Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: A pediatrician's different perspective on why he doesn't accept unvaccinated children Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
03-26-2014 06:12 AM
ss834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

That's great. I wish you could also understand that it is widely considered a derogatory term.


 I do, now. Thanks for enlightening me.

03-26-2014 06:10 AM
Taximom5 That's great. I wish you could also understand that it is widely considered a derogatory term.
03-26-2014 06:00 AM
ss834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


I've never in my life heard of anyone EVER holding up a sign with the words "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice." And I used to work down the street from a health clinic where there were frequent demonstrations. And your friend sounds profoundly disturbed.
This was shared in the pro-life community a few weeks ago, with much horror: http://studentsforlife.org/fetus-slayer/  The signs say "proud fetus slayer" "abortion on demand and with no apologies" etc.

The term "anti-Vaxxer" is considered derogatory:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-vaxxer
"anti-vaxxer
English[edit]

Noun[edit]
anti-vaxxer (plural anti-vaxxers)
(slang, derogatory) An anti-vaccinationist.  [quotations ▲]
2012, Amanda Marcotte, "Measles Outbreak Traced to Super Bowl, Anti-Vaccination Fanatics", Slate, 24 February 2012:
Janice D'Arcy reports at the Washington Post on the latest measles outbreak traced back to anti-vaccination fanatics, but this time, instead of an outbreak being traced back to a Whole Foods or a nursery school---the usual places where the kids of yuppie anti-vaxxers have a chance to expose and be exposed---the trail for this one leads back to the Super Bowl."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-vaccination_movement
"The Anti-vaccination movement (or vaccine hysteria) is an irrational trend of mistrust of vaccination that is almost as old as the technique itself. The movement (more mockingly referred to as "Anti-vaxxers") blame vaccines, or their ingredients, for a range of maladies whose mechanisms are rejected or have not been explained by current scientific research. Some of these maladies can often be childhood illnesses in order to increase the emotive factor of the argument. The ubiquity of vaccination often makes it an easy target for blame."

NOW do you understand?

 

I understand you don't want to be called that and that's fine with me.

03-26-2014 05:54 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post


To be fair, there are people who are out there with signs advocating FOR abortion. A lot of picketing pro-lifers encounter that attitude. It's a different one from being pro-choice, to me, whether or not a pro-lifer makes the distinction.
I had a friend who said she wanted to get pregnant so she could have an abortion. Maybe she was just reacting to this perception that you're talking about, where pro-choicers are called pro-abortion, and then taking it to the extreme. Either way, there is definitely a culture of people who are pro-abortion. I wouldn't classify them with the mainstream pro-choice movement, but "pro-abortion" makes sense as a term sometimes.

I've never in my life heard of anyone EVER holding up a sign with the words "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice." And I used to work down the street from a health clinic where there were frequent demonstrations. And your friend sounds profoundly disturbed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post




I dunno, I guess I'm the odd one out in not understanding the sensitivity about these terms. Obviously "wackjob anti-vaxxer" is offensive. But someone wanting to be offensive could so easily say "wackjob non-vaxxer" and before long we'll all be discussing the next most appropriate way to describe whatever it is we're trying to describe.

The term "anti-Vaxxer" is considered derogatory:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-vaxxer
"anti-vaxxer
English[edit]

Noun[edit]
anti-vaxxer (plural anti-vaxxers)
(slang, derogatory) An anti-vaccinationist.  [quotations ▲]
2012, Amanda Marcotte, "Measles Outbreak Traced to Super Bowl, Anti-Vaccination Fanatics", Slate, 24 February 2012:
Janice D'Arcy reports at the Washington Post on the latest measles outbreak traced back to anti-vaccination fanatics, but this time, instead of an outbreak being traced back to a Whole Foods or a nursery school---the usual places where the kids of yuppie anti-vaxxers have a chance to expose and be exposed---the trail for this one leads back to the Super Bowl."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-vaccination_movement
"The Anti-vaccination movement (or vaccine hysteria) is an irrational trend of mistrust of vaccination that is almost as old as the technique itself. The movement (more mockingly referred to as "Anti-vaxxers") blame vaccines, or their ingredients, for a range of maladies whose mechanisms are rejected or have not been explained by current scientific research. Some of these maladies can often be childhood illnesses in order to increase the emotive factor of the argument. The ubiquity of vaccination often makes it an easy target for blame."

NOW do you understand?
03-26-2014 05:44 AM
mama24-7
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post

I had a friend who said she wanted to get pregnant so she could have an abortion. Maybe she was just reacting to this perception that you're talking about, where pro-choicers are called pro-abortion, and then taking it to the extreme. Either way, there is definitely a culture of people who are pro-abortion. I wouldn't classify them with the mainstream pro-choice movement, but "pro-abortion" makes sense as a term sometimes. Just not when it's misapplied.

Completey OT but can I just say jaw.gif . That's like the lovely girl I came across on twitter who said she was going to circumcise her hypothetical future son just to spite me. dizzy.gif

Sus
03-26-2014 05:32 AM
ss834
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I think it has to do with the  implied judgment on you that is being conferred by the term. Think about having someone use a term for you that you think is negative and, while used by some people to describe your position, doesn't match how you think of yourself. Then imagine them tacking "activist" onto the end. For instance, I am pro-choice. I would prefer to have my view on abortion described in that way. Some pro-lifers want to change pro-choice to pro-abortion. If that term is applied to me it makes me go "ah, come on, guys, you're misrepresenting me". If they were to then tack "activist" onto the end of it, it basically makes it worse... like "Now you want to call me not just pro-abortion but a pro-abortion ACTIVIST? Like I'm ... out there beating babies with protest signs or something?" Or something along those lines.

 

I'm having a hard time describing it, but I totally get that having "activist" tacked on the end of an obnoxious epithet somebody pinned on you makes that epithet sound even more obnoxious. On the other hand, I don't mind having "activist" added to a label I agree with for myself (although I'm not really much of an activist about anything, admittedly). 


To be fair, there are people who are out there with signs advocating FOR abortion. A lot of picketing pro-lifers encounter that attitude. It's a different one from being pro-choice, to me, whether or not a pro-lifer makes the distinction.

I had a friend who said she wanted to get pregnant so she could have an abortion. Maybe she was just reacting to this perception that you're talking about, where pro-choicers are called pro-abortion, and then taking it to the extreme. Either way, there is definitely a culture of people who are pro-abortion. I wouldn't classify them with the mainstream pro-choice movement, but "pro-abortion" makes sense as a term sometimes. Just not when it's misapplied.

 

I dunno, I guess I'm the odd one out in not understanding the sensitivity about these terms. Obviously "wackjob anti-vaxxer" is offensive. But someone wanting to be offensive could so easily say "wackjob non-vaxxer" and before long we'll all be discussing the next most appropriate way to describe whatever it is we're trying to describe.

03-26-2014 05:12 AM
ss834

If the terminology is really a big deal, maybe we can make a vocabulary and terminology post that's sticky at the top of the forum. Otherwise I imagine this will be an issue over and over again.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

Exactly what arguments would those be?

 

Some people are distinctly overweight, but I refrain for referring to them as, say, "the fat lady," even though it might be simpler than referring to them as "the woman in the blue dress, across the room and next to the door,"  particularly if I've been asked to refrain from using the term "fat lady."

 

Meh, if the majority of the forum doesn't want to be called anti-vax that's fine with me.I will stop and like I said, sorry if I offended.  I just see it differently. I'm not going to make a list of exact arguments, since I've already mentioned a few exact arguments in this thread a few posts back. Arguments in general that exactly implicate vaccines as dangerous, and vaccine policies as harmful. I'm not saying they are bad arguments. I'm saying they are against vaccine policy, thus anti-vax.

 

Being fat is a personal characteristic. Not vaccinating is a personal choice. When someone branches beyond that and starts making political arguments about their personal characteristics or personal choices, then IMO they open themselves up to people trying to sort and classify their political opinions.

 

There are people who call themselves "fat activists" and advocate "fat acceptance." I don't assume that "the fat lady" you mention is a fat activist just because she's overweight. I already understand she probably doesn't want to be called fat because that's culturally accepted as rude. I don't assume someone who refuses vaccines is against vaccine policy simply because they refuse.

 

I wouldn't call someone fat for no reason, but if I were in a conversation with someone who advocated fat acceptance, and for whom being fat was a political position as well as a personal attribute, then I wouldn't dance around the word "fat" to preserve sensitivity. If I said "that's a common fat advocate argument" it would be to specify, not to say that only fat people say stuff like that, or all fat people say it, or that it's not a good argument. If someone who promoted fat acceptance was offended because I said "fat advocate" I'd be sorry for the offense, but I would also be confused. If they just wanted to be called "overweight" then when I say "that's a common overweight person argument" in making the statement more general, and more neutral, I'd be including plenty of overweight people who aren't even involved in "fat" politics.

 

I don't think when I'm referring to arguments like those above, that it's fair for me to say "vaccine refusers" or "non-vaccinators" to examine those general arguments, because I know plenty of people who are non-vaxxing who don't argue about it at all. I feel like they just get dragged into the politics for no reason.

 

I don't expect people to understand me or my position without having a detailed conversation about it. I think it would be absolutely absurd to expect everyone I debate with  to distinguish all the ways that I am different from other people with similar positions on one specific topic.

 

BTW, I want to be called a vaccine critic, too, so if you say "pro-vax" then I'll assume you're not talking about me.

03-25-2014 10:09 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I think it has to do with the  implied judgment on you that is being conferred by the term. Think about having someone use a term for you that you think is negative and, while used by some people to describe your position, doesn't match how you think of yourself. Then imagine them tacking "activist" onto the end. For instance, I am pro-choice. I would prefer to have my view on abortion described in that way. Some pro-lifers want to change pro-choice to pro-abortion. If that term is applied to me it makes me go "ah, come on, guys, you're misrepresenting me". If they were to then tack "activist" onto the end of it, it basically makes it worse... like "Now you want to call me not just pro-abortion but a pro-abortion ACTIVIST? Like I'm ... out there beating babies with protest signs or something?" Or something along those lines.

 

I'm having a hard time describing it, but I totally get that having "activist" tacked on the end of an obnoxious epithet somebody pinned on you makes that epithet sound even more obnoxious. On the other hand, I don't mind having "activist" added to a label I agree with for myself (although I'm not really much of an activist about anything, admittedly). 

 

Thanks for explaining it that way, it makes a lot more sense. 

03-25-2014 09:16 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I think it has to do with the  implied judgment on you that is being conferred by the term. Think about having someone use a term for you that you think is negative and, while used by some people to describe your position, doesn't match how you think of yourself. Then imagine them tacking "activist" onto the end. For instance, I am pro-choice. I would prefer to have my view on abortion described in that way. Some pro-lifers want to change pro-choice to pro-abortion. If that term is applied to me it makes me go "ah, come on, guys, you're misrepresenting me". If they were to then tack "activist" onto the end of it, it basically makes it worse... like "Now you want to call me not just pro-abortion but a pro-abortion ACTIVIST? Like I'm ... out there beating babies with protest signs or something?" Or something along those lines.

 

I'm having a hard time describing it, but I totally get that having "activist" tacked on the end of an obnoxious epithet somebody pinned on you makes that epithet sound even more obnoxious. On the other hand, I don't mind having "activist" added to a label I agree with for myself (although I'm not really much of an activist about anything, admittedly). 

 

I think you did a great job describing it.  Thank you for your sensitivity and understanding.

03-25-2014 09:11 PM
erigeron
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Activism doesn't have to mean that you are trying to stop someone from doing something, though.  The online definition is "an especially activevigorous advocate of a cause, especially a political cause."

 

That cause could just be wanting more people to be aware of vaccine "dangers", or trying to get rid of exemptions etc.

 

In any case, I had no idea that being called an activist was offensive.  You learn something new everyday! 

I think it has to do with the  implied judgment on you that is being conferred by the term. Think about having someone use a term for you that you think is negative and, while used by some people to describe your position, doesn't match how you think of yourself. Then imagine them tacking "activist" onto the end. For instance, I am pro-choice. I would prefer to have my view on abortion described in that way. Some pro-lifers want to change pro-choice to pro-abortion. If that term is applied to me it makes me go "ah, come on, guys, you're misrepresenting me". If they were to then tack "activist" onto the end of it, it basically makes it worse... like "Now you want to call me not just pro-abortion but a pro-abortion ACTIVIST? Like I'm ... out there beating babies with protest signs or something?" Or something along those lines.

 

I'm having a hard time describing it, but I totally get that having "activist" tacked on the end of an obnoxious epithet somebody pinned on you makes that epithet sound even more obnoxious. On the other hand, I don't mind having "activist" added to a label I agree with for myself (although I'm not really much of an activist about anything, admittedly). 

03-25-2014 06:58 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 Some arguments are distinctly anti-vax, and for the sake of simplicity, those who make those arguments I refer to as "anti-vax."

 

Exactly what arguments would those be?

 

Some people are distinctly overweight, but I refrain for referring to them as, say, "the fat lady," even though it might be simpler than referring to them as "the woman in the blue dress, across the room and next to the door,"  particularly if I've been asked to refrain from using the term "fat lady."

03-25-2014 06:07 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

That's what I think. So I don't think I need to avoid the term anti-vax altogether when it makes the statement more specific to that group, rather than to those who simply refuse vaccines. Some arguments are distinctly anti-vax, and for the sake of simplicity, those who make those arguments I refer to as "anti-vax."

Right.  Except, I tried to say that those who argue for pro-compliance should be called pro-compliant but the pro-vax do not like that name and I am being disrespectful to call them a name they do not like.  Bah Humbug.

 

Non-vaxxers do not typically want to be called "anti-vax"  so unless they are very clearly making a "vaccines - never!" statement it is inappropriate.  I spend far too much time here, and very rarely see that argument.  Of course, whether someone is making a anti-vax argument or a pro-compliance argument is subjective  (indeed, we have had pages on whether someone who believes in strict school exemptions is pro-compliance)  - so we are back to who decides what terms to use - the speaker or the group being spoken about?

 

In any event, for your reading pleasure:

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1397155/the-term-pro-vax/20

03-25-2014 05:22 PM
ss834

That's what I think. So I don't think I need to avoid the term anti-vax altogether when it makes the statement more specific to that group, rather than to those who simply refuse vaccines. Some arguments are distinctly anti-vax, and for the sake of simplicity, those who make those arguments I refer to as "anti-vax."

03-25-2014 05:13 PM
kathymuggle Anti-vax to me means against vaccines for everyone in every circumstance.

Non-vax is more of an umbrella term to describe someone who doesn't vax. A non-vaxxer may be anti-vax, or they may simply be against vaccine for their child for one of numerous reasons.
03-25-2014 02:50 PM
ss834

I'm sorry if I offend everyone by saying anti-vax or anti-vaxxer.

 

"Anti-vax argument" seems more clear to me than "vaccine critical argument" because I consider everyone in this debate to be critical of vaccines-- as in critically considering their risks and/or usefulness. When I say "anti-vax" it's specifically someone who has argued against the use of vaccinations as a policy decision, not just as a personal choice.

Awkwardly dancing around these terms isn't going to make a demeaning remark any more polite, nor a fairly neutral mark any more nasty. Maybe it triggers something in the recipient, but the fact that we have a "pro-vax" side and an "anti-vax/nonvax/whatever" side is responsible for that, IMO. I sometimes have a gut reaction to statements against "pro-vax" but it's not because of the term, but the polarity, or the accusations made in that particular statement.

 

So I guess I just don't get it.

03-25-2014 02:02 PM
rachelsmama
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Activism doesn't have to mean that you are trying to stop someone from doing something, though.  The online definition is "an especially activevigorous advocate of a cause, especially a political cause."

 

That cause could just be wanting more people to be aware of vaccine "dangers", or trying to get rid of exemptions etc.

 

In any case, I had no idea that being called an activist was offensive.  You learn something new everyday! 


You're right, most people on here are "activists" in one way or another, but not in the way that was being implied by the term "anti-vax activist", and let's face it, some of the statements involving that term were meant to be offensive.

03-25-2014 01:27 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 


I think the difference is that intactivists want to actively discourage/stop people from circumcising anybody who can't/doesn't consent to the procedure.  Most people who don't vaccinate on schedule aren't actively trying to stop anybody who chooses to vaccinate to not vaccinate (yes, I know there are exceptions.)  and are only actively trying to preserve or gain the right to choose.

 

Activism doesn't have to mean that you are trying to stop someone from doing something, though.  The online definition is "an especially activevigorous advocate of a cause, especially a political cause."

 

That cause could just be wanting more people to be aware of vaccine "dangers", or trying to get rid of exemptions etc.

 

In any case, I had no idea that being called an activist was offensive.  You learn something new everyday! 

03-25-2014 01:21 PM
sassyfirechick
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 


I think the difference is that intactivists want to actively discourage/stop people from circumcising anybody who can't/doesn't consent to the procedure.  Most people who don't vaccinate on schedule aren't actively trying to stop anybody who chooses to vaccinate to not vaccinate (yes, I know there are exceptions.)  and are only actively trying to preserve or gain the right to choose.

thanks.gif I knew there had to be better wording lol

03-25-2014 01:17 PM
rachelsmama
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Well, thats news to me.  The term activist isn't negative in and of itself.  

 

Don't a lot of people who are against circumcision like being called "intactivists" for example? 


I think the difference is that intactivists want to actively discourage/stop people from circumcising anybody who can't/doesn't consent to the procedure.  Most people who don't vaccinate on schedule aren't actively trying to stop anybody who chooses to vaccinate to not vaccinate (yes, I know there are exceptions.)  and are only actively trying to preserve or gain the right to choose.

03-25-2014 12:40 PM
sassyfirechick

I'm not up on the circ lingo, but I do know that not one of his posts have been respectful in the naming department.  The mature thing to do would be to sit by and read a few threads and posts first to get the gist of how things are, test the waters so to speak.  But not jump right in with the insults.  I don't care what kind of info you are sharing, if you pepper it with insults it is not likely to met with open arms.  Kind of like telling someone you support them, BUT.....yah totally negates the compliment of support.  There's no need for debates to get dirty.

03-25-2014 12:34 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

It does take it a step further.....from someone who opposes something personally to someone who actively goes out of their way to show their opposition.

 

Well, thats news to me.  The term activist isn't negative in and of itself.  

 

Don't a lot of people who are against circumcision like being called "intactivists" for example? 

03-25-2014 12:32 PM
sassyfirechick

It does take it a step further.....from someone who opposes something personally to someone who actively goes out of their way to show their opposition.

03-25-2014 12:30 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

That's a rotten excuse for using the term "anti-vax activist," which he keeps using in his posts.  I haven't yet found anyone who criticizes vaccines who wants to be labeled as an "anti-vax activist." Google "I am an anti-vax activist" and Jenny McCarthy comes up in the first 10 pages--even though she repeatedly states that she is not "anti-vaccine" but is campaigning for safer vaccines.

 

 

 

Is the term "anti-vax activist" more offensive than the term "anti vaxxer"?  It's an honest question.   I really had no idea. 

03-25-2014 12:10 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

He's not a regular member here so it makes sense that he doesn't know about the pro compliance/anti vaccine term drama we've had here.  

 

The general consensus is that the members here like being called non-vaccine/vaccine critics and pro-vaccine for us.  Although you can call yourself whatever you want, obviously. 

 

That's a rotten excuse for using the term "anti-vax activist," which he keeps using in his posts.  I haven't yet found anyone who criticizes vaccines who wants to be labeled as an "anti-vax activist." Google "I am an anti-vax activist" and Jenny McCarthy comes up in the first 10 pages--even though she repeatedly states that she is not "anti-vaccine" but is campaigning for safer vaccines.

 

Of course, the standard response from the pro-vax side (which has been stated many times here) is that "vaccines are safe and effective."  So perhaps we should put that argument of denial to rest once and for all.

 

Saying that to one of the thousands of parents whose child had a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine (or vaccines) is rather like saying, "Millions of Toyotas have been driven without ever having one of those accidents, therefore they are safe," to someone whose child was injured in one of the sudden-acceleration accidents involving a faulty Toyota.

And, yeah, Toyota denied there was a problem for a long, long time, AND covered up evidence of such a problem.  Sound familiar?

03-25-2014 11:48 AM
teacozy

He's not a regular member here so it makes sense that he doesn't know about the pro compliance/anti vaccine term drama we've had here.  

 

The general consensus is that the members here like being called non-vaccine/vaccine critics and pro-vaccine for us.  Although you can call yourself whatever you want, obviously. 

03-25-2014 11:46 AM
chickabiddy

There was a thread on this recently and it seems that for those who choose not to vaccinate, the preferred term is "vaccine critics".

03-25-2014 11:42 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

If I understand this correctly, I should use "anti-vax" for people who believe vaccines are both dangerous AND totally ineffective, and who practice alternative medicine in general, but "non-vax" for people who generally agree with mainstream medicine but who have decided to avoid the occasional adverse reaction to vaccines by letting other people take the risk. I would like to think that I am not understanding this correctly. Can you elaborate?

 

I'm glad you would like to think that you are not understanding this correctly, because you are NOT understanding this correctly


Perhaps, rather than assuming that you understand the values, beliefs, and medical history behind decisions made by people you don't know, you should simply refer to them as those who question and/or criticize vaccine safety and efficacy.

03-25-2014 11:41 AM
mama24-7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post

If I understand this correctly, I should use "anti-vax" for people who believe vaccines are both dangerous AND totally ineffective, and who practice alternative medicine in general, but "non-vax" for people who generally agree with mainstream medicine but who have decided to avoid the occasional adverse reaction to vaccines by letting other people take the risk. I would like to think that I am not understanding this correctly. Can you elaborate?

Since most people are likely going to describe themselves differently, being that they're individuals & all, maybe you could just describe yourself so you don't need to make assumptions about others?

I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm pro logic. Short cuts are not logical to me when it comes to the human body. My body (& my children's) are in a world of hurt right now thanks to "modern day medicine," aka short cuts. Go ahead & try to describe me. But I may not respond because I'm generally up to my eyeballs in shit thanks to short cuts taken by my parents & the "medical" people they got advice from while raising me.

Best wishes,
Sus

Edited to correct a misspelled word.
03-25-2014 11:36 AM
Turquesa We've had this discussion on MDC before, but I don't think you were a part of it. I selectively vax and question the U.S. schedule. So neither anti-vax nor non-vax fit me. I've used pro-compliance to refer to those who are not just pro-vaccine, but who also believe that absolutely every possible child should assume the risk of vaccination for the Greater Good. That label didn't go over well among some, though. Could it be that, like most issues, the vaccination discussion is too complex for black and white labeling?
03-25-2014 11:28 AM
Andrew Lazarus
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

Your biggest challenge seems to be in your constant and demeaning use of the phrase anti-vaxx and anti-vaxxers.  The implication that someone balks at any and all forms of mainstream medical opting for voodoo witchcraft is just plain rude.  I'm pretty sure I can speak for a large majority of us NON-vaxxers on here in that we do not shun vaccines and are not anti-medical.  We've simply experienced first hand these "rare" adverse reactions with ourselves or our children or have just come to a different conclusion in our decision to no vaccinate.  It is, after all, a personal choice, and no, we do not consult crystal balls in coming to this decision. 

If I understand this correctly, I should use "anti-vax" for people who believe vaccines are both dangerous AND totally ineffective, and who practice alternative medicine in general, but "non-vax" for people who generally agree with mainstream medicine but who have decided to avoid the occasional adverse reaction to vaccines by letting other people take the risk. I would like to think that I am not understanding this correctly. Can you elaborate?

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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