07-03-2012, 04:18 PM
Join Date: May 2010
Re: If you vaccinate your kids, does it bother you when other people dont?
I'm not sure what vaccinations you are talking about? Vaccinations have been around for centuries(smallpox/cowpox being first). Yes there are new ones that many people volunteer to be guinea pigs for(there's a HIV vaccination in testing right now) There are also vaccinations that have wiped disease off our earth to the point of not needing them anymore.
Originally Posted by RainandRedemption
I was responding specifically to this statement;
"A epidemic is the governments problem, we feel and live it, but they are in charge of it".
It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't see an epidemic as the goverments problem, and I don't think they are in charge of it.
I agree with your post above and I am one who would get on the boat and see it as God's deliverance. However if there is a hurricane on it's way I do not believe FEMA should be able to come in, force people to leave their homes, confiscate property, etc. If people want to stay in their homes and risk their lives it should be their choice.
Basically I believe the US government should do what it was meant by the founders to do, which is protect and ensure our liberties. It was not put into place to make sure we all live comfortably, healthily and happily. Those things are great but those things should be in our hands. When the govt interferes with things people's rights get infringed upon. And I would rather have my life and health in my hands and the hands of God than the govt, and by that I mean I am anti forced vaccinations, pro philosophical exemption. We're not lab rats and we should have a choice and it shouldn't be made difficult to go against the grain. There are plenty of things that can still go wrong with vaccines and I think we should be ready to accept and deal with that should it happen, instead of commiting ourselves to the "assuredness" that they are effective, worth the risks, etc and that there's no potential for negative consequences.
eta~ IMO vaccinations are a lot like GMO foods, in that they have not been used for a huge amount of time and the effects they will have on the human body are hard to know for sure, hard to follow the progression of, and might go largely unnoticed until there is severe and maybe irreversable damage. Also like GMO foods the world community is quick to accept them, not fully knowing the risks involved in commiting future generations to the effects.
GMO foods were introduced to the public in the 90's. In a way GMO and vaccinations are alike. Altering a plants DNA to make it hearty, more nutritious or resilient to disease. Humans, not altering our DNA but conditioning our natural defense in small doses through vaccination.
I'm not one to buy into the GMO hype though. I do see the danger in there being no reason to use more pesticides/herbicides on these plants because they are resistant to pesticides/herbicides, but the consumer is not. But that's a different story.
For a second imagine a family near you developed polio. Sister first. She had what they thought was the flu for 6 days. She got over it but 2 days later got it again worse. Mom got it next. She was sick for X amount of days. Dad got it, he was in and out of work for a week before he just stayed home. They all had to seek medical attention and lets say 2 were hospitalized. Do they have insurance? Will their insurance cover everything? Who is making money to cover their living expenses and medical bills? Dad infects 3 of his co-workers who infect their family, one wife being a school teacher. She infects 12 kids who infect X amount of people.
All these people need medical attention not to mention the CDC would probably come in and take measures to keep the rest of the community under control. What about after care? Some of these people would be disabled. This is a problem for the government, no?
Will kids be in school? If not who will pay the teachers salaries? It's really a trickle down effect. If the government doesn't want to have to support a certain amount of it's people through a epidemic they will do everything they can do to prevent it (without crossing ethical boundaries of course).
If there were a epidemic like above, you'd better bet they would come in and inoculate everyone just to keep any progression of the disease under control. At that point I think it would be a matter of keeping everyone safe and this would be the ethical decision. It wold be an emergency.
I've been thinking about "let nature/ natural law take over."
This is a unrealistic POV. Unless it is only regarding vaccinations to you. Even then it is a little cold. Communicable diseases hit the elderly, the young and pregnant women first. I'm really big on evolutionary biology and see that suffering is a natural and necessary process, one that is necessary for the stronger to go on and breed stronger organisms. But, modern medicine has added to our own evolutionary history. I think if certain ethical standards weren't set, we may be more advanced in controlling disease now.
Realize if vaccinations weren't a standard procedure in childhood since long ago, many people you know may not be alive/born now. You may not have ever been. I'm all for freedom of choice but there has to be a certain understanding in the fact that we are animals living in close proximity, interacting with one another on a daily basis and there are other biological forms living around us, in us and they aren't always good.