And we take a step back - measles return

[fskimospy]

Laws that rounded up those savage native americans to be put on a reservation were ok? After all, to live in a society we have to make sacrifices.

Laws that sterilized tens of thousands of undesirables during the 20th century were ok? After all, living in a free society requires scarifies.

There is a difference in living in a society and living in a free society.

Your arguments aren't making any sense, they are all over the place.

To live in a society you need to make sacrifices. That does not mean that any and all laws that force you to sacrifice freedom are a good thing. Vaccination laws easily meet the standard of what is good, however.

 

[Texashiker]

How would sterilisation stop the spread of HIV?

It would stop mothers from passing hiv to their children.

 

[Texashiker]

To live in a society you need to make sacrifices.

How far should we sacrifice our individual rights to live in a free society?

 

[nickbits]

Ive read that pertussis (whooping cough) cases are also increasing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Trying to control nature, one of man's dumbest ideas.

Mother nature always wins.

Tell that to smallpox

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How far should we sacrifice our individual rights to live in a free society?

When your fist strikes the nose of someone else's child.

 

[fskimospy]

How far should we sacrifice our individual rights to live in a free society?

In this case right up to where you no longer are passing along potentially fatal diseases to children due to an ignorant and paranoid delusion about vaccine safety.

 

[JimKiler]

Did any of the children in those examples die? Were they left disabled?

We have demonized getting sick, when it is nothing more than a natural process.

There is a reason why we have an immune system, there is a reason why we have childhood diseases, there is a reason why it is good for kids to eat dirt.

Nope but that infant could have easily died, he lost 6 lbs dropping to 12lbs, that is one third of his weight, very scary! If enough people have vaccines, even the unvaccinated in the herd are protected, but thanks to bad research and Jenny McCarthy, we no longer have the herd protection from vaccines.

 

[WelshBloke]

It would stop mothers from passing hiv to their children.

Because that's the primary method of infection and would make a huge difference to the infection rate?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Laws that rounded up those savage native americans to be put on a reservation were ok? After all, to live in a society we have to make sacrifices.

Laws that sterilized tens of thousands of undesirables during the 20th century were ok? After all, living in a free society requires scarifies.

There is a difference in living in a society, and living in a free society. Our goal is to live in a free society where the rights of the individual are upheld. Without individual rights, we have nothing.

Whoa. As I read it gets better or no, worse.

You know it's unfair I can't run red lights and stop signs. And who is anyone to tell me what I can do with my body? Where, when or how I travel? If I want to drink as much as I want it's my business. If I want to drive who are you to stop me? If I do both at the same time you have the right to stay out of my way.

 

[Exterous]

People are not robots, and they don't evaluate risks strictly based on some probability table in a database. They operate on perceived risk and perceived benefit. Your notion of what is acceptable risk and what is not should not be forced on someone else.

You might have a point if it were not for the fact that people who did not get the vaccine are forcing their notion on what is acceptable risk on everyone around them. Why are you arguing that forcing notions of acceptable risk is ok for some groups that you happen to agree with but not for others whose views you don't share?

Now if we make them isolate themselves to keep others from getting diseased/sick/killed because of their choice then we may be able to reach an area of compromise

So you think because they already do something it's OK to add more? Since people already rob houses it's OK for more robberies to occur? Talk about a flawed premise

That is one of the stupidest analogies I have heard on P&N for a while. How can you possibly think that having a government require you to do things in any instance (Which almost everyone in the world participates in) is equivalent to a robbery?

 

[Texashiker]

In this case right up to where you no longer are passing along potentially fatal diseases to children due to an ignorant and paranoid delusion about vaccine safety.

My argument is not about paranoid delusion or vaccine safety, it is about individual rights.

A few weeks ago a local girl, she was around 12 years old, was killed in a car wreck. The mother was driving along when a truck turned in front of her.

A few months ago a husband wife couple were killed in a motorcycle wreck.

A few years ago a friend of the family died of lung cancer. The cancer probably developed from smoking for 40 years.

We need to do something to prevent those kinds of deaths.

No matter what you do we will never live in a perfect society.

Because that's the primary method of infection and would make a huge difference to the infection rate?

HIV does kill more people than measles,,, right?

 

[nehalem256]

Because that's the primary method of infection and would make a huge difference to the infection rate?

What is the chance that a mother with HIV will spread HIV to her unborn child?

What is the chance that a person not vaccinated against measles will contract measles and spread to an infant that has not been vaccinated?

I don't think you can say that the HIV case has a much lower probability than the measles case. So if you are for forced vaccination you should be for forced sterilization of people with HIV.

 

[WelshBloke]

What is the chance that a mother with HIV will spread HIV to her unborn child?

What is the chance that a person not vaccinated against measles will contract measles and spread to an infant that has not been vaccinated?

I don't think you can say that the HIV case has a much lower probability than the measles case. So if you are for forced vaccination you should be for forced sterilization of people with HIV.

Measles - airborne and very, very contagious.
HIV - very limited method of spread and not very contagious.

 

[momeNt]

There is no "WE". There are select individuals who have refused the vaccine, and are paying the consequence for it. Grouping those select individuals with other select individuals and attempting to form a class of people (see: "we") and then say that "we" have taken a step back by allowing this disease back into our class. Is trying to externalize problems that are otherwise completely internalized to those making the decisions for themselves and their families. Why the hell should I care? Oh right "we" took a step back right?

Aside from the very few people unable to get the vaccines but hope to free-load on the vaccination herd immunity, the problem is completely internalized to people making decisions for their children. There are other approaches that those with compromised immune systems can do to minimize their exposure instead of relying on some sort of forced vaccination scheme and resultant herd immunity to protect them.

 

[nehalem256]

Measles - airborne and very, very contagious.
HIV - very limited method of spread and not very contagious.

Of course I was talking about eliminating a specific method of spreading it.

HIV-infected women are still fertile, although in late stages of HIV disease a pregnant woman may have a higher risk of miscarriage. Normally, the risk of transmitting HIV to the unborn child is between 15–30%. However, this may be reduced to just 2–3% if patients carefully follow medical guidelines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscon...S#An_HIV-infected_mother_cannot_have_children

So why is it okay to mandate medical procedures that involves forcibly injecting live viruses into a defenseless child just because the child was born, but a horrible violation of a woman's right to sterilize her after she contracts a deadly virus, that is largely contracted due to lifestyle choices, that can be passed to her unborn child?

 

[momeNt]

Of course I was talking about eliminating a specific method of spreading it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscon...S#An_HIV-infected_mother_cannot_have_children

So why is it okay to mandate medical procedures that involves forcibly injecting live viruses into a defenseless child just because the child was born, but a horrible violation of a woman's right to sterilize her after she contracts a deadly virus, that is largely contracted due to lifestyle choices, that can be passed to her unborn child?

I think the correct answer to your question is neither are okay.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no "WE". There are select individuals who have refused the vaccine, and are paying the consequence for it. Grouping those select individuals with other select individuals and attempting to form a class of people (see: "we") and then say that "we" have taken a step back by allowing this disease back into our class. Is trying to externalize problems that are otherwise completely internalized to those making the decisions for themselves and their families. Why the hell should I care? Oh right "we" took a step back right?

Aside from the very few people unable to get the vaccines but hope to free-load on the vaccination herd immunity, the problem is completely internalized to people making decisions for their children. There are other approaches that those with compromised immune systems can do to minimize their exposure instead of relying on some sort of forced vaccination scheme and resultant herd immunity to protect them.

They are paying the consequence, and any children under two who happen to get too close to them will also pay the consequence.

Completely internalized to those individuals and their families? That's just not even remotely accurate.

 

[nehalem256]

I think the correct answer to your question is neither are okay.

Which is a totally consistent view.

I was calling out the people like Esikmo that have no problems forcing medical procedures on infants, but throw a fit if the same thing is suggested of grown women.

I guess the difference is that infants can't vote so there is no need to pander them.

 

[Texashiker]

There is no "WE". There are select individuals who have refused the vaccine, and are paying the consequence for it. Grouping those select individuals with other select individuals and attempting to form a class of people (see: "we") and then say that "we" have taken a step back by allowing this disease back into our class.

Society has always paid a price for individual freedoms.

Whether smokers develop cancer, which causes the rest of us to pay higher premiums; or heavy drinkers who need a liver transplant; or people who develop heart disease and need bypass surgery. All of those choices have a trickle down effect on society.

A few months ago I took a truck load of scrap iron to the recyclers. They had to take my picture and make a copy of my drivers license because of the recent metal thieves. Why should I be inconvenienced because someone else stole and sold a bunch of copper.

Measles is pretty much preventable through vaccination, and poverty is pretty much preventable through education and job training.

A child getting sick for a few days is sad, but children spending a lifetime in poverty is a greater tragedy.

If we really want to address issues that society faces, measles is a drop in the bucket.

 

[momeNt]

They are paying the consequence, and any children under two who happen to get too close to them will also pay the consequence.

Completely internalized to those individuals and their families? That's just not even remotely accurate.

How is an unvaccinated two year old going to be exposed to someone with measles? Now think of your answer, and propose a solution that a responsible parent might do to ensure that whatever you answer doesn't happen to protect their children.

You have now just arrived at a solution without growing government and forcibly vaccinating children. Congratulations! The world is now a freer place because we used our brains and entrusted some responsibility to parents.

 

[xBiffx]

Tell that to smallpox

I would have thought that you at least would have picked up on the sarcasm of my comment. Others that have replied I wasn't surprised. Apparently I was typing too serious for that comment.

How many times have I commented on GMO's and the like for this comment to seriously be taken as anything but sarcasm.

Oh well, /sarcasm from now on it is.

 

[fskimospy]

How is an unvaccinated two year old going to be exposed to someone with measles? Now think of your answer, and propose a solution that a responsible parent might do to ensure that whatever you answer doesn't happen to protect their children.

You have now just arrived at a solution without growing government and forcibly vaccinating children. Congratulations! The world is now a freer place because we used our brains and entrusted some responsibility to parents.

Wait, what?

Whooping cough is both highly contagious and frequently transmitted to children by individuals who don't even know they have the disease, due to a long incubation period. Measles is similarly believed to be contagious during asymptomatic periods.

To prevent infection a responsible parent will neither allow their child to go outside until they are two, nor will they allow anyone who has been outside to come in contact with their baby as there is no way of knowing who is infected and who isn't. All food will be irradiated before coming through the vacuum sealed tube to their room.

Thank god for freedom.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I would have thought that you at least would have picked up on the sarcasm of my comment. Others that have replied I wasn't surprised. Apparently I was typing too serious for that comment.

How many times have I commented on GMO's and the like for this comment to seriously be taken as anything but sarcasm.

Oh well, /sarcasm from now on it is.

Sarcasm meter lied again

This is one of those topics where inconsistencies are expected and so things may lead me astray.

For example one here argues for health care being a right then argues against one of the safest and effective means to deliver it. In essence he wants it yet proposes it be denied those most helpless. No additional program, no doubt as to efficacy. No upheaval. Not poorly thought out and the consequences for good and ill are established. It's care in true form at a basic level. Doesn't add up as I look at it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Of course there was never any doubt that authoritarian elitists who think the government should control any and all aspects of your life (hello eskimospy!) would have no problem forcing others to do what they want them to do at gunpoint. Hey, gotta sacrifice your freedom at the altar of big government right?

The sane among us however want people to make the right choice through education instead of government force and mandates.