Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children for son

Hashem_Yaazor

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 10:46 am

Barbara wrote:

So you considered the "question" of how much cancer occurs amongst the vaccinated vs non-vaccinated populations to be a real question, even with the sig "more vaccines = more death and disease" immediately below it?

Let me see if I get my parameters straight here. So I go on a home birthing thread and say, "how many babies die due to complications from home birth, that would have been treatable at a hospital?" Just above my sig that says "homebirthing endangers babies" and that would be fine. Since it's just a question. (And I don't know why I'm saying that, because I don't believe it, but it's all I could come up with.)

Good to know the parameters. I'll remember that from now on.

If your issue is with the tagline, take it up with Yael.
I can understand why it bothers you. I don't moderate signatures though, and I honestly never paid attention to it (or anyone's).

The question though is ok, as would your homebirthing question (provided it's not in a thread where OP is planning a homebirth and looking for support). In a discussion/debate, it's a perfectly reasonable question.

Questions like this should be discussable. I think it's a good way to learn.

southernbubby

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 10:51 am

amother wrote:

Im not sure what you mean by social contract. I never signed one. Smokers will still smoke. The government allows vaccine exemption for a reason, social contract or not. An unvaccinated child is allowed to go to public school or any school according to law with the proper exemptions. It's called freedom.

No one signs a social contract. It basically means that as a nice person in society, I give up my seat on the train to an elderly or disabled person or pregnant woman, and while there is a sign on the train to that effect, I doubt that it is enforced. It is a matter of social contract. As a member of society, I don't drive aggressively, even if I am not actually breaking laws. I am not supposed to cut the line in the bank or stores or cough in people's faces while in public. I bathe and wear deodorant in order not to offend others. I may make my grandchildren allow other children at the playground, a turn at the swings.

Some things are laws such as I have to cut the grass but the law does not say that I have to get rid of the weeds or plant flowers; social contract says that as a good neighbor, I will do those things. Maybe I will not spray the weeds with chemicals that will make the neighbors sick or mow the lawn at times when I know that people will be disturbed by the noise. Signs in doctor's offices prohibiting cell phone use is usually because it is disturbing to others; it violates a social contract that the waiting room is a quiet place.

amother

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 10:56 am

southernbubby wrote:

The social contract does not require giving up cars or driving a Prius. One example of the social contract is the elimination of smoking in public areas.

...which took years to institute. Social contracts change constantly. I still worry for my own first.

southernbubby

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 11:00 am

amother wrote:

...which took years to institute. Social contracts change constantly. I still worry for my own first.

I worry for my own first too but if we all put ourselves first and give nothing to society, then there is no society. For example, we have communities because society minded people built them. Schools and hospitals did not just fall from the sky. Someone cared enough to bring them into existence. They did not simply say that they wanted to simply care for themselves and to hell with everyone else. I can worry about my own, only because someone else also worried about my own.

amother

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 11:01 am

For those of you that put your faith in science: do you believe in the Big Bang? Do you believe that the world is billions and billions of years old? Do you believe that humans evolved from monkeys? All this is scientific and based on their limited research. If science is not flawed then I don't understand why you wouldn't.

southernbubby

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 11:05 am

amother wrote:

There are those scientific theories that are merely academic and there are those things in science by which we actually live. That I am able to use this computer to interact with so many people at one time is applied science. The exact age of the earth or how it got here is an academic exercise that will not really affect how I live. Science is not perfect but we rely on science and scientists for much more than we realize.

Barbara

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 11:06 am

amother wrote:

The social contract is what allows us to function as a society. We all give up certain rights, in return for certain protections.

When someone says that even though their decisions could endanger the health of another person, they will take no actions, and allow no actions, to mitigate that danger, they violate the social contract.

In this case, in order to protect the at-risk child, the following actions could be taken:

(1) vaccinate;
(2) permit your unvaccinated child to be placed in a segregated classroom (with other unvaccinated children), so that the at-risk child is not harmed;
(3) permit your unvaccinated child to be placed in another school, with other unvaccinated children (and vaccinated children who are not at-risk).

The overwhelming response was NO. Keep your at-risk kid at home. I have no obligation to keep my kid from killing yours. Apparently, that's what you believe. That an at-risk child should be deprived of schooling and social contact rather than your children being slightly inconvenienced.

I feel very sad for people who care only for themselves, and would allow another child to be gravely harmed rather than give an inch. It's supremely selfish, and antithetical to all I believe in.

Barbara

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 11:09 am

amother wrote:

Science doesn't say that humans evolved from monkeys. If your understanding of vaccine science is as weak as your understanding of evolutionary theory, I understand why you have accepted the junk science of the anti-vaccination movement.

And the world is billions of years old.

imaima

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 11:18 am

Barbara wrote:

You discount the risk to your own children from vaccine preventable diseases.

Would you be willing to deliberately expose your children to polio? Small pox?

In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths annually. In the US, between 3 and 4 million people contracted measles each year; of those, 48,000 were hospitalized, 4,000 developed the life-threatening brain condition encephalitis, and 400 to 500 died. (Stats from, of all places, Mother Jones.) In the current outbreak, 25% of its victims are hospitalized. Hey, its going around in California. Go expose your children, and let me know how "blown out of proportion" it is.

If not, what you are doing is relying upon others to vaccinate their children, so that your children can benefit from the herd immunity.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. In order to attend school, you must show that your child has immunity to vaccine preventable disease (or, for those who dont' develop immunity, has had the vaccine or disease), unless there is a verfiable medical exemption, strictly construed. You don't want to inoculate against polio? Expose your kids to it. I'm sure that they'll recover just fine. After all, you've told me that the risk from it is blown out or proportion. My only caveat would be that medical insurance not cover hospitalizations as a result of this exposure. No worried. That risk is just overblown.

Don't worry. The highly educated amother will pay for hospitalization out of her pocket.

imaima

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 11:23 am

Ruchel wrote:

Southernbubby has it right. It's a social contract. But rightfully or not many now don't believe in duty to society.

Do you not believe in your duty to klal yisrael? As we live in a society with close family ties and frequent social gatherings, where many women are often either pregnant or with an infant, a large number of people are constantly in a state of being immunocompromised.

Even if a woman is normally immune to something, she is more vulnerable during pregnancy.

If a woman has a baby every two years, there is always someone at risk in her household.

Think1st

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 11:23 am

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Ah, so he is saying people who VACCINATE are 'pesoyim'. Not as a put down but as a way of showing there is protection despite the danger.

Amother was saying people who DON'T vaccinate are pesoyim, fools...as a put down.

The source of shomer pesayim Hashem , It seems to apply to a case of NOT doing medical intervention

http://halakhah.com/kethuboth/......html

Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman:3 Three [categories of] women may use an absorbent4 in their marital intercourse:5 a minor, and an expectant and nursing mother. The minor,6 because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,6 because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.7 A nursing mother,6 because otherwise she might have to wean her child [prematurely]8 and this would result in his death.9 And what is [the age of such] a minor?10 From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under,11 or over this age12 must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages said: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner, and mercy.13 will be vouchsafed from Heaven, for it is said in the Scriptures, The Lord preserveth the simple.14

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....1028/
studies found childhood mumps might protect against ovarian cancer.[b]

http://www.vaccinationcouncil......re-2/

Last edited by Think1st on Thu, Jan 29 2015, 11:38 am; edited 1 time in total