Selfishness? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 03:07 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,780
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)

There's a thread being advertised on here titled "My choice to parent differently does not mean your way is wrong". I think this is a good motto for the vaccination boards. I know many of you are very distrustful of vaccines, that many of you think they are unnecessary and even more potentially dangerous. That's very clear from the last post here by apple juice. 

 

But I don't think that way. I think vaccines have saved millions of lives since they were invented, and continue to do so today. I think that everything in life carries some risk, but that for most people the risk from vaccinating is tiny. I think that for my family (who are healthy and have no indication of expecting any issues with vaccines) the right thing to do is to vaccinate, not only to protect ourselves, but also to full fill our moral obligations to the community we live in. That's what I believe.  

 

I know many of you believe I'm deluded and/or paid to think this way. You think that I'm missing all the amazing evidence to "prove me wrong" if I would just read your link to a thread on VaccinesAreNasty.com (or the equivalent). But guess what, I've been around here a while now. I've read those posts. And I think most of them are distorting the evidence to show something it doesn't and/or making out reactions to be much more common than they really are. That's what I believe. 

 

But because I believe that doesn't mean I think anyone is being intentionally selfish by parenting in a different way. My choice to parent differently does not mean your way is wrong.

 

 It is true though that all unvaccinated children will benefit from the immunity of the vaccinated children around them. They are less likely to get VPDs (which are often benign, but can be serious) because of the choices other parents make to vaccinate their children. 

Poogles0213, ss834 and teacozy like this.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#32 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 03:07 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

The first rule in the Hippocratic Oath is to do NO HARM.

 

I do not understand how our obligation as citizens should be to undergo a medical procedure that is legally defined as UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE of questionable benefit with less than 100% efficacy WHILE HEALTHY to prevent a disease. How can maintaining one's health and the health of their family be considered selfish? Vaccines have obvious side effects and dangers. It should be up to the individual to choose which risk they are willing to endure for themself and their family's health and welfare.

 

The very idea of undergoing a medical procedure while healthy has always been an ethical problem for vaccines and medicine.  Allergies, for example, were never part of the medical curriculum until the 20th century, but doctors figured allergies were a decent exchange for not getting smallpox.

 

Yes, it should be up to the individual to choose...I never said I disagreed with that.  I said, in fact, that I leave it up to the individual whether they feel the need to opt out. 

moderatemom is offline  
#33 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 04:03 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

No snark, but I do think it's kind of funny that you posted a definition that described exactly how I was using the word, so I'm not sure why it was necessary. 

Because I was not sure how you were using the word duty (I do not read minds).  If anything you implied you were using the word to mean obligatory as  opposed to moral imperative because you made a vaccine/taxes analogy (and taxes are obligatory) .  Let's move along.  

applejuice and serenbat like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#34 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 04:23 PM
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

Well, I think it's obvious that personal needs tend to come first or be more important but I guess I don't understand the relevancy of it being voluntary or involuntary.  Taxes are not voluntary for everyone, that is my point.  Some people are not in the position to pay taxes, but they still operate as part of the system.  Even if you're not a taxpayer, you still get to drive on the roads and use the public school system, just like if you're a non-vaxxer you still get to take advantage of herd immunity .  Of course it's true that there are specific rules regarding who has to pay taxes, but that's because income is easily measured whereas whether or not a person can or should be vaccinated is harder to judge.  I don't think "civic duty" = "involuntary," I just think it's part of the responsibility of living in a society with other people. 

I totally understand your parallel, but I get why it doesn't exactly hold up. I think for some herd immunity isn't what it is made out to be, for one, and there is no risk to paying taxes, aside to maybe whether or not you take a vacation. ;) At least, I've never read that you could have an allergic reaction and/or brain damage from paying them.

Mirzam, applejuice and samaxtics like this.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
#35 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 04:24 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

 

But I don't think that way. I think vaccines have saved millions of lives since they were invented, and continue to do so today. I think that everything in life carries some risk, but that for most people the risk from vaccinating is tiny. I think that for my family (who are healthy and have no indication of expecting any issues with vaccines) the right thing to do is to vaccinate, not only to protect ourselves, but also to full fill our moral obligations to the community we live in. That's what I believe.  

 

I know many of you believe I'm deluded and/or paid to think this way. You think that I'm missing all the amazing evidence to "prove me wrong" if I would just read your link to a thread on VaccinesAreNasty.com (or the equivalent). But guess what, I've been around here a while now. I've read those posts. And I think most of them are distorting the evidence to show something it doesn't and/or making out reactions to be much more common than they really are. That's what I believe. 

 

 

 

BOLD sections - these actually are incorrect statements - as with an allergic reaction, a reaction to a vaccine can and DO occur in healthy people, even those who where previously vaccinated with no issues prior

 

My DD had a reaction at 5 1/2 with NONE prior, this was not reported to VARES because it did not exist at the time, her Ped did document it. 

 

There have been several posts that have shown others too that have had reaction after having none prior. Some member choose not to except it.

These reaction have occurred with other, it is misleading to assume and indicate one would not experience a reaction, there actually is evidence that does show you can have a reaction to a vaccine at anytime.

 

 

ETA- in the US we have VARES the UK also has a reporting system for vaccine reactions - they do happen, and frankly it's in healthy people, not the un-healthy ones as if you are not "healthy" many vaccines you simply are not to have.

 

the CDC lists all those who have certain conditions and who can and can not have certain vaccines

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#36 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 05:24 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Because I was not sure how you were using the word duty (I do not read minds).  If anything you implied you were using the word to mean obligatory as  opposed to moral imperative because you made a vaccine/taxes analogy (and taxes are obligatory) .  Let's move along.  

 

There is actually nothing I said that would imply that vaccines are a legal obligation.  We all know they're not.  I don't think you need to be a mind reader to figure that out, and certainly we're all smart enough to know that legal duties and moral duties are not necessarily the same.  Neither does it matter if taxes are a legal obligation, because the point is that society has decided that a central government with taxes to pay for things is a civic good.  Society in general has also decided that vaccination is a civic good.  Whether or not it's encoded into law isn't really relevant to the point.  EVEN IF taxes weren't a legal obligation, they are similar social contract as vaccinating...something everyone benefits from, even if everyone doesn't contribute. 

 

OK, NOW let's move along. 

One_Girl likes this.
moderatemom is offline  
#37 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 05:47 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

BOLD sections - these actually are incorrect statements - as with an allergic reaction, a reaction to a vaccine can and DO occur in healthy people, even those who where previously vaccinated with no issues prior

 

My DD had a reaction at 5 1/2 with NONE prior, this was not reported to VARES because it did not exist at the time, her Ped did document it. 

 

There have been several posts that have shown others too that have had reaction after having none prior. Some member choose not to except it.

These reaction have occurred with other, it is misleading to assume and indicate one would not experience a reaction, there actually is evidence that does show you can have a reaction to a vaccine at anytime.

 

 

ETA- in the US we have VARES the UK also has a reporting system for vaccine reactions - they do happen, and frankly it's in healthy people, not the un-healthy ones as if you are not "healthy" many vaccines you simply are not to have.

 

the CDC lists all those who have certain conditions and who can and can not have certain vaccines

 

Regarding your statement in bold...it is NOT inaccurate for prosciencemum to say that there her children have no indication of expecting any issues with vaccines.  She did not say that it was impossible for them to have one anyway, only that she doesn't expect for it to happen (and, by the way, it very likely won't).  Her point is that given that they don't have these expectations, she is willing to take the small risk that there will be reactions anyway. 

moderatemom is offline  
#38 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 06:11 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

I know many of you believe I'm deluded and/or paid to think this way. You think that I'm missing all the amazing evidence to "prove me wrong" if I would just read your link to a thread on VaccinesAreNasty.com (or the equivalent). But guess what, I've been around here a while now. I've read those posts. And I think most of them are distorting the evidence to show something it doesn't and/or making out reactions to be much more common than they really are. That's what I believe. 

 

 

Not really.  I think you have read much of the same information as I and have come to a different conclusion.  

serenbat likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#39 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 06:14 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,569
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

There's a thread being advertised on here titled "My choice to parent differently does not mean your way is wrong". I think this is a good motto for the vaccination boards. I know many of you are very distrustful of vaccines, that many of you think they are unnecessary and even more potentially dangerous. That's very clear from the last post here by apple juice.

 

But I don't think that way. I think vaccines have saved millions of lives since they were invented, and continue to do so today. I think that everything in life carries some risk, but that for most people the risk from vaccinating is tiny. I think that for my family (who are healthy and have no indication of expecting any issues with vaccines) the right thing to do is to vaccinate, not only to protect ourselves, but also to full fill our moral obligations to the community we live in. That's what I believe.

 

I know many of you believe I'm deluded and/or paid to think this way. You think that I'm missing all the amazing evidence to "prove me wrong" if I would just read your link to a thread on VaccinesAreNasty.com (or the equivalent). But guess what, I've been around here a while now. I've read those posts. And I think most of them are distorting the evidence to show something it doesn't and/or making out reactions to be much more common than they really are. That's what I believe.

 

But because I believe that doesn't mean I think anyone is being intentionally selfish by parenting in a different way. My choice to parent differently does not mean your way is wrong.

 

 It is true though that all unvaccinated children will benefit from the immunity of the vaccinated children around them. They are less likely to get VPDs (which are often benign, but can be serious) because of the choices other parents make to vaccinate their children.

This was a nice response, an agree to disagree everyone can choose and be happy....then that last little paragraph negated any compliment that may have occurred shrug.gif

sassyfirechick is offline  
#40 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 07:36 PM
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

Well, I think it's obvious that personal needs tend to come first or be more important but I guess I don't understand the relevancy of it being voluntary or involuntary.  Taxes are not voluntary for everyone, that is my point.  Some people are not in the position to pay taxes, but they still operate as part of the system.  Even if you're not a taxpayer, you still get to drive on the roads and use the public school system, just like if you're a non-vaxxer you still get to take advantage of herd immunity .  Of course it's true that there are specific rules regarding who has to pay taxes, but that's because income is easily measured whereas whether or not a person can or should be vaccinated is harder to judge.  I don't think "civic duty" = "involuntary," I just think it's part of the responsibility of living in a society with other people. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Not really.  I think you have read much of the same information as I and have come to a different conclusion.  


Agreed. I do think there have been people on to do nothing but cause trouble (whether they are paid or just angry internet people), but I don't think that's you.


"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
#41 of 122 Old 05-12-2014, 08:05 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

Yes, it should be up to the individual to choose...I never said I disagreed with that.  I said, in fact, that I leave it up to the individual whether they feel the need to opt out. 

I think it should be up to the individual to opt in.


"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#42 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 04:37 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

Regarding your statement in bold...it is NOT inaccurate for prosciencemum to say that there her children have no indication of expecting any issues with vaccines.  She did not say that it was impossible for them to have one anyway, only that she doesn't expect for it to happen (and, by the way, it very likely won't).You have no way of knowing this.  Her point is that given that they don't have these expectations, she is willing to take the small risk that there will be reactions anyway. 

So who according to what you are implying who is getting reactions - only un-healthy people? 

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#43 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 05:53 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

 

 It is true though that all unvaccinated children will benefit from the immunity of the vaccinated children around them. They are less likely to get VPDs (which are often benign, but can be serious) because of the choices other parents make to vaccinate their children. 

I somewhat disagree.

 

There was a poster on another thread who said her daughter had rubella and my first thought was "lucky!"  I want my girls to get rubella.  The wild disease which is almost always benign in children, confers stronger and life long immunity. 

 

Ditto mumps.  The have been several significant outbreaks of mumps (largely in vaccinated adult males) in recent years.  I would have preferred it if my son had mumps as a child, and know he is basically safe from getting mumps as an adult, when it is more worrisome.  

 

Mass vaccination removed the chances they will get the above diseases as children, and leaves them (and everyone else really, if vaccine failure is at play)  open to getting the disease at less appropriate times.

 

ETA:  While I 100% support a parents right to choose vaccination I do get a little annoyed that that choice has left my kids unable to get diseases I would have liked them to have, both for solid immunity in the event of an outbreak, and in the case of my girls, to pass on decent immunity through birth and breastfeeding.  I am not sure maternal transfer of vaccine induced antibodies protects newborns as well as maternal transfer of wild induced antibodies.  Still, I do not consider the decision to vaccinate against mumps(for example) selfish, as I place a parents right to protect their child as they see fit with regard to vaccination above societal implications.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#44 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 06:41 AM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

So who according to what you are implying who is getting reactions - only un-healthy people? 

No, I'm not implying that at all.  I'm implying that being healthy and having no indication of expecting any issues means that your risk of a reaction is lower, not that it doesn't exist at all.  And to your red bolded statement...I DO know that it "very likely won't."  The risk is small, that's what that means.  I don't know if that child will be in the tiny percentile that does have a reaction, but I do know that the risk is low. 

moderatemom is offline  
#45 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 08:19 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,780
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)

kathymuggle - I do understand this view exists, but it still confuses me. Why is the tiny risk of vaccination for these diseases more worrying than the larger (although still small) risk of serious complications from them actually getting sick? 

 

The body does not discriminate between viruses and bacteria introduced in cuts, and/or through the eyes/mouth and those introduced via an injection. So I have to assume this is all about being scared about the effect of the ingredients in vaccines other than the weakened or killed virus/bacterial toxoids? 

Poogles0213 and ss834 like this.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#46 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 08:26 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

kathymuggle - I do understand this view exists, but it still confuses me. Why is the tiny risk of vaccination for these diseases more worrying than the larger (although still small) risk of serious complications from them actually getting sick? 

 

 

IMO - when you see a child that is damaged because of a vaccine and see the life long implications of care that child needs 24-7, it's not some small matter in the minds of many

 

frankly many would rather their child did have that disease because the chances of dying are very small, seeing the number of children who's parents connect vaccine damage to is much larger IRL for many

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

No, I'm not implying that at all.  I'm implying that being healthy and having no indication of expecting any issues means that your risk of a reaction is lower, not that it doesn't exist at all.  And to your red bolded statement...I DO know that it "very likely won't."  The risk is small, that's what that means.  I don't know if that child will be in the tiny percentile that does have a reaction, but I do know that the risk is low. 

not all see it this way, clearly this thread shows that too - taking that risk is not a civic duty in the minds of many


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#47 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 08:41 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

kathymuggle - I do understand this view exists, but it still confuses me. Why is the tiny risk of vaccination for these diseases more worrying than the larger (although still small) risk of serious complications from them actually getting sick? 

 

Well, I can think of two reasons (other than the above mentioned better immunity in the event of an outbreak and passing along maternal antibodies)

 

1.  Some diseases may confer benefit.  Mumps in females and reduced ovarian risk, chicken pox (particularly if you get it under age 10) and skin allergies/asthma.  

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091674910009036

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/

 

2. I do not believe we know how often vaccine reactions occur.  Our mechanisms for measuring how often they occur have significant limitations.  Particularly when a disease risk is small (say, chicken pox) I will take that disease risk over an  unknown vaccine risk.  I also believe we have much better knowledge on who is at risk for a severe case of a disease versus who is at risk for a vaccine reaction.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#48 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 08:48 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

 It is true though that all unvaccinated children will benefit from the immunity of the vaccinated children around them. They are less likely to get VPDs (which are often benign, but can be serious) because of the choices other parents make to vaccinate their children. 

Your sentence above would be closer to being accurate if it started "It is thought to be true..."  Considering the limited knowledge regarding disease and the immune system, these benefits (short to long term) are fairly hypothetical.

 

 

Outbreaks of disease happen in places with high vaccine uptake rates and the vaccinated have shown to get the disease anyway. Who are they protecting?

Natural immunity in mothers provide better protection for infants than vaccines.

And we do not have complete knowledge of the benefits of having had the disease (short and long term) for one in particular and society as a whole.

Stating that it is true that the unvaccinated benefit from the vaccinated is not fully supported at this time. 


"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#49 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 09:02 AM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

IMO - when you see a child that is damaged because of a vaccine and see the life long implications of care that child needs 24-7, it's not some small matter in the minds of many

 

frankly many would rather their child did have that disease because the chances of dying are very small, seeing the number of children who's parents connect vaccine damage to is much larger IRL for many

not all see it this way, clearly this thread shows that too - taking that risk is not a civic duty in the minds of many

 

Right, well I was referring to prosciencemum's post, where she states that it is her belief that the risk is tiny, and her belief that the tiny risk is worth it.

 

In my opinion it's unreasonable to say that no risk of any kind, no matter how small, trumps civic duty. 

moderatemom is offline  
#50 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 09:07 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

In my opinion it's unreasonable to say that no risk of any kind, no matter how small, trumps civic duty. 

 

 

Children should not be made to assume risk for others. 

 

Can anyone think of another area where children are made to assume risks to their persons for others (often strangers)?  

 

Now, if you want to vaccinate yourself out of a sense of altruism - go for it.  You are a consenting adult.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#51 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 09:09 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

 

In my opinion it's unreasonable to say that no risk of any kind, no matter how small, trumps civic duty. 

 

 

civic duty (to some, including me) goes way beyond vaccines, it's not my civic duty to sacrifice my child be it a vaccine or for a war (funny how many who where instrumental in the early 1900's with the anti-vaccine movement also where deeply involved with the anti-war movement(WWI) as well, civic duty and all!)

 

what is a risk to one, clearly is not to another


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#52 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 09:49 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,569
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

kathymuggle - I do understand this view exists, but it still confuses me. Why is the tiny risk of vaccination for these diseases more worrying than the larger (although still small) risk of serious complications from them actually getting sick? 

 

The body does not discriminate between viruses and bacteria introduced in cuts, and/or through the eyes/mouth and those introduced via an injection. So I have to assume this is all about being scared about the effect of the ingredients in vaccines other than the weakened or killed virus/bacterial toxoids? 

Because in my understanding of science the body does discriminate between real infection and those introduced via vaccination.  We are taking diseases that most often are contracted and introduced via epithelial pathways and assuming we can bypass them altogether.  The human body is not stupid, it's highly complicated and constantly changing and adapting to the world around it.  The reason many of these diseases are so benign in childhood could very well be because mothers (who would have also contracted them in childhood) have passed on antibodies.  I'm sure for the very first group of people who contracted chicken pox it was not a fun time, but as we move through generations the body learns and adapts.  With vaccines, we are moving so quickly with so many that the body isn't keeping up. So rather than adapting (which might take a few generations), we're trading these benign diseases for things like asthma, allergies, autoimmune, epilepsy, and a host of other problems that require lifelong treatment.....versus the diseases which do go away in short time.  You're damn right I'm scared of the ingredients in these vaccines - there is just not enough scientific evidence out there to convince me they are truly safe, especially when you look at these chemicals outside of the realm of vaccine studies and see just how lethal they can be.  Yet put them into context with vaccines and I'm supposed top believe that suddenly they lose all of that toxicity and become benign?  Especially once mixed with several other equally toxic chemicals?  The poison is in the dose but it does not mean I want to slowly poison my child through minuscule doses over time.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

In my opinion it's unreasonable to say that no risk of any kind, no matter how small, trumps civic duty. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

 

Children should not be made to assume risk for the good of others. 

 

Can anyone think of another area where children are made to assume risks to their persons for others (often strangers)?  

 

Now, if you want to vaccinate yourself out of a sense of altruism - go for it.  You are a consenting adult.

:yeah  110% this!  Civic duty is absolutely NOT my first priority, and no amount of risk will trump the fact that my first and foremost priority is to myself and my family (arguably myself first, which might make me selfish, but if I'm not healthy and informed I can't possibly be the best support for my family).  If I'm doing all that I can in my own way to ensure I've raised my family to be happy, healthy and positive so that they can then go out into the world and make positive changes and contributions, then THAT in itself is a civic duty because my family will go on to do things and not be a burden on society.  If I do everything in my power to raise children who do not require intensive medical interventions and therefore will not put a drain on the insurance companies or other pockets, then that is an act of selflessness - being aware of our own needs while also considering the effect it has on others.  

 

And echoing Kathy here, I will never sacrifice my own child and put her at risk for anyone else, no matter the perceived benefit for them.  She's not a martyr.  I will not cross my fingers and hope she isn't one of the "few" (:rotflmao) who will react poorly to a vaccine (because she already has thus the reason we stopped) so that some other person can sleep at night in some false sense of security.

sassyfirechick is offline  
#53 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 11:17 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

And echoing Kathy here, I will never sacrifice my own child and put her at risk for anyone else, no matter the perceived benefit for them.  She's not a martyr. (NO child should be! IMO) I will not cross my fingers and hope she isn't one of the "few" (:rotflmao) who will react poorly to a vaccine (because she already has thus the reason we stopped) so that some other person can sleep at night in some false sense of security.

:yeah

 

It's interesting (to me) how the "sacrificing" "taking advantage" "civic what-ever" is used against one side, yet to the parent that does not vaccinate their child because of medical condition, who also can get and do spread disease, they don't face any of this, they just receive sympathy and the rest of get__________!

applejuice and sassyfirechick like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#54 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 12:19 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

 

Children should not be made to assume risk for the good of others. 

 

Can anyone think of another area where children are made to assume risks to their persons for others (often strangers)?  

 

Now, if you want to vaccinate yourself out of a sense of altruism - go for it.  You are a consenting adult.

 

What you're forgetting or leaving out here is that none of us who vaccinate believe we're taking on this risk (or our children are) solely for the good of others.  I'm not doing it to be altruistic...I do it because I believe that the risk of not vaccinating (or losing herd immunity) is greater than the risk of vaccinating.  We're doing it for our children, and if everyone whose child can be vaccinated does the same, then we also have the bonus of protecting the children who can't. 

moderatemom is offline  
#55 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 12:28 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,691
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

Based on my experience with doctors pushing their misconceptions in my face, (DES, Copper 7, Dailkon Shield, thalidomide, X-rays,) I did more research even after growing up never vaxed, and I did NOT vaccinate my children because I felt that any possible benefits were eclipsed by the greater risks. 

 

The ONLY time I have heard the herd immunity idea is after it is obvious the scare tactics do not work on me. If it were true, that would be used first.

 

So doctors will have to now come up with something better than scare tactics and the herd immunity concept to push their vax agenda.


"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#56 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 12:32 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

What you're forgetting or leaving out here is that none of us who vaccinate believe we're taking on this risk (or our children are) solely for the good of others.  I'm not doing it to be altruistic...I do it because I believe that the risk of not vaccinating (or losing herd immunity) is greater than the risk of vaccinating.  We're doing it for our children, and if everyone whose child can be vaccinated does the same, then we also have the bonus of protecting the children who can't. 

 

I understand most people who vaccinate do it primarily for their own children…which is partly why I bristle when people suggest I should vaccinate my children (when I am not inclined to do so) for other peoples children.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#57 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 01:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

 

What you're forgetting or leaving out here is that none of us who vaccinate believe we're taking on this risk (or our children are) solely for the good of others.  I'm not doing it to be altruistic...I do it because I believe that the risk of not vaccinating (or losing herd immunity) is greater than the risk of vaccinating.  We're doing it for our children, and if everyone whose child can be vaccinated does the same, then we also have the bonus of protecting the children who can't. 

 



Well, on that last sentence, not really.

Did you hear about this one? http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/05/13/virginia-students-wear-protective-masks-to-prom-to-support-friend-with-cancer/

A Virginia teen was instructed to wear a mask to prom because he is immuno-compromised with cancer. The solidarity that his friends and peers showed him by wearing their own masks to prom was selfless and heroic.

At the same time, the take-away message is pretty clear: A fully vaccinated population is not going to protect the immuno-compromised. Even if every single teen in that high school were up-to-date on the recommended vaccines, that cancer survivor would still have to wear a mask to prom.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#58 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 01:23 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)

I'm really confused here.

 

First you said - 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

  I personally believe it is a civic duty to do so, similar I guess to paying taxes.  Those who can should, and those who can't may take advantage of the system.  

Now you say - Quote:

Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

What you're forgetting or leaving out here is that none of us who vaccinate believe we're taking on this risk (or our children are) solely for the good of others.  I'm not doing it to be altruistic...I do it because I believe that the risk of not vaccinating (or losing herd immunity) is greater than the risk of vaccinating.  We're doing it for our children, and if everyone whose child can be vaccinated does the same, then we also have the bonus of protecting the children who can't. 

 

If doing so for the good of society/government but somehow it's not about welfare of others?     Just somehow it's about civic duty and oh well, others benefit too?

 

If it's not altruism, it IS shellfish!  

 

You must have a different definition of the words altruism and civic duty.

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#59 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 01:27 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
 
A fully vaccinated population is not going to protect the immuno-compromised. Even if every single teen in that high school were up-to-date on the recommended vaccines, that cancer survivor would still have to wear a mask to prom.

We have to remember, even if ALL did vaccinated, the factors of vaccine failure still occurs no matter what!------and that little amount we really only have a vague idea about how large that number really is!

applejuice and samaxtics like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#60 of 122 Old 05-13-2014, 01:52 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

I'm really confused here.

 

First you said - 

Now you say - Quote:

Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

What you're forgetting or leaving out here is that none of us who vaccinate believe we're taking on this risk (or our children are) solely for the good of others.  I'm not doing it to be altruistic...I do it because I believe that the risk of not vaccinating (or losing herd immunity) is greater than the risk of vaccinating.  We're doing it for our children, and if everyone whose child can be vaccinated does the same, then we also have the bonus of protecting the children who can't. 

 

If doing so for the good of society/government but somehow it's not about welfare of others?     Just somehow it's about civic duty and oh well, others benefit too?

 

If it's not altruism, it IS shellfish!  

 

You must have a different definition of the words altruism and civic duty.

 

No, not really...I think you are not understanding the concept of "civic duty."  See, I believe that certain behaviors are in everyone's best interests, and the "civic duty" part is where everyone who can participate is participating for the good of the group.  Going back to the taxes analogy....I'm not JUST paying taxes to help others, I pay them so I have police protection and public schools and roads to drive on.  The "civic duty" part is that it only works if as many people as possible participate.   I am part of a system where I pay in and I benefit, and other people benefit as well.  I WANT herd immunity to protect my children, just like I WANT a good public school system and for the fire department to come if my house is burning down.  I ALSO want everyone else's children to have a school to go to and police and fire protection.  So, I'm willing to put a bit of my own finances on the line to pay for those things.  This is why I vaccinate my chlidren, as well.  Vaccinating is like "paying into" a system that creates herd immunity, and I'm willing to take a small risk for that benefit.  My point was it's not the same as, say, charity, where you just give and get no tangible benefit.  This doesn't mean it's not a civic good or a civic duty. 

Poogles0213 and prosciencemum like this.
moderatemom is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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