|
ChairMaster posted:Or how about we don't play games with public health in the first place? If your religion prohibits you from safely interacting with the rest of society, then you shouldn't be allowed to do that. You have to be pragmatic. Forcing Christian scientists to vaccinate their children helps basically no one because herd immunity can cover those people but it might hurt by increasing sympathy for the anti-vaccine movement and making the government look tyrannical.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You have to be pragmatic. Forcing Christian scientists to vaccinate their children helps basically no one because herd immunity can cover those people but it might hurt by increasing sympathy for the anti-vaccine movement and making the government look tyrannical. It isn't just Christian Scientists. What we have is a bunch of people accepting that vaccines are bad, based upon a person in the public eye telling them they are bad. This isn't science or religion necessarily, it is celebrity. Somehow "common sense" now trumps science, and common sense has celebrities dishing out the truth as they see it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You have to be pragmatic. Forcing Christian scientists to vaccinate their children helps basically no one because herd immunity can cover those people but it might hurt by increasing sympathy for the anti-vaccine movement and making the government look tyrannical. On the other hand, the idea that claiming to be God's bestest buddy means you get to ignore public health in favor of your idiot superstitions is currently harming women's health today, and that could even be expanded if the Supreme Court decides that a pile of incorporation paperwork can also know the mind of God. Not to mention that people are even treating seriously the idea that contraceptives which don't cause abortion can still not be provided as long as you hold the magical belief that they do. I'm all for religious freedom, right up until it starts hurting people who don't share your beliefs. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Lead Psychiatry posted:The only exemptions that should be allowed should be due to medical considerations, not religious. I can see the legal framework that allows government agencies to require vaccinations in order to gain access to some form of service (public school pops to mind first, but there are plenty of other scenarios) but wouldn't any attempt to mandate vaccination (which would then allow for the exemptions you mention) run afoul of a constitutional challenge?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Pohl posted:It isn't just Christian Scientists. What we have is a bunch of people accepting that vaccines are bad, based upon a person in the public eye telling them they are bad. This isn't science or religion necessarily, it is celebrity. Somehow "common sense" now trumps science, and common sense has celebrities dishing out the truth as they see it. Which is why "I have a documented history of association with a religion that believes medical treatment of this kind of unacceptable" is an okay excuse and "I decided Jenny McCarthy was right and now I don't want to vaccinate my kids" is not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
If I claimed a key part of my sect of Judaism involved throwing my poo poo out the window like ancient Israelis did, I would not get that upheld as protected since its a hazard to others. I have no legal or ethical issue telling people "God said no" is not a valid reason to be a public health risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:On the other hand, the idea that claiming to be God's bestest buddy means you get to ignore public health in favor of your idiot superstitions is currently harming women's health today, and that could even be expanded if the Supreme Court decides that a pile of incorporation paperwork can also know the mind of God. Not to mention that people are even treating seriously the idea that contraceptives which don't cause abortion can still not be provided as long as you hold the magical belief that they do. Do you think there might be a distinction between "letting people choose not to have a specific medical procedure done to their children" and "banning abortion, preventing your employees from accessing contraceptives, and forbidding teachers to talk about safe sexual practices"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Do you think there might be a distinction between "letting people choose not to have a specific medical procedure done to their children" and "banning abortion, preventing your employees from accessing contraceptives, and forbidding teachers to talk about safe sexual practices"? Yea you probably won't be a danger to others and their health if you don't get an abortion, so if anything this should be more important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Do you think there might be a distinction between "letting people choose not to have a specific medical procedure done to their children" and "banning abortion, preventing your employees from accessing contraceptives, and forbidding teachers to talk about safe sexual practices"? There really isn't, not in the context we are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea you probably won't be a danger to others and their health if you don't get an abortion, so if anything this should be more important. Once again guys, not forcing the tiny minority of people whose weird religion says they shouldn't get vaccinated isn't going to compromise herd immunity. I'd even say it's fine to force everyone else to get vaccinated, but unless there is actual substantial harm people have a right to practice their religion. And there is no harm, once again, because only a tiny minority of people are actual practitioners of these religions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Do you think there might be a distinction between "letting people choose not to have a specific medical procedure done to their children" and "banning abortion, preventing your employees from accessing contraceptives, and forbidding teachers to talk about safe sexual practices"? Yes. (1) That's child abuse (2) it puts other people's lives at risk. If anything, it's a bigger deal, because at least those women have other options, unlike unvaccinated children who get no choice but to suffer and die because of their parents' idiot beliefs. You might as well say we should look the other way when parents give their kids exorcisms instead of antibiotics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Once again guys, not forcing the tiny minority of people whose weird religion says they shouldn't get vaccinated isn't going to compromise herd immunity. I'd even say it's fine to force everyone else to get vaccinated, but unless there is actual substantial harm people have a right to practice their religion. And there is no harm, once again, because only a tiny minority of people are actual practitioners of these religions. gently caress em No for real, gently caress em. Why should we take even a tiny chance with such a critical aspect of public health? If you have a legit health reason of course you should be exempt but nah, believing in 18th century medicine because you think God hates progress and loves dead rear end babies, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Is there another example of something that our government has forced a minority of people to do to themselves for the benefit of the population? I'm sure there must be, but I'm failing to come up with anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Is there another example of something that our government has forced a minority of people to do to themselves for the benefit of the population? I'm sure there must be, but I'm failing to come up with anything. Not smoke peyote (note: savage religions aren't real religions like One True Christianity) Not own slaves Let black people marry white people Provide contraception coverage Buy health insurance Educate their kids Fight in Vietnam etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Not smoke inside airplanes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Is there another example of something that our government has forced a minority of people to do to themselves for the benefit of the population? I'm sure there must be, but I'm failing to come up with anything. Who cares???? This is basic stuff. This goes far beyond the rights of individual people and falls squarely into the rights of the public at large. This is something that should not have to even be discussed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Is there another example of something that our government has forced a minority of people to do to themselves for the benefit of the population? I'm sure there must be, but I'm failing to come up with anything. Stop owning people, pay workers in real money worth enough to eat dinner on, stop dumping factory waste in the water table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Most of those things are not forcing a person to do something to themselves.quote:Educate their kids Education and the draft come close, though. I would probably drop education off of the list due to the allowance for home schooling and private schooling, but I can't work the draft off of the list. Thanks, that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Why does it matter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Most of those things are not forcing a person to do something to themselves. We do let people avoid the draft if they can prove that they are COs though. EDIT: Sort of. They won't have to fight at any rate. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Why does it matter? I was trying to answer "should the government mandate vaccination" but was hung up on "can the government mandate vaccination". I'm still not sure the legal coverage is there, but that's a surmountable barrier. If the government can force you to put yourself in harm's way a forced medical procedure isn't entirely unimaginable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Most of those things are not forcing a person to do something to themselves. I'd say the draft is even easier because it did allow religious exceptions. But your education plan has to meet standards, it can't be "nothing, God says educating women is a sin". But the real kicker is that the government has no issue trampling on religious freedom if it's a despised ethnic group like Native Americans. Because obviously smoking a plant in church is a serious public danger, unlike letting your kids spread measles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:We do let people avoid the draft if they can prove that they are COs though. No one should have to. Just because we have an archaic system for war, that doesn't define human rights. Vaccinations are not about war, they are about society. Social health depends on vaccines, and people against them have never experienced the horror that occurs when children aren't vaccinated. This is because, we vaccinate our children, so people really don't understand what they are railing against. These diseases are loving horrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Pohl posted:No one should have to. Just because we have an archaic system for war, that doesn't define human rights. Right. That is, again, why we should certainly require almost everyone to get vaccinated. However, people also have a right to practice their religions, regardless of how backwards you believe those religions are. We make exceptions to this when there is a clear harm to public health, but in this case there is not one, so we default to letting people practice their religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:14
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:we default to letting people practice their Fixed for reality, because no we loving don't. Rastafari can't smoke pot, indigenous religions can't use psychedelics, and many other examples. Those are practices with no public harm and yet we ban them. wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Right. That is, again, why we should certainly require almost everyone to get vaccinated. However, people also have a right to practice their religions, regardless of how backwards you believe those religions are. We make exceptions to this when there is a clear harm to public health, but in this case there is not one, so we default to letting people practice their religion. They can practice their stupid cult, it won't mean we have to let them do literally anything they want. Again in my poo poo tossing example, I'm sure only a few other Jews will follow me to the poo poo flinging side, is it ok because we most likely won't poo poo more than the city can clean? At what point do we draw the line of accepting risks for public health for no good reason?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:However, people also have a right to practice their religions, regardless of how backwards you believe those religions are. Praying over their kids instead of giving them antibiotics is also practicing their religion so unless you're arguing we should legalize that then I don't see how you can defend letting people use Jesus Power instead of medicine on their kids when it comes to vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Right. That is, again, why we should certainly require almost everyone to get vaccinated. However, people also have a right to practice their religions, regardless of how backwards you believe those religions are. We make exceptions to this when there is a clear harm to public health, but in this case there is not one, so we default to letting people practice their religion. At what percentage of the population do unvaccinated children become a clear harm to public health? Are there any other religious beliefs that would constitute a clear harm to public health were their practitioners to become the societal majority?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Right. That is, again, why we should certainly require almost everyone to get vaccinated. However, people also have a right to practice their religions, regardless of how backwards you believe those religions are. We make exceptions to this when there is a clear harm to public health, but in this case there is not one, so we default to letting people practice their religion. Simply put, your religion can get hosed. Religion is not some hand waiving special topic that allows you to act stupid. Arguing that religion allows you or anyone to act stupid, only serves to demean that religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
MrGreenShirt posted:Are there any other religious beliefs that would constitute a clear harm to public health were their practitioners to become the societal majority? Dominionism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Simply put, your religion can get hosed. Religion is not some hand waiving special topic that allows you to act stupid. Arguing that religion allows you or anyone to act stupid, only serves to demean that religion. Also, you can be a Christian Science person, that's real dumb but totes legal. You just can't kill your kid or my kid over it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Its simple, if you refuse vaccinate your kids for anything other than a certified lethal reason you lose custody of your kids. End of story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
I'd entertain the notion of religious exemptions to vaccinations as long as there were rules in place to minimize risk. And one of the first things that'd have to be put in place would be forbidding those unvaccinated from leaving the country at all so there's no worry they'd end up someplace without a vaccination program since there are cases where kids have traveled and brought back something. But sadly that punishes children who have no say at all, and is just easier to say gently caress the religious bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Lead Psychiatry posted:I'd entertain the notion of religious exemptions to vaccinations as long as there were rules in place to minimize risk. And one of the first things that'd have to be put in place would be forbidding those unvaccinated from leaving the country at all so there's no worry they'd end up someplace without a vaccination program since there are cases where kids have traveled and brought back something. Yes, but isn't that what the parents are doing as well by not getting their children vaccinated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
MrGreenShirt posted:At what percentage of the population do unvaccinated children become a clear harm to public health? Are there any other religious beliefs that would constitute a clear harm to public health were their practitioners to become the societal majority? I don't know, but in a world where literally everyone except a tiny minority have to get vaccinated it seems like the risk is probably pretty small.If herd immunity can seriously be compromised by such a tiny fraction of people it was worthless anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
What if the fraction became not so tiny and was starting to cause problems, as it is now? At what point do you say enough is enough and start limiting the parents right to not vaccinate? And if herd immunity was worthless anyway doesn't that make forced vaccinations even more necessary? MrGreenShirt fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don't know, but in a world where literally everyone except a tiny minority have to get vaccinated it seems like the risk is probably pretty small.If herd immunity can seriously be compromised by such a tiny fraction of people it was worthless anyway. And when Jenny McCarthy joins the CS movement and her brainless followers do the same? Is the government going to judge the validity of religious claims because that sounds ripe for far entertainers than your version. Also answer to the dudes who pointed out that we don't actually default to faith trumping law or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
MrGreenShirt posted:Yes, but isn't that what the parents are doing as well by not getting their children vaccinated? Kinda leery on drawing an equivalence between the fun a child can have on a trip anywhere and a visit to take a needle in the arm. Yeah, the kids should be vaccinated sure, but that's a necessity for their own safety. Not so much an international plane ride. Ogmius815 posted:I don't know, but in a world where literally everyone except a tiny minority have to get vaccinated it seems like the risk is probably pretty small.If herd immunity can seriously be compromised by such a tiny fraction of people it was worthless anyway. I don't recall anyone ever saying herd immunity was 100% effective and a guarantee that if X percentage of the population gets innoculated everyone regardless is safe so yeah, that tiny portion is still a risk. Even those with weakened immune systems and can't get the vaccination are a risk so no reason to allow that religious exemption when it only adds to the danger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:And when Jenny McCarthy joins the CS movement and her brainless followers do the same? Is the government going to judge the validity of religious claims because that sounds ripe for far entertainers than your version. Also answer to the dudes who pointed out that we don't actually default to faith trumping law or whatever. Well, like I suggested, you could do the same thing we used to do with COs and take measures to ensure that their beliefs are sincere. You know why herd immunity is necessary right? It's because not everyone that gets vaccinated becomes immune. If an extreme minority religion is going to tip the scales (it isn't) herd immunity never should have worked in the first place. People aren't going to change religions because they don't want to vaccinate their kids anyway because it turns out there's more to being a Christian Scientist than "hey don't vaccinate your kids". Seriously the whole point of herd immunity is that not every individual will personally be immune.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don't know, but in a world where literally everyone except a tiny minority have to get vaccinated it seems like the risk is probably pretty small.If herd immunity can seriously be compromised by such a tiny fraction of people it was worthless anyway. You clearly don't understand this. If I say you are dumb as poo poo, does that negate my argument? To you it probably does, but your statement is beyond dumb. I highlighted the portion of your text that is false.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 08:13
|
|