Bulaba Jones wrote:God forbid someone (and their children) lose their precious personal liberty to potentially endanger the lives of people around them by refusing to be vaccinated because of no reason in particular.
Vaccinations are a matter of public health, medical hygiene, and disease prevention. We aren't the ones moralizing by insisting it's coercion and wrong to require people to vaccinate because it somehow violates a person's right to be a potential spreader of now-rare (due to global vaccination efforts) and deadly diseases.
As an aside, you've got to stop viewing criticism and comments about your posts/opinions as personal attacks. You're taking every contrary statement, regardless of how coddling and neutral it's worded, as a personal affront.
Except, according to statistical analysis based on reported deaths, had no vaccines ever been introduced, nearly all of the diseases you demand mandatory vaccination for would have resulted in almost no re-portable mortalities by the late 20th early 21st century. The best answer given to this argument so far on this thread, was that the measles vaccine, and that vaccine only, may have contributed to this same result being reached slightly sooner, by maybe 5-13%. However, whether that vaccine was introduced EVER or not, the mortality rate for measles, under all projection, would have been a non-issue in 2017.
Thus, if there were no mortalities for measles in 2017 and no vaccine had ever been produced, you could hardly argue for mandating it because it saves lives from preventing plague-like events. That being the case, which is factually true, you cannot make the argument for mandate now either. That is hysteria and lines the wallets of government agencies that have serious conflicts of interests and are protected from litigation by private citizens.
Private citizens have parental rights and they should not be infringed without serious and legitimate cause. Like I said, I am not against ALL vaccines in theory, but mandating any of the ones we've been discussing, under threat of force, without any allowance for legitimate exemptions that I outlined earlier, is insanity.
1. Most of these vaccines are unnecessary to prevent mass mortality or any serious mortalities. This is a statistical fact based on historical projections.
2. Many of these vaccines include ingredients, like aborted fetal tissue and cells, that violate the conscience of Christian citizens, who's rights are legally recognized on similar matters to these already.
3. There are trained medical professions, even if a minority, that have concerns over the content and character of these vaccines.
4. Some people have adverse reactions to these vaccines.
5. private citizens are barred by Federal law from suing vaccine manufacturers for damages.
#4-5 are sufficient for various exemptions that parents may pursue. #1 is an argument against mandating these said vaccines to the general public.
Now my qualifier:
This does not included unique epidemics that may arise (some odd foreign virus that threatens the masses), under such emergency conditions I am not opposed to vaccines. I am not opposed to inoculations that are done in response to something that is immediately life-threatening, like Rabies. I am not opposed to vaccinations that prevent the spreading of harmful viruses to an isolated native population etc. I am not opposed to a general mandate for public educated kids if it can be shown that the existence of such prevents significant mortalities in the United States, which almost all medical projection charts seem to contradict.
I would be more open to MMR if it was split into different vaccines for each diseases and if the vaccine schedule were reformed to allow its dosages to be taken later in life, even those who claim that the MMR vax causes autism, claim its the current formula that does so only, and would be open if the vaxx was individuated, that is not an unreasonable request, the problem is that pro-vaxxers are unreasonable and turn a blind-eye to the cronyism going on between these drug companies and the Federal government, which they would not likely do on other issues.
Arguing for a Hep B vaccines is a load of horseshit. If parents pass the pre-screening for Hep B, their kids should not be required to get it. Heb B is a sexually transmitted, primarily, disease. If they want to fuck around later in life and conduct themselves in a manner that makes them susceptible to the disease, that is their responsibility.
Parents should not be REQUIRED to give their babies a vaccine to prevent a sexually transmitted disease. That fucking ridiculous.
The thing is, on this thread, those labeled anti-vaxxer are not homogeneous. Anti-Vaxxers included everyone from those who are fine with vaccines and merely want the schedule reformed to those who are ispo-facto against all vaccines. Its a broad camp and spectrum.
The pro-vaxxers have one common attribute: no tolerance for open debate, and no compromise on any aspect of the current vaccine schedule. They want all vaccines, as they are currently formulated, under current laws, implemented at their current suggested times. Fuck everyone else.
Asserting this claim on repeat is dogma, not debate.