Should vaccinated have right to sue unvaccinated? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-06-2011, 01:00 PM
 
Lisa1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I think the government has gotten too big and too controlling. But, because of the size the the level of control, there is not much we can do, as people, to try to take that control back. 

 

A lot of people do not understand the truth about how government works. The School House Rock versions are nice and cute and put such a pretty picture on thing for kids. But as adults, we need to look closer. Lobbyist seem to play the biggest role in government. I am not talking the small group of people going there and talking to senators about their topic. I am talking the huge wealthy corporations who spend a lot of money on campaigns. People running know they have to defer to at least some of these corporations, or they won't get re-elected. "The People" tend to rely on what they see on TV to decide who they will vote for. What they see on TV and in media is at the whim and will of the media outlets. It is also dependent on how much support an individual candidate has financially and such. Once in office, as "the people" it is hard to see what those in congress are really doing or how they are spending their time, or otherwise. Even if someone can get a copy of a bill up for vote, chances are, it is so long and in such language that it would be difficult for most people to read through it. Plus, by the time it passes, a lot has been added on that has nothing to do with the original bill. In the end, we end up paying for things, like studies on prostitute behavior in South America, that no one would really want funded. Plus, many people STILL cannot seem to comprehend that when "government" spends money on something, it really is us, tax payers. It comes out of each one of our pockets. And it does not stop with just income and property tax. It is sales tax too. It is also every item you pay for, everyone along the way has paid various taxes to produce that item.

 

It is just complicated and I could write pages and pages trying to explain this. (IF I had time, which I do not, I have already been interrupted many times trying to type this). But in the end, government control, big government, needs to be cut down. But like every big government in the past, from Rome to the Soviet Union, most people believe this country eventually will crash too. I don't know about that, but it makes sense. 

Lisa1970 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-06-2011, 01:05 PM
 
PreggieUBA2C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: foothills, farm, deep wilderness
Posts: 1,808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post

So how do all of those issues affect how vaccinating individuals interact with non/selective/delayed vaxing individuals?



The essential issue is freedom. Whether or not one person has an actual, innate right or even ability to accuse necessitates a standard, and that standard must be demonstrable through universally observable laws, if it is going to be anything other than a charade. So, all of this affects everyone in every aspect of life. Th connection is just ever-so-slightly below the surface, yet even visible through the layer that consists of the question posed in the title of the thread.


Well, I've been absent for 8 months, and during that time, it turns out that I have completely transformed. You are all precious. Thank you for being here and sharing your lives. You are truly a gift. namaste.gif Jan. 23, 2012

PreggieUBA2C is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 02:26 PM
 
Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Where the end of the world began
Posts: 626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Enchanted View Post

Now with vaccinations, you need to stop listening to the worldwide stat of 165,000 deaths per year.  The vast majority of those are in poor countries that lack good sanitation.

 

Sanitation has precious little to do with diseases spread by the respiratory route. The drastic decrease in worldwide measles deaths is not due to plumbers, garbage collectors, and Lysol. (And vitamin A is not a magic bullet, which I mention because it tends to be next in line.) Moreover, asserting that anybody "needs to" ignore hundreds of thousands of deaths is impressively callous. I imagine that the annual 450 deaths and 4000 cases of encephalitis caused by measles in the U.S. in the pre-sanitation pre-vaccine 1960s are important to discount as well.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Enchanted View Post

Why should we all be FORCED to inject ourselves and our children with neurotoxins that can cause problems ranging from high fever to seizures?

 

Who's being forced to vaccinate? "Mandatory," as for school, is not the same as "compulsory." Deliberately confounding this distinction is hyperbolic, and it also ignores the fact that successfully eliminating eradicable diseases takes pieces of the issue of "neurotoxins" off the table for everyone.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ella Enchanted View Post

 

Clearly you don't understand how vaccinations work, or don't work.  They are intended to help the body identify a virus faster.  This means that the person must first contract the virus!  A vaccine doesn't put up a shield around a person that viruses bounce off.  The virus must get into a person, and the goal of a vaccine is to identify it before symptoms set in.  So someone who is vaccinated can pass along the virus!

 

You may want to hold off on impugning other peoples' understanding of immunology and pathogenesis. In order for a person to spread a virus or bacterium, it has to be able to reproduce. The immune system's job is to prevent this or shut it down; whether the response is due to a vaccine or preexisting natural immunity or built from scratch doesn't matter. Being exposed to a pathogen is not the same as "contracting" it--if an infection cannot establish itself, it is not passed along. Consider measles: It comes in through the nose. The cough, however, doesn't start until it takes a reproductive trip to the lymph system and sets up shop throughout the respiratory mucosa. Interrupt this process, and you've basically stopped transmission.

 

Otto is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 02:39 PM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post





The essential issue is freedom. Whether or not one person has an actual, innate right or even ability to accuse necessitates a standard, and that standard must be demonstrable through universally observable laws, if it is going to be anything other than a charade. So, all of this affects everyone in every aspect of life. Th connection is just ever-so-slightly below the surface, yet even visible through the layer that consists of the question posed in the title of the thread.


So if someone has the freedom or right to accuse a non-vaxing person of causing them harm via disease exposure, what standard might be applied? Also, why would one not have the right to make such an accusation and then have the opportunity to be proven either wrong or right?
amnesiac is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 02:40 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It would be difficult to prove that person A was infected by person B.  But if this could be proven, then yes, absolutely.  

 

If your unvacced kid got my kid sick with a vaccine-preventable disease, absolutely I would sue your pants off.  

 

Actions have consequences.  

 

(with one exception - if the unvacced kid was not vacced due to legitimate medical reason, such as having cancer)

MsFortune is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 02:47 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

I read your vitamin A link, and found this:

 

*No overall significant reduction in mortality with vitamin A therapy for children with measles was found. However two doses reduced overall and pneumonia-specific mortality in children aged less than two years.

 

*However, two doses of vitamin A (200,000 IU on consecutive days) reduced the mortality in children aged less than two years (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.61) and pneumonia-specific mortality (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.92). Two doses of vitamin A reduced the incidence of croup (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89) but not pneumonia morbidity (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22), nor diarrhea morbidity (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.34).


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 03-06-2011, 04:01 PM
 
sosurreal09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MsFortune View Post

It would be difficult to prove that person A was infected by person B.  But if this could be proven, then yes, absolutely.  

 

If your unvacced kid got my kid sick with a vaccine-preventable disease, absolutely I would sue your pants off.  

 

Actions have consequences.  

 

(with one exception - if the unvacced kid was not vacced due to legitimate medical reason, such as having cancer)

This makes me sick. Why do people even sue for anything?

 

Last I checked humans weren't born with vaccines. It is something you do to your body. So suing people for not medically altering their body makes sense to you?

 

I stopped vaxing DD b/c she had reactions to vax, but after researching and digging deeper into my spiritual faith I have come to the conclusion to not vax any of my future children or myself. Vaccines allegedly prevent these diseases, yet vaccinated people get them all the time. Then they claim even if you are vaxed and get it, it makes the disease less invasive, but vaccinated people have gotten these diseases invasively. Plenty of diseases have eradicated themselves without vaccines though. I just do not believe their is any real preventative treatment to these viruses/diseases. I think diet, overall health, and lifestyle play the biggest roles.

 

Human milk alone has benefits that can help prevent and fight off these diseases and viruses. So should we sue parents who chose to formula feed b/c they aren't providing the best protection against these diseases? I wonder how much these rates would drop if everyone were strictly breastfed. (In a developed country of course)
 

 


 Young born-again mama and loving wife peace.gif to DH jammin.gif and SAHP to two crazy girls dust.gifwehomebirth.jpgfly-by-nursing2.gifslinggirl.giffamilybed1.gif and believe gd.giflactivist.gif  signcirc1.gif !

sosurreal09 is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 05:06 PM
 
PreggieUBA2C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: foothills, farm, deep wilderness
Posts: 1,808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post





The essential issue is freedom. Whether or not one person has an actual, innate right or even ability to accuse necessitates a standard, and that standard must be demonstrable through universally observable laws, if it is going to be anything other than a charade. So, all of this affects everyone in every aspect of life. Th connection is just ever-so-slightly below the surface, yet even visible through the layer that consists of the question posed in the title of the thread.




So if someone has the freedom or right to accuse a non-vaxing person of causing them harm via disease exposure, what standard might be applied? Also, why would one not have the right to make such an accusation and then have the opportunity to be proven either wrong or right?


If it doesn't rely on natural law, then the standard can be absolutely anything, and of course people can (and do) use time and energy for utter frivolity if they please, taking from others what doesn't belong to them for the sake of seeing whether or not their accusation will be accepted in their court by whatever their standard.

 

But if the standard does not conform to natural law, then the whole thing is at least suspect, but overall, still a charade- a joke, and a wasteful, cruel one. The right to accuse is based on the reality of a standard by which an action can be judged. You can accuse without a standard, but this would indicate mental instability and could not be taken seriously by anyone but the accuser or like-minded unstable people.

 

The question in the title of the thread, "Should vaccinated have right to sue unvaccinated?" begs the question "according to what standard?" It seems to me that some here are attempting to establish one, and even deeper than the standard by which one may be accused of passively infecting others, is the question of autonomy and sovereignty of the individual.

 

It is difficult to argue first premises against tangential arguments, which is why in order to understand an argument/issue, it is always most efficient and effective to start at the beginning- first premises. In this case, establishing an argument for personal autonomy, sovereignty of the individual, is essential to understanding the role of others in the sovereign's life, whether or not those roles are necessary and therefore good, and then from there, it should become clear through discussion or even be self-evident, whether or not the actions of those people in those roles are appropriate.

 

Trying to ascertain whether their actions are appropriate to the situation without assessing whether they should even be there is evasion- passive, maybe, unwitting, maybe, but evasion nonetheless. Why ask a question if not to make the best attempt to find the answer? It would be more effective to just ask for a cuddle and a glass of wine, if that is what one is actually after.

 


Well, I've been absent for 8 months, and during that time, it turns out that I have completely transformed. You are all precious. Thank you for being here and sharing your lives. You are truly a gift. namaste.gif Jan. 23, 2012

PreggieUBA2C is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 05:23 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MsFortune View Post

It would be difficult to prove that person A was infected by person B.  But if this could be proven, then yes, absolutely.  

 

If your unvacced kid got my kid sick with a vaccine-preventable disease, absolutely I would sue your pants off.  

 

Actions have consequences.  

 

(with one exception - if the unvacced kid was not vacced due to legitimate medical reason, such as having cancer)


Back to the question stated earlier - if you are so sure that vaccines work, why would the unvaccinated be a threat to your vaccinated kid?

 

Vaccines have consequences too.

 

 


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 05:35 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Enchanted View Post

Brava, Preggie!

 

SSMama, according to government statistics, children who grow up in homes with two parents are more likely to be successful in life.  Should the government mandate that only people in relationships be allowed to have children and those who are single should face some sort of punishment?  Statistics also show that children of middle-income and wealthy parents have better opportunities in life while children of poor parents are more likely to grow up be poor themselves.  Should the poor be banned from having children?  Society in general would be healthier if there was less junk food and fast food eaten and more fresh veggies eaten instead.  Should the government ban unhealthy foods and mandate eating lots of fresh veggies and lean meats?


I'm NOT saying that the government should have unbridled power to do whatever the H3LL they want to - I STRONGLY disagree with the crazies in government right now.  And yes, I'm sure my son will grow up to be an incredibly screwed up person who won't contribute to society in any way b/c he's being raised by a single parent.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post





Okay, so I am not going to deal with each an every caricaturisation of non-governed society in your post. I will say that I really don't understand why you think that all people would suddenly stop caring about the wellbeing of all of the others in the absence of governing factions. People care about one another all the time, every day, and even spend their entire lives doing so as a primary occupation, and not because the government mandated it. Do you think that the reason those women are experiencing that horror is because of a lack of government? Why are your examples of chaotic societies from those that are dealing with the results of despotic governments? Obviously a democratic government is better than a malevolent, overtly violent dictatorship/martial state; that' not at issue. My point is that freedom is not contingent on being ruled by people we are somehow capable of choosing, while being unable to make good choices... It's absurd to trust us to vote for our rulers! It is illogical. If we can be trusted to choose our rulers, we are also trustworthy to rule ourselves as individuals. Clearly we are.

 

It's not due to a lack of government, its due to the government not giving a damn and doing absolutely NOTHING to stop it.  In Haiti rape is currently considered to be the woman's fault - she wanted it, she asked for it, she was wearing the wrong clothes, she blah blah blah.  The culture is currently one of impunity - meaning that there is NO threat of punishment for doing something illegal.  Contrary to what you believe, Laws DO deter people from doing bad things.  There are people (LOTS of people) who don't need that.  Some do.  Some need to be held to a certain standard, stereotypes need to be changed, stigma's need to be gotten rid of (it wasn't all too long ago that the US had the SAME stigma concerning rape that Haiti doesn't right now). 

 

Having no government does not at all mean having no protection, no social concern, no programs to aid the poor and destitute. Do you really think that the only way to ensure these things is to legislate looting/extortion against each and every person in a geographical location? When even now, even with a continuous stream of absurd legislated restrictions, private people undertake to help the poor, to assist in medical issues, to set up private protection agencies, we can assume that they would do so without government interference as well.

 

I'd really like to know WHO is going to do it without government?  Are you?  Is your family going to give money to a stranger you've never met?  People are mostly concerned with themselves - maybe not you, maybe not most people on MDC, but this is not the real world.  This is a virtual chat room of sorts, its not representative of the population as a whole.  I mean, look at the rich people in the US - they don't want to pay taxes to support government programs!  They don't want to feed anyone but their own families.  (massive generalization I know, forgive me)  The Republican party keeps trying to get more and more tax cuts for richest people in our country, and yet you think that most people will stand up to help the poor?  That people will stand up to do whats RIGHT?  I disagree.

 

You are mixing a lot of apples and oranges, and it is likely that law school is not really the best place to learn about law or reality, imo. A law is an expression of reality. Everyone and everything conforms to laws; that's what makes them laws. The compulsion through coercion and force by one group/person against another is generally understood to be morally wrong, even within the court system, except when that coercion and force is legislated. Then it's re-labeled "good."  Then it's accepted, and normal, otherwise moral people, will exert force against those who refuse the re-labeled evil, even to the point of death. Re-labeling government legislation "law" does not make it so. It's hyperbole in the grossest sense.

 

Well, you might be right about that, but I probably know more about law than the average lay-person.  Most law is learned in practice, which you unfortunately can't get until you graduate law school, so I'm getting there.  As for reality, I'm really not sure where you're getting your knowledge of reality - b/c all this sounds incredibly illogical to me and HIGHLY idealistic.

 

When a subjugated group of people has been let go after decades of government tyranny, after decades of despotic regimes educating their children in violence, it is not a mark against true freedom when they act according to their educations. They were holding back the violence for so long that once that wall of violence retreated, some fell on their faces with the momentum, and others surged forward with weapons drawn, still fighting. In what possible way could this be an example of a free society? On a very individual basis, nobody is surprised when the son of a woman-abuser abuses a woman. Nobody reasonably concludes then that it's marriage that is the source of the problem, or imposed celibacy that solves it. Why then would government be the solution to individuals acting poorly after being educated by government to act poorly? How can more of the same be the solution, even if the "same" goes about their business with a smile? This is why I used the slavery analogy earlier: there simply is no way to make government work better than it does. It's as good as it gets. Why continue to beg and plead and hope that those individuals who have banded together (wait, isn't is always the bad people who do that? Good people cannot organise, right?) will stop abusing? Leave. Put our efforts into something better, like privately taking up the responsibility to rehabilitate survivors of despotic governments!

 

I just don't understand anything in this paragraph.



 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 05:47 PM
 
Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Where the end of the world began
Posts: 626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post

But if the standard does not conform to natural law, then the whole thing is at least suspect, but overall, still a charade

 

As is the whole notion of "natural law" without some sort of elaboration. What is its nature? Is it now proved to exist and characterized, or is it ultimately a phenomenon that is predicted to manifest once the State of Nature is achieved? If it manifests, will it be obvious, or even obviously immutable, or will it have to be investigated to tease out the details? Would the standard of any such investigation be to conform to natural law itself? Etc.

Otto is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 05:51 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post




Back to the question stated earlier - if you are so sure that vaccines work, why would the unvaccinated be a threat to your vaccinated kid?

 

Vaccines have consequences too.

 

 


Where has anyone on MDC ever claimed that vaccines are 100% effective?
TCMoulton is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 06:11 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post




Back to the question stated earlier - if you are so sure that vaccines work, why would the unvaccinated be a threat to your vaccinated kid?

 

Vaccines have consequences too.

 

 




Where has anyone on MDC ever claimed that vaccines are 100% effective?


Then acknowledging that vaccines are not 100% effective and asserting that it doesn't matter, that one should undertake the risks of said vaccine anyway, otherwise you risk getting "the pants" sued off you, is absolutely asinine, not to mention that getting sick from a VPD does not mean you will die from it.

 

It's this kind of attitude and entitlement that just kills me.

"If your unvacced kid got my kid sick with a vaccine-preventable disease, absolutely I would sue your pants off."  

 


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 06:18 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MsFortune View Post

It would be difficult to prove that person A was infected by person B.  But if this could be proven, then yes, absolutely.  

 

If your unvacced kid got my kid sick with a vaccine-preventable disease, absolutely I would sue your pants off.  

 

Actions have consequences.  

 

(with one exception - if the unvacced kid was not vacced due to legitimate medical reason, such as having cancer)



If your vaccinated kid gets my vaccinated kid sick with anything, can I sue the pants off you?  If our kids were in the same school and yours gave mine croup?  Or if you formula-fed by choice and your sick kid was always spreading illnesses around, could I sue you for that?  Actions have consequences, after all.

 

Or maybe my kid's classmates parents should just go ahead and sue me because even though I breastfed him for 2 years, he was premature and tends to get a lot of colds.

 

Illnesses don't usually start in a bubble, so where does the liability begin and end?

 

And one more question - are YOU up to date on all of your vaccines? 


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 06:29 PM
 
PreggieUBA2C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: foothills, farm, deep wilderness
Posts: 1,808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Super~Single~Mama wrote:

 

It's not due to a lack of government, its due to the government not giving a damn and doing absolutely NOTHING to stop it.  In Haiti rape is currently considered to be the woman's fault - she wanted it, she asked for it, she was wearing the wrong clothes, she blah blah blah.  The culture is currently one of impunity - meaning that there is NO threat of punishment for doing something illegal.  Contrary to what you believe, Laws DO deter people from doing bad things.  There are people (LOTS of people) who don't need that.  Some do.  Some need to be held to a certain standard, stereotypes need to be changed, stigma's need to be gotten rid of (it wasn't all too long ago that the US had the SAME stigma concerning rape that Haiti doesn't right now). 

 

...

 

I'd really like to know WHO is going to do it without government?  Are you?  Is your family going to give money to a stranger you've never met?  People are mostly concerned with themselves - maybe not you, maybe not most people on MDC, but this is not the real world.  This is a virtual chat room of sorts, its not representative of the population as a whole.  I mean, look at the rich people in the US - they don't want to pay taxes to support government programs!  They don't want to feed anyone but their own families.  (massive generalization I know, forgive me)  The Republican party keeps trying to get more and more tax cuts for richest people in our country, and yet you think that most people will stand up to help the poor?  That people will stand up to do whats RIGHT?  I disagree.

 

...

 

Well, you might be right about that, but I probably know more about law than the average lay-person.  Most law is learned in practice, which you unfortunately can't get until you graduate law school, so I'm getting there.  As for reality, I'm really not sure where you're getting your knowledge of reality - b/c all this sounds incredibly illogical to me and HIGHLY idealistic.



The only reasonable response from me to your latest reply is to point out that you have not made a single argument whatsoever. Your post consists of appeals to sympathy, appeals to authority, and (unhostile, but still) ridicule, rhetorical questions and questions that beg questions (usually, "by what standard" and "why?") without ever defining your terms or answering the questions you raise, as though the collective brain of the people will all close on the connotative cultural meme that automatically answers them, and sets their heads to "empty-affirmation-nod". Sort of like trying to parse the question of the justification for war and someone shouting, "But HITLER! And NAZIS! And experiments on CHILDREN!" Yes, all terrible, all atrocious, all utterly disgusting, but does this answer whether or not war is justified? Does it address the root of the issue, or does it cover up the issues with emotional appeals to sympathy, appeals to crowd consensus? I think the latter. It doesn't even matter if by doing the latter, we come to the correct conclusion, because if we don't know why or how we did, our conclusion is tenuously held, and thereby vulnerable to dismantling by an egregious, but nonetheless, actual argument.

 

So, everything I've posted remains to be shown (through counter-argument) incorrect, actually impossible (and not by appeal to ridicule, or that it isn't the way it is, so it therefore can never be...), and/or illogical. I accept that I am an idealist. I am also a highly pragmatic person, which is why philosophy is of great and enduring interest to me.

 

I have not once suggested that all people in all times would suddenly not make mistakes and not hurt themselves or one another; this is the assumption others make when I suggest that we do not need to be governed by others. I just know that the individual, free to live, is many times more likely to enact solutions that solve personal problems on his own behalf than a collective is to consider his individual needs, and thereby not meet them. This is not to say that people would not be likely to assist one another, but rather, in a free society, social capital consists in having mutually beneficial relationships with others (rather than adversarial ones, like the ones you describe, and that are sad and excellent examples of my arguments against government, but for the individual).


Well, I've been absent for 8 months, and during that time, it turns out that I have completely transformed. You are all precious. Thank you for being here and sharing your lives. You are truly a gift. namaste.gif Jan. 23, 2012

PreggieUBA2C is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 06:50 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Back to the question stated earlier - if you are so sure that vaccines work, why would the unvaccinated be a threat to your vaccinated kid

 


Because no vaccine is 100% effective.  The pertussis vaccine, for example, is only 75% effective.  

 

Also, I have a 6 mo old so she is not fully vaccinated yet.

 

So yes, unvaccinated kids are a risk to both my children, but my baby particularly.  

 

MsFortune is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 07:00 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

If your vaccinated kid gets my vaccinated kid sick with anything, can I sue the pants off you?

 

*If my kid gave your child something potentially lethal, and I could have stopped it but chose not to, then yes.  Please do.  

 

If our kids were in the same school and yours gave mine croup?  

 

*If I could have stopped it but chose not to, and your child was damaged by this, then yes.

 

Or if you formula-fed by choice and your sick kid was always spreading illnesses around, could I sue you for that?  Actions have consequences, after all.

 

*OK, that's just crazy talk.  Formula is not poison.  Where do you people get these ideas?

 

Or maybe my kid's classmates parents should just go ahead and sue me because even though I breastfed him for 2 years, he was premature and tends to get a lot of colds.

 

*Did your kid have a serious illness, potentially fatal, and you knowingly exposed other kids who were damaged?  And if breastmilk is magic, how come your kid gets colds?

 

Illnesses don't usually start in a bubble, so where does the liability begin and end?

 

*There's the rub.  

 

And one more question - are YOU up to date on all of your vaccines? 

 

*Is this your "gotcha" question?  Of course I am.  So is my husband.



 

MsFortune is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 08:31 PM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Illnesses don't usually start in a bubble, so where does the liability begin and end?

 

 

I think that's a great question - where does liability begin and end? And also, how would things be any different in a case where someone acquired an illness from a vaccinated individual?

amnesiac is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 03:40 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


I am very curious to read thoughts on this. We know that vaccines fail (primary failure and secondary failure). So who is responsible when vaccines fail?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post

 

 

I think that's a great question - where does liability begin and end? And also, how would things be any different in a case where someone acquired an illness from a vaccinated individual?



 


Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 08:12 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

If your vaccinated kid gets my vaccinated kid sick with anything, can I sue the pants off you?

 

*If my kid gave your child something potentially lethal, and I could have stopped it but chose not to, then yes.  Please do.  

 

Potentially lethal does not mean unrecoverable.  Almost anything could be considered "potentially lethal", like crossing the street or riding in a car or getting a minor cut that could get infected.  Or what if you pressure me to get my kid vaccinated and mine dies from adverse effects of that vaccine - could I sue you?  Because I can't sue the manufacturer, or the doctor.  

 

If our kids were in the same school and yours gave mine croup?  

 

*If I could have stopped it but chose not to, and your child was damaged by this, then yes.

 

What would your definition of "damaged" be?  My kid happens to give your kid a cold and then your kid develops asthma...you'd be throwing money away trying to sue the pants off me.

 

Or if you formula-fed by choice and your sick kid was always spreading illnesses around, could I sue you for that?  Actions have consequences, after all.

 

*OK, that's just crazy talk.  Formula is not poison.  Where do you people get these ideas?

 

Where do "you people" get these ideas?  What a strange question.  A child is more likely to die from not being breastfed than from a VPD in the U.S.  Approximately 900 babies die a year from not being breastfed.  Formula fed babies are more likely to die of SIDS or be hospitalized for various illnesses than breastfed babies.  I never said formula was poison, but if you are going to be so litigious and biased about one aspect of children's health (vaccines), you best educate yourself about other risks as well.  "Crazy talk"?  Absolutely not.  There are scores of studies on the health risks of formula.  Crazy talk would be ignoring the readily-available information regarding the risks of not breastfeeding.

 

Or maybe my kid's classmates parents should just go ahead and sue me because even though I breastfed him for 2 years, he was premature and tends to get a lot of colds.

 

*Did your kid have a serious illness, potentially fatal, and you knowingly exposed other kids who were damaged?  And if breastmilk is magic, how come your kid gets colds?

 

Every illness is potentially fatal.  I know a 37 year old man who had a cold.  It progressed into bronchitis.  He then developed a severe infection and passed away.  Any cold could be RSV, which is definitely potentially fatal in infants.  Have I knowingly exposed other kids to RSV?  Yes, I have, when I took my daughter who had RSV to the pediatrician's office.

 

I never said breastmilk was "magic" - I will not further engage in a discussion with someone who puts ridiculous words in my mouth.  Why do my kids get colds?  Because kids do.  And like I said, my son was premature, so he was already starting out with a few strikes against him.  Breastfeeding was one thing I had control over to help his immune system. 

 

Illnesses don't usually start in a bubble, so where does the liability begin and end?

 

*There's the rub.  

 

So your answer is to "sue the pants off" someone in the hopes that you got the right vector, regardless of outcome to your child.  VPD does not equal death.

 

And one more question - are YOU up to date on all of your vaccines? 

 

*Is this your "gotcha" question?  Of course I am.  So is my husband.  

 

No, it was a genuine, honest question.  I have known very few, and would even guess NO adults in real life that make sure they are up to date on their MMR, polio, Tdap, etc. boosters, plus take all new vaccines on the market.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 08:51 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Bokonon, are you supporting a position where a parent knowingly infects others by taking an infectious child into public. Leave the issue o whether there is a vaccine available aside. What is your position on the responsibility of the parent/person to contain a contagious child or themselves if they are contagious?


Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 09:05 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post

Bokonon, are you supporting a position where a parent knowingly infects others by taking an infectious child into public. Leave the issue o whether there is a vaccine available aside. What is your position on the responsibility of the parent/person to contain a contagious child or themselves if they are contagious?



No, of course not.  But I have 2 kids.  When my toddler is sick and my kindergartener isn't showing symptoms, the kindergartener goes to school.  Could he be contagious?  Yes.  This is why kids are always getting sick in their first couple of years at school.  The germs just go back and forth.  If I kept my son home every time someone in my house had a sniffle, he'd never go.  Likewise, if my husband stayed home from work when someone in my house was sick, he'd be out of work in no time.

 

Germs, illnesses, and discomforts are a part of life.  When my kids are sick and we need more tissues or I need to pick up a prescription, I take them into the pharmacy.  It's not ideal, for others or for my family, but it's life.

 

If my children had something more concerning that had been diagnosed (so I would know when it would be considered safe to have them go back to school for example), then of course I would keep them home except for doctor's visits until they were better.  For others as well as for my children's safety.

 

I'm more conservative than most when it comes to keeping my kids away from others when they are sick.  But as stated previously, illnesses don't start in a bubble.  My kids got their illnesses from *someone*.  My daughter got RSV from *someone*, who may or may not have realized that they were even sick.

 

I do my best to keep my kids healthy and try to keep them from getting others sick.  We don't go to playgroup when we're under the weather.  We don't go to the grocery store with fevers.  We practice what I consider reasonable containment when we're sick.  But we are not isolated and can't spend our lives at home.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 09:26 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

BECAUSE vaccines are not 100% effective, then you cannot sue somebody for being unvaccinated and spreading a VPD. Those of you who think otherwise, I can't argue. We simply disagree, and nothing I say will change your mind (or vice versa, lol).   

They should not even call it a "vaccine-preventable" disease, since vaccines do not always prevent the disease.  How can you sue somebody over a disease, when the main form of prevention (the vax) is NOT 100% effective? Vaccines are a tool for the individual, and that's about it.

 

 


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 03-07-2011, 09:55 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MsFortune View Post




Because no vaccine is 100% effective.  The pertussis vaccine, for example, is only 75% effective.  

 

Also, I have a 6 mo old so she is not fully vaccinated yet.

 

So yes, unvaccinated kids are a risk to both my children, but my baby particularly.  

 


I should not have to accept the risks of vaccines so your child does not get sick.

 

You do what you deem best for your child and I will do what is best for mine....and lets not sue each other for our choices.

 

------------------

 

I do not think anybody with a contagious illness (beyond a cold) should really go outside while they are contagious.

 

Until society is willing to regularly excuse people from work and school for illnesses (Many people do not feel they can call in sick without adverse consequences) this ideal is not going to happen.  I think in some ways  we have become better at this in recent years (a good benefit to H1N1) but we are still far from where we need to be.

 

Individuals need to do a better job of staying home when they are sick (and what is "too sick to go out"  can be hard to determine) - but society needs to support these efforts to stay home better than they do.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 10:44 AM
 
Lisa1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Since adults, and this includes teachers and other people who work with children, are not required to have vaccinations, children are more likely going to get these things from other adults. Most vaccinations, if they are effective in the first place, wear off. I found it quite interesting when I found out the principal at the local elementary school came down with Whooping Cough. Then other staff members came down with whooping cough. There are children with special needs at the school as well as pregnant women who are mothers and infants who are siblings. No one died. No one even thought it was a big deal. They just coughed a lot. It was like having a cold for a while. 

 

I am adament about not getting shots for an infant that one would not get for the adults. Marketing people from the pharmaceutical companies will have us all to believe that every single disease for which there is a vaccination, is deadly. Many people think they will surely die, and will be lucky to escape death, if they get something like the measles. Early vaccinations really were for serious illnesses. Now days, it seems as if you can get a vaccination for everything from rotavirus to a hang nail (neither of which are worth injecting your child with chemicals over).

Lisa1970 is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 10:47 AM
 
Lisa1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

BTW, the news may have been just assuming that that woman was unvaccinated. I saw an article a few years ago about a boy who died from what the HIB would have protected against. They made a huge deal about how horrible it is that anyone has to die of something for which there is a shot for. Thing is, it came out later that he had had the HIB shot. Of course, if they wrote a story about the boy who got HIB and died of it after getting the shot, it would not have made good news and it would have been stopped from being put out there anyway because it would have been deemed anti-vaccination.

Lisa1970 is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 01:48 PM
 
Ella Enchanted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Thousand Oaks, California
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MsFortune View Post

It would be difficult to prove that person A was infected by person B.  But if this could be proven, then yes, absolutely.  

 

If your unvacced kid got my kid sick with a vaccine-preventable disease, absolutely I would sue your pants off.  

 

Actions have consequences.  

 

(with one exception - if the unvacced kid was not vacced due to legitimate medical reason, such as having cancer)

 

So you think you'd have no liability if YOU ALLOWED your child to play with mine?  Since vaccines are far from 100% effective, if my unvaxed child got, say, the flu, from your child who had the shot, should I sue YOU?

 

You have the right, as a parent, to decide you won't let your kid play with unvaxed kids, and to vet their families.  If you choose not to vet, then tough luck on you.
 

 

Ella Enchanted is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 01:53 PM
 
Ella Enchanted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Thousand Oaks, California
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Dissenters are frequently silenced by the powers that be.  Look at what's been going on with airport security - those who try to assert their second amendment rights get arrested and fined.  Do we have the right to challenge changes handed down to us?  Theoretically.  Are we given the freedoms to do so?  Not really.  We are branded conspiracy theorists and unAmerican.

 

Just look at what the pro-vaccinators call non-vaxers in articles like this.  Crazy.  Irresponsible.  A menace to society.  Idiots.  National propaganda has been so successful in this country that the majority honestly and truly believes that the government is only looking out for the best interests of the nation, and surely they would NEVER mislead us about vaccines, fluoridation, prescription drugs, raw milk, etc.


Incredible, isn't it?  That exercising the very rights on which this country was founded, a country founded by individuals trying to escape tyrannical rule, now means, in the eyes of the feds, that those wanting their Constitutional rights are now branded as terrorists.  It's ironic that the PATRIOT act effectively removes all our rights down to habeas corpus.  

 

I can't believe how many idiots still believe every piece of media propaganda fed to them.  Media outlets compete for reader/viewership, and the more outrageous their stories, the more outrageous, the more viewers/readers they'll have.  So many times drugs approved by the FDA as completely safe have been pulled from shelves for being dangerous and even deadly, yet nary a word is spoken about the FDA's part in approving the drugs, just blame places on the manufacturers.  The FDA is seen as 100% credible, despite their power to keep dangerous things from the market and their inability/unwillingness to do so.

Ella Enchanted is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 02:01 PM
 
Ella Enchanted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Thousand Oaks, California
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

There is no such thing as "pure freedom".  With rights come responsibilities.  "Pure freedom" would lead to chaos - murder going unpunished, drugs not being illegal anymore, no corporate responsibility, no ethical obligations of anyone.  "Pure freedom" might sound nice, but it would be terrible.

 

 

Good to know that I only donate and volunteer because there's a law or something, or some restriction on my freedoms....

 

I don't think you understand how ethics differ from laws.  Ethics are legally unenforceable.  When ethics become legally enforceable, they are no longer ethics but rather laws.  It is ethical to give a plate of food to the homeless person on the street corner when you have plenty.  It's not legally enforceable that you do.  When it's law that you have to, then it...law.

 

The majority of Americans live very moral lives going above and beyond anything required by law.  It's a great insult to say that our society would run to chaos.  Our culture wouldn't stand for that.  Our culture would continue to shun those who don't live moral lives, just as we already do.  We already shun cheaters, despite the lack of laws making cheating illegal.  We already shun those who don't tip even the rude waitresses, regardless of whether or not in a state that requires employers to pay a minimum of $8 an hour, not counting tips.  You think this would change if we had more freedom?

 

Those who are going to murder, rape, molest, rob, etc., already do.  Toughening laws against the rest of us is only going to punish us instead of prevent bad acts.

Ella Enchanted is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 02:07 PM
 
Ella Enchanted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Thousand Oaks, California
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post

 

Sanitation has precious little to do with diseases spread by the respiratory route. The drastic decrease in worldwide measles deaths is not due to plumbers, garbage collectors, and Lysol. (And vitamin A is not a magic bullet, which I mention because it tends to be next in line.) Moreover, asserting that anybody "needs to" ignore hundreds of thousands of deaths is impressively callous. I imagine that the annual 450 deaths and 4000 cases of encephalitis caused by measles in the U.S. in the pre-sanitation pre-vaccine 1960s are important to discount as well.

 

 

 

Who's being forced to vaccinate? "Mandatory," as for school, is not the same as "compulsory." Deliberately confounding this distinction is hyperbolic, and it also ignores the fact that successfully eliminating eradicable diseases takes pieces of the issue of "neurotoxins" off the table for everyone.

 

 

 

You may want to hold off on impugning other peoples' understanding of immunology and pathogenesis. In order for a person to spread a virus or bacterium, it has to be able to reproduce. The immune system's job is to prevent this or shut it down; whether the response is due to a vaccine or preexisting natural immunity or built from scratch doesn't matter. Being exposed to a pathogen is not the same as "contracting" it--if an infection cannot establish itself, it is not passed along. Consider measles: It comes in through the nose. The cough, however, doesn't start until it takes a reproductive trip to the lymph system and sets up shop throughout the respiratory mucosa. Interrupt this process, and you've basically stopped transmission.

 



Sanitation has a great deal to do with it.  Florence Nightingale found that the simple act of hand-washing on the battlefield between patients, despite the same germs being on everyone, greatly increased the survival rate.  When the body only has to focus on what it already has rather than new pathogens from dirty hands or dirty water, the chance of surviving greatly increases.

 

Children in this country have the right to an education.  Revoking that right pending vaccination is unconstitutional.

 

You clearly are under the misbelief that vaccines always work as they are "supposed" to and are 100%.  Do you really think that the New York mumps epidemic a few years back was caught by 1,600 people from unvaccinated individuals?  That happened in a community with a VERY high vaccination rate.  Even when a vaccination has worked in someone, it still takes time for the body to identify and kill it.  It's not automatic.  Also you're wrong to suggest that you only cough or sneeze when sick.

Ella Enchanted is offline  
 

Tags
Vaccinations , Exemption , Immunity , Freedom , Vaccine The Controversial Story Of Medicines Greatest Lifesaver , Vaccinations A Thoughtful Parents Guide How To Make Safe Sensible Decisions About The Risks Benefits , Dont Vaccinate Before You Educate , The Vaccine Controversy The History Use And Safety Of Vaccinations , The Virus And The Vaccine Contaminated Vaccine Deadly Cancers And Government Neglect , The Cutter Incident How Americas First Polio Vaccine Led To The Growing Vaccine Crisis
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off