California Passes SB 277 Forcing All Children To Get Vaccinated

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-21-2015, 05:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Your supposed "point by point" is just you announcing that someone is wrong.  And giving no legitimate response.

You mean except for the actual facts and statistics that you ignored?  

Quote:I also never said anything about religion... Why are you?  It's not pertinent to parental rights to make health decisions for their kids.    Or were you just clinging to your preset topics to insult.

 

Probably because people use pseudo-science or religious beliefs to opt out of vaccinations. Do try and keep up.

Quote:And an abortion does affect us all.   We subsidize low income abortions which is the majority of them.  Plus the post depression meds.

Which is much cheaper than subsidizing the eventual person that would otherwise be born. So you are right, abortion does affect us all. In a positive way. Thanks abortion!

Quote:Not getting a vaccine does not mean child abuse.   Please educate yourself on what actual child abuse is.... Your a cop you should know better than that.....

Yes, depriving your child of medical attention "because" is a form of child abuse. So is telling your child that they're stupid. There's a range of abusive behavior. Don't even attempt to debate this topic with me you're less equipped to do so than usual.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-21-2015, 06:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You mean except for the actual facts and statistics that you ignored?  

 

Probably because people use pseudo-science or religious beliefs to opt out of vaccinations.  Do try and keep up.



Which is much cheaper than subsidizing the eventual person that would otherwise be born.  So you are right, abortion does affect us all.  In a positive way. Thanks abortion!


Yes, depriving your child of medical attention "because" is a form of child abuse.  So is telling your child that they're stupid.  There's a range of abusive behavior.  Don't even attempt to debate this topic with me you're less equipped to do so than usual.

Statistics where you choose to tell me what the definition of illegals were? That's not even the crux of the issue. Once again your avoiding the heart of the issue.

Last time I checked my name wasn't "people" so not sure why your making up a religious part of this discussion.

And as we have seen some places actually call it child abuse to let your kids play in a public park less than 1 mile from their house. So let's pretend like we aren't crazy like those areas ....

The heart of this matter is whether you think its ok as a parent to be overridden by the government when it Comes to medical decisions for your child. leave out the drama of making this a safety issue. No one is at risk and if they get something it's easily treatable.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-21-2015, 06:33 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Statistics where you choose to tell me what the definition of illegals were?   That's not even the crux of the issue.   Once again your avoiding the heart of the issue.

Lol, you're so bad at this.

Quote:Last time I checked my name wasn't "people" so not sure why your making up a religious part of this discussion.

 

Asked and explained. Not too smart?

Quote:And as we have seen some places actually call it child abuse to let your kids play in a public park less than 1 mile from their house.   So let's pretend like we aren't crazy like those areas ....

 

Last time I checked my name isn't "we".

Quote:The heart of this matter is whether you think its ok as a parent to be overridden by the government when it Comes to medical decisions for your child.     leave out the drama of making this a safety issue.

The answer in this case is sometimes yes.

Quote:  No one is at risk and if they get something it's easily treatable.

Polio is easily treatable?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-21-2015, 06:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lol, you're so bad at this.

 

Asked and explained.  Not too smart?

 

Last time I checked my name isn't "we".


The answer in this case is sometimes yes.


Polio is easily treatable?

In 1988:
- 125 countiries in the world still have polio
- 365,000 chilren are paralysed by polio.
- 18,000-36,000 children die of polio.

In 1988, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative begins immunising children.

In 2006:
- 4 countries in the world still have polio.
- 2,000 chilren are paralysed by polio.
- 100-200 children die of polio.

In other words, after 18 years of intensive polio vaccination, the incidence of polio was reduced by 99% and totally eliminated
from all but four countries, reducing paralysis per year from 365,000 to 2,000 and deaths per year from 18,000-36,000 to 100-200.



The vaccine can actually cause polio, but this occurs extremely rarely:

Every year in England and Wales:
- Over 2,000,000 doses of oral polio vaccine are given.
- There is 1 case of polio in someone who received the vaccine
- There is 1 case of polio caught from someone who was vaccinated.
- Before vaccination there were about 8000 cases of polio per year.



So I think the real question is:
Why would you NOT have your children vaccinated?


Based on the stats .. your chance of catching polio is 1 in 2000000 from the vaccine and zero if you don't get vaccinated.

But all this is irrelevant since you have finally admitted all you care about is taking away a parents right to make medical decisions for their kid. That's where we disagree.... I could care less to vaccine or not .... I vaccine .... But that doesn't mean my way is the only way for everyone. As you can see just with your polio example you thought was going to be slick..... The stats dont always add up

Thank you for finally admitting it and even though I don't agree I respect your belief for mass injections for every child.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-21-2015, 06:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: In 1988:
- 125 countiries in the world still have polio
- 365,000 chilren are paralysed by polio.
- 18,000-36,000 children die of polio.

In 1988, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative begins immunising children.

In 2006:
- 4 countries in the world still have polio.
- 2,000 chilren are paralysed by polio.
- 100-200 children die of polio.

In other words, after 18 years of intensive polio vaccination, the incidence of polio was reduced by 99% and totally eliminated
from all but four countries, reducing paralysis per year from 365,000 to 2,000 and deaths per year from 18,000-36,000 to 100-200.



The vaccine can actually cause polio, but this occurs extremely rarely:

Every year in England and Wales:
- Over 2,000,000 doses of oral polio vaccine are given.
- There is 1 case of polio in someone who received the vaccine
- There is 1 case of polio caught from someone who was vaccinated.
- Before vaccination there were about 8000 cases of polio per year.

Thank you for showing us how well vaccinations work and proving my argument for me.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-21-2015, 07:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for showing us how well vaccinations work and proving my argument for me.  

Yeah and there is now a higher risk of getting polio by being vaccinated than if you do not.

[SteelCitySouth]

(05-21-2015, 08:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah and there is now a higher risk of getting polio by being vaccinated than if you do not.

This is the most disingenuous use of statistics I have ever seen on either of these boards. completely intellectually corrupt.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-21-2015, 08:50 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: This is the most disingenuous use of statistics I have ever seen on either of these boards.   completely intellectually corrupt.

Well it is true.... At the core.... Like I have said the only thing I believe at risk here is parents ability to make medical choices for their children. I get vaccines for my kids and I would advocate for them to others but I don't wanna force anyone to inject their kids.

SSF threw polio out there to try and be snarky. I just replied with stats.

[GMDino]

(05-21-2015, 08:50 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: This is the most disingenuous use of statistics I have ever seen on either of these boards.   completely intellectually corrupt.

Yes...but progressives.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-21-2015, 09:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes...but progressives.

Vaccines = not progressive

Forcing people to get vaccinations because you think you know better = progressive

Your learning =)

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Well, that escalated quickly.

(05-20-2015, 07:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If schools wanna limit kids who havent had vaccines then that's fine ....

Did you read the article?  That is exactly what this law is about.  Second paragraph, "Parents who insist on not vaccinating their children have a choice however; they can home-school their children."

No one is taking away a parent's choice.  Parents can choose to vaccinate or not to vaccinate.  The state of California is telling parents the consequences of their choices; if you choose not to vaccinate your children then it is the parent's personal responsibility to provide an education for their child.

The government has a duty to "promote the general welfare" which should include a reasonably disease free environment at schools.  The majority of parents have their children vaccinated to reduce the risk of disease and their children shouldn't be forced to attend schools with unvaccinated children due to another parent's choice not to vaccinate.   Literally, every state has vaccination requirements and the requirements vary from state to state.  Florida has vaccination requirements.  Were you forced to vaccinate your kids because Florida's vaccination requirements?  No.  So your freedom wasn't taken away due to a vaccination requirement in your state you're apparently unaware of.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-21-2015, 09:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Vaccines = not progressive

Forcing people to get vaccinations because you think you know better = progressive

Your learning =)

If parents choose to ignore an overwhelming amount of evidence and the advice of every major medical organization in the world to vaccinate their children, then yes, other's know better.

But, again, no one is being forced to do anything. Parent's still have the right to choose. But, choices have consequences and they have to live with the consequences of their choices. Vaccinate or home school. Your choice.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-22-2015, 12:21 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, again, no one is being forced to do anything.  Parent's still have the right to choose.  But, choices have consequences and they have to live with the consequences of their choices.  Vaccinate or home school.  Your choice.

Yes they do and that's their choice to make and their consequences. As it should be.....

[StLucieBengal]

(05-22-2015, 12:13 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Well, that escalated quickly.


Did you read the article?  That is exactly what this law is about.  Second paragraph, "Parents who insist on not vaccinating their children have a choice however; they can home-school their children."

No one is taking away a parent's choice.  Parents can choose to vaccinate or not to vaccinate.  The state of California is telling parents the consequences of their choices; if you choose not to vaccinate your children then it is the parent's personal responsibility to provide an education for their child.

The government has a duty to "promote the general welfare" which should include a reasonably disease free environment at schools.  The majority of parents have their children vaccinated to reduce the risk of disease and their children shouldn't be forced to attend schools with unvaccinated children due to another parent's choice not to vaccinate.   Literally, every state has vaccination requirements and the requirements vary from state to state.  Florida has vaccination requirements.  Were you forced to vaccinate your kids because Florida's vaccination requirements?  No.  So your freedom wasn't taken away due to a vaccination requirement in your state you're apparently unaware of.

We have moved beyond the article and I was referring to the people who were saying that parents do not get a choice and the gov should force vaccinations on children because they know better.

Read the whole thread

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 03:45 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We have moved beyond the article and I was referring to the people who were saying that parents do not get a choice and the gov should force vaccinations on children because they know better.  

Read the whole thread

Not "the government knows better". SCIENCE knows better...the government is there to make sure the stupid people are taken care of too.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2015, 03:45 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We have moved beyond the article and I was referring to the people who were saying that parents do not get a choice and the gov should force vaccinations on children because they know better.  

Read the whole thread

I did read the whole thread and for the most part ignored the stupid BS. Now you're arguing over some imaginary hypothetical. I'm bring you back to reality. No one is taking away your freedom William Wallace so put the blue war paint away.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-22-2015, 09:35 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I did read the whole thread and for the most part ignored the stupid BS. Now you're arguing over some imaginary hypothetical. I'm bring you back to reality. No one is taking away your freedom William Wallace so put the blue war paint away.

Then you would have seen this last point was in response to a ridiculous notion.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-22-2015, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not "the government knows better".  SCIENCE knows better...the government is there to make sure the stupid people are taken care of too.  

No they are not. That's not the gov role. The fact you believe that is dangerous

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I love that we already have a classic thread in the new P&R. St. Lucie uses the effectiveness of the polio vaccine to argue against getting the polio vaccine.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-22-2015, 04:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I love that we already have a classic thread in the new P&R.  St. Lucie uses the effectiveness of the polio vaccine to argue against getting the polio vaccine.  

Yeah so effective that the stats don't warrant to continue to take the vaccine. You pose a higher threat of getting polio from taking the vaccine than not getting the vaccine and taking your chances as unvaccinated.