• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why Vaccinations Shouldn't be Optional

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by PsychoSarah, Nov 5, 2017.

  1. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +1,821
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    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 [​IMG]
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 13
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  2. bk199

    bk199 New Member

    9
    +12
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    • Like Like x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  3. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,327
    Private
    "My body, my choice" :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  4. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +1,821
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    How this doesn't apply to most of the diseases controlled by vaccines:
    Polio: Polio is primarily transmitted via contaminated water, but that isn't the only way it was transmitted. It's also airborne, meaning that an infected person coughing on healthy people could infect them. It can also be spread through kissing an infected person on the mouth.
    Flu virus, Chickenpox, Measles, Mumps, Yellow Fever, etc.: These aren't spread via water at all, thus improved water quality wouldn't reduce them. You'll also note that most of the critical water treatment procedures were in effect long before the polio vaccine was introduced. Most notably, the use of chlorine, which does kill polio in water, predates the huge US outbreak by over a decade. Hence part of why one of the major risks during that outbreak was swimming in fresh water lakes that weren't a part of the plumbing system.

    In short, improvements in plumbing and water treatment alone wouldn't be enough to prevent outbreaks of polio and many other diseases, which is supported by the historical fact that extensive water treatment that would have killed any polio in drinking water existed in many of the areas affected by polio much later on. Plus, it's not like all the freshwater lakes and rivers in the US now have been treated with chlorine.
     
  5. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +1,821
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    I'd agree if only your body was affected by that choice. I have an extreme fear of needles, but I get the flu vaccine every year because if I caught the disease and spread it to my immuno-compromised grandmother, she could very well die. My choice impacts her life and recognizing that, I forgo my choice and always get the shot.

    This isn't like getting an ear piercing or wearing sunscreen when going outside for extended periods of time; in this case, the decision affects the health of you and the people around you.

    Arguing that people should be able to choose whether or not they get vaccines is like arguing that people should be allowed to choose to drive drunk, even though it endangers other people.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  6. JackRT

    JackRT "Karma" can bite you in the butt Supporter

    +6,973
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    The second quote answers the first. Depending on the disease and its vector (how it is spread) herd immunity varies from 75% to 90%. By refusing vaccination and thereby lowering herd immunity level of your community you are not only needlessly endangering yourself but you are needlessly endangering those who cannot take the vaccine for good reason.
     
  7. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,327
    Private
    If someone is not vaccinated, and you believe they have affected your health, then take the case to a court of law and prove it.

    IMO this is the only way to preserve both individual freedom & choice, and also simultaneously provide for the ability for recompense for proven harms.

    Otherwise, we descend into the madness of faith-based compulsion, e.g. forcing people to attend & pay for Catholic masses because "it keeps them from eternal hell-fire".
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017
  8. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +1,821
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    -_- how would I know what unvaccinated person got my grandmother sick and killed her? You pass by hundreds of people every time you go out and about, so pinpointing the source of the disease would be unreasonable. Especially for diseases that are contagious before they show symptoms, like the flu.

    Individual freedom and choice stops where it intrudes upon the personal freedoms and choices of other people, as well as when it harms other people. Since choosing not to be vaccinated can harm other people, I do not think this is a choice people should be allowed to make.

    Oh, like the madness of requiring people to pay taxes? Or go to school? Oh such madness that is. Plus, you use an example that doesn't even apply; me going to hell because I am not a believer wouldn't drag someone else to hell regardless of their beliefs. From a Christian perspective, I harm no one but myself by not being a believer. That's not the case with vaccines.
     
  9. zephcom

    zephcom Active Member

    376
    +150
    United States
    Deist
    Married
    One always bumps up against opposition when one attempts to remove 'optional' from any public policy.

    In America, we have entire populations (ie homeless and poor) who simply can not afford the vaccines. What does one do with those people when 'optional' is taken away?

    There will always be some people who are simply contrary because that is their nature. How do we monitor them to ensure they have their vaccines current?

    How would we even find out who has been vaccinated or not?

    The amount of bureaucracy needed to ensure that 'optional' really goes away is mind boggling.

    Perhaps the better approach is to work harder to make people aware of the need for vaccines and to make the vaccines both readily available and free. That would cost less than trying to enforce mandatory vaccination.
     
  10. Circumcised_Heart

    Circumcised_Heart Active Member

    361
    +431
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Constitution
    And yet you're using this argument to justify why you want to force your medical preference for vaccination onto everyone. Perhaps it was a vaccinated person who got your grandmother sick? Perhaps your grandmother was the source and infected unvaccinated people, and perhaps they will sue you for having her vaccinated and making her more contagious for the incubation period?

    If vaccination, why not make other medical procedures mandatory, like circumcision, appendectomy or tonsillectomy? These could surely be demonstrated to improve the overall health of the population, allowing for hospitals to concentrate on less preventable diseases?

    If circumcision, appendectomy and tonsillectomy, why not forced sterilization for those with unwanted traits who may introduce a burden to society by having children?

    If forced sterilization, why not forced euthanasia for those deemed beyond help, or where the insurance cost outweighs the benefit, or even where it becomes inconvenient to help?

    I fear an unconstitutional medical requirement for vaccination would finalize paving the pathway to a totalitarian dystopia.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. bk199

    bk199 New Member

    9
    +12
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    [/QUOTE]


    "In short, improvements in plumbing and water treatment alone wouldn't be enough to prevent outbreaks of polio and many other diseases, which is supported by the historical fact that extensive water treatment that would have killed any polio in drinking water existed in many of the areas affected by polio much later on."

    treating the water has nothing to do with it. Not using drinking water sources as sewage disposal is what is necessary.

    Before columbus, every creek and river in the US was drinkable. The europeans are the ones who ruined that. We brought disease, by not living respectfully with the earth.

    If you are ASD i highly recommend abstaining from wheat and doing other things to clean up your diet and take care of your condition.


    "You'll also note that most of the critical water treatment procedures were in effect long before the polio vaccine was introduced. Most notably, the use of chlorine, which does kill polio in water, predates the huge US outbreak by over a decade. Hence part of why one of the major risks during that outbreak was swimming in fresh water lakes that weren't a part of the plumbing system."



    Again , water treatment has NOTHING to do with it. Did you even read the posted article at all?

    "How this doesn't apply to most of the diseases controlled by vaccines:
    Polio: Polio is primarily transmitted via contaminated water, but that isn't the only way it was transmitted. It's also airborne, meaning that an infected person coughing on healthy people could infect them. It can also be spread through kissing an infected person on the mouth. "

    This is insane. You obviously have no idea how disease works, or what an epidemic even is.

    There would be absolutely no significant cases of polio TO create a airborne or sexual transmission AS LONG AS FECES are being disposed of SANITARILY

    IE you could get polio from kissing someone on the mouth but basically only if they had been KISSING FECES first

    "Flu virus, Chickenpox, Measles, Mumps, Yellow Fever, etc.: These aren't spread via water at all, thus improved water quality wouldn't reduce them.'

    drun k drivers kill more people than the flu, society has marched fine without significant problems from chicken pox for along time, etc. etc. cancer quite frankly is much more of a hazard. This is ludicrous


    i'll post a nother article in a new post.
     
  12. bk199

    bk199 New Member

    9
    +12
    United States
    Christian
    Single
  13. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,327
    Private
    That's for you to prove, if you believe you were harmed by another. Why should I be forced to accept something that I believe will harm me, just to assuage your belief that my non-acceptance might harm someone else?

    Prove it.

    From a Buddhist perspective, non-Buddhists harm others by not being a follower. Shall we force everyone to become Buddhists then?
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  14. bk199

    bk199 New Member

    9
    +12
    United States
    Christian
    Single


    Odd indeed that the OP complains of "making people pay taxes" yet insists we need to create a massive citizen controlling "forced vacinations" program. And how would this be payed for?



    when i was young, meningitis came to town.

    Our highscholl had 1200 students.

    2 died.

    they were not the same age. not in the same grade. not in the same classes. were not friends. did not know eachother.

    No one could figure out any connection.


    there were a handful of other cases in the town, a few other causaulities.

    It was sad. quite sad.

    In a town of 50,000, i dont think we even lost 12 let alone 20.....


    A friend of mine was one of those killed.


    But look - out of 50,000 - how many died ?



    and we can't even find connection between them?



    clearly hundreds were immediately exposed - dozens of classmates all day, friends, family members.


    They never grew ill.





    so - how then?


    obviously there is more at play then _JUST_ the germ itself.




    no?




    Why doesn't anyone ever talk about _IMMUNITY_



    hmm?



    when people talk about infectious diseases in the US - why does no one ever DISCUSS HEALTHY IMMUNE SYSTEMS?



    Don't you think this is truly what we could do to be more productive?

    peace
     
  15. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +1,821
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    0 evidence that vaccines are harmful, aside from as very rare side effects
    tons of evidence that vaccines prevent disease and can even help protect people that can't get them, including the eradication of smallpox.

    Plenty of people think things are harmful which aren't, and I don't think my health or anyone else's should be compromised because of the ignorance of their neighbors.


    -_- are you seriously telling me to prove that sick people can infect other people, potentially killing those people? Really?
     
  16. bk199

    bk199 New Member

    9
    +12
    United States
    Christian
    Single
  17. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +1,366
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Very well said. Accurate and evidence based.
     
  18. HARK!

    HARK! Well-Known Member

    572
    +174
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    If God is with you; why would you need a vaccine?

    I'm so glad that I live in a country founded on protecting my unalienable God given right to be secure in my person.
     
  19. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +1,821
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Possible for sure, since vaccines don't guarantee that a person won't get the illness (especially if they were infected before getting it). However, if it was a vaccinated person, I would view it the same way as if a driver crashed into my grandmother and killed her because their breaks failed. I wouldn't view it as their fault. However, if they were driving around knowing that their breaks were faulty, that'd be a different story, since they were knowingly endangering other people, and they could have done something to prevent it. They could have, but they chose not to, and my grandmother died because of it.



    And they'd have no case, because you don't give live vaccinations to immuno-suppressed people. That is, she can't get the illness from any vaccines she can get. Also, quite presumptuous of you to think that my grandmother herself can be vaccinated, even though I said that certain disorders that compromise the immune system make a person ineligible for it.

    The first doesn't even reduce the risk of contracting any diseases enough to justify it, the second has too high of an infection risk to justify it in a healthy person, and tonsils are a part of your immune system itself and thus should only ever be removed if they endanger your life. Otherwise, their removal can slightly lower the effectiveness of your immune system in the future. That's why those procedures shouldn't be mandatory, and none of it applies to vaccines.

    Nope, the complications of the procedures alone would result in more sick people instead, which is why doctors don't just cut people open on a whim.

    -_- why are you bringing eugenics into this? A person having, say, Huntington's disease, doesn't impact the health of a stranger, now does it? It has a 50% chance of impacting any children they have, so they should seek genetic counseling when deciding whether or not to have a baby, but it is extremely rare for people to have a genetic defect that they are guaranteed to pass down which is particularly severe.

    Also, I don't think your "right to choose to be more at risk for illnesses that you could pass to others via touch or proximity" is equal to the "right to have children even though you know you risk passing down a genetic disease to them, but you'll never be able to pass it to anyone else". After all, you could choose to get a vaccine and reduce your risk of illness, but a person with a genetic disease usually can't prevent it from passing down if they have kids. Plus, since even detrimental mutations can result in some benefit, such as resistance to diseases, it makes no sense to try to restrict the gene pool like that.

    Clearly, I support the path that preserves the most life, so forcefully killing people is not on my agenda. I do not understand why you think making people get vaccinated is the same as getting ill people sterilized or straight up killing them. If that was my position, then I would say "kill everyone that has a disease in which humans are the only reservoir" because that would be faster than years of vaccination.

    You act like making people make healthy choices is evil just because it limits choice, but every law limits choice. People don't get to kill people because their religion dictates it should, is that totalitarian? Should rape be legalized because the law limits freedom? Laws limit harmful behaviors all the time, and refusing to be vaccinated is demonstrably harmful to yourself and other people.

    -_- also, you say it as if it is a new thing, when children in many countries are obligated to get certain vaccinations in order to attend public schools.

    You have very strange fears.
     
  20. JackRT

    JackRT "Karma" can bite you in the butt Supporter

    +6,973
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    Canada is part of America (as are about 35 other nations) and that is not true here. Vaccines are provided at no charge to everyone as needed.
     
Loading...