• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why Vaccinations Shouldn't be Optional

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I'm arguing for freedom of choice, and for the freedom to practice what we personally believe, as long as we don't measurably infringe on anyone else's right to do the same.
So i guess then your position is that ones choice NOT to vaccinate DOESNT impact on anyone else. But if you believe it DID impact on others, you would support mandatory vaccination?

OR - another example of that is - you chose not to vaccinate - you contracted a virulent form of Turbucleosis, so the government has enforced clinical isolation on you - Do you believe the governments action was fair? (and this does happen in USA and Australia for certain types of comunnicable diseases)
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
So i guess then your position is that ones choice NOT to vaccinate DOESNT impact on anyone else. But if you believe it DID impact on others, you would support mandatory vaccination?

OR - another example of that is - you chose not to vaccinate - you contracted a virulent form of Turbucleosis, so the government has enforced clinical isolation on you - Do you believe the governments action was fair? (and this does happen in USA and Australia for certain types of comunnicable diseases)
My position is first: freedom, and secondly: recompense after the fact, by proving injury or trespass.

My position is definitely not: "prevention" before the fact, under the opinion of those who think they know better than everyone else. (If this were the case, then perhaps imposing the Buddhist Path upon everyone would be a fine idea, under the idea that I think I know better than everyone else, for example.)
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
My position is first: freedom, and secondly: recompense after the fact, by proving injury or trespass.

My position is definitely not: "prevention" before the fact, under the opinion of those who think they know better than everyone else. (If this were the case, then perhaps imposing the Buddhist Path upon everyone would be a fine idea, under the idea that I think I know better than everyone else, for example.)
Ok I acknowledge you have fixed ideas - but you see the whole paradigm of health is prevention FIRST, and Disease Response SECOND. It pervades everything in health (though Im not an expert because Im doing science at uni ). The whole issue around keeping healthy by eating correctly, exercise etc is about prevention which is way better than waiting until you have diabetes and then responding with treatment.

The same is true of our infectious diseases. It is better to prevent the diease rather than teating it. thats why health depts advocate the use of condoms, sanitation, handwashing and yes - vaccination.

When any of us gets an infection it has a ripple effect that isnt isolated to just YOU. You inevitably spread your infection even before you realise you have it. You have time off work which effects your industry. You pass it onto family members. You consume the health care budget dollar. And for you personally, you have a period of not being the person you want to be.

I know I wont change your view, but I hope you understand the reasons why it is that those of us that strongly support compulsaory vaccination do so. You also have to acknowledge that freedoms to choose also means institutions are free to choose how they will respond to your infection. Its why when your child is sick it wont be allowed in a day care centre. And many take it further and say if your not immunized you cant come in. They have the welfare of all to consider not just the one who opts out.


Oh and BTW - a buddhist pathway is just fine by me - its a good pathway regardless of your religous beliefs
 
Upvote 0

Denadii

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2017
710
300
77
Western
✟46,027.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Vaccines, of course, are beneficial on the individual level, since they reduce the risk of contracting illness and make it such that even if a person does, the experience isn't as severe.

However, not everyone can get vaccinated even if the injections are available. These include but are not limited to: very young babies, people allergic to components of vaccines, and people with certain disorders that impair the immune system. These people must rely upon herd immunity in order to avoid contracting various viral illnesses. But, herd immunity only works if enough people are vaccinated. Now, if every person that could be vaccinated was, herd immunity would be maintained quite well, and outbreaks of diseases such as measles and chicken pox would become exceedingly rare. Heck, when was the last time the US had an outbreak of polio?

Unfortunately, scare tactics and misinformation has resulted in many people choosing not only to not vaccinate themselves, but their children as well. As a result, outbreaks of diseases such as whooping cough have become more common, and it is the weakest and most vulnerable of us that end up paying the price.

I'd have no issue with people opting out of vaccines if that decision only impacted them individually. The fact of the matter is, anyone that chooses to not get vaccinated increases the risk of people that can't get vaccines (even if they want to) getting sick and dying.

"But Sarah, vaccines are full of toxins and cause autism and-"
They don't, and I am going to go through every single anti-vax claim I can think of.

1. Vaccines contain mercury: Vaccines used to contain a harmless mercury compound (just think about chemistry for two seconds; chlorine gas is extremely toxic, and elemental sodium reacts violently with water, but the table salt that is made of both elements combined is actually essential for people and only bad if they consume it in excess), but thanks to the outrage people showed at it being there, vaccines that used to contain it now come in variants that don't. Plus, tons of vaccines never had that compound to begin with, such as the chickenpox vaccine. In case anyone cares about some of the details, the compound is thimerosal, and it was there to help prevent the growth of any harmful microbes in the vaccine. In any case, you'd actually get more mercury from eating tuna regularly than from keeping up with vaccines, and that mercury actually is in a harmful form.
2. Vaccines cause autism: One guy lied in a study in the 1990s. That's it. Dozens of experiments have been performed and have found no link between autism and vaccines. However, many of the diseases people are vaccinated against can have the rare effect of causing lasting brain damage, and polio typically damages the nervous system severely. So, if a person doesn't want "damaged" children, the vaccines are the safer bet.
3. Vaccines contain formaldehyde, and that's a carcinogen: They actually do... as does human blood normally... and pears. The amount of formaldehyde in vaccines is trivial compared to the amount normally in human blood to begin with. That is, there isn't enough in vaccines for even a lifetime of vaccinations to make a difference.
4. This image
antivax_postcard.jpg

Oh dear, where to begin. I guess I'll address them in order of that list, minus autism because I've already addressed it. Shaken baby syndrome is the result of physical damage to a baby's brain due to the brain hitting the sides of the skull. There's no way a vaccine could do that, that's like saying a vaccine could cause your leg to break. Chronic ear infections are usually caused by bacteria, and are common in babies and young children due to the shape of a young person's ear canal and the fact that their immune systems are not done developing. Again, no means by which a vaccine could cause this. Far more kids would die from the diseases that vaccines prevent than die from the rare complications. SIDS is a term for when babies under a year old die with no detectable cause, and thus cannot be attributed to vaccines. It is notable that people that are poor tend to experience SIDS more, meaning that the people that experience it the most are people that get less vaccines, not more of them. Seizures are interesting when it comes to vaccines. There are only a few that actually have this as a potential side effect at all, and notably, the flu vaccine is not one of them. However, it is worth noting that kids that have a history of seizures in their family are more prone to this side effect, and it is more common if you get all of the ones that have this side effect at the same time, or get them along with the flu shot. So, this is a decent reason not to get your child vaccinated for, say, the mumps, if you have a family history of seizures, and you should avoid having your kid get multiple vaccines with this side effect at the same time. Here's this for anyone that want's to avoid doubling or up on seizure risks Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Side Effects
ADD, Asthma, Diabetes, and Meningitis are the same as Autism, there isn't any evidence that vaccines cause these or make them worse. As for allergies, allergic reactions to vaccines are rare, and it wouldn't make any sense for vaccines to cause allergies to chemicals they don't contain. Polio is not caused by vaccines, and the disease predates them. In fact, a severe polio outbreak in the US was only stopped thanks to a vaccine for it being produced. The only reason this isn't still a common disease in that country is due to vaccines, and I challenge any anti-vax person to actually find a reasonable explanation for the reduction in the frequency of diseases for which there are vaccines that doesn't attribute it to the vaccines.
5. Aluminum in vaccines: again, you'll eat way more of the stuff than a vaccine will give you, and the compound of aluminum in vaccines is mostly excreted by the body within just a day.
6. Too many vaccines is just as bad as too many antibiotics: Not at all. Antibiotics themselves kill bacteria, and when they are used too much or improperly, this gives rise to strains which are resistant to the antibiotic, making said antibiotic become useless. The same doesn't apply to vaccines, which actually stimulate the immune system to be able to handle the disease better on its own rather than the vaccine directly killing the virus itself. This is also why vaccines are useless to people that have already contracted the disease the vaccine helps with; it takes 2 weeks for a vaccine to get your body effectively prepared to fight of a disease, so if you contract it before then, the vaccine is of no use. So, feel free not to get the vaccine if you already have a fever and aching joints, and don't feel like you are absolutely safe to just hang out with sick people right after you get a vaccine. Furthermore, vaccines don't outright prevent disease. They make it so that when you catch it, your body fights it off very efficiently, resulting in severely reduced symptoms. "But Sarah, what about the rabies vaccine, then? You only get that after you have been exposed to the virus". Rabies is an interesting disease. It actually progresses so slowly that, if you, say, get a bite on your finger, the virus isn't going to reach the central nervous system and really wreak havoc for weeks. This actually gives the vaccine enough time to be effective even after initial exposure. This is also why people are encouraged to get the vaccine as quickly as possible, and why it is so many shots at once.

Unfortunately, vaccines for bacterial diseases are generally ineffective, and they make future diagnosis of any additional infections result in false positives for that disease, which is why there are very few vaccines for bacterial diseases.

That's all I can think of at the moment.
If your vaccines are so good, and you get yours, why do you worry so much about the fact that I don't. Don't you think your vaccination will protect you from me?
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Denadi
If your vaccines are so good, and you get yours, why do you worry so much about the fact that I don't. Don't you think your vaccination will protect you from me?
No I would regard that as being selfish - to just worry about yourself. Being vaccinated I am likely to be just fine. No I worry for those that are vulnerable to your refusal. Eg new born children, the very elderly, or those who have known allergies to vaccine products. The actions of your refusal perpetuates and adds to the incidence of the disease. So yes I'll be fine. You wont. others wont. They are the victims of your actions
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Ok I acknowledge you have fixed ideas - but you see the whole paradigm of health is prevention FIRST, and Disease Response SECOND. It pervades everything in health (though Im not an expert because Im doing science at uni ). The whole issue around keeping healthy by eating correctly, exercise etc is about prevention which is way better than waiting until you have diabetes and then responding with treatment.
That is perfectly fine. Everyone has a right to choose however way they wish to address prevention for themselves.

The same is true of our infectious diseases. It is better to prevent the diease rather than teating it. thats why health depts advocate the use of condoms, sanitation, handwashing and yes - vaccination.

When any of us gets an infection it has a ripple effect that isnt isolated to just YOU. You inevitably spread your infection even before you realise you have it. You have time off work which effects your industry. You pass it onto family members. You consume the health care budget dollar. And for you personally, you have a period of not being the person you want to be.

I know I wont change your view, but I hope you understand the reasons why it is that those of us that strongly support compulsaory vaccination do so. You also have to acknowledge that freedoms to choose also means institutions are free to choose how they will respond to your infection. Its why when your child is sick it wont be allowed in a day care centre. And many take it further and say if your not immunized you cant come in. They have the welfare of all to consider not just the one who opts out.

Oh and BTW - a buddhist pathway is just fine by me - its a good pathway regardless of your religous beliefs
All private individuals & institutions have a right of choice, including the ability to exclude others from private property.
 
Upvote 0

Denadii

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2017
710
300
77
Western
✟46,027.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Denadi

No I would regard that as being selfish - to just worry about yourself. Being vaccinated I am likely to be just fine. No I worry for those that are vulnerable to your refusal. Eg new born children, the very elderly, or those who have known allergies to vaccine products. The actions of your refusal perpetuates and adds to the incidence of the disease. So yes I'll be fine. You wont. others wont. They are the victims of your actions
Sorry....Too many people are damaged or killed by these wonder vaccines...They're not putting that junk into this body. No way!
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
My vaccination is Psalm 91. It has Never failed me. Never made me sick, never damaged me.
I understand what youre saying. I read what I wrote and my writing style sounded really harsh. Sorry I didnt mean to write so harshly, but hope you understood the point I was trying to make.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
That is perfectly fine. Everyone has a right to choose however way they wish to address prevention for themselves.


All private individuals & institutions have a right of choice, including the ability to exclude others from private property.
Well if you agree to that then I presume you dont have an issue with excluding people from public areas. After all I and the rest of the community dont want to share a train with someone who has H1N1 influenza
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
My vaccination is Psalm 91. It has Never failed me. Never made me sick, never damaged me.
Thats really good for you but remember many arent as fortunate as you and dont have your seeming resistance to infection. So if your immune to everything then thats pretty amazing. But what of those who arent so lucky, dont get immunized, get infected, and give it to the vulnerable eg the elderly or infant. They wont even know they would have spread their infection. Yet their action has been a death warrant
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Well if you agree to that then I presume you dont have an issue with excluding people from public areas. After all I and the rest of the community dont want to share a train with someone who has H1N1 influenza
I stated "private" ... not "public".

I and my community would much rather share a train only with those who follow the Eightfold Path too; but, I accept that in the public realm, there is great room for freedom.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I stated "private" ... not "public".
So you do not advocate for the public health laws that mandatorily quaranteen those who chose not to vaccinate, and contracted an infection the health department deemed as an unacceptable risk to the community?
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
So you do not advocate for the public health laws that mandatorily quaranteen those who chose not to vaccinate, and contracted an infection the health department deemed as an unacceptable risk to the community?
No, I'm not an advocate for that. That is not the proper role for public government.

Governments have misused their power and money for unscrupulous ends, and are untrustworthy to have that power.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
No, I'm not an advocate for that. That is not the proper role for public government.
But you are aware those laws already exist and are enforced if you have one of the following
  • Cholera.
  • Diphtheria.
  • Infectious tuberculosis.
  • Plague.
  • Smallpox.
  • Yellow fever.
  • Viral hemorrhagic fevers.
  • Severe acute respiratory syndromes.

and can be invoked with other emerging infectious diseases

Surely youre not advocating that those infected with such disorders have the perrogative to get on a train, go to a shopping centre, drink from the public water fountain, handle the fruit at the grocer, look after children at child care, or share the public toilets.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
But you are aware those laws already exist and are enforced if you have one of the following
  • Cholera.
  • Diphtheria.
  • Infectious tuberculosis.
  • Plague.
  • Smallpox.
  • Yellow fever.
  • Viral hemorrhagic fevers.
  • Severe acute respiratory syndromes.
and can be invoked with other emerging infectious diseases

Surely youre not advocating that those infected with such disorders have the perrogative to get on a train, go to a shopping centre, drink from the public water fountain, handle the fruit at the grocer, look after children at child care, or share the public toilets.
I'm saying that those with an ounce of sense in themselves would voluntarily do what they believe is right.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I'm saying that those with an ounce of sense in themselves would voluntarily do what they believe is right.
Im guessing from how you worded your reply, that your all for applying the law of forced quarantine for those that dont possess that "ounce of sense".

Im also guessing you fully understand that many would not know what was right - hence why they MUST respond to what they are directed to do NOT "what they believe is right" - If you get Ebola I dont want YOU to do what YOU think is right because that may be inadequate and noone wants you to impose your risks on others... and Im also guessing your understanding my point on the value of government actions when it comes to public health.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Im guessing from how you worded your reply, that your all for applying the law of forced quarantine for those that dont possess that "ounce of sense".
No, I'm not. Would you like it if I forced you to recant your Christian faith for the Buddhist Path, if I believe you didn't have an ounce of sense?

Im also guessing you fully understand that many would not know what was right - hence why they MUST respond to what they are directed to do NOT "what they believe is right" - If you get Ebola I dont want YOU to do what YOU think is right because that may be inadequate and noone wants you to impose your risks on others... and Im also guessing your understanding my point on the value of government actions when it comes to public health.
No, I don't concur.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,984
24
Australia
✟111,705.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
No, I'm not. Would you like it if I forced you to recant your Christian faith for the Buddhist Path, if I believe you didn't have an ounce of sense?

No, I don't concur.
Well thankfully you are not obviously either a policy maker or enforcer of public health matters lest you be condoning those with Ebola to stroll through our shopping centres. I find your argument on every occasion that you wouldnt impose your religion on anyone so why should anyone place any restrictions on those with virulent infectious diseases, in order to safeguard the community.... I find your argument weak if thats all you can use - and fortunately so do the worlds law makers or Ebola would have annihilated Africa and then continued into Europe and America and Asia.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Well thankfully you are not obviously either a policy maker or enforcer of public health matters lest you be condoning those with Ebola to stroll through our shopping centres. I find your argument on every occasion that you wouldnt impose your religion on anyone so why should anyone place any restrictions on those with virulent infectious diseases, in order to safeguard the community.... I find your argument weak if thats all you can use - and fortunately so do the worlds law makers or Ebola would have annihilated Africa and then continued into Europe and America and Asia.
Under your argument, all those who are vaccinated - like yourself - should be stripped of freedoms then, because you are literally carriers of the disease - not those who haven't been vaccinated.
 
Upvote 0