mandatory vaccinations

IHOM said:

So are you advocating that people should come to my house and force vaccinate my children and you would support them if they did

Click to expand...

I would support not letting your children in public schools and in other publicly funded places due to the health risk they now pose to those who are unable to be vaccinated. Wouldn't force you to do anything, but wouldn't allow you to endanger others because of your decision.

IHOM said:

So are you advocating that people should come to my house and force vaccinate my children and you would support them if they did

Click to expand...

So where exactly did i say that?

IHOM said:

So you would exclude from society anyone who does not have the same views as you?

If that is the kind of society you are building i dont want anything to do with it... but if this society becomes global... where do me and my children go because i dont have the mmr either?

Click to expand...

I'll not respond to hyperbole.

IHOM said:

"i'm not worried over this as some right being infringed, but rather a necessary medical wellness protection."

That is where you said that.

"I would support not letting your children in public schools and in other publicly funded places"

So you would exclude from society anyone who does not have the same views as you?

If that is the kind of society you are building i dont want anything to do with it... but if this society becomes global... where do me and my children go because i dont have the mmr either?

I will be excluded from society with nowhere to go... i would have to be forced to be injected against my wished or killed... and that is what this is all about.... its about mandating vaccines its about absolute control over the population... in another thread on the economy someone askes the question will we need to work in the future due to technology advances... this person touched on something i have been questioning myself... the people in power often tell us the world is over populated... even though we know for a fact this is not the case.... what they are saying is the world is over populated to sustain the economy in the future... we cant have say 4 billion unemployed people. Abortion euthnasia birth control are just the begining... i am not saying they will kill us... they might or they may inject us to steralise us then manufacture human beings in the labratory designed for specifict rolls that robots can not do or whatever..control the population that way... either way the human race is obsoliite... its not needed

God made man in his image. Now man wante to make man acording to his own wishes

Click to expand...

I do not think anyone should avoid such things because it directly affects the entire society.
Common sense tells us we want to protect our children, our spouses, and our neighbors from illnesses that would otherwise become extinct.

OR anyone could own a robot and get an income from their work..? Just a thot....but i have no idea where that is going in regards to vaccinations.

You went a little bit too far with the - or be killed.
You would be kept from schooling for your children. That's actually sensible. Because any child not innoculated will certainly become a threat for others. The more ppl give into fear mongering - we will see diseases come back again...ruining everyone's health.

If people would vaccinate then we would not need laws to make them. It is the lack of common sense and the resistance to all fact that has created the need to have laws that require vaccination. Even now the laws allow for opt out. Yep it means those people may not be able to use public school or daycare and the un-vaccinated children as adults might not be able to get some jobs if by being there they ran the risk of killing those they worked with. That all makes sense. If you make a decision that risks the lives of others then those who have taken the steps to protect their children deserve to have their kids protected from an nonfactual damaging choice made based on pseudo science and with a misinformed conscience.

And all of the people who opt out for any reason other than medical are basically doing damage to the ones who are opting out for medical reasons. Because they are hurting herd immunity.

The Church has said vaccinate should be done for the common good and to protect children. Not to do it has no foundation in faith or science.

A law requiring vaccination does not mean men will come in 20 years to inject us with whatever the government wants. That is just fear mongering and hyperbole. This is not a place for the slippery slope argument. The laws are written very tightly and specifically. They allow opt outs for valid reasons and are not some gateway to Men In Black coming and imposing a new world order.

Less people have serious reactions to vaccines than people injured on escalators in a year. That does not discount the nature of the serious reactions but it does mean that if someone is concerned about vaccines and seeks a philosophical exemption they should not drive, fly, use escalators, and...beds.

Anti vaccine proponents say that between 2004-2015 100 people have died from the MMR vaccine. This is not provable and the claim has serious issues due to how they are getting the stats (basically they are not right). But let's, for the sake of this argument, accept it. How many people have died from falling out of bed in that same time period? Provable. Cause of death...falling out of bed. Around 5,000.

Falling icicles in that time...just in one country (Russia by the way)...over 1,000.

So no driving, flying, no beds, watch out for icicles...oh hot water from the tap has scalded and killed about 350 in the time frame given so no hot water.

Best to just sit inside. Except 5.3 million deaths a year are attributed to being too sedentary. Better exercise. Except....590 people have died in that time after exercising. And all of the stats I use are far more provable than the anti-vaccine number of 100 in 11 years.

See the point. Any single death is a horrible tragedy. But to look at vaccines and say they are deadly means that you need to look at almost every other human activity and say it is deadly too...in fact far more deadly. And in most cases it does not save millions of lives at the same time.

The Church instructs that in the case of vaccines, even fetal line ones, without alternative:

"as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may
be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the
meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's
own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the
population as a whole." (Pontifical Academy for Life)

So even in the case of the fetal cell vaccines we can use them (while we fight for alternatives) and have a responsibility to our children and the population as a whole to use them. In the case of those not made from fetal cells we simply have an unambiguous responsibility to see that we, and our children, are vaccinated.

So by both science and our Catholic faith we should vaccinate unless there is an issue of a medical nature. And I do not mean the fake vaccines cause autism when they are statistically less dangerous than sleeping in a bed. I mean there is another medical issue that makes vaccination and actual risk. So no excuse not to by our Catholic faith...no excuse not to by science.

But if you will not get an MMR for any reason other than medical, well then...you should not be allowed to potentially kill other people's children. And if that means isolating those people from society, well yes. Love them. Pity them. Pray for them. But do not place the lives of children at risk to accommodate delusion.

People should not get the choice to endanger others by the choice to not vaccinate any more than you should have the choice to have an abortion because you think your child may have a heart attack at 60 because of heart disease in your family. To vaccinate while fighting for alternative lines is Pro Life. To not vaccinate even though the Church says we can and should...is Pro-Choice. There is no ground in our Catholic faith or our moral theology where the excuse that they are from fetal lines is an allowable reason to not vaccinate. If a conscience is formed in that way it is misinformed because it is in opposition to clear teaching. There are some Catholics who have written convoluted arguments about how it is proper not to vaccinate because of the descendant cell lines. All of those arguments are torn to shreds with the slightest application of Moral Theology.

Since the 60's we have had this rule in place. Children need to be given vaccines.
The conspiracy theories are by large - extensive and cause fear.
Be careful how you trust in them more than caring for your children's health.

IHOM said:

Well if you cant see the potential for misplaced power using legislation to inject someone then your just foolish.

2nd all the infomation we have comes from the medical industry and big pharma

Click to expand...

Most laws, or lack of laws, one can see potential dangers in if one squints hard enough.

if you insist on behaving dangeously your freedom of movement may have to be restricted

IHOM said:

Well if you cant see the potential for misplaced power using legislation to inject someone then your just foolish.

2nd all the infomation we have comes from the medical industry and big pharma

Click to expand...

Actually no. We have tons of information from independent researchers. That we do not is a tactic used by some to encourage the use of only anecdotal evidence and false experts in order to get around pesky facts.

Your attempt is a common logical fallacy called Poisoning The Well. It is actually the common anti vax progression: Poisoning The Well (Discredit the source with no proof) in order to use Appeal to False Authority (cite false experts and anecdotal evidence) and Selective Observation (Cherry picking exceptions out of context) .So they are logical fallacies and inaccurate. So just stop at the well poisoning. It falls apart pretty quickly after that. The..."Then you are just foolish" is a nice toss in of the Ad Hominem fallacy to boot.

And the legislation is not: The government can forcibly inject you with anything with no recourse. That is simply not it. And to represent it at that is a misunderstanding at best. The legislation does not allow a precedent to just inject with no concept of common good. And, with our laws, it can never do that.

So there is no evidence that it is anymore harmful than sleeping in a bed (and is in fact 50 times safer even by the highest, albeit still provably inaccurate, estimates of anti vaccine groups.) It is also morally allowed and encouraged by the Church.

So both arguments...unsafe and immoral...totally empty. On one side provable fact and the teaching of the Church. On the other fantasy based in pseudo science and a morality that does not agree with the Church. You are free to choose what one you are on. But there are societal consequences to choosing a path. And walking one the Church not only does not recommend, but directly encourages the opposite...well your call.

IHOM said:

Do you trust your government?

Click to expand...

Logical Fallacy: Argument by Question. Inserting a question that is either irrelevant to the discussion or has no simple answer. Leading to another one...Argument to The Future as well as Appeal From Adverse Consequence. That some future misuse will justify your current position. None of that actually contains fact or rational justification. What makes these fallacious arguments is the fact that they are backed only by fear and speculation.

It is not necessary for me to trust my government to enact laws that are for the common good. It is not a case of since the government is potentially untrustworthy that we should not enact laws that deal with saving the lives of people out of fear of future misuse.

In particular since said laws are actually not ones that could lead to the scenario you have already stated since their structure prevent their misuse.

Do I trust the government? Not really. Should I let kids die because of a future misuse that can not happen in the given conditions? No. And make no mistake not vaccinating kills. You do realize that recent studies, ones that have been reproduced, show that one of the reasons mortality dropped when we started vaccinating for measles is that measles has the ability to wipe the body of it's immune record. Effectively making children (in particular) vulnerable to things that they previously had immunity from. Link

If you think we should not allow laws that could be misused even if enacting them will save lives...does that mean if you knew a child might...might...kill someone you can morally abort them?

Same situation...potential human sinfulness justifies the loss of life pre act. See where the logical application of your justifications go? You are essentially advocating allowing sickness and death from the fear of potential misuse. Even if that fear is not relevant given the structure of the proposed laws.

Logical Fallacy: Selective Observation

Cherry picking one statement out of context. An honest reading of my answer actually answers your question. So if you do not trust the government you can do something that is proven will hurt (mostly) kids, the sick and the elderly.

Using as justification that you do not trust the government. And then continue to argue in circuitous fallacies. You are basically creating a false dilemma. Or what Moral Theology calls an unjust alternative choice. But the Church has said this is not an unjust alternative choice.

You are free to choose to go against Faith and Science and the instruction of the Church based on logical fallacies. I would not. But you are free to do so. But you are not free from the consequences. One of those being eventually less access to public spaces and services where others can be harmed by the choices made.

All this talk about "taking away people's rights" - these are children, and they don't know anything about vaccinations other than what they hear from adults. If you give a kid a choice between whether they want to get a terrible disease, which may kill them and others, or having a shot that stops that happening, all but the ones who really don't care about anything will chose the shot. Parents shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of that because they don't like the idea of it. They're taking away their children's right to choose, and that's wrong.

IHOM said:

You wish to remove my freedoms based on your acceptance of a totally untrustworthy government say so....that is totalitarian and tyrannical.

Click to expand...

Your "freedom" is a tyranny. You want to infect my kids with diseases. Your kids don't want to infect other kids, but you do.

Government say so ... try long record of the extinction of diseases. <eye roll>