|
You do not get the privilege of being in a modern society, participating in the modern economy when you don't participate in the modern, necessary and practical measures to ensure civilization is healthy, safe and secure. There should be zero condition where a person cannot be vaccinated unless it is a medical reason. Religion is not an excuse. Your beliefs does not allow you to harm another. That is effectively bio-terrorism protected by religious fundamentalism and would not be tolerated if someone died with a singular vector of infection. Our society needs to keep medical costs down, and this is an easily preventable way. You do not automatically get to claim moral high ground when fighting for religious freedom while children are dieing. Get your vaccinations.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Caros posted:The number of these people is so small that it won't make a real dent in herd immunity, they are in a tiny minority compared to the millions who cannot get vaccinated for other reasons. And as I mentioned earlier it's a really lovely Hill to die on, since the optics of taking a child from her mother because of her religious beliefs will feed the persecution complex and in my view will lead to more idiots trying not to get vaccinated simply out of spite from what the gubberment wants. How many of these people actually exist though? It's already been pointed out that yuppies who unfailingly trust celebrities check the religious exemption box to avoid the requirement. But I'm willing to bet that most religious people are pragmatic. If it's totally up to them they'll reject the vaccination sure, but most people aren't going to want to have their kids kept away from them while they pour a ton of money and time into a battle to get them back, when they can just get the shot and ask for forgiveness. The few fundies who screech about tyranny are going to do that no matter what because fundies don't care about religious tolerance; they want to force their religion on everyone. Look at the contraception mandate. Obama preëmptively sold out women working as church secretaries or organists or whatever, telling them their own interpretation of their religion isn't worth poo poo; if the man who pays them is a pastor then his beliefs dictate their healthcare. Did that appease the fundies, or make them say "well the government accomodated churches, so we can meet him halfway"? gently caress no it didn't, they turned the "Satanic Marxist-Obammunism" up to 11, screamed about tyranny, and we still had to treat asinine arguments about if a legal fictional person can love God and if it magically believes that birth control causes abortions then they do so they should get to deny it to women, like those arguments have any relevance to reality. The people who hate everything about the government are going to bitch and moan about religious oppression until we have a theocracy, there's no point in trying to appease them by giving in and letting some of their beliefs trump public health and child welfare; that just tells them their beliefs have some legitimate weight beside empirical facts and they don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:I'm really hoping some enterprising politician will push forward something that moves to consider not vaccinating your children as child abuse. That church in Texas that was anti-vaccine actually held vaccination clinics after a bunch of them got measles. It turns out that being anti-vaccine is cool until people start catching diseases that will disable and or kill them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Though at the same time there are religious organizations that aren't 100% anti-government and actually try to have decent compromises, at least for the contraception stuff (like the Catholic Church).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Although I'll admit I do have a bit of a beef with Christian Scientists after hearing a boyfriend tell me about his childhood growing up in a Christian Science home. When he was a kid, he legit did not know that medicine existed: he thought an ear infection meant lying in bed for weeks in sickness and pain, hoping God gets around to healing you soon and you don't go deaf. He just thought that's what sickness was and it was all he knew.  He had to suffer through every childhood infection with no treatment and when he got a bit older and met kids from outside his religious community, he was right pissed on finding out that for their illnesses they take some pills or get a shot and they're better in a few days. Fortunately his parents smartened up, got out (braving the shunning of the extended family), and got him and his siblings vaccinated in middle school, and they never got measles or anything. gently caress Christian Science, gently caress Christian Scientists, medicine exists, they can afford it, but they just plain don't want to give it to their suffering kids. Religious freedom isn't a license for child abuse, tell 'em to take their kids to a doctor or take 'em away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
How many completely unnecessary and utterly preventable deaths is acceptable? Is it >0? Statistically, sure, herd immunity will remain intact with between I dunno say 88-95% coverage depending on which disease we're talking about. But what about locally? Vaccine exemptions tend to cluster. So if you break out exemption rates at a community level, there will absolutely be some schools and areas that have 50% or lower vaccine coverage. Some of those kids will get sick, a few will die. Other than causing their idiot parents well-deserved grief and financial hardship, what is the point? There is literally zero reason for that greater-than-zero number of kids to die from whooping cough or whatever. Not to mention, it doesn't even matter whether parents elect to vaccinate, three doses into a 4 dose vaccine series for pertussis (so kids will be between 18 months and 4 years old) is only something like an 85% proof against infection. There are huge at risk populations whose parents ARE vaccinating them, but are restricted by age limits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:Actually I still have the religious freedom argument, that whether you think these people are stupid or not (I do) that it does heavily impose on their freedom. You can have any argument you want, but it doesn't make that argument well supported. On one hand, we have unquestioned, extremist religious freedom to ignore modern medicine and children sick/maimed/dead from preventable disease. On the other hand, we limit religious freedom to prevent activities that actively cause harm to others, and we don't have children sick/maimed/dead from preventable disease. Is this really what you want to support? Religious fundamentalism and ignorance over the health and well being of innocents?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Is this really what you want to support? Religious fundamentalism and ignorance over the health and well being of innocents? Legally, yes. Socially, no. I would have no complaint over the state incentivizing vaccinations with positive (tax breaks, subsidized procedures, education) or negative (denial of access to services, travel bans, civil and even criminal penalties for the effect on others of a lack of vaccination) incentives, but "the state requires you to accept this medical procedure" sounds a whole lot like "the state requires you to donate a kidney" or something, and while I *fully* admit that is a slippery slope argument, I keep coming back to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:"the state requires you to accept this medical procedure" sounds a whole lot like "the state requires you to donate a kidney" or something, and while I *fully* admit that is a slippery slope argument, I keep coming back to it. One day the state is requiring you to feed your kids and take them to the doctor, the next day you're bent backwards over an altar screaming as Obama cuts out your heart to sacrifice on the altar of Islamomarxism. Medical treatment. Not even once 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Speaking of enclaves of unvaccinated religious people and traveling outside the US, Ohio has an outbreak of measles in 6 counties. Unvaccinated Amish missionaries went to the Philippines (which is well known to be currently in the midst of an enormous outbreak, why would unvaccinated people go there?) and now lo and behold, the number of cases is up from 68 cases in mid-May to 155 cases today. So far, all cases are restricted to within the Amish community, but there is no guarantee it will remain so. As an aside: there are Amish missionaries? http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/23/health/ohio-measles/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:One day the state is requiring you to feed your kids and take them to the doctor, the next day you're bent backwards over an altar screaming as Obama cuts out your heart to sacrifice on the altar of Islamomarxism. I recently posted the whole bit, so instead of doing that again I'll just take the most relevant section quote:The King grabbed a syringe from the outstretched hand of one of his nearby breakdancing bodyguards, and plunged it into the man's helpless neck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
But I be done seen about everything When I see an Amish man fly Bel Shazar posted:Legally, yes. Socially, no. Considering how in this case the legal justification can and would have wide ranging social benefits I'm really not sure how there can be a distinction between the two here. And the kidney example falls pretty flat when you're looking at a case of two people at best versus a few spreading it to dozens spreading it to hundreds spreading it... etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Legally, yes. Socially, no. I would have no complaint over the state incentivizing vaccinations with positive (tax breaks, subsidized procedures, education) or negative (denial of access to services, travel bans, civil and even criminal penalties for the effect on others of a lack of vaccination) incentives, but "the state requires you to accept this medical procedure" sounds a whole lot like "the state requires you to donate a kidney" or something, and while I *fully* admit that is a slippery slope argument, I keep coming back to it. This is pretty much my position on it. I am more than okay with making things difficult for people who choose exemption for themselves or their children. It's just the idea of forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure, even a simple one that violates their belief that makes me uncomfortable. If it makes me uncomfortable, an unabashed agnostic, I can't imagine it would play well and I'm of the opinion that it would be outright counterproductive
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Legally, yes. Socially, no. I would have no complaint over the state incentivizing vaccinations with positive (tax breaks, subsidized procedures, education) or negative (denial of access to services, travel bans, civil and even criminal penalties for the effect on others of a lack of vaccination) incentives, but "the state requires you to accept this medical procedure" sounds a whole lot like "the state requires you to donate a kidney" or something, and while I *fully* admit that is a slippery slope argument, I keep coming back to it. Your argument is dumb. Thanks for playing, I guess. I'm not sure what you expect people to say to that. You are ignorant, your argument is ignorant. Read about the measles: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long Pohl fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Yeah I don't understand why wasting time on legal wrangling to have policies making it difficult for their lives is any better or much more morally acceptable. There is no benefit anywhere in addition to opening up the can of worms of an actual religious discrimination suit, I would think. Also as someone previously brought up some number of posts ago, the Supreme Court has already ruled in the past that social health and dangers trump individual concerns that has upheld earlier vaccination programs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:One day the state is requiring you to feed your kids and take them to the doctor, the next day you're bent backwards over an altar screaming as Obama cuts out your heart to sacrifice on the altar of Islamomarxism. Denying food to your child causes death. Denying a vaccine to your child is not sufficient to cause your child's death. quote:Your argument is dumb. Thanks for playing, I guess. I'm not sure what you expect people to say to that. You are ignorant, your argument is ignorant. Granted. Heck, it gets even worse considering I am happily vaccinated and wasted no time to vaccinate my own children. And yet...
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Denying food to your child causes death. Denying a vaccine to your child is not sufficient to cause your child's death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Denying food to your child causes death. Denying a vaccine to your child is not sufficient to cause your child's death. This is a fantastic argument until you think about it for more than four seconds and realize the diseases we vaccinate against literally cause death, you imbecile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Denying food to your child causes death. Denying a vaccine to your child is not sufficient to cause your child's death. You couldn't be possibly saying that molesting a child is perfectly fine, because the kid isn't dead afterwards, right? Right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What about someone else's kid? Kids don't die. They just bounce back from stress and disease and harm, etc. gently caress man, kids never die. That is why they are so awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Denying food to your child causes death. Denying a vaccine to your child is not sufficient to cause your child's death. I legit need to ask, what do you think we vaccinate kids for? Not like, what diseases, but WHY do you think we do it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Denying food to your child causes death. Denying a vaccine to your child is not sufficient to cause your child's death. Ah, denying them vaccines isn't sufficient to cause death because another factor, disease, actually kills them. Interesting argument. I suppose leaving them in a bear pit smothered in honey isn't sufficient either because hey, it's the bears killing them. My actions only increased the risk they'll die of a bear attack, which is something the state shouldn't interfere with at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This is a fantastic argument until you think about it for more than four seconds and realize the diseases we vaccinate against literally cause death, you imbecile. I wasn't aware that I was arguing that measles isn't a very dangerous disease. I thought I was arguing that not vaccinating does not guarantee that you will catch it. I remain in favor of education and incentives over mandated vaccinations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I legit need to ask, what do you think we vaccinate kids for? Not like, what diseases, but WHY do you think we do it? I vaccinated my children because I didnt want to risk their lives nor the lives of people they come in contact with. Because I believe it is the most responsible thing I could possibly do related to the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Letting your infant play with knives doesn't mean that they will necessarily kill themselves, so we should allow parents to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I vaccinated my children because I didnt want to risk their lives nor the lives of people they come in contact with. Because I believe it is the most responsible thing I could possibly do related to the issue. You said you didn't vaccinate your kids. What is the truth?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah, denying them vaccines isn't sufficient to cause death because another factor, disease, actually kills them. That strikes me as more fitting for the "measles parties" folks, and I think that is legitimately child abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I was arguing that not vaccinating does not guarantee that you will catch it. How does this not apply to almost any medical treatment. Denying my kid antibiotics does not guarantee his pneumococcus infection will kill him. People used to recover from pneumonia without treatment all the time!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Pohl posted:You said you didn't vaccinate your kids. What is the truth? I think you misread my post. Bel Shazar posted:Granted. Heck, it gets even worse considering I am happily vaccinated and wasted no time to vaccinate my own children. And yet... Or I just wasn't clear enough. I absolutely vaccinated my children.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I wasn't aware that I was arguing that measles isn't a very dangerous disease. I thought I was arguing that not vaccinating does not guarantee that you will catch it. I remain in favor of education and incentives over mandated vaccinations. Being educated about vaccines means getting vaccines. The incentive is that people don't die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I think you misread my post. What you wrote pretty much implies that you didn't vaccinate your kids. Write smarter, and people won't misunderstand you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How does this not apply to almost any medical treatment. Denying my kid antibiotics does not guarantee his pneumococcus infection will kill him. People used to recover from pneumonia without treatment all the time! It absolutely applies to pretty much any other medical treatment. And yet there are people whose firmly held beliefs do not allow them to partake of those treatments. I don't agree with it, I don't like it, I advocate against it and I think efforts should be made to make that happen as rarely as possible. And yet, I don't think mandating medical procedures is an appropriate use of state powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I wasn't aware that I was arguing that measles isn't a very dangerous disease. Here's exactly what you said: quote:Bel Shazar posted: If they catch it, which they are considerably more likely to do without a vaccine, they may die. If you don't mean what you say then don't say it. quote:I thought I was arguing that not vaccinating does not guarantee that you will catch it. I remain in favor of education and incentives over mandated vaccinations. Hey, if you put your kid in the car without a proper booster seat that does not guarantee that they will die, but shockingly we force parents to use them or suffer the consequences for needlessly endangering their children. All the pictures of kids with broken necks from 15mph car accidents and tax breaks in the world won't convince everyone to buckle their kids up properly, and so we rightly make them do it whether they like it or not through the power of the law, as we should. Likewise we should do the same thing with vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Pohl posted:What you wrote pretty much implies that you didn't vaccinate your kids. Write smarter, and people won't misunderstand you. You're absolutely right. I appreciate the feedback and I will do better next time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:It absolutely applies to pretty much any other medical treatment. And yet there are people whose firmly held beliefs do not allow them to partake of those treatments. I don't agree with it, I don't like it, I advocate against it and I think efforts should be made to make that happen as rarely as possible. And yet, I don't think mandating medical procedures is an appropriate use of state powers. Okay, so just to be clear, your argument is that the biggest injustice in this story: Faith-Healing Parents Jailed After Second Child’s Death quote:A Pennsylvania mother and father who believe in faith-healing were sent to jail Wednesday for causing the death of their young, sick child by refusing to take him to the doctor. It was the second of Herbert and Catherine Schaible’s children to die under their care. Is that the government is not respecting the religious freedom of these people to kill their two children from neglect, and instead of being in jail they should be free, permitted to continue having children to neglect, beyond the reach of the law, hoping that eventually one will make it out of childhood alive despite complete withholding of medical care? Is this your position?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:You're absolutely right. I appreciate the feedback and I will do better next time. So you vaccinated your kids because it is a realistic thing to do, but you are against vaccines? I'm really loving confused. Can I shout out "FIRE" in a crowded theater? I can't, because my rights to be an rear end in a top hat are trumped by the safety of the other people in that theater. Pohl fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Pohl posted:So you vaccinated your kids because it is a realistic thing to do, but you are against vaccines? He's pro-vaccine, but against forcing parents to vaccinate their kids of the parents object on religious grounds. Which is retarded, because we force parents to do things with their children all the time. We make sure that they are fed, clothed, and given at least a rudimentary education. And if your religion tells you to not do those things then tough poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:He's pro-vaccine, but against forcing parents to vaccinate their kids of the parents object on religious grounds. Which is retarded, because we force parents to do things with their children all the time. We make sure that they are fed, clothed, and given at least a rudimentary education. And if your religion tells you to not do those things then tough poo poo. I got that, which is why he should gently caress off. He vaccinated his kids, but his attitude seems to be, gently caress everyone else. Society is a thing we created to make everyone's life better, even if they don't like it. You can't honestly argue that children should suffer from diseases that you have vaccinated your own children against. That isn't an argument, it is loving sick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, so just to be clear, your argument is that the biggest injustice in this story: Faith-Healing Parents Jailed After Second Child’s Death No. Legal actions (I'm not saying that those actions were legal in the case you quoted) that result in harm or death should be prosecuted when possible. My objection was to mandated prophalactic medical procedures, not to there being legal ramifications for people who opt to not protect their children medically and then fail to protect them (or others) from the increased risk caused by their choice. Pohl posted:So you vaccinated your kids because it is a realistic thing to do, but you are against vaccines? I am in no way against vaccines. I against them being required under penalty of law. Who What Now posted:We make sure that they are fed, clothed, and given at least a rudimentary education. And if your religion tells you to not do those things then tough poo poo. Opting out of vaccinations is not neglegence. Opting out of vaccinations and not taking non-medical steps to protect your children (and, by proxy, other people) from the disease is. This is why I am, as I mentioned a few times before, in favor of education and incentives/penalties rather than mandates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Pohl posted:You can't honestly argue that children should suffer from diseases that you have vaccinated your own children against. That isn't an argument, it is loving sick. And that is not my argument. I am saying that I do not believe I have the right to tell another parent that they have to make the same choice I did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:28
|
|