Join Date: May 2010
Re: If you vaccinate your kids, does it bother you when other people dont?
I believe gmo foods have been around about as long as vaccines, I'll try to find a link. The comparison was not the specific effect to the body, but the fact that we are not well equiped to observe how either of these things effect our bodies over extended periods of time, specifically over generations, yet the commitement we have to them both will have a tremendous impact. There are theories on what each one will do over time but since our bodies all react differently to different things the impact on human bodies is exponentially unknown. We do not have enough information about how "raw", for lack of better term, bodies function to recognize if and when the vaccines/gmos begin to affect us to the point that we become something that is fundamentally different from what we once where. Like caffiene will alter your mood, I worry that manipulating the intricate details of our immune systems and such will give us some surprising and unexpected results. The body is too complex for me to believe that we can inject such a mixture into our bodies and not be profoundly altered as a result
Originally Posted by llamabeans
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.
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.
Yes I will admit vaccines and scientific advancement have accomplished great things, but that doesn't warrant a commitement on such a grand scale IMO. There are other avenues that can be explored to advance the health and wellbeing of society, but the govt funds pharmaceuticals and the advancement of that only thus making the choice for us, and that IMO is a problem.
I don't believe "let nature/ natural law take over." I believe "let the govt get out of bed with the pharm companies, give us our tax $$ back and let us try to find our own solutions". In an epidemic situation most people will opt to take a vaccine, over risking getting polio, unless a better option is available. Some may not and it should be their right. But if the people's hands were loosed a little, we may be able to come up with a more natural solution that doesn't potentially change human beings, on a fundamental level, in a potentially irreversible way.
My pov may not be humanitarian on all levels, but I don't believe yours is either. There is suffering in both situations, and such is life, unfortunately.
* Jen~ happy, homeschooling mom to two * Expecting #3 in Aug 2013! *
* Trade with me! *