page 2

post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by naimah View Post

You're not required to send your children to public school, and public school has always been about forcing people to fit into an industrial mold. Uniform vaccination is only the first part of many ways your child will be forced to conform in public school. Why not advocate for school choice? Personally I'd rather get a voucher or reimbursement on my property taxes.
Oh, the fun we could have on another thread :energy
The bottom line is some parents want to send their kids to public school and some parents virtually have to for economic reasons.  Why should they not be able to?  Their taxes pay for school, and there is no "opt out" of school taxes.  Moreover, I know that where I live virtually everyone is entitled to a public education. Everyone!  Even kids with severe behaviour issue who hurt other kids and teachers and make school unsafe are allowed to go to school…somewhere (usually a separate public school).

I would like to see more vaccine choice in terms of being able to get the more effective vaccines that have been discontinued due to a tiny group of people who get side effects. Why should we all have to suffer because a few people are too weak?

The bolded sounds really bad - and I am being kind.  I would think twice about the wording.  My 2 cents. 

post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by naimah View Post
 Why not advocate for school choice?
 

As in a school for the vaxxed and a school for sel/delayeds and unvaxxed?  

 

Outside of urban areas, the logistics might be hard.  Lots of kids taking lots of tax payer funded buses from all over…and for what?  Because some people are afraid (without much logical cause) of the small number of non, and sel/del vaxxers?

 

We also have to know that the stats show non and sel/delayers tend to be more likely to be white, well off and well educated.  Do you want that kind of segregation going on?

post #23 of 43
That kind of segregation sounds like a settingt from a Margaret Atwood novel, like oryx and crake
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

The bolded sounds really bad - and I am being kind.  I would think twice about the wording.  My 2 cents. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

As in a school for the vaxxed and a school for sel/delayeds and unvaxxed?  

 

Outside of urban areas, the logistics might be hard.  Lots of kids taking lots of tax payer funded buses from all over…and for what?  Because some people are afraid (without much logical cause) of the small number of non, and sel/del vaxxers?

 

We also have to know that the stats show non and sel/delayers tend to be more likely to be white, well off and well educated.  Do you want that kind of segregation going on?

Not sure what this refers to....where I live there is a huge market for private schooling that cater to a wide range of income levels.  So yes, unvaccinated kids tend to congregate in private schools that don't require their students to vaccinate.  Yes, I think we should have this kind of school choice everywhere, and I don't think children should be forced into the public school system, even by economic necessity.  If parents have problems with the public health ruling on universal vaccination, they will probably have problems with the core curriculum, standardized testing, and standardized behavioral expectations that public schools espouse (I certainly do).

 

Your race and class comment is not relevant to this conversation, and frankly de facto segregation by race and class happens on a municipal level almost everywhere.  I don't think it has anything to do with vaccine choice.

post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

The bolded sounds really bad - and I am being kind.  I would think twice about the wording.  My 2 cents. 

If some kids are experiencing unpleasant side effects to vaccines that cause no reactions in most, they are weaker in a certain sense.  I don't think it is an untrue statement, but I agree it sounds a bit unkind.  I should have found a better way to word it.

post #26 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by naimah View Post
 

 

 

Your race and class comment is not relevant to this conversation, and frankly de facto segregation by race and class happens on a municipal level almost everywhere.  I don't think it has anything to do with vaccine choice.

I disagree it is irrelevant.  If you are suggesting (big if - are you?)  having alternate public schools for selective/delayers and non-vaxxers, you have to know that people who make those choices tend to fall into specific demographics.  

 

Of course de facto segregation by race and class happens everywhere.  This doesn't change that segregation along vaccination lines would be another means by which people are segregated.

post #27 of 43
I hope people on this thread are being sarcastic. Clearly, telling parents "you don't have to send your kids to public school" is an elitist attitude- and a tired argument that has been done to death in these forums. And "kids with vaccine reactions are weak" is just beyond offensive. Hello mods?
post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by naimah View Post
 

If some kids are experiencing unpleasant side effects to vaccines that cause no reactions in most, they are weaker in a certain sense.  I don't think it is an untrue statement, but I agree it sounds a bit unkind.  I should have found a better way to word it.

I understood what you meant, but the words "a few people are too weak" could lead us down the garden path to discussion on collateral damage and eugenics. I have seen it before and it is ugly.

 

Alas, I doubt they will ever offer both DPT and DTaP at the same time.  It is just too messy.  For consistency of message among other reasons,  I think they will pick one and go with it.  

post #29 of 43
Interesting question- is it better to have a vaccine that doesn't actually work well to prevent the disease, that almost anyone can receive, or a vaccine that works much better but has more contraindications?

I am starting to think it would be better to have real protection against the disease and a tiny number of people unvaccinated against it, because at least we would have a better picture of the reality of who is or is not protected.
post #30 of 43
"Weak"- more trolling vocabulary. Anyone who is at all engaged in the world knows how this comes across. It's offensive.
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

"Weak"- more trolling vocabulary. Anyone who is at all engaged in the world knows how this comes across. It's offensive.

my apologies, I'm not meaning to troll.  I saw Kathymuggle had a related topic in the debate forum, should I move my comments over there?  Although I've had posters there tell me that I damaged and diseased my kids for vaccinating them.  It seems like the moderating is a little one-sided here :(


Edited by naimah - 1/2/14 at 1:02pm
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Interesting question- is it better to have a vaccine that doesn't actually work well to prevent the disease, that almost anyone can receive, or a vaccine that works much better but has more contraindications?

I am starting to think it would be better to have real protection against the disease and a tiny number of people unvaccinated against it, because at least we would have a better picture of the reality of who is or is not protected.

I personally wouldn't mind taking these "risks" (I already did during my childhood getting DPT) with my family.  In the absence of side effects (very likely in our case), there would be both private and public benefits.  Especially if it meant that herd immunity was stronger and public health officials would stop harassing families that choose not to vaccinate their children.

post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennyanydots View Post

I hope people on this thread are being sarcastic. Clearly, telling parents "you don't have to send your kids to public school" is an elitist attitude- and a tired argument that has been done to death in these forums. And "kids with vaccine reactions are weak" is just beyond offensive. Hello mods?

I think public school is harmful to kids on a number of levels. Mandatory vaccination is only one aspect of that.  But it's off topic, and I already apologized for my other comments elsewhere.

post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by naimah View Post
 

my apologies, I'm not meaning to troll.  I saw Kathymuggle had a related topic in the debate forum, should I move my comments over there?  Although I've had anti-vaxxers there tell me that I damaged and diseased my kids for vaccinating them.  It seems like the moderating is a little one-sided here :(

 

 

 

You can flag it if that is the case.

 

ETA:  we're good, as far as I am concerned, on the apology.  MDC vaccines forums need to come with a manual on "how to write so as not to set off a flame war."  It does not come with such a manual, and I have written sloppily and offended more than once.  We all need to cut each other some slack.

post #35 of 43

As a regular member I really appreciate KM giving some slack to new members as well as members willingness to hear explanations for how what we say is perceived and apologize when necessary. It goes such a long way!  

 

I want to remind everyone that this is the Selective/Delay forum and is intended for those families specifically. Members wishing to discuss or debate issues with the full range of perspectives on vaccines can post in the Discussion and Debate forum. 

 

"Pro-Vax" or full-vax families have a forum to post for support and discussion of that choice. 

 

Here is a link to the forum guidelines: http://www.mothering.com/community/a/vaccination-forum-guidelines

 

Please keep an eye on your in-box in the next day or two in case some edits are in order. 

post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post

As a regular member I really appreciate KM giving some slack to new members as well as members willingness to hear explanations for how what we say is perceived and apologize when necessary. It goes such a long way!  

I want to remind everyone that this is the Selective/Delay forum and is intended for those families specifically. Members wishing to discuss or debate issues with the full range of perspectives on vaccines can post in the Discussion and Debate forum. 

"Pro-Vax" or full-vax families have a forum to post for support and discussion of that choice. 

Here is a link to the forum guidelines: http://www.mothering.com/community/a/vaccination-forum-guidelines
Please keep an eye on your in-box in the next day or two in case some edits are in order. 

Thanks! We are in fact selective about vaccine formulations, and we certainly aren't on schedule. I don't think that stops me from having a "pro" perspective. I see lots of benefits to vaccines, or I wouldn't be giving them to my child at all.
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by naimah View Post


Thanks! We are in fact selective about vaccine formulations, and we certainly aren't on schedule. I don't think that stops me from having a "pro" perspective.

That sure does. If you are a selective vaccine or delayed vaccine family, you are welcome to post here. It's understandable that someone can feel "pro-vax" but still delay and/or decline certain formulations. :) 

post #38 of 43
Thread Starter 
Since this thread is all about making a case for vaccine choice, I'll add a thought that a lot of us in the S/D camp find aggravating: The lack of choice in SPECIFIC vaccines. We can no longer choose monovalent vaccines, such as M, M, and/or R instead of MMR. We cannot choose between whole-cell or acellular pertussis. Most of the time, we can't even choose which freaking brand we want. All of these decisions get made for us from On High. I often wonder how many more parents would vaccinate for certain diseases if they had their own say in how to go about it.
post #39 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by naimah View Post

You're not required to send your children to public school, and public school has always been about forcing people to fit into an industrial mold. Uniform vaccination is only the first part of many ways your child will be forced to conform in public school. Why not advocate for school choice? Personally I'd rather get a voucher or reimbursement on my property taxes.



 



Well and good until you live in a state in which homeschoolers are also subject to the same vaccination laws as school-children. Virginia and New Mexico immediately come to mind.

Also, I'm a staunch advocate for homeschooling rights and still argue that not everyone can or should homeschool. Homeschooling is a serious decision, major commitment, and calling. It should happen out of a genuine passion for educating one's children, not as a default, no-other-choice setting for people who lost a battle with the state over vaccine choice.
post #40 of 43
@pp I agree! All I wanted for LO was the tetanus vaccine - instead we had to get pertussis, diphtheria, and polio and tetanus - or nothing at all. It's so patronizing and as you say, if it really was about best for babies they would never let some kids go with zero vaccines as opposed to selecting. Ds only has the dtap mentioned above, I don't intend on doing any others. He can decide otherwise for himself when he's older.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Selective & Delayed Vaccination
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Selective & Delayed Vaccination › The Case for Vaccine Choice