Mandatory Vaccinations

My only point on this is that any time you have the government come in and say we are doing this to protect you, look out cause the trade off of that is that you give up your freedoms. Personally I would rather face the dangers than loose my freedoms. In the case of vaccines, it is simply this point that I have. Every person has a unique body chemistry. What is good and helpful to one person will kill the next. My concern is that making things manditory basically says, "well if it kills you so be it, at least we are safe". How is that fair to the person who didnt even get a chance? Though my statment is an extreme example, it is still plausable. You may not like it put that way but it happens to be the case. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and under the constitution of the united states we also have the right to choose. Making things manditory takes away that right. I am not saying I know everything about this subject cause I dont. What I do know is that every person has a different and distinct body chemistry...kind of like finger prints...no two are the same. Similar maybe but still different. One thing I do know a great deal about is government and the constitution. This is really all I am trying to say here.

It's impossible to know for sure that your partner has or hasn't got a certain STI. Sometimes they present themselves in inactive forms and there would be no way to know other than running tests. Suggesting abstinency is really stupid, it's not like people will stop having sex, that's not an option. Condoms, spermicides, female condoms and vaccines to the diseases that can be vaccinated are the measures that should be taken.

There are plenty of people becoming smarter as time goes on and do get tested every 6 months. Condoms are a good form of protection against STI's. Suggesting abstinence is not stupid because it's the only thing that's 100% effective in preventing STI's. Realistic? Probably not. Suggesting that it's stupid to suggest abstaining, is ignorant in itself.

Education is the best form of prevention and my teenage daughters are VERY well educated and know the potential risks of having sex.

I find it funny you are far more willing to expect your kids to not do something, than you are to give them a safety net in case they do make a mistake as children often do.

Suggesting abstinence is not stupid because it's the only thing that's 100% effective in preventing STI's.

I'd say 99.9% is a fairer statistic.

Exactly my point though. It's sexually transmitted. It's not like having whooping cough ffs. You make a choice to have sex with someone, therefore you are also given the choice to protect yourself via abstaining from sexual activity. If you're dumb enough to have sex with someone and you don't know what potential diseases they have, that's your own fault you took that risk to begin with.

Except the people taking that risk are generally poorly educated by abstinence only programs that don't exactly prepare them to cope with the risk and for that matter you're talking about a biological imperative they should just "know better than to do". By that same logic they shouldn't be allowed birth control because they knew the risks. 12 year olds are increasingly becoming sexually active whether we like it or not and they clearly lack sound judgment in choosing partners and being safe, would you rather them have some degree of protection in the event it happens or leave them completely exposed and just "hope for the best"? You yourself pointed out how hard it can be to control them as they approach the teenage years.

Just like with many illnesses many people who have HPV and HIV dont know they have it until they become symptomatic so that they don't know to warn others that they have and so that they respond to others with the statement that they're clean/safe/ddf which leads to spread because the default assumption people have is that they're uninfected and perfectly healthy.

Suggesting that it's stupid to suggest abstaining, is ignorant in itself.

Suggesting it is fine. Expecting it draws the line of credulity. Along the lines of letting someone starve a week or two then unleashing them on a buffet but expecting then to only make healthy rational choices.

How is that fair to the person who didnt even get a chance?

How is it fair to me if I took the medication, boosted my resistence, but still get sick and die because you didn't think you'd ever need it and became a carrier of a more concentrated viral load than even my boosted immune system could handle?

You represent the potential to do that to hundreds of people if not thousands or millions. Potentially accidentally killing you represents one small sacrifice for the betterment of everyone else. I don't know about you, but I'm not so selfish a bastard that I'd mind dying if it meant the relative safety for the larger population. That's part of the social covenant inherent in a society.

under the constitution of the united states we also have the right to choose.

Exactly what clause is that, anyway?

How is that fair to the person who didnt even get a chance?

Seems you will never get the point, social medicine is based on statistics. Is it better to have 1/1000 to die from allergy to the vaccine or 1/100 to die from the disease itself? That's the type of choice doctors face, everyday. A surgery is no different, is it better to remove the tumor with a 1/50 to kill the patient in the operation or leave it as it is and have the patient have a 1/100 chance to recover by other means?

It's always a choice of the lesser evil. You don't look at single cases when prescribing vaccine to the entire population, and you can't decide not to take a vaccine if that means a higher risk for all the other citizens. Your freedom ends where the next person's begins.

Snips

Can you go back and answer these posts before rambling onwards?
http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php...post648446
http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php...post648449
http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php...post648534
http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php...post648544

If you don't, why would you not do so?

Exactly what clause is that, anyway?

In the constitution, article V. This article makes amendments part of the constitution. This next part comes directly from the library of congress.

The United States was founded on the principles of individual liberty, personal privacy, and equality. Such principles ensure that each individual is free to make the most intimate decisions free from governmental interference and discrimination.

In the constitution, article V. This article makes amendments part of the constitution. This next part comes directly from the library of congress.

The United States was founded on the principles of individual liberty, personal privacy, and equality. Such principles ensure that each individual is free to make the most intimate decisions free from governmental interference and discrimination.

Choosing not to be vaccinated is not an intimate decision as it involves the health of more than just you.

Choosing not to be vaccinated is not an intimate decision as it involves the health of more than just you.

Anything being put inside a persons body is considered very intimate. My body is not public or government property. My body is private property. Injecting anything that does not belong there is invasive of my personal space.

Are you allowed to choose to put large ammounts of alcohol inside your body (a very intimate thing) before driving? No.

Anything being put inside a persons body is considered very intimate. My body is not public or government property. My body is private property. Injecting anything that does not belong there is invasive of my personal space.

Right. So take your vaccines so you're not injecting your virii into my personal space.

I hate to underscore Eos and Shidoshi's comments, but what they've said is true: it's better to have less people die than more. Ultimately, yes, lives were lost, and that's a horrible thing, but unless completely proven as the result of the drug, it can't be held accountable.

Take again the Gardasil vaccine as an example, as Talia says she'd rather "take a gamble" then risk death at the hands of the vaccine. Based on the figures in the Vaccine Monitoring section, over the period of June 2006 through December 31, 2008, 23 million doses of vaccine were sent out, with 32 deaths occurring some time after taking a dose.

32/23 million = 0.00014% chance of death.

As opposed to a 10.6% chance of contracting HPV whenever engaged in sexual contact.

All this example is here to prove is that medical drugs are developed and used across the world because, believe it or not, they work. They do what they say they'll do, and protect people from illness or death at a rate far greater than had such drugs not been used; in other words, more people die from not being protected than die from the drugs themselves. You don't even need data to prove that - just the fact that the world continues to use medicine, and continues to survive longer and longer.

The contention was raised earlier as to how our ancestors lived without vaccines, without medicine. Shidoshi mentioned that they pumped out a ton more children than we do now, and while that's true, it's not the most important fact: the average life expectancy of our ancestors, even 100,000 years ago, was a mere fraction of what human beings are capable of now. Medicine, like proper hygiene, health, and living conditions, played a huge role in that change of human history.

My last comment goes to those, like Talia, who I'm guessing are still skeptical, still willing to gamble with their childs' lives. Let me just say this: you will be hard pressed to find a drug on the market that does not have a least one death associated with the time after taking a dose. In other words, if you're worried about the potential 0.00014% chance of death from taking Gardasil, I highly suggest you stop giving your children Tylenol or Pepto Bismol, because I'm sure more have died taking those than the HPV vaccine.

Totally didn't mean to dp. My apologies.

Right. So take your vaccines so you're not injecting your virii into my personal space.

I love legal debates over individual biology. kane, watch that you're not sued for infecting Eos.

Anything being put inside a persons body is considered very intimate. My body is not public or government property. My body is private property. Injecting anything that does not belong there is invasive of my personal space.

Your right ends when you put many others at risk with your recklessness.

Are you allowed to choose to put large ammounts of alcohol inside your body (a very intimate thing) before driving? No.

I am sorry, but that happens daily. You also need a drivers license to drive, not to live. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

I am sorry, but that happens daily. You also need a drivers license to drive, not to live. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

Do you need a license to smoke? Can you smoke as you please because the nicotine is going into YOUR lungs?

See this? Yeah, sorry, this is something for kids, iunno maybe I got the wrong link, but check it out anyway.
Hey, it says "Rights AND Responsibilities". Responsibility? What's that? Can I eat it?

And btw.

The United States was founded on the principles of individual liberty, personal privacy, and equality. Such principles ensure that each individual is free to make the most intimate decisions free from governmental interference and discrimination.

The Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964/S. 1173) was a bill in the 110th United States Congress which "declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health."

Pardon my ignorance but, what.

You know, nobody is going to change their beliefs on this matter. At this point, it is kind of like fighting over religion. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? If, as most of you have proven thus far, you blindly believe what the government and these big businesses put out as the gods honest truth then you are even more foolish than I thought. Many big businesses as well as the government have lied to us to push their own hidden agenda's. As brought up by eos in an earlier post, global warming for example has been debunked by many scientists and each one was blackballed, threatened and discredited by big business and the government. Why? Money and power. Power over you me and everyone else. Al Gore for example has made millions off from global warming and stands to make billions as time goes on with this issue. You might say that this is different but what better way to control a population than with fear. That is exactly what this is. You have your views and I have mine. Thats ok. I am not getting mad at any of you for your view points. Most of you will accept what your told as being the truth when information is given by the government. I however will always question my government. The fact is that big business and the government are in bed together and they will scilence anyone who challenges the status quo.

There are plenty of people becoming smarter as time goes on and do get tested every 6 months. Condoms are a good form of protection against STI's. Suggesting abstinence is not stupid because it's the only thing that's 100% effective in preventing STI's. Realistic? Probably not. Suggesting that it's stupid to suggest abstaining, is ignorant in itself.

Yet is it reasonable to expect your partner to be one of those "smarties"? Perhaps it works for you and your genius daughters (until it decides not to work anymore, but I digress) to place their safety in other people's hands -- guys, no less -- I thought it would be reasonable to expect other skeptics to rely on nobody but themselves.

Also, abstinence is like starving one's self off out of fear for food poisoning. To expect growing teenagers not to make mistakes is both unrealistic and unproductive at best; it could also be detrimental to their later independent lives, depending on your point of view. I don't mean to butt into your parenting business, but instead of telling my children they have to be perfect from now till the moment of their last breath, I'd rather be lurking behind the scene to cushion their fall, and help them learn from that.

I suppose each parent would draw their own line here though. There are holes you should never ever fall into (heroin, for example), and it's up to the parents and their own children to figure out which would be reasonably inevitable and which anyone should absolutely steer clear of.

EDIT: I just realized I got this thread confused with madanthony.

Most of you will accept what your told as being the truth when information is given by the government. I however will always question my government. The fact is that big business and the government are in bed together and they will scilence anyone who challenges the status quo.

What does that have to do with anything? What if the government told you you need to eat, drink and breathe to survive?

32/23 million = 0.00014% chance of death.

As opposed to a 10.6% chance of contracting HPV whenever engaged in sexual contact.

Liar.
The CDC says it is a 10.6 in 100,000. That is .0106%. The of course the death rate is only about 22.6% from cervical cancer. That leaves the death rate from HPV to be .00240%


Also, the FDA estiamtes that onle 10% or less vaccine adverse reactions are reported and other surveys show even as low as 2.5%.

However, the FDA itself estimates that only about 10 percent of adverse reactions are reported. One example of the under-reporting of adverse reactions was reported by the National Vaccine Information Center, which found that in New York, only one out of 40 doctor's offices - about 2.5 percent of the physicians surveyed - confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination, which means that 97.5 percent of vaccine related deaths and disabilities go unreported there.

http://www.monheit.com/vaccines/what.shtml
Adjust your calculation of vaccine deaths with this factor and we get a range between .0014%-.0056%
And this does not include the other adverse effects of gardasil including seizures and paralization.

Edit: Also,

As of June 2009, 15 million girls have been injected with the Gardasil vaccine. Out of 15 million people, 49 deaths may not seem like a lot.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030991_Gardasil_vaccine.html
At first it doesnt seem like a lot, but this statistic shows a higher rate of death from gardasil. Apply the 10% statistic of the FDA and we have this:
49/10%/15000000 = .00327%
Apply the 2,5% rate of reporting:
49/2.5%/15000000 = .01307%

That is a huge number compared to HPV's death rate.

Edit: Also dont forget that vaccines arent 100% effective, so the risks of HPV are not eliminated, and also remember that gardasil is not designed to protect you from every strain of HPV.