You don’t vaccinate somebody virulently spreading disease- vaccines are (almost always) given to people who are not carrying the disease, haven’t been exposed to it, and never will.
I’m pro-vaccine, btw. Just anti-government mandated ones.
Furthermore, you want to mandate vaccines in children, who are among those most at risk for problems or side effects.
That’s a rare, very rare possibility. Every year, a few people are hurt or killed by vaccines.
You’ve got my vote.
Don’t want to vaccinate your kid? Stay home and teach him math yourself. Keep him out of school. The lives of too many kids who can’t be vaccinated, or who are immunocompromised, are at stake.
They are also most at risk of dying from the diseases they should have been vaccinated against. Those diseases kill FAR more kids than vaccines ever have, or will. Frankly, your position on this is ignorant and dangerous.
There are no justifiable religious reasons for exemption.
The same goes for seatbelts. But more people are saved by them. Your argument might make sense if there was some way to tell who will get side effects and who won’t.
The right of an individual of complete ownership of his or her person trumps the imagined right of individuals to be protected from viruses.
You haven’t read my posts if you think I’m ignorant on the subject. I’m for vaccination, as I said.
I get vaccinations myself and I would get them for children I was responsible for.
But I don’t want federally mandated vaccinations any more than I want federally prohibited abortions.
Same reason in both cases- it’s a medical decision, not a political one.
And spreading plagues isn’t?
Nobody is talking about that. This thread is about vaccination, which almost always involves healthy people.
Not getting vaccinated spreads plagues. It’s about as responsible as firing a rifle into the air. Or a grenade launcher, considering the scale of the damage.
You’d run into a roadblock with a big ass sign saying “Compulsory Attendance Laws” on it.
And the OP would run into an even bigger roadblock called the First Amendment (Free Exercise Clause).
There are any number of actions that can spread plagues. You are suggesting that the law treat them differently.
It already does, obviously. Or do you think that it’s legal to set off a biological weapon in a city?
True.
Drew…if we are going to punish those who spread disease through negligence the next group to be targeted are thise who spread STD’s through dangerous and/or unprotected sex. This group costs society a lot more money than the anti-vaxers. But, this is the cost of owning our own bodies; the government doesnt get to dictate what and/or jow we use them.
Yes, and vaccination lets us have more healthy people, who won’t choke to death from pertussis and take others with them.
Infectious disease can be controlled, but only if everyone participates. Smallpox is gone, and polio’s on its way out. Are you suggesting we shouldn’t be trying to eradicate deadly and debilitating diseases through vaccination?
Diseases are spread by persons infected with the disease.
Nearly all vaccinations are given to healthy individuals who are not carriers, have never been exposed, and never will be.
Quarantine for infected persons, that’s a legit public interest.
Mandated vaccination is not, it’s an intrusion into private matters.
Geeze, do you people read the posts before you start to rage?
I’m pro-vaccination. I am vaccinated and will continue to be.
I am opposed to government interference in private health decisions, and this is one example of the type of decision I mean.
They have never been exposed because people have been vaccinated and the spread of the disease is being controlled. How in the world is that not making sense to you?
I’m **for **vaccinations.
I’m opposed to government mandated vaccinations.
Same way I’m opposed to government-prohibited abortions.
Medical decisions should be made by patients and doctors, not politicians.
How in the world is that not making sense to you?
If medical decisions have a potential impact on hundreds or thousands of lives, then I don’t think a person should get to decide to look out for #1 and screw everyone else. It’s like mandatory quarantines for people with drug-resistant TB. If refusing the vaccine only put you at risk, I wouldn’t care at all if you chose not to take it. But when it’s a public health issue, then yes, I believe we have a responsibility to act in the public interest. For example, if you don’t want to wear a helmet when riding your motorcycle, fine, it’s your brain. I don’t feel any need to fight for helmet laws. But there damn well better be laws against driving drunk, because now we’re talking about a good chance of hurting other people.
I understand that you’re personally for vaccinations, but against the government forcing people to have them. But I think that having that opinion implies that you do not have a firm understanding of what vaccination means and how it can work to eradicate a disease from the population.