tax refund? wrote:
If this is the case and my child is excluded from public schooling I should be refunded a percentage of my taxes. To do otherwise is to, in effect, steal my money (I am being charged for services I am prohibited from using).
So should people without children also get a refund? If I don't drive a car should I get refunded the portion of my taxes that goes to roads?
Since I'm not disabled, why should some of the taxes that I pay go for services to help this population?
We don't think we should be forced to take the risk of being vaccinated, so...
No Way wrote:
anti-vaxxer wrote:A small clarification here in that my actions MAY affect you in some small manner but that is a fact of life. I am in no way acknowledging that I am hurting people. You are free to live your life without my direction just as I should be free to live without your intrusive direction. It is a scary world for you and I am sorry for that, but you can not control everybody's decisions and you have to realize that.
Sure, you're right of course. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
Let's go back to your earlier example about New Year's Eve and drunk drivers. It was a good analogy, you just had it a little bit wrong.
Drunk drivers are people who make a choice that puts themselves and others at risk. Of course we don't stop sober, responsible drivers from driving. We instead punish those who make the choice to put others at risk. Does every drunk driver hurt or kill someone? Of course not. A very small percentage of them do though. To protect the public from these people, we make drunk driving illegal and punish those who do it.
Those who choose not to vaccinate are people who make a choice that puts themselves and others at risk. Of course we don't stop responsible people who have been vaccinated from going out in public. Does every un-vaccinated person infect others? Of course not. A very small percentage of them do though.
You could make this argument for just about anything, and I acknowledge that. There's no such thing as being completely safe.
What you're talking about though is similar to the drunk driving. You're making a choice knowing full well that it could kill or maim someone or to cause someone financial hardship.
I'm not saying that the government should mandate that every single person be vaccinated, because there are plenty of people who cannot be vaccinated. However, making the choice to put others at risk shouldn't be a "freedom" that you enjoy and encourage others to do. It should be something that you acknowledge is irresponsible and accept whatever treatment society gives you.
Your actions irk me, but the reason I joined this discussion isn't just because of the choice you made. The reason I joined the discussion is because you feel that taking an action that is detrimental to others is something that you should be proud of, and that makes me sick.
get used to it.. wrote:
The thing is, you can't prove that my lack of personal vaccination would be of harm to you, like you can't prove that me owning a gun would be of harm to you. Might it? Sure. Prove it? Certainly not. We as Americans should not be so comfortable having our liberties taken away because of a "might", regardless of what some feel is for the good of the herd.
Sure, believe it or not, I agree with almost everything you just said. I cannot prove that your personal lack of vaccination will personally hurt me. I also cannot prove that you owning a gun will personally hurt me. In fact, I trust that if you are in fact a gun owner, you're a responsible one, because most gun owners are. I also agree that we shouldn't be comfortable having our liberties taken away.
I disagree with a few things though. First, while I certainly cannot prove that you not getting vaccinated will get me sick, I can absolutely prove that fewer people getting vaccinated means that more people will get sick. That's a small but important difference.
Second, your gun analogy isn't perfect. You see, right now, some people in the US choose not to get vaccinated, and then they get others sick. Similarly, some people in the US choose to misuse weapons and shoot other people. You have that part right. The difference is that when vaccination rates were high, there were zero measles cases in the US. Not having any measles cases in the US means that it can't spread and get others sick. This would be the equivalent of having zero guns in the US. You can be a responsible gun owner, but you cannot be a responsible measles carrier.
Right now, we don't get vaccinated for smallpox because largely due to a successful vaccine, that disease has been eradicated. That could happen with measles too, and then your great grand kids might not need the vaccine. That only works if everyone works together though.
I also disagree that freedoms shouldn't be taken away to protect people from a "might."
You "might" get killed by a drunk driver. It "might" suck if someone robs you. A plane "might" crash into your house if toddlers were allowed to pilot them.
Every law in this country protects people from "mights"
Some of these laws are good. Some are bad. We can all agree on that.
It's the job of the people to choose their level of risk vs. freedom. Some people might think they should be free to drive 120mph on the highway. However, as a society, we've decided that the fact that someone driving that fast "might" kill someone is too large of a risk for us to accept. Likewise, if we as a society decide that the risk of sending our kids to school with kids who are not vaccinated is too great, then you have to accept the consequences of that.
get used to it.. wrote:
We don't think we should be forced to take the risk of being vaccinated, so...
And that's your choice as things stand. However, the risk that not being vaccinated poses to others is far larger than any risk there may be to being vaccinated. If you make that choice, you have to accept that people aren't going to be happy with it and you can't expect them to support you or agree with you.
You can still carry and get measles with the vaccine, so the rest of your post isn't relevant.
I will comment on the last statement though. Several people have stated on different threads "No one is being forced to be vaccinated". Well, in some places they are, and the discussion seems to be revolving around whether or not they should be mandatory. I have no problems with needing them to get into public schools. It still gives people a choice. What I oppose is giving people no choice.
I totally accept that. My issues as I have stated earlier are in regard to mandatory vaccination and protection from it.
My owning a gun poses a greater threat to others than me not owning one (I could flip out or someone could steal it), but I still reserve the right to have one if I wanted.
anti-vaxxer wrote:
I think the media is doing a dis-service to the public in their chastising of those that choose to (for many plausible reasons) abstain from receipt of the measles vaccine. We, as government independent individuals, have the right to regulate what goes into our bodies. The injection of various toxic substances that make up the various vaccines should not be forced upon the public. A certain percentage of those vaccinated will suffer adverse reactions. Any individual that experiences such misfortune should be able to admit that they made that choice, not that it was forced upon them by the police state. No choice is the first step on the way to totalitarianism!!! We must not ever give up the ability to 'JUST SAY NO.'
is this like your right to scream fire in a theater?
get used to it.. wrote:
You can still carry and get measles with the vaccine, so the rest of your post isn't relevant.
You're correct, nothing in life is absolute. It doesn't make my post irrelevant though. Responsible gun owners can still shoot people, it just happens very infrequently. Responsible drivers still get into accidents. Trained pilots still crash planes.
When vaccination rates were high, there were no measles cases in the US. Sure those vaccinated can get and carry measles, but that fact alone proves that vaccination protects the public from the disease. That is very relevant.
If you don't vaccinate your child, as misguided as you may be, you're doing something that you think is going to protect them. When people try one way or another to force you to vaccinate your kid, they're doing what is best to protect their own children. Unfortunately for you, there are a heck of a lot more of them than there are of you. This isn't a case of government coming in and making a sweeping rule that takes freedom away from everyone. If any law is passed, it would be a case of democracy taking its course.
No Way wrote:
What you're talking about though is similar to the drunk driving. You're making a choice knowing full well that it could kill or maim someone or to cause someone financial hardship.
Your circular logic is making me dizzy. Thank you for misquoting my position and taking it fully out of context. I am making a choice about vaccinations that I feel are worth the 'risk' to subject myself and/or my family to. You, as has been stated several times in this thread, are equally free to vaccinate yourself against this 'threat'.
I'm not saying that the government should mandate that every single person be vaccinated, because there are plenty of people who cannot be vaccinated.
Please clarify to me what is your basis for allowing exemption from your mandate. Is it due to religious beliefs, fear of needles, philosophical beliefs, cultural beliefs? Please give me your OPINION regarding the pool of people that are above your totalitarian decree.
However, making the choice to put others at risk shouldn't be a "freedom" that you enjoy and encourage others to do. It should be something that you acknowledge is irresponsible and accept whatever treatment society gives you.
Once again you are passing societal mandates based on what YOU feel is best for you and your family. Once again, go ahead and get your vaccine that is your choice and I have no problem with that. In fact I will argue forcefully for your right to exercise this FREEDOM. I find it troubling that your are insistent on denying my freedom to choose not to vaccinate.
Your actions irk me, but the reason I joined this discussion isn't just because of the choice you made. The reason I joined the discussion is because you feel that taking an action that is detrimental to others is something that you should be proud of, and that makes me sick.
Your actions bother me because of your heavy handed holier than though attitude. You need to realize that other people should be allowed to exercise their freedom from the demands of others!!
get used to it.. wrote:
I totally accept that. My issues as I have stated earlier are in regard to mandatory vaccination and protection from it.
My owning a gun poses a greater threat to others than me not owning one (I could flip out or someone could steal it), but I still reserve the right to have one if I wanted.
I have no major problem with folks like you. I wish that you would vaccinate because it's better for everyone, just like I wish that people wouldn't drive too fast and wouldn't litter.
My big problem is with people who think it's their right to not vaccinate, and also their right to have everyone agree with them, and also their right to claim that their actions don't harm others.
Yes, but they are doing what is best to protect their child from a maybe, and when that maybe interferes with my rights, I am against it.
This may end up being a supreme court issue at some point, and I think and hope the law will side against mandatory vaccination.
I certainly feel it is my right to not vaccinate, and am comfortable that there is little chance that my individual decision would harm others.
anti-vaxxer wrote:
No Way wrote:Because the idea that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is the basic premise of any society. No matter how free a society is, it has laws. These laws are designed to protect the public. Even in the most free societies, the freedoms of any individual end where they cause harm to another individual or the society as a whole. By not being vaccinated, you are harming other individuals as well as the society as a whole.
If the only person being put at risk was yourself, then nobody would care.
I don't see how that is so hard to understand.
How is my refusal to vaccinate my child putting you at risk? I presume you have followed the direction of your leader and vaccinated yourself. Therefore, my non-vaccinated state will have no bearing on your health. This mandate is a clear case of the government overstepping its bounds. Furthermore, measles is not a fatal condition. Yes, there are a small number of cases that may lead to more severe conditions, but there are also small numbers of those vaccinated that will suffer severe negative reactions. This should be left to the public to decide their personal course of action. I am not, in any manner, trying to legislate away the public's access to the vaccine.
If you refuse to accept good science, there is no use in explaining to you how your 'non-vaccinated' self puts everyone at risk. You will surely find some Jenny McCarthy-esque argument against it.
Your right to not get vaccinated extends only as far as your front door. If you are so insistent on making non-vaccination some misguided political statement, then you should not have access to public schools, hospitals, airports, and other high traffic areas where you could contract and spread diseases that we have worked very hard to eradicate. If John Enders were alive today, he would smack you in the head with a bag of nickels.
The first measles vaccine is administered at 12 months, therefor all infants 0-12 months old are at risk. If your unvaccinated child caught measles, and my 10 month old child was exposed to yours (public restroom, school, etc.), then my infant is at risk of getting sick.
Parents who CANNOT vaccinate their children are angry with parents who REFUSE to vaccinate theirs in the same way that you would be angry if a person exposed to the Ebola virus decided to sit next to you on a plane.
Pittsburgh Joe wrote:
If you refuse to accept good science, there is no use in explaining to you how your 'non-vaccinated' self puts everyone at risk. You will surely find some Jenny McCarthy-esque argument against it.
Your right to not get vaccinated extends only as far as your front door. If you are so insistent on making non-vaccination some misguided political statement, then you should not have access to public schools, hospitals, airports, and other high traffic areas where you could contract and spread diseases that we have worked very hard to eradicate. If John Enders were alive today, he would smack you in the head with a bag of nickels.[/quote]
You are at no risk if you CHOOSE to vaccinate yourself against the disease. Grow up and realize you can not make everybody's decisions for them. Protect yourself against the outside risks and stop living in fear.[quote]
Well clearly I've struck a nerve.
anti-vaxxer wrote:
No Way wrote:What you're talking about though is similar to the drunk driving. You're making a choice knowing full well that it could kill or maim someone or to cause someone financial hardship.
Your circular logic is making me dizzy. Thank you for misquoting my position and taking it fully out of context. I am making a choice about vaccinations that I feel are worth the 'risk' to subject myself and/or my family to. You, as has been stated several times in this thread, are equally free to vaccinate yourself against this 'threat'.
I don't see where I've used circular logic, but that's ok, I may have, and if so, I'm sorry. I have no problem with any risks you subject yourself or your family to. You think you're protecting your kid, and I get that. However, when your actions subject other people and their families to risk, they have the right to alleviate that risk. Again, you absolutely have the right to your opinion, but not everyone has to agree with it, and they also have the right to protect themselves from you.
No Way wrote:I'm not saying that the government should mandate that every single person be vaccinated, because there are plenty of people who cannot be vaccinated.
[quote]anti-vaxxer wrote:
Please clarify to me what is your basis for allowing exemption from your mandate. Is it due to religious beliefs, fear of needles, philosophical beliefs, cultural beliefs? Please give me your OPINION regarding the pool of people that are above your totalitarian decree.
To clarify, I don't think that there should be any federal law period. I do think that society should take steps to protect themselves. For example, insurance customers should encourage their carriers to not insure those who choose not to be vaccinated. They could demand that their schools require vaccination prior to enrollment. If it becomes a big enough problem, the public has the right to petition their public officials to pass laws. I don't think it will come to that though. There is nothing totalitarian about this. There is a very large majority of people that believe high vaccination rates are good for the public.
As far as reasons to not vaccinate that I personally agree with, that would be limited to medical reasons such as allergies or weakened immune systems. If any laws are passed, it would be up to the people to decide what is and isn't acceptable.
No Way wrote: However, making the choice to put others at risk shouldn't be a "freedom" that you enjoy and encourage others to do. It should be something that you acknowledge is irresponsible and accept whatever treatment society gives you.
[quote]anti-vaxxer wrote:
Once again you are passing societal mandates based on what YOU feel is best for you and your family. Once again, go ahead and get your vaccine that is your choice and I have no problem with that. In fact I will argue forcefully for your right to exercise this FREEDOM. I find it troubling that your are insistent on denying my freedom to choose not to vaccinate.
By definition I cannot personally pass societal mandates on to you. Only society can do that. This isn't me taking your freedom away. This isn't me and a few people who agree with me taking your freedom away. This is society exercising its right to tell you that they believe that you're wrong. If it gets to that point, it may also be society exercising its democratic right to limit the actions of individuals in order to protect the society.
No Way wrote:Your actions irk me, but the reason I joined this discussion isn't just because of the choice you made. The reason I joined the discussion is because you feel that taking an action that is detrimental to others is something that you should be proud of, and that makes me sick.[quote]anti-vaxxer wrote:
Your actions bother me because of your heavy handed holier than though attitude. You need to realize that other people should be allowed to exercise their freedom from the demands of others!!
It is not I who has the holier than thou attitude. You believe that your rights are more important than the combined rights of everyone who disagrees with you.
get used to it.. wrote:
Yes, but they are doing what is best to protect their child from a maybe, and when that maybe interferes with my rights, I am against it.
This may end up being a supreme court issue at some point, and I think and hope the law will side against mandatory vaccination.
So just out of curiosity, how do you feel about your right to drive drunk, hunt squirrels in metro areas, and defecate in the streets?
None of those things are guaranteed to harm others, but they might.
It's absolutely your right to disagree, but it's also the right of folks to protect their kids from a bigger maybe than the maybe you're trying to protect your kid from.
anti-vaxxer wrote:
You are at no risk if you CHOOSE to vaccinate yourself against the disease. Grow up and realize you can not make everybody's decisions for them. Protect yourself against the outside risks and stop living in fear.[quote]
No risk? Man, I must have missed a few immunology classes in med school or was it epidemiology?
I fear for people making uninformed, emotional decisions that put themselves and others at risk. But trust me, it does not keep me awake at night.
As I have stated previously, I have no problem with the insurance company not covering conditions that are a result of my not vaccinating. That is a free market economy at work. Just do what you want with your family and I will do what I want with mine. I have chosen to vaccinate because it is the 'right' thing to do (in my mind), but I have no problem with others choosing their own path.
anti-vaxxer wrote:
As I have stated previously, I have no problem with the insurance company not covering conditions that are a result of my not vaccinating. That is a free market economy at work. Just do what you want with your family and I will do what I want with mine. I have chosen to vaccinate because it is the 'right' thing to do (in my mind), but I have no problem with others choosing their own path.
But if their path is to petition their public officials to pass a law, that's not ok?
What if their path is to have the school board require vaccination?
What if you were billed for the medical expenses for anyone that your kid got sick?
It's cool that you're willing to accept the consequences of your choices, but I just question anyone who knowingly does something that puts others at risk.