Shouldn't parents put their children first? Always?

amother

Chocolate

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 5:31 am

To respond to your question with some more non vax related examples (of NOT putting your own child’s needs first)...

I work at a school in an administrative capacity (ie principal). There have been many times when I’ve had the opportunity to make my child’s needs a priority over other students (ie a teacher that would be a great fit for her personality but not a great fit for the majority of her classmates, moving a different student in/out of the class to my daughter’s-but no one else’s-benefit...) and I have (appropriately I believe), never done it. I have always tried to choose what is best for the majority of the students over what is best for my own individual children.

OP, it sounds like you’re saying I did the wrong thing?

Aylat

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 5:47 am

amother [ Chocolate ] wrote:

That's acting with integrity. Good for you.

ggdm

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 11:36 am

Always putting yourself first is selfish. Always putting your child first is teaching your kid to be selfish. Always putting others first is setting youself up for being a shmatte. As always, the key is moderation.

If there one person can get ice cream and it's me or my child, most people would give the ice cream to the child. If it's my child's second serving and another child hasn't had any, it should go to the other child. If my child had and I hadn't had any, I may still give it to my child because I know she likes ice cream more, but it is also not selfish if I eat it myself.

I think we should maximize happiness of all people. Mostly making my child happy will make me happy. But sometimes my happiness comes first (e.g. child goes to babysitter because I go out with friends). And if my child's happiness makes othes unhappy, we need to weigh which is more important. And our children need to be taught that they are not always first, otherwise they will beome spoiled and entitled adults who are unfit for real life and its disappointments.

iyar

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 11:53 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I was reading through the "Stop the Hate" thread about anti-vaxers.

I am hoping somehow this wont become another vax-related debate thread... though it's based off that vax thread.

An Amother was basically called selfish for only thinking of her children when she decided (with doctor's advice according to her post) delay vaccinations for her children.

Please, let's not get into heard immunity and all of that.

The point is, or my question is, is it not appropriate for parents to do what's best for their children, putting their needs first? Pretty much across the board?

It seems such an odd thing to attack someone for.

It's hard to come up with any sort of parallel to compare.... I can't think off the top of my head what other sorts of choices I make for my kids that could potentially affect others in the way refusing to vax might. Yet I still find it wrong to condemn a mother who believes (right or wrong) that she is protecting her child from a serious hazard.

Thoughts?

OP I’m sorry if I’m going to repeat something already said, no time to read everything.
But when I read your post here’s what immediately came to mind-
A Rav recounting shaylos he was asked in the ghetto during the Holocaust told the following story-
A group of young boys was selected for deportation by train. Everyone knew that meant they were being taken to their deaths. A father of one of the boys came to the Rebbe. He was a wealthy man and had valuables he could barter with the guards watching the building where the boys were imprisoned overnight. He knew he could save his son. He knew also that there was a quota and the guards had to turn over a specific number of boys the next morning. The guard would simply take the bribe, release his son and take another Jewish child to imprison in his son’s place. The father wanted to know if he was allowed to save his son when that would certainly result in the death of another Jewish child. I know the Rebbe said he cried when he heard the Shayla. I don’t know what the response was.

We all love our children very much. Matters of life and death are not simple. There are values even higher than love, though that may be hard to accept. There are babies, people who are not well, who can have their lives endangered by those refusing to vaccinate their children. They need to consider that carefully, especially in light of the fact that their own children are not at risk of dying from vaccination.

mig100

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 12:26 pm

amother [ Chocolate ] wrote:

imho- I do not thing you did the wrong thing necessarily ( of course every situation is different- lets assume there's NOT an extenuating circumstance to emphasize one student over the others)

its simple. as a parent- their main concern has to b advocate and focus on what is best for THEIR CHILD. ( ie I see nothing wrong with the parent requesting to switch the childs class)

As a principal/ teacher etc- the focus hast to be on the majority.

of course- each party has to keep in mind the other sides needs also to some extent- making your job a difficult balancing act that I dont envy.

as essie14 and ayelet said- of course parents have to keep in mind and balance the needs of other children/ adults and not trample on them- even while trying to keep their childs best interest in place.

imorethanamother

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 4:09 pm

I don't agree with OP at all, but I think we are all deliberately missing the point. The dilemma for her, is this:

1) Vaccinate my child, and cause my child egregious harm.
2) Don't vaccinate my child, save them from harm, but put other children in danger.

For a teeny, tiny, miniscule portion of the world, #1 is a reality. But the overwhelming majority of children have absolutely no problem tolerating vaccines, and in fact vaccines are considered the main reason why we have population explosions and "overcrowding" of our planet. Because in fact vaccines protect us, keep us alive, and keep our children alive.

Now that we live in a world where health is taken for granted, where children live to become adults, and where a child's death is something shocking and rare, we start to believe that vaccines themselves are the clear and present danger facing our children. Because we don't see these diseases anywhere, we start to believe that any semblance of the disease into our child will hurt them. It's been couched in scary words like "toxins" and "adjuvants" that people don't really understand but throw them around.

So, OP. We argue that the mother in question is selfish because her reasoning is faulty. She believes that #1 is a given, and therefore #2 is the only option. But because #1 is so rare, what actually ends up happening that women are taking a gamble on hurting other people because she doesn't understand that her children actually benefit from vaccines. She is willingly putting her own children, not to mention others, in actual danger because of some boogyman she's called Autism or Allergies or Developmental Delays.

amother

Blonde

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 6:36 pm

So why is it ok for people to overuse and abuse antibiotics thereby putting the rest of us at risk for antibiotic resistant bacteria?

I will use herbs, vitamins, wait it out and see if it's truly bacterial before giving antibiotics but my neighbor, relative, etc. gives antibiotics right away so they can quickly send their kid back to school/go back to work and they ruined it for the rest of us.

Why is it ok, if you don't get a ticket, to text or talk on your cell phone, yes, your self-phone, and put the rest of us at risk? Nobody is screaming "Rodfim! Rotzchim!"

Just a thought.

amother

Honeydew

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 7:27 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

I don't think anyone really does, anymore. Antibiotics are by prescription only, and most doctors I know are hesitant (it's not the first line of defense for an ear infection anymore, for instance), and I've even heard of not giving preventative antibiotics anymore for that reason--that it should only be used in the case of an active infection. And I used to cringe every time I heard the phrase "leftover antibiotics", as in "I have leftover antibiotics to donate" because doesn't everyone know you need to finish the whole course? Except every time I've heard that recently was something like, they got a prescription for "just in case" while waiting for the results of the strep test (and strep DOES need antibiotics or it can lead to serious complications) and then they don't actually need them.

SixOfWands

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 7:27 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

Neither are OK, and I object to both. So let's not set up straw men, OK.

JoyInTheMorning

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 7:50 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

Here's another thought: I know a woman who, along with not vaxxing her kids, also wouldn't give them antibiotics or even get them tested for strep. She had a child who was sick for two months with a terrible sore throat. It would be bad for a week, she'd keep the kid home from school. The next week, the kid was better; kid went back to school. She "waited it out" and gave the kid herbs and homeopathic sugar pills and Manuka honey.

Finally, after ten or so other kids in the kid's class got sick, and got their siblings sick, and went to normal doctors, and tested positive for strep, the school insisted that this kid get tested. Sure enough, strep.

So don't tell me stories about how wonderful you are for "waiting it out" and not giving your kids antibiotics. If you don't make sure your kids don't have strep or some other treatable disease, you're not doing anyone any favors.

FranticFrummie

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 8:15 pm

The problem is when anti-vax people think they can have their cake and eat it too.

If you don't want to vaccinate, that's fine. Do not expose other people. EVER. You cannot make a choice that will potentially be fatal to vulnerable people, and then go about your day like nothing has happened.

If you make a choice that endangers people, you also must make the choice that protects others. That means isolation.

If you want to be a contributing member of society, you agree to the rules of that society, and act to protect ALL members of that society.

Expecting the rest of the world to deal with your bad life choices, is the epitome of selfishness. If you'd keep your unvaxxed family to yourself, nobody would be calling you names, and it wouldn't be an issue.

I still say anti-vaxxers should have their own island, far away from any main shipping routes if possible.

giselle

Wed, Apr 17 2019, 9:30 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

Those who have a hard time not using their cell phones don’t try to justify it. It’s terrible, and I’m not defending it, just pointing out the obvious difference.