Philosophy Now Forum

I object to being called an anti-vaxer and being put down for it.

It isn’t anti anything. It’s really pro-choice, but it’s a choice that’s already protected by the right of self determination. No one should have to defend themselves over a right that everyone already has.

It’s a known fact that vaccines have side effects, and side effects could be harmful. For that reason, no parent should have to allow their children to be vaccinated.

Everyone knows that the flu shot doesn’t even work. You can still get the flu even if you’ve had the shot.

Most of the other vaccines are for conditions that don’t happen very much anymore. Why should children be subjected to any of the side effects if the vaccines aren’t needed anymore?

I know there’s such a thing as natural immunity anyway. If there’s a natural way to develop immunity against disease, shouldn’t everyone do it that way?

This whole situation means that mothers in some places, like Oregon, are forced to “consent” to vaccines if they want their children to go to public schools or even to go to extracurricular activities like soccer and basketball. Now they’re even talking about banning a child who’s unvaccinated from going to any public spaces, like a mall or a movie theater. That’s an infringement on parental rights.

I think I speak for most of the vaccine pro-choicers, when I say just leave us alone and keep your hands off our children. Try to remember that when you go so far as to introduce government propositions about this, you are just establishing a big brother society.

Respectful comments are welcome.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:48 pm This whole situation means that mothers in some places, like Oregon, are forced to “consent” to vaccines if they want their children to go to public schools or even to go to extracurricular activities like soccer and basketball. Now they’re even talking about banning a child who’s unvaccinated from going to any public spaces, like a mall or a movie theater. That’s an infringement on parental rights.

You don't have a right to use your own child as a weapon of germ warfare against children with compromised immune systems who rely on the herd immunity you are destroying. If you want to keep your children unvaccinated then you have to keep them apart, they can only go to places where they cannot cause a major outbreak.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:48 pm I know there’s such a thing as natural immunity anyway. If there’s a natural way to develop immunity against disease, shouldn’t everyone do it that way?

Because some of them have cancer and they will die if they try. And those kids with cancer are only safe at all if at least 95% of the kids around them are vaccinated. So that's a life and death choice for someone else's family you are demanding the right to make for yourself.

Don't the benefits outweigh the side effects? I mean, what if your child develops polio or some other seriously debilitating disease? Wouldn't it be better to vaccinate just in case? I've had all the vaccinations that I was required to take and I'm not aware of any side effects of them. I'm glad I have them. It makes me feel a little bit safer.

Natural immunity is a gamble. Not everyone's immune system is up to combat some of the more virulent diseases. Is it worth the risk to your kids?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:30 am Don't the benefits outweigh the side effects? I mean, what if your child develops polio or some other seriously debilitating disease?

Smallpox and polio are gone except for what the government keeps in storage for germ warfare.

You don’t hear anything about mumps or pertussis. You can’t get diphtheria unless you live in a third world country with no sanitation. You can avoid tetanus by not stepping on rusty nails or by wearing shoes.

So, no, the benefits don’t outweigh the risk of side effects.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:43 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:30 am Don't the benefits outweigh the side effects? I mean, what if your child develops polio or some other seriously debilitating disease?

Smallpox and polio are gone except for what the government keeps in storage for germ warfare.

You don’t hear anything about mumps or pertussis. You can’t get diphtheria unless you live in a third world country with no sanitation. You can avoid tetanus by not stepping on rusty nails or by wearing shoes.

So, no, the benefits don’t outweigh the risk of side effects.

What's to guarantee your child won't accidentally step on a rusty nail? What's to guarantee your kids may not want to travel someday to a third world country for either work or tourism? Generally, the side effects of vaccination are nothing more than soreness where the shot was administered. Surely, your kids aren't so fragile that soreness is going to outweigh being vaccinated?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:47 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:43 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:30 am Don't the benefits outweigh the side effects? I mean, what if your child develops polio or some other seriously debilitating disease?

Smallpox and polio are gone except for what the government keeps in storage for germ warfare.

You don’t hear anything about mumps or pertussis. You can’t get diphtheria unless you live in a third world country with no sanitation. You can avoid tetanus by not stepping on rusty nails or by wearing shoes.

So, no, the benefits don’t outweigh the risk of side effects.

What's to guarantee your child won't accidentally step on a rusty nail? What's to guarantee your kids may not want to travel someday to a third world country for either work or tourism? Generally, the side effects of vaccination are nothing more than soreness where the shot was administered. Surely, your kids aren't so fragile that soreness is going to outweigh being vaccinated?

There are no guarantees that a child won’t develop serious complications from being vaccinated either.

Besides, I don’t trust the scientists who say the shots are safe. I bet if vaccine safety was crowd sourced it would be obvious that they’re wrong.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:43 am Smallpox and polio are gone except for what the government keeps in storage for germ warfare.

Recent meme that I saw went something like.

I love it how society defeated disease X, so as a gesture of backing the under-dog some of you switched sides.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:54 am There are no guarantees that a child won’t develop serious complications from being vaccinated either.

Besides, I don’t trust the scientists who say the shots are safe. I bet if vaccine safety was crowd sourced it would be obvious that they’re wrong.

Have you considered the possibility that the anti-vaccine propaganda could be an attempt by Russian or Chinese conspirators to weaken the health of our country's population?

Having spoken to hundreds of anti-vaxxers and having tried numerous strategies for communicating/educating - I can tell you this: It's hard, no - impossible, teaching risk management to somebody who defaults to an emotional response.

They simply lack the mental tools to appreciate how rigorous science is.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:59 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:54 am There are no guarantees that a child won’t develop serious complications from being vaccinated either.

Besides, I don’t trust the scientists who say the shots are safe. I bet if vaccine safety was crowd sourced it would be obvious that they’re wrong.

Have you considered the possibility that the anti-vaccine propaganda could be an attempt by Russian or Chinese conspirators to weaken the health of our country's population?

Having spoken to hundreds of anti-vaxxers and having tried numerous strategies for communicating/educating - I can tell you this: It's hard, no - impossible, teaching risk management to somebody who defaults to an emotional response.

They simply lack the mental tools to appreciate how rigorous science is.

Freedom of choice does not weaken a population.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:14 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:48 pm This whole situation means that mothers in some places, like Oregon, are forced to “consent” to vaccines if they want their children to go to public schools or even to go to extracurricular activities like soccer and basketball. Now they’re even talking about banning a child who’s unvaccinated from going to any public spaces, like a mall or a movie theater. That’s an infringement on parental rights.

You don't have a right to use your own child as a weapon of germ warfare against children with compromised immune systems who rely on the herd immunity you are destroying. If you want to keep your children unvaccinated then you have to keep them apart, they can only go to places where they cannot cause a major outbreak.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:48 pm I know there’s such a thing as natural immunity anyway. If there’s a natural way to develop immunity against disease, shouldn’t everyone do it that way?

Because some of them have cancer and they will die if they try. And those kids with cancer are only safe at all if at least 95% of the kids around them are vaccinated. So that's a life and death choice for someone else's family you are demanding the right to make for yourself.

A mother is only responsible for her own children. There will still be 95% vaccinated because that’s how gullible most people are. Not all children have cancer anyway.

...get it?

Do with your kid what you like (just keep the abuse in private, yeah?).

And: Common, you're a goddamned anti-vaxer!

Personally, I don't think anyone should have a right to inject anything into anyone else against their will.

Also, although I can totally sympathize with a child (or anyone) who has a weakened immune system, I don't think all of society should have to be injected on account of that.

Why can't kids who are not vaccinated go to a school where other kids ARE vaccinated? If the other kids are vaccinated, they should be protected, right? If not, the vaccine sucks. If other kids who are not vaccinated get sick, that's the risk they took. But why are we telling people that they can't go to public places unless we inject them because they may carry a disease? EVERYONE carries potential for disease. A LOT of people have DISEASED THINKING...I don't see them being told to stay home!!

On the flip side, this is the stuff of life. It's a guessing game... which way to go. We participate every day despite all that might be bad for us. If I had kids, I might vaccinate them because they'll be part of a weird world (long after I'm gone) and we're all going to die being part of our weird worlds. But my preference would be NOT TO. If we're all going to start being injected with crazy crap against our will, or in order to be allowed in society... then I'll choose which way to go if/when I have to.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:46 am Freedom of choice does not weaken a population.

Freely choosing illness over health does.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:54 am I don’t trust the scientists who say the shots are safe. I bet if vaccine safety was crowd sourced it would be obvious that they’re wrong.

I was vaccinated when I was a child as were all my classmates. I don't know of anyone who developed any serious complications from it. I certainly didn't. I'm not sure which is the bigger gamble, not vaccinating your child or vaccinating him or her, but I suppose you are right, if you don't want your child to be vaccinated, it's probably your business.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:16 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:46 am Freedom of choice does not weaken a population.

Freely choosing illness over health does.

Your posts reveal sound reasoning, but which do you think has greater weight: sound reasoning or unreasonable fear?