or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences. - Page 2

post #21 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

I think (I hope) that even people who claim to be terrified of unvaccinated people would still choose 100% of the time go to school or work with them rather than ride in a car driven by a person with unmedicated epilepsy. Can these things even be compared? It seems silly to do so.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, so no, I don't think it's a valid comparison to public education.

post #22 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 

Driving is a privilege, not a right, so no, I don't think it's a valid comparison to public education.

 

How about privately run daycares and private medical practices?  Those are -- well, I'm not sure they are privileges exactly, but they are certainly not constitutionally protected rights.

post #23 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

How about privately run daycares and private medical practices?  Those are -- well, I'm not sure they are privileges exactly, but they are certainly not constitutionally protected rights.

when discrimination happens in "private" sectors, states are pushing these institutions for many reasons and taking them to court

 

if a daycare chose to discriminate I would assume it would be challenged, they do have to follow state guide lines, each state being different - many simply are not really private and exist on non-private property, receive some funding based on clients, etc

 

look at Philadelphia and the Boy Scouts (a private club/institution), many private daycare, medical practices except state aid for clients, etc - with a medical practices an insurance company could challenge them for discriminating against a paying patient if they take that insurance- why not? - they would have to be solely private and not affiliated with a hospitable either (since most do get some state/federal aid) - I certainly see someone would have grounds to at least challenge a facility if they chose to discriminate

 

often you don't even need to sue, in the case of a Dr that choose to discriminate if they are affiliated with a hospitable (who really would want a ped that isn't?) you might go after that hospitable and cause enough sink that they may suspend their privileges or cause the Dr to change their discrimination policy - I suspect that if more want to discriminate they will face scrutiny and that maybe a law suite that brings this to a head

 

the ALCU has stood beside nurses I see no reason they would not stand behind a parent to challenge this and I don't expect it will be too much longer to we see this happening

post #24 of 106
The issue is no human on earth is 'completely vaccinated'. Not one. I think there is a fundamental right to exist as you were born, it is very dangerous to start saying you need Pharm products to legally exist.

What we are talking about is vaccinated up to date on your country's current schedule. And very few adults would even qualify as that.
post #25 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

The issue is no human on earth is 'completely vaccinated'. Not one. I think there is a fundamental right to exist as you were born, it is very dangerous to start saying you need Pharm products to legally exist.

What we are talking about is vaccinated up to date on your country's current schedule. And very few adults would even qualify as that.

 

What?  Who is saying you have to take pharmaceutical products to exist? 

 

I've given at least two examples where people can be told that they have to take X medication or suffer Y consequence.  It is not considered a violation of their rights. 

 

Like I said, there is no legal right to make whatever choice you want without consequence.  

post #26 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

What?  Who is saying you have to take pharmaceutical products to exist? 

 

My guess is that she meant "exist," as in "exist normally in society." That would include going to school or working if one chooses to do so.

post #27 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

What?  Who is saying you have to take pharmaceutical products to exist? 

 

I've given at least two examples where people can be told that they have to take X medication or suffer Y consequence.  It is not considered a violation of their rights. 

 

Like I said, there is no legal right to make whatever choice you want without consequence.  


Except that in the first example you gave (epilepsy and driving), driving is a privilege.  The default is that a person doesn't have a license, they have to earn the privilege.  The second example (tuberculosis and medications) is a bit more of an ethical dilemma, but is quite different than vax -vs- unvaxed since it's a case of somebody having an illness that can be spread, not a healthy person who poses no immediate risk choosing not to take a prophylactic medication which may actually make them a greater risk in the short-term (shedding), and whose long-term effects are completely speculative (the person might never come in contact with any of the diseases).

 

And while I understand your objection to the word "exist" I agree with the spirit of dinahx's statement: making it necessary for everybody to be medicated in order to have rights is a dangerous direction for society to take.

post #28 of 106

But what is a "right"?  I don't think seeing a particular doctor or going to a particular daycare *is* a right and I think it *is* a natural consequence if certain people disapprove of a choice strongly enough to cut ties.

post #29 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 
 

And while I understand your objection to the word "exist" I agree with the spirit of dinahx's statement: making it necessary for everybody to be medicated in order to have rights is a dangerous direction for society to take.

This. Touches of Brave New World.

post #30 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

 

 

Preventing unvaccinated kids from attending school  (schools that are actually funded by the taxes their parents pay) is the first step towards segregation.  Additional financial burden is the second step.  Firing health care workers, ostensibly for refusing an invasive procedure that has neither been proven safe nor effective, but really, for disagreeing with the Big Business that is trying to sell the procedure, is the third.  

​We've been down this road before in the US.  We should really know better by now
.


What's next? "Separate-but-equal" schools and pediatricians for the unvaccinated?  How about grocery stores, hospitals, restaurants?    My parents are old enough to remember--and tell us about--separate drinking fountains and toilets for non-whites, and the fact that people actually believed that it was to prevent a white person from getting a "colored" person's germs. Edited to clarify (2/12/14, 2:25 pm):  I include this example from history to point out how very wrong it is to separate/segregate/punish a segment of the population based on fear--particularly when we can show that that fear is driven by greed.

 

 

post #31 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

As has been said before, being unvaccinated is a choice.   It is not in any way comparable to discriminating against someone for their skin color, eye color or things they cannot control. 

 

Employers can legally refuse to hire people for their choices and do so all the time.  Ever heard how hard it is for people with facial tattoos to get a job?  Employers can choose not to hire you because of visible body piercings, or unnatural hair colors, unique hairstyles (like a mohawk) etc.  Or they can require that you take piercings out during work, or cover any visible tattoos with makeup.  You can choose not to do so, but you can also get fired for it.  

 

These are all completely legal things that a person can be discriminated against.  So does this mean we are going back to the times of segregation because employers can choose not to hire people with facial tattoos or purple mohawks? 

 

Of course, this does not apply to people who have a legitimate medical exemptions to vaccines.  

 

And for the record, my examples are meant to be comparable to firing nurses, private practices and specific day cares etc.   There is no legal "right" to work as a nurse in a hospital, for example. 

post #32 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

As has been said before, being unvaccinated is a choice.   It is not in any way comparable to discriminating against someone for their skin color, eye color or things they cannot control. 

 

 

 

Being unvaccinated is the natural state of being, vaccinating is a choice, it is an unnatural state of the body - forced antibodies. It very much is comparable to race or skin color which is also a natural state.  

post #33 of 106

You cannot change race or skin color.  You can change being unvaccinated.  They are not comparable.  It could be more closely compared to religion rather than race, and while there is a right to freedom of religion, that doens't mean that anything that falls under the umbrella of religion is protected.  I have a right to go to the church of my choice every Sunday morning (or Saturday, or any other day).  However, if my job requires me to work Sunday mornings, and I insist on going to church instead, I could be fired.  It would be legal even though I am exercising my freedom of religion, and I think it would be fair as well.

post #34 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

You cannot change race or skin color.  You can change being unvaccinated.  They are not comparable.  It could be more closely compared to religion rather than race, and while there is a right to freedom of religion, that doens't mean that anything that falls under the umbrella of religion is protected.  I have a right to go to the church of my choice every Sunday morning (or Saturday, or any other day).  However, if my job requires me to work Sunday mornings, and I insist on going to church instead, I could be fired.  It would be legal even though I am exercising my freedom of religion, and I think it would be fair as well.

I think you have it backwards, you choose to vaccinate, the natural state is unvaccinated. Religion is not a natural human state, spirituality, consciousness is, but religion is a construct of man. Insisting that everyone is a certain religion in order to participate in society is the same as insisting that a child is vaccinated to get certain benefits of society - healthcare, school etc.

post #35 of 106

I'm absolutely not going to open the can of worms about whether religion or spirituality is "natural".

 

But yes, a private Christian (or other faith-based) school can absolutely require that families profess a statement of faith and the children participate in religious activities.  I think some Catholic schools only allow parish members to attend.  Similarly, a private daycare center or private medical practice should be able to require that children be vaccinated in order to participate.

post #36 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Being unvaccinated is the natural state of being, vaccinating is a choice, it is an unnatural state of the body - forced antibodies. It very much is comparable to race or skin color which is also a natural state.  


This.

 

Vaccination is a choice.  And not one that should be mandated, as it's invasive.  

I think the best comparison would  be with clitoridectomy in Middle Eastern and African countries.  Imagine if that were mandated in the US, because a bunch of men with a political agenda decreed that not doing so was dangerous to others.  Oh wait, that's pretty much what happens over there.

post #37 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

I think you have it backwards, you choose to vaccinate, the natural state is unvaccinated. Religion is not a natural human state, spirituality, consciousness is, but religion is a construct of man. Insisting that everyone is a certain religion in order to participate in society is the same as insisting that a child is vaccinated to get certain benefits of society - healthcare, school etc.

 

It has nothing to do with whether it's the "natural state" or not. It's whether it's something you can choose or not.  Being nude is the natural state.  I don't recommend going to a job interview naked.  Showing up to work without clothing on would cause the vast majority of people to get fired.   

 

So how consistent is your logic in this sense? Do you think a school teacher should be allowed to show up to work naked because it's the "natural state" and anything that falls in that category should be a protected right? 

post #38 of 106

No one here is arguing that vaccines be *mandated*.  The argument seems to be whether private organizations have a right to set standards even if they seem unfair to some.

post #39 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

It has nothing to do with whether it's the "natural state" or not. It's whether it's something you can choose or not.  Being nude is the natural state.  I don't recommend going to a job interview naked.  Showing up to work without clothing on would cause the vast majority of people to get fired.   

 

So how consistent is your logic in this sense? Do you think a school teacher should be allowed to show up to work naked because it's the "natural state" and anything that falls in that category should be a protected right? 

It has everything to do with unvaccinated being the natural state of a living being. Clothes are not injected pharmaceutical drugs given to healthy people in the off chance it will protect them from what are in most cases are benign childhood diseases, these injected pharmaceutical drugs  can cause harm and even death. 

post #40 of 106
But that's not the accepted view. The accepted view based on decades of studies and experience - whether or not you agree with it - is that vaccinations are generally extremely safe and prevent diseases which can have serious consequences.

So we get stuck again on this basic disagreement which colours all other discussion on vaccination policies and morals.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences.