Parental rights and vaccines - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14871878
Pants-of-dog wrote:Probably not.

But this is how a good parent operates.


Well, i'll tip my hat to you. It takes a real man to admit he is full of shit.
#14871882
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you think that being responsible for your children is b.s., feel free.


Believing that I am merely responsible without any rights over my children and decisions regarding them is B.S., that was your argument and that is what you admitted you cannot prove.

As a parent, I have both rights and responsibilities and that is perfectly fine by me.

How this relates to issues pertaining to Vaccine law, is the subject of the conversation at hand and arguably involves both aspects. Now that we have that out of the way, you may feel free to contribute your opinions accordingly.
#14871907
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Believing that I am merely responsible without any rights over my children and decisions regarding them is B.S., that was your argument and that is what you admitted you cannot prove.

As a parent, I have both rights and responsibilities and that is perfectly fine by me.

How this relates to issues pertaining to Vaccine law, is the subject of the conversation at hand and arguably involves both aspects. Now that we have that out of the way, you may feel free to contribute your opinions accordingly.


I did.

If you want to address how my argument discusses vaccines, feel free.

In my opinion, the “rights” I have as a parent are actually the child’s rights that I am exercising on their behalf.

And by getting vaccines for my children, I am exercising their right to health care.
#14871938
Pants-of-dog wrote:In my opinion, the “rights” I have as a parent are actually the child’s rights that I am exercising on their behalf.


This is neither the legal definition of Parental rights in either the United States or Canada, nor is it a demonstation from moral philosophy that parents have no rights, which was your claim, that you have failed to prove. I will simply disregard all of this unproven nonsense.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And by getting vaccines for my children, I am exercising their right to health care.


If you have no rights, and only responsibilities, then who determines what is in their best interest healthcare-wise? If you have no rights as a parent, then who has the "right" to decide what is in the best medical interests of your children? The government of Canada I presume?
#14871966
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is neither the legal definition of Parental rights in either the United States or Canada, nor is it a demonstation from moral philosophy that parents have no rights, which was your claim, that you have failed to prove. I will simply disregard all of this unproven nonsense.


Go ahead.

My paradigm means I have to keep my children safe and healthy. Yours means you have the “right” to not do so. Obviously, my paradigm is better suited to parenting than yours, even if the governments disagree.

If you have no rights, and only responsibilities, then who determines what is in their best interest healthcare-wise? If you have no rights as a parent, then who has the "right" to decide what is in the best medical interests of your children? The government of Canada I presume?


As I already explained, I have the responsibility of exercising my children’s rights and advocating for them. They have the right to access health care, and I have the responsibility to make sure they do.

So, it is my responsibility to determine what my child would like if they had all the information and their own best interests at heart, and I have the responsibility of making it happen.
#14871994
So this thread was a waste of time, I’m almost sorry I started it :hmm:

My original point which most either missed or ignored was that public health policy contends with realities contrary to its efforts. Guns kill a load more people than the average disease on your vaccine schedule but controls fail. So it would seem (in the US at least) that the population doesn’t have a problem accepting the fall-out from their liberal views on guns.

Vaccines are an important part of public health but in the first world we’ve seen drops in uptake - why else would governments take such drastic action so as to make them mandatory? It was a dumb overreaction which has inflamed more conspiracy.

For a country that doesn’t mind losing a shit load of people to gun crime every year did anyone do a risk benefit analysis on what the result would be in making vaccines cost reflective instead of this clumsy, ill thought out policy of coercion?

mikema63 at least touched on the small outbreaks that were occurring but didn’t really go any further except to reinforce the current OTT line.
#14872000
Stopping the use of vaccines would mean a far greater number of people would die from disease, rather than guns.

Vaccines are hugely important and the reason why in most countries it's considered mandatory for health and public welfare.

Sometimes you need some OTT things to stop stupidity. The pseudo-scientific attacks on vaccinations are stupidity, and need to be quelled, with force if necessary. I'd go so far as to charge people who promote the anti-Vacc trend being charged, criminally. Not many would agree, but don't we make laws to protect the public, sometimes from even themselves?
#14872015
Stopping the use of vaccines would mean a far greater number of people would die from disease, rather than guns.
I didn’t say stop :moron: not even close! The worst that we know would happen for sure in the short term is a sharp and pronounced decline in vaccinations. But would you as a parent not vaccinate your child because you had to pay for it?

I simply want to know how long before our apparent herd immunity breaks down.

Vaccines are hugely important and the reason why in most countries it's considered mandatory for health and public welfare.


I’m sure they are. But taking this information for granted is no excuse for not knowing the precise chain of events if we were to tweak the roll out to educate and refine societal attitudes.

Sometimes you need some OTT things to stop stupidity. The pseudo-scientific attacks on vaccinations are stupidity, and need to be quelled, with force if necessary. I'd go so far as to charge people who promote the anti-Vacc trend being charged, criminally. Not many would agree, but don't we make laws to protect the public, sometimes from even themselves?


Nope. It was ill thought out and antagonistic.
#14872020
ness31 wrote:I simply want to know how long before our apparent herd immunity breaks down.
It doesn't work that way. It never breaks down. it's there by default.

ness31 wrote:But would you as a parent not vaccinate your child because you had to pay for it?
Would you pay $20 not to have your child die of a horrible disease? Pretty easy answer.

ness31 wrote:But taking this information for granted is no excuse for not knowing the precise chain of events if we were to tweak the roll out to educate and refine societal attitudes.
Why? Vaccines work. It's a fact. We only need to educate people on the facts. The attitude has changed because people are peddling LIES, under the guise of "facts".

I don't care if society is antagonistic about enforcing vaccinations. Sometimes society needs to protect people from their own idiocy.
#14872032
I'm not here to "sway you". I'm stating fact.

We don't need our medical communities constantly on the defensive against attacks on the legitimacy of well studied, documented, and successful medical procedures/technology. The flaw does not come from the medical community, but from the nimrods in the rest of society that want to always find something wrong with everything, even when there isn't.

The David Wolfe's and loud-mouthed attention/fame seekers who claim knowledge when they really know nothing(no medical knowledge atall) are the threat. The losers who believe them are part of the problem(one that better education can rectify).

America has shit education and this is being reflected in the growth of these anti-science dipshits and conspiracy theories. An uneducated populace believes stupid things.The problem doesn't lie in how we market such medical knowledge.

We need society to actively attack the shit disturbers, and not have to waste time defending real science, from them.
#14872042
ness31 wrote:So this thread was a waste of time, I’m almost sorry I started it :hmm:

Yes, but we need you to feel a bit more humiliation so that you appreciate how bad your decision to start it was. You won't learn otherwise - it would be as if you got educated for free.

My original point which most either missed or ignored was that public health policy contends with realities contrary to its efforts.

But we have seen that you were wrong. Free vaccinations increase the uptake.

Guns kill a load more people than the average disease on your vaccine schedule but controls fail. So it would seem (in the US at least) that the population doesn’t have a problem accepting the fall-out from their liberal views on guns.

So what? That's a red herring. This is about vaccines.

Vaccines are an important part of public health but in the first world we’ve seen drops in uptake

Statistics, please. I showed that the US saw increases, not drops.

why else would governments take such drastic action so as to make them mandatory?

To get herd immunity, because there are a few people who cannot have the vaccines.

It was a dumb overreaction which has inflamed more conspiracy.

You may think saving lives is dumb, but you're wrong. You spend too much tiem with conspiracy theorists.

For a country that doesn’t mind losing a shit load of people to gun crime every year did anyone do a risk benefit analysis on what the result would be in making vaccines cost reflective

Who knows? We do know, however, that the policy worked, whether or not they did a risk benefit analysis first. Whatever 'risk' you thought might have happened, didn't.

instead of this clumsy, ill thought out policy of coercion?

Just to emphasize this once more: it worked. It was an excellent, well thought out policy. You shouldn't clap your hands over your eyes and type "this was clumsy", denying the evidence.

Are you embarrassed, yet?
#14872074
Where to start? Post the statistics? Tell stories about my youth when the little girl across the street was confined to an iron lung for life? (Mercifully short.) Claim expertise? How about plain talk for a change.

Good thing there are plenty of anti-vaxxer cranks to counterbalance that view. I haven't really looked into it but I'll bet dollars to donuts the science is nowhere near as "settled" as someone like Godstud believes it is.



You are correct in admitting that you have not looked into it. If you had you would know that Godstud is correct. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the research.

It's probably a lot more complicated than the vague simplistic notions most people have about it.


It is. That is why you have epidemiologists whose lives are dedicated to arriving at the truth. And we are virtually universal in our acceptance of the data and our certainty that anti-vaxers are dangerous and profoundly stupid individuals.

I don't know much about vaccines


Obviously.

...but based on my experience with similar controversies it's safe to assume vaccines aren't as safe and effective as officialdom claims.


This notion is just stupid. It is not safe to assume that. In fact there are few areas about which we are more scientifically certain. There are two things you ought to consider before you make a stupid statements on this subject. Google "logical fallacy".

Then consider that you do not even know what the claims of experts are, not to mention understand the shear depth of the information available to real experts.

To the OP:

You seem to be advocating for a solution in search of a problem. Tell me again what it is you fear? You say you vaccinate your children. It would appear that you are convinced that this is the preferable course of action. Then you advocate for some kind of additional cost for the vaccines to accomplish....what? You articulate some need to take vaccines seriously and you are maintaining that causing people to have to pay for them will somehow increase compliance? Nonsense. It will do the opposite. And your children may die because of it. Do you want to know why? Let me tell you. Pat attention. The lives of children, including yours, lie in the balance.

Suppose you have your child vaccinated against measles; a potentially deadly disease. (136,000 people in the world died of measles last year.) She has measles vaccination. Now suppose some parental rights shit head decides that measles vaccines "aren't as safe and effective as officialdom claims". So they decline to have their child vaccinated. And he gets sick and gives the measles to your child (who is one of the three 3 in 100 who do not develop immunity) develops the disease. But you are lucky. Your child has mild immunity from their vaccination and only develops measles encephalitis. But your luck holds. Your daughter is not one of the 10-20% who die from this and only has permanent nerve damage. So start saving money sport. You will have to earn enough for her to be cared for long after you die. Or would you prefer for the government to pay for it? That is it isn't it? You want the government to pay for your child because some monumentally stupid libertard (as if there was any other kind) felt his beloved parental rights are more important than the lives of his children and the lives of the people around them.

There is no justification for charging more. None. Nunca. There is a great deal of justification for making vaccines mandatory. Yes some will die of adverse reactions. Depending on the vaccine a number of recipients will not be protected. But at the end of the day far far more lives will be saved from free mandatory vaccinations that will every be negatively affected.

So what does a DPH do? He gets his vaccines. He tries to convince others to do it too. Why? Because he knows full well that there is absolutely no reason not to.

That should be simple enough for anyone to understand.

And, just for the record. I am a religious person. Very. The notion of a religious exemption is stupid. It should not exist.
Last edited by Drlee on 18 Dec 2017 04:43, edited 1 time in total.
#14872139
Godstud wrote:I like parental rights in Thailand, regarding vaccines. Your kid gets vaccinated at school, and if they do not get vaccinated, they cannot attend school.

I do not believe in the right to be an ignorant dipshit, and dismiss medical science because you read something from David Avacado Wolfe(a person whom I think should be up on charges of reckless endangerment). If you don't vaccinate your child, it should be considered child abuse, and dealt with accordingly.


Agreed. If someone wants to deliberately make themselves and their children more vulnerable to diseases and the spread of those diseases, some of which are currently relatively rare thanks to vaccination efforts, they should be treated accordingly.

ness31 wrote:Vaccines are an important part of public health but in the first world we’ve seen drops in uptake - why else would governments take such drastic action so as to make them mandatory? It was a dumb overreaction which has inflamed more conspiracy.


It's a matter of public health and safety: if vaccines weren't mandatory, smallpox would still be killing people by the millions worldwide.

As for what you said about not knowing much about vaccines, if you think vaccines are harmful, I can guarantee and assure you that you are completely and entirely wrong (except in extremely rare circumstances, which infinitesimally outweighs the number of deaths caused by people who are not vaccinated). Understanding what vaccines are and how they work is very simple and requires very little effort. I would suggest you spend a little bit of time learning about something very basic and elementary that affects us all.

Sorry if that sounds condescending, but as you admit, you are ignorant about vaccines, and the things you are saying are wholly incorrect. As far as I know, the only person in this thread who has any medical background is Drlee, but the rest of us, who were never doctors or medics, know that the things you believe about vaccines are wrong. That should indicate very strongly to you that what you believe, out of ignorance, is wrong.
#14872199
Ok, so to sum up (I’ve now drank a sufficient amount of wine to be able to cope with this thread).

I’m ignorant, and the very notion of charging people for their children’s vaccinations to garner a renewed appreciation for immunisation in the first world is a terrible and dangerous idea.
The current policy of state coercion is correct and necessary and must be forcibly applied at any cost.

Have I summed it up sufficiently PoFo?
#14872236
ness31 wrote:Ok, so to sum up (I’ve now drank a sufficient amount of wine to be able to cope with this thread).

I’m ignorant, and the very notion of charging people for their children’s vaccinations to garner a renewed appreciation for immunisation in the first world is a terrible and dangerous idea.
The current policy of state coercion is correct and necessary and must be forcibly applied at any cost.

Have I summed it up sufficiently PoFo?


Your submission came too late, you are not forgiven.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Go ahead.


Will do, no reason to take seriously a bunch of made-up shit.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, it is my responsibility to determine what my child would like if they had all the information and their own best interests at heart, and I have the responsibility of making it happen.


So you have a responsibility to defy the government of Canada if you feel their studies are incorrect and not in the best interests of your children if you deem such to be the case?

Would you then say: "Canada is not violating my rights, but is merely interfering with my ability to exercise my responsibility as a parent?"
#14872255
based on my experience with similar controversies it's safe to assume vaccines aren't as safe and effective as officialdom claims.

Drlee wrote: There are two things you ought to consider before you make a stupid statements on this subject. Google "logical fallacy".


You think analogical reasoning is fallacious? That explains a lot. :lol: It's not a fallacy to be skeptical of known bullshitters. For instance, it's safe to assume that your response to this post will be complete bullshit, it's not guaranteed to be but I'd bet large that it will be. There's no fallacy there.

Then consider that you do not even know what the claims of experts are, not to mention understand the shear depth of the information available to real experts.


I do know the claims, I just haven't looked into the support for those claims. If all you know are the claims then you don't know much about it either.
#14872285
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Will do, no reason to take seriously a bunch of made-up shit.


I find it amusing how many peoole go out of their way to tell me they are ignoring me.

Anyway, you ignored my point about how my paradigm actually protects children, while yours gives you the opportunity to hurt them or allow them to come to harm because of your inaction.

So you have a responsibility to defy the government of Canada if you feel their studies are incorrect and not in the best interests of your children if you deem such to be the case?

Would you then say: "Canada is not violating my rights, but is merely interfering with my ability to exercise my responsibility as a parent?"


I would say that Canada is violating my children’s rights, just like parents who forego vaccines are also violating their children’s rights.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 52
EU-BREXIT

@Heisenberg its possible but not sure the number[…]

The Poisonous History of Neo-Classical Economics […]

Trump and Russiagate

Do you still think that the Trump campaign collud[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

So what if Ivanka replaced Pence for 2020, would t[…]