Measles Outbreak! Children Threatened by Lack of Vaccines

[Bunnykid68]

I suggest you go back and reread the link you posted. The only reason it states that the child can go without a vaccine is for religions purposes. Usually those are Christian Scientists for one, and possibly Amish as well, but I'm not sure on the latter.

Otherwise they child will not be allowed to attend a public school with out the proper certification from their doctor proving that they've indeed had the shots necessary, including Hepatitis B.

7th Stepper

I'll have Bill check out the site you posted as well, to see if there's something in there that I missed. At least I'm keeping an open mind on the subject and not arguing the point over logistics.

All you have to do is write a letter each year that states your child will not be getting a vaccination do to religious reasons. The questioning stops there. They have no right to question ones religion. I seriously considered this because I did not want my kids to get the chickenpox vaccine. I felt it hadn't been around long enough and did not know much about it. In the end it didn't matter, their mother overruled me.

 

[hooky]

I suggest you go back and reread the link you posted. The only reason it states that the child can go without a vaccine is for religions purposes. Usually those are Christian Scientists for one, and possibly Amish as well, but I'm not sure on the latter.

Otherwise they child will not be allowed to attend a public school with out the proper certification from their doctor proving that they've indeed had the shots necessary, including Hepatitis B.

7th Stepper

I'll have Bill check out the site you posted as well, to see if there's something in there that I missed. At least I'm keeping an open mind on the subject and not arguing the point over logistics.

With all due respect, if you scroll down and read the code it allows for two ways a child can attend without vaccinations. A parent can object for religious reasons or a doctor can provide medical reasons. The religious objection requires no affiliation with a particular religion, church, order or sect to be honored.

 

[7th Stepper]

With all due respect, if you scroll down and read the code it allows for two ways a child can attend without vaccinations. A parent can object for religious reasons or a doctor can provide medical reasons. The religious objection requires no affiliation with a particular religion, church, order or sect to be honored.

All you have to do is write a letter each year that states your child will not be getting a vaccination do to religious reasons. The questioning stops there. They have no right to question ones religion. I seriously considered this because I did not want my kids to get the chickenpox vaccine. I felt it hadn't been around long enough and did not know much about it. In the end it didn't matter, their mother overruled me.

I know guys, that why I said that I was going to have someone far more knowledgeable about the laws than I am (and I'll be the first one to admit that laws of any sort confuse me, and can also be bent to use to ones own advantage, regardless of their intent, those are called "loopholes") check out that section for me. I'm awaiting his resolution and explanation now.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Our daughter was indeed vaccinated against just about everything out there. Would we do it again today? Not without a hell of a lot more discussion beforehand. I've heard and read enough since then that I'd not just go through it by rote and essentially tell the doc "whatever... sure, go ahead"

With that said, yes, you can lie and claim a religious exception for your children or you can go the honest route to which hooky referred: "Hey doc, could this vaccination be detrimental to my child's health?" and of course, the answer is yes; there are always side effects possible. Anything is "possible". "Likely" is not addressed. The vaccination, therefore, "is or may be detrimental" and an exemption is legally possible. I don't know that this is a good or a bad thing; for me, the jury is still out, but I can say that I do not agree with the idea of government force being used to jam needles with potential poisons into the bodies of small children. Parents, not government, raise children, unless of course, we want to enter Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. No thanks.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

It's a tradeoff. There are indeed adverse reactions, but there are fatalities with diseases. The fatality rate for measles is about 0.3%, as opposed to a "fever induced seizure" rate of 0.04% with the MMR vaccine. That's not even fatalities. No contest for me. Autism? Something's going on, but vaccinations doesn't seem to be it. They don't put thimerosal in them any more, and they haven't for a long time.

 

[RockofStrength]

People are accidentally killed with guns, cars, and numerous other things but you aren't willing to give up those things to save even one person are you?

A strawman, and a terrible one at that. I'm not talking about accidental deaths nor am I trying to force everyone else to use a firearm or a car by law. I'm saying I cannot see the logic of forcing every person to be vaccinated and then glossing over even a .01% death/severe damage rate merely because it makes everyone else safe. The proponents of vaccinations openly acknowledge that a very rare few suffer serious damage or death because of a vaccine: when it's voluntary, the rareity is a good thing. It makes vaccination a generally reasonable choice to most people. Those who don't like even the rarest of odds won't use them, and the freedom ball keeps on a rollin'.

When you make them mandatory, however, even the rarest chance becomes a guarantee and the issue is only the number of people who will die vs. those who will live. I don't see myself or anyone else being egotistical enough to condemn a few to die for the sake of the safety of the majority.

 

[eatsnopaste]

A strawman, and a terrible one at that. I'm not talking about accidental deaths nor am I trying to force everyone else to use a firearm or a car by law. I'm saying I cannot see the logic of forcing every person to be vaccinated and then glossing over even a .01% death/severe damage rate merely because it makes everyone else safe. The proponents of vaccinations openly acknowledge that a very rare few suffer serious damage or death because of a vaccine: when it's voluntary, the rareity is a good thing. It makes vaccination a generally reasonable choice to most people. Those who don't like even the rarest of odds won't use them, and the freedom ball keeps on a rollin'.

When you make them mandatory, however, even the rarest chance becomes a guarantee and the issue is only the number of people who will die vs. those who will live. I don't see myself or anyone else being egotistical enough to condemn a few to die for the sake of the safety of the majority.

I don't want them mandatory either. I just want the party who chooses NOT to employ a "reasonable choice" (your words) to be held accountable when their decision affects others.If you choose to not vaccinate your child and he/she makes another child ill...YOU pay, simple...right? fair?...right? We all want to stand up for what we believe in, we all must shoulder the responsibility of our actions.

 

[rambone]

Its interesting to watch individualists turn into rights-stomping collectivists when it comes to medicine and the "safety" of their children.

 

[hooky]

I don't want them mandatory either. I just want the party who chooses NOT to employ a "reasonable choice" (your words) to be held accountable when their decision affects others.If you choose to not vaccinate your child and he/she makes another child ill...YOU pay, simple...right? fair?...right? We all want to stand up for what we believe in, we all must shoulder the responsibility of our actions.

If the other child is vaccinated, how could this ever be an issue?

 

[rambone]

Well, there all kinds of things we can do as a society to parents who will not listen but what is the best course of action?

"Do as a society" ?? Like what? You wanna take kids away from parents for making different medical choice than you?

Except when the parents destroy their children.

Disease is not in any way, shape, or form, equivalent to murder. Only in a distopian science fiction novel would people be imprisoned for refusing drugs.

At what point does a society intervene? Never? When the vaccines are just administered? When there is an outbreak? When the child is ill? When the child dies?

When do we a society take action against the parents?

"We" as a society should quit trying to be nannies and social engineers. You're arguing for collectivist medicine if you think society has ANY say in what my family puts in their bodies.

My kids cannot catch head injuries from that kid without the helmet. My kids cannot catch COPD from that kid that is around the smoking parents.

Falling off your bicycle is one thing, but dying from the measles is another.

Its EXACTLY the same collectivist philosophy; Society forcing standards on individuals to mitigate risk, while sacrificing individual choice and liberty. A Nanny State imposed for our own good. Only forced vaccines are far more invasive than helmet laws.

Do we allow kids to die for the political position of the parents?

People reject vaccines for medical, religious, political, and other reasons. Not to mention it is your unalienable right to not have your body be invaded by the government.

The majority of people I have met, who stopped vaccinating, did so after one of family members had a horrible reaction. With the bombardment of so many new vaccines, it is no wonder that the number of people opting out is rising. A lot of them have already been victims.

is this your right also? If a child dies of complications of measles, (immune system not functioning well, old vax, poorly made vax...) shouldn't you be held accountable? Aren't you going to stand up and say it was your decision and you will take the consequences?

Accountable for a disease? Take your anger to church if you want to demand some accountability for death by natural causes. You're angry at nature!

There was an episode of Law & Order/SVU that centered on that. A mother hadn't had her child immunized, and when he contracted the disease (I can't remember which one, I think it was measles) another child in his class caught it and died from it. They tried to hold the mom for "involuntary manslaughter" because of her not getting her son vaccinated. But I don't remember the end, whether she was or wasn't convicted.

I would like to see this episode, but it sounds like blatant propaganda and exactly the reason I gave up paying for cable TV. Disgusting.

The wacko anti-science parents don't care about other children. They are more than happy to sacrifice them.

Social engineers care so much more about the society's children than the parents themselves do.

If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, cool. However, they don't get to attend public school. It's bad enough the cold/flu bugs sweep through a school faster than you can react.

Compulsory education laws + mandatory vaccinations = tyranny.

There are currently exemptions in all 50 states. These are under attack all the time. The 4th amendment is barely hanging by a thread in some places.

P'raps not, but I wasn't going to fight it, especially as he'd already had them. Just couldn't get the bureaucrats at the doctor to fax the damn thing. They did say clearly he wasn't allowed back, whether that had force of law or not.

You live in Indiana? May I ask which school this was? I will personally write them a letter. They broke the law.

I just want the party who chooses NOT to employ a "reasonable choice" (your words) to be held accountable when their decision affects others.If you choose to not vaccinate your child and he/she makes another child ill...YOU pay, simple...right? fair?...right?

Wrong!! Punish parents because a naturally occurring disease claimed their child?! NO!!

Riddle me this: Who should be punished when children get maimed and killed from vaccines? Should it be the parents who allowed it? Should the doctors be booked for murder? The vaccine companies who sell drugs full of neurotoxins, carcinogens, and poisons? The legislators? You?


AHH!!

 

[Westside]

the report said there were 214 cases last year in the USA. Assuming an American population or 300,000,000 that is 0.000000713%. I will start to worry when .5% of the country gets the measles or there are 100 confirmed cases in the state of Indiana. Until then keep your dirty hands off my kids.

 

[Benny]

the report said there were 214 cases last year in the USA. Assuming an American population or 300,000,000 that is 0.000000713%. I will start to worry when .5% of the country gets the measles or there are 100 confirmed cases in the state of Indiana. Until then keep your dirty hands off my kids.

Sorry, but your stats are flawed. You have to subtract every single person from that 300 million that has been vaccinated and then divide.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I agree with the principles of vaccinating. No one can argue with the general premise.

I'm just not sure that using lab created vaccines is the optimum route to go with that.

 

[rambone]

This is the logical conclusion when you let society dictate your personal decisions. From Canada.

12-year-old boy arrested for refusing STD vaccine - Toronto

Coming soon to the U.S.S.A.

 

[serpicostraight]

when you let the government dictate parts of your life it wont be long and they will have a dictator to control all parts of your life.

 

[RockofStrength]

I don't want them mandatory either. I just want the party who chooses NOT to employ a "reasonable choice" (your words) to be held accountable when their decision affects others.If you choose to not vaccinate your child and he/she makes another child ill...YOU pay, simple...right? fair?...right? We all want to stand up for what we believe in, we all must shoulder the responsibility of our actions.

I am legally responsible for the fact that an obviously not 100% effective vaccine was incapable of keeping other children from being sick when mine became so? I'm responsible for the actions of a disease that, even were I vaccinated, I could still get and pass on?

You would have to prove that not only was my child the source of the disease your child got (as opposed to any other source possible like infected doorknobs, water etc) but also that my child would not have gotten the disease had he been vaccinated and thus my lack of vaccination is responsible for yours being ill. It should be noted that that very premise is destroyed by the fact that a person who got a vaccine still managed to get the disease!

By that logic, should you not be able to sue anyone who gives you the flu if it happens to be one of the strains that could have been vaccinated against? Granted you'd only be able to sue for the minor loss of job time or whatever that even a severe bout of flu could give you, but still.

 

[vincent228]

I have to agree with a post some pages back. Soempeople are using the recent epidemic of autism as a reason to not vacinate. But vacinations do not cause autism. how do i know ? my 10 year old baby girl is autistic. they have autism in the womb. its caused by a gene. the only problem is that fact that sometimes there is not enough testing when they start mixing these multi shots. One of the things the autism society is looking at , is the fact that a vaccine i or my wife received when we were kids could in some cases make a dormant gene (the one for autism) become non-dormant in some people, thus casuing the huge epidemic of autism lately. the same way that not enough testing was done with Thalidomide, an anti-nausea medicine prescribed during the 1960s, caused birth defects called phocomelia (absence of most of the arm with the hands extending flipper-like from the shoulders). So the argument can go either way. but im sure there is danger from a measles shot.