CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp

[OkToBeTakei]

1. Not everyone can produce breastmilk, so relying on breastmilk isn't helpful.

2. Colostrum is produced for the first few days (even up to two weeks), and doesn't come in plentiful amounts, so using it on eyes instead of for feeding seems ridiculous

3. I've yet to find ANY studies that prove that breastmilk works. I'm sure that it has definitely helped in some cases, but that doesn't mean that it's actually an effective form of treatment in all cases.

4. In most states that require them, you can opt out if you've been tested for STIs and you're free of an infection

5. They're just a couple drops to kill any bacteria on the eye from the childbirth process. It's not like you're sending the kid home with them ore anything. It's fundamentally no different than using antibacterial soap.

I can see all your points.

Except. It's never been done in the UK . We don't have a huge blindness issue in infants.

Food for thought?

My automatic conclusion is always, money maybe?

[PennySycamore]

DuggarsTheEndIsNear, there are anti-dog-vaxxer people? OY VEY!!

It is my understanding that Canada, Australia, Japan, Malaysia, the US and the countries of western Europe have eradicated rabies in the dog population. However, in most of these countries (not the UK) rabies still exists in the wild mammal population. If a non-vaccinated dog gets bitten by one of these rabid animals, it will get rabies and it will die. It will also potentially spread the disease to a non-vaccinated dog or to a human. About the only humans who routinely get rabies vaccinations in the US are vets and, I suppose, vet techs. Depending on herd immunity to keep your dog healthy is just fucking scary with regards to rabies.

My dad had to shoot a rabid dog once in our backyard almost 60 years ago. He had no sooner shot the dog when he realized my sister was right behind him. It would have scared him shitless if he'd realized that earlier.

[Mama Mia]

To start, let me be clear that it is complete speculation on my part that breastmillk would be effective with this sort of infection. I'm not in any way, shape or form saying that breastmilk is a substitute for all situations where preventative antibiotics might be used. Just to be clear. It just is an idea that occurred to me due to the success people have with using breastmilk for other baby eye issues.

I also have no huge issue with the eye drops as used now, it came up, and to me , it's just a good example of a situation where people don't question established procedures.

1. Not everyone can produce breastmilk, so relying on breastmilk isn't helpful. Very few women produce absolutely no breastmilk. For the ones who don't produce breastmilk, or just prefer the antibiotic drops , those could still be used.

2. Colostrum is produced for the first few days (even up to two weeks), and doesn't come in plentiful amounts, so using it on eyes instead of for feeding seems ridiculous Seriously? It would be literally a few drops in each eye. Pretty sure that's not going to make a huge difference in the newborns fluid intake

3. I've yet to find ANY studies that prove that breastmilk works. I'm sure that it has definitely helped in some cases, but that doesn't mean that it's actually an effective form of treatment in all cases.

[bThat would be my main point. There could be studies done to see if it's effective, but there won't be. Of course you aren't going to find studies on breastmilk vs topical antibiotics. Who is going to fund then? Also, I know this is a weird thought to some, but studies just confirm or disprove or provide further information on something that is happening. The study isn't what actually makes it happen. The absence of a peer reviewed study in a reputable medical journal means there hasn't been a study. It has zero impact on the actual effectiveness or safety of any practice or procedure.

4. In most states that require them, you can opt out if you've been tested for STIs and you're free of an infection And? What's your point?

5. They're just a couple drops to kill any bacteria on the eye from the childbirth process. It's not like you're sending the kid home with them ore anything. It's fundamentally no different than using antibacterial soap.

Did you really just use antibacterial soap as a good example for using preventative topical antibiotics ????????

]

[shatteredreality]

No, having an AI condition by itself does not compromise the immune system. The exceptions are if an individual is on DMARDS or steroids to control the symptoms of their disease. Simply having an AI condition does not cause a weakened immune system. In fact, here's a link from the CDC saying that they can still get vaccines (it's down the page a bit) http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/ ... -travelers

If I stated the vaccine drifts I used the wrong word. Yes, the virus can drift. My point is, it's still a GUESS and failed to offer more than 19% protection last flu season.

I know what causes hives, thank you. I was not sick or stressed besides maybe what the flu shot did to my body. I waited three weeks before seeing a doctor. Thought I'd give them a chance to go away and a lot of times there's no known cause. It was then that my blood work showed elevated TSH and I asked for further testing to determine how to proceed.

First, Snarkylark, I never said with autoimmune disease & being immune compromised that I havent had my vaccines. I stated before that I am vaccinated plus some reserved for older patients due to the fact that i am immune compromised.

Second, so you have a thyroid problem & you think that is linked to the flu vaccine? Am I reading that right? hmmm, interesting but ??? :?

[Snarkylark]

First, Snarkylark, I never said with autoimmune disease & being immune compromised that I havent had my vaccines. I stated before that I am vaccinated plus some reserved for older patients due to the fact that i am immune compromised.

Second, so you have a thyroid problem & you think that is linked to the flu vaccine? Am I reading that right? hmmm, interesting but ??? :?

No, not exactly. My thyroid problem was diagnosed after I had hives for weeks after getting the flu vaccine. Sometimes AI conditions can take years to get diagnosed. I don't know if or how long it was going on before I got dx. I don't know if the vax triggered a flare up that caused me to finally get diagnosed. I have no idea. My PA didn't seem to think the hives were related to Hashimoto's but I've read that it can be and many other thyroiditis pts have had them. Very interesting stuff and I learned a TON. But no, I can't say that the flu shot had anything to do with it or not. No way to prove it either way. I did the autoimmune protocol diet for a bit and it took about 6 months before I stopped having the hive break outs. But the last thing I wanted to do was get another flu vaccine the following year. My dr agreed and wrote an exemption for me.

[Mama Mia]

Just an FYI in case anyone hasn't heard about the issues with antibacterial soap:

.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-reasons-why-you-should-probably-stop-using-antibacterial-soap-180948078/

Which brings up something else for discussion -- what about potential public health risks of products that are designed to protect individual and public health, but have negative consequences?

[OkToBeTakei]

1. Not everyone can produce breastmilk, so relying on breastmilk isn't helpful.

2. Colostrum is produced for the first few days (even up to two weeks), and doesn't come in plentiful amounts, so using it on eyes instead of for feeding seems ridiculous

3. I've yet to find ANY studies that prove that breastmilk works. I'm sure that it has definitely helped in some cases, but that doesn't mean that it's actually an effective form of treatment in all cases.

4. In most states that require them, you can opt out if you've been tested for STIs and you're free of an infection

5. They're just a couple drops to kill any bacteria on the eye from the childbirth process. It's not like you're sending the kid home with them ore anything. It's fundamentally no different than using antibacterial soap.

Found some info..

The use of erythromycin eye ointment in newborns has its roots in the late 1800s. During that time period, approximately 10% of newborns born in maternity hospitals across Europe developed ophthalmia neonatorum (ON). This is a type of pink eye that caused blindness in 3% of infants who were affected (Schaller and Klauss 2001). This means that during the late 1800s, before antibiotics were discovered, 0.3% of infants (3 out of 1,000) were blinded from ON.

In 1881, a physician named Carl Crede realized that infants were catching ON during vaginal delivery, and that the infections were caused by gonorrhea—a sexually transmitted infection.

The only way for a newborn to contract ON is if the mother is infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea. If the mother does not have chlamydia or gonorrhea, then the newborn cannot catch it. Also, if a baby is born by C-section and if the mom’s water never broke before surgery, then it is extremely unlikely that the baby could catch ON

Newborn eye prophylaxis is also mandated by state law in most U.S. states. In 2006, a search of state law databases found that at least 32 U.S. states had laws requiring newborn prophylaxis against ON (Standler 2006). In these states, health care providers are required to administer the eye ointment in every newborn, regardless of the mother’s chlamydia or gonorrhea status, and regardless of whether or not the baby was born vaginally or by C-section. Some states, such as New York, do not allow parents to exercise their right to informed refusal, and hospital employees in New York will go so far as to call Child Protective Services if the parents do not want the erythromycin ointment.

On the other hand, automatic erythromycin prophylaxis is no longer used in the United Kingdom, Australia, Norway, or Sweden (Darling and McDonald, 2010).

The bolded seems a a bit draconian.

So basically they are to protect from a particular infection passed on from mother to child if the Mother had Chlamydia or Gonorrhea. Persoanlly I would like to know if I had chlamydia or gonorrhea rather than it just be assumed and give my child drops wether I do or not. I can see why in some demographics it might be assumed a higher level of gonorrhea and chlamydia might/may be present. But to give them routinely to say unaffected Mothers and also after C-section every time seems odd.

This is a particular infection 'Ophthalmia Neonatorum' not just sticky eye or conjunctivitis which is common and relatively harmless in babies. I wonder if people realise that or just as time has gone on and this has become routine they think it's just to prevent bacterial infection during or after birth. A lay over from 1800.

It does not appear to cause issues in the countries who stopped the practice.

Benefits:

Erythromycin can reduce the risk of chlamydial and gonorrheal ON (Darling and McDonald 2010)

Erythromycin prophylaxis may be helpful if the mother was not screened for chlamydia/gonorrhea, screening results were not correct, or if there is a sexual partner who may be re-infecting her (Medves 2002)

Erythromycin prophylaxis may be especially helpful in geographic regions where rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea are very high (Medves 2002)

Erythromycin ointment is inexpensive (Darling and McDonald 2010)

Risks:

Adverse effects include eye irritation and blurred vision, which may interfere with bonding

Widespread use may contribute to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria (Hedbert et al. 1990)

Erythromycin is not 100% effective at preventing ON (it has a 20% failure rate) (Lund et al., 1987)

It’s possible that care providers may not be watchful for ON because they assume the infant was “already treated,†but prophylaxis does not work all the time (Lund et al., 1987)

Drug shortages happen occasionally. In 2009, there was an erythromycin shortage in the U.S. and providers began using alternative medicines that had never been tested in newborns. One of those medications– gentamicin– was later found to have severe adverse effects in newborns (CDC, 2010).

There....my Monday morning learn a new thing everyday!!

[August]

It was discussed further back in the thread. Children, from birth have a very high risk factor of contracting it. It can be spread child to child even through small amounts (to the point of not being able to notice it) of blood in saliva. Therefore, it's best to vaccinate against it as early as possible.

I would hazard a guess that the superior health care in the UK leads to lower rates of Hep B than in the US. But I better he info is out there for me to find...

Migrant populations are now the main focus for identifying and testing for hepatitis B infection in the UK. It is estimated that 95% of people with newly diagnosed chronic hepatitis B infection are immigrants, who predominantly become infected in early childhood in the country of their birth.

I think this is the key. Assuming that both countries are testing prison populations, you're left with migrants, MSM and IV drug users. And if migrants are the biggest group, then the fact they get healthcare in the UK and not the US is huge.

[formergothardite]

I really thought I'd answered every question you guys had asked.

No, no you didn't. You answered in vague ways that makes it very hard to pin down exactly what you really believe.

You said things like "I should have left off the Hitler part" when asked several times if you agreed with the Hitler part of that FB quote. That is answering a question that wasn't asked instead of answering the actual question.

You never said if you were pro-choice. You made vague statements about being against those hypothetical women who use abortion as birth control, but again, that isn't answering the question.

You refuse to say if you think the Cali Vax Choice website is a reliable source of information and give a non-answer of "I never said it was reliable". Well you provided it as a source of information so you either think it is reliable or you use unreliable information.

You slithered around the gay marriage question by talking about "other people" when asked about your own thoughts.

You were asked about the two states that have had these laws for decades and if you thought they had turned into the China you had warned about. You didn't even attempted to answer that.

You have been asked to discuss how the choice to unvaccinated impacts the entire community and from what I can tell your answer is that kids are just going to have to start suffering and dying. Is that your answer?

The only people I know who are this vague with their answers are usually trying to hide what they really believe. If you would answer questions(start with these!) with a direct answer it would make the conversation go more smoothly because we could all see where you actually stand on an issue.

[nelliebelle1197]

You have also failed to understand that the core of this argument has nothing to do with the shady science you keep posting. I have pointed out several times that the "choice" argument comes down to the general welfare and the greater good vs individual rights. Can you provide a philosophical argument that actually backs up the rights of a few parents on the fringes vs. the right of the majority?

[Snarkylark]

No, no you didn't. You answered in vague ways that makes it very hard to pin down exactly what you really believe.

You said things like "I should have left off the Hitler part" when asked several times if you agreed with the Hitler part of that FB quote. That is answering a question that wasn't asked instead of answering the actual question.

You never said if you were pro-choice. You made vague statements about being against those hypothetical women who use abortion as birth control, but again, that isn't answering the question.

You refuse to say if you think the Cali Vax Choice website is a reliable source of information and give a non-answer of "I never said it was reliable". Well you provided it as a source of information so you either think it is reliable or you use unreliable information.

You slithered around the gay marriage question by talking about "other people" when asked about your own thoughts.

You were asked about the two states that have had these laws for decades and if you thought they had turned into the China you had warned about. You didn't even attempted to answer that.

You have been asked to discuss how the choice to unvaccinated impacts the entire community and from what I can tell your answer is that kids are just going to have to start suffering and dying. Is that your answer?

The only people I know who are this vague with their answers are usually trying to hide what they really believe. If you would answer questions(start with these!) with a direct answer it would make the conversation go more smoothly because we could all see where you actually stand on an issue.

1: I don't know what the woman who posted that about Hitler was trying to prove by her point. So I should have left it off. So I guess you could say I dint agree with it.

2: I can't say that I'm pro-choice because I'm never ok with abortion. I believe that it's intentionally taking a life. Science proves that it's more than a mass of cells. It's alive and has the potential to be an individual human being after birth. I understand that my beliefs aren't everyone's and I can't force someone else to comply with my beliefs.

3: there may be reliable information on the calivax site. Like with Ezzo, I'm not going to say that everything is wrong because some things are. Does that make sense? Is is possible that everything on that site is incorrect. But I have not taken the time to peruse it to find out.

4: I said I have a lot of different thoughts on the gay marriage issue. I don't agree with gay marriage because of my beliefs BUT I think they should be able to have the same things married heterosexual couples have like the right to have their loved one as POA for example without having disagreeing family fight over it. Again, I understand that I cannot force anyone to believe the way I do and that any religion's belief should be the law. I believe that America was founded to provide religious freedom but not legislation based on any one religion. I do not like what's happening in OR because it essentially is taking away the right to free speech and the right to practice religion. Businesses should be able to choose if they want to provide service to a customer. I would bake the dumb cake and use the money to advance whatever causes I believe in and let word of mouth take care of the rest. BUT some people feel like doing that would imply that one agrees with the marriage and they should have that right to make that decision. There's no reason a business should be forced to serve someone if they don't want to. Again, I think it's stupid not to serve someone but to fine them and say they can't talk about it is ridiculous AND a violation of their right to free speech. Is there only one bakery in OR???

5: before this thread I was not aware that there were two states that had the mandatory policies. I didn't know that was already happening. I still don't agree with mandatory

medical procedures whether they've turned into China or not:)

6: disease spreads, everywhere. Vaxxed or unvaxxed. I don't think these mandates are going to change that because the people who are firmly against ALL vaccines are still not going to get them. I don't remember which states it's been mandated in but have there been pertussis and measles cases in those states recently? The choice to not vaccinate MAY cause an outbreak. And it MAY not. There MAY be serious consequences to an individual from a vaccine and there most likely won't be. We can't know for sure either of these answers for certain. Had they identified the strain of measles that was behind the DL outbreak? Is it one that is covered in the vaccine? I haven't looked into it but we know viruses can change and that there are different strains coming in from other countries that we may not be fully protected against. I'm never for kids getting sick and dying! I really think it's a small minority who don't vaccinate but there are probably areas that have higher unvaxxed rates that would be of concern. But I still don't think mandating is the answer. I already posted what I think is. I think mandating them may have the opposite of the desired effect. But again, I don't know the staistics on the other states that already do. But on a national level I think there would be A LOT of pushback.

It took me incredibly way too long to type this out and I'm sure you are going to flame me for what I believe which is why I stayed out of it. I don't apologize for that. I believe we should all treat each other with respect no matter how our beliefs differ. I don't judge people with a broad brush or believe in forcing my beliefs on others. None of you know me personally or know how I treat my fellow man. My beliefs are my beliefs and that's between me and God. Being a Christian and being a bigot are not synonymous any more than being a Muslim makes one a terrorist (first example that comes to mind.)

[formergothardite]

1. I could say that, but what do YOU say? Again, a non-answer. Do YOU agree with the Hitler statement?

2. If you are not pro-choice then you believe that abortion should be illegal. So when it comes to medical choices you think the government should control a woman's choices? How does that work in relation to you being against the government making medical decisions when it comes to vaccines? It sounds like you are saying that when you agree with it you think the government should step into medical decisions but when you don't agree with it you think the government shouldn't. Is that correct?

3. Are saying that websites that lie and twist information to fit an agenda can be a reliable source of information?

4. Do your religious freedom beliefs not apply to gay couples who are religious and believe in marriage? Should they not have the right to practice their religion and get a legal marriage? I'm not asking if you personally would get a gay marriage or if your religious beliefs agree with it, I'm asking if you think it should be legal. Do you also believe that businesses should have the ability refuse to serve all black people/Muslim people/Hispanic people/white people?

5. Since two states have had these laws for decades and haven't turned into a China like place, will you admit that that bit of your post was perhaps some fear mongering based on no real information?

6.

I don't remember which states it's been mandated in but have there been pertussis and measles cases in those states recently?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measle ... es-n306711

Last year, 99.7 percent of kindergartners in Mississippi were listed as "fully vaccinated" — compared to say 85 percent in Pennsylvania and 92 percent in California, the epicenter of the outbreak.

This choice of not vaccinating their children actually affects the children around your child, not just your child," said Dr. Mary Currier, with the Mississippi Department of Health.

http://www.dhhr.wv.gov/oeps/immunizatio ... break.aspx

Every other state allows for exemptions either for religious or personal beliefs, or both. As a result, West Virginia has a vaccination rate of 97 percent among kids ages 5 to 18, Gupta said.

This is something we recognize both on a public health level and on a community level within the state, that it’s a pretty important thing, and it’s important to make sure that more of our children are vaccinated, unless there is a true medical exemption,†Gupta said. “We need to have the highest levels of herd immunity possible, in order to protect against the importation of such diseases

The whooping cough cases in these states seem to be among children too young to be fully vaccinated.

[tapdancer493]

This is an opinion piece in the NY Times but I found this particularly relevant to this discussion

Kennedy has insisted that he’s “very much pro-vaccine,†noting that his six children were vaccinated. He’s just trying to ensure that vaccines are safe, he says.

But that means that he thinks that they’re dangerous, and there’s one message above all others to be taken from his rant about mass destruction and from statements like this one, which he made on a radio show in 2011: “I can see that this fraud is doing extraordinary damage to the brains of American children.â€

He’s telling parents to watch out. He’s giving them license not to protect children from preventable illnesses.

That’s inarguably anti-vaccine. It’s seriously irresponsible. And it’s especially sad coming from someone whose family’s legend — more Camelot than crackpot — means that he gets crowds to listen to him, lawmakers to meet with him and most of his calls returned.

Sound like anyone we know?

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/opini ... p=cur&_r=0

[Snarkylark]

For the pro-choice discussion- I believe abortion is wrong. I don't think that a woman should be allowed to kill the life growing inside her. It's fundamentally different than having a choice when it comes to vaccination because the fetus WILL die as a result. A person that is not vaccinated *could* pass on a disease that *could* cause someone to die but it is not a guarantee. I think the difference here is intent. Abortion intentionally takes an innocent life. I don't think it's ok to CHOOSE to intentionally take a life.

[tropaka]

Re eye drops - was surprised that they required by law in Ontario among a few other provinces - but the Canadian Pediatric Society wants to practice to stop in favour of prenatal and newborn screening because a) it doesn't work against many of the strains of gonnorhea in Canada and b) does nothing against the most common STI, chlammydia.

[VelociRapture]

For the pro-choice discussion- I believe abortion is wrong. I don't think that a woman should be allowed to kill the life growing inside her. It's fundamentally different than having a choice when it comes to vaccination because the fetus WILL die as a result. A person that is not vaccinated *could* pass on a disease that *could* cause someone to die but it is not a guarantee. I think the difference here is intent. Abortion intentionally takes an innocent life. I don't think it's ok to CHOOSE to intentionally take a life.

This is off-topic from the main point of this thread, but I'm curious:

Why do you feel its ok for women to be forced to continue a pregnancy they don't want or are unable to survive due to complications? You stated above that you don't agree with abortion and did not state any circumstances you would change your views (if you did in another post, then I didn't see it) - would you say that applies in cases of rape, incest, or in situations where the mother and/or fetus will be seriously harmed or die as a result of the pregnancy? Do you support cases where very young girls (some as young as 9) are denied the right to an abortion because it goes against the religious teachings of the country they live in - even though a child that young is not physically, mentally, or emotionally mature enough to deal with pregnancy and labor? Basically, do your views allow for some wiggle room or does the fetus always come before the rights and well-being of the mother?

And to bring it back to the vaccination debate:

You said that intent matters in your views. Thats fine. I think you're missing the point that the number of people who could be impacted by either choice is incredibly important as well. For instance, when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy (for any reason) the only people who may be directly affected are her, the fetus, the Doctor, and the father. When a parent chooses not to vaccinate their child - who is medically capable of being vaccinated without major side effects - it has the potential to harm the child and, if an epidemic breaks out, countless other innocent people.

How do you feel about that? Do you think the rights of a very few number of parents should outweigh the rights of the general population? Do you think the rights of the parents to make medical decisions should outweigh the child's right to good health and not being at heightened risk for contracting/dying from preventable diseases?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything. It seriously just really confuses me when people take such a hardened view on this subject or attempt to compare it to the vaccination debate. I don't like abortion. I don't think anyone does - but I do think women should have the right to decide for themselves because at the end of the day I'm not the one who is going to be raising the child or going through pregnancy and labor.

[FundieFarmer]

For the pro-choice discussion- I believe abortion is wrong. I don't think that a woman should be allowed to kill the life growing inside her. It's fundamentally different than having a choice when it comes to vaccination because the fetus WILL die as a result. A person that is not vaccinated *could* pass on a disease that *could* cause someone to die but it is not a guarantee. I think the difference here is intent. Abortion intentionally takes an innocent life. I don't think it's ok to CHOOSE to intentionally take a life.

Switching this up to use your word that you said about cells having the potential to become human:

A person that is not vaccinated *has the potential to* pass on a disease that *has the potential to* cause someone to die but it is not a guarantee.

I'm not really qualified to argue on the science of abortion, though I know that a fetus isn't considered truly viable until 24-weeks, which is after the gestational limit of most states. I do think it's really interesting that you'd be against mandatory or required vaccinations while being against a woman's right to choose...which, loosely speaking, is essentially mandatory or required birth. That's just weird to me.

ETA...after reading VelociRapture's post and the correlating parts of yours, I feel like you have a very idealistic view of life. Idealistic that you won't need the HPV vax, that wife/husband will both be virgins, that the unvaccinated won't spread diseases, that nothing would put you into the position of having to choose. Or perhaps you swear you would have the child anyway even under the most unfortunate circumstances...to which I'd bring up the statement made in the Burris thread, that you don't really know until you're in that circumstance. I don't know, maybe I'm the only one getting this vibe and that's okay, but I feel like you just have a very idealistic and hunky-dory view of things and that's very off-putting to me, as I've learned over the past year that an idealistic view can result in some very terrible circumstances. I also feel like it clouds your view for why these needs and options exist, which makes it difficult to relate to your arguments.

[formergothardite]

For the pro-choice discussion- I believe abortion is wrong. I don't think that a woman should be allowed to kill the life growing inside her. It's fundamentally different than having a choice when it comes to vaccination because the fetus WILL die as a result. A person that is not vaccinated *could* pass on a disease that *could* cause someone to die but it is not a guarantee. I think the difference here is intent. Abortion intentionally takes an innocent life. I don't think it's ok to CHOOSE to intentionally take a life.

An unwanted pregnancy CAN and HAS killed women. And as a degreed medical professional please don't drag out "well abortion is okay then." because you should realize that even with medical care, pregnant women die. You also seem to care little for the quality of life of the women. Studies show that women who are denied an abortion have a much lower quality of life.

How many times are you going to avoid answering the Hitler question?

[formergothardite]

You have also failed to understand that the core of this argument has nothing to do with the shady science you keep posting. I have pointed out several times that the "choice" argument comes down to the general welfare and the greater good vs individual rights. Can you provide a philosophical argument that actually backs up the rights of a few parents on the fringes vs. the right of the majority?

I was thinking, California and the other states aren't actually making anyone get fully vaccinated and it really does correlate to like the laws about driving cars with insurance. In my state I can buy a car, I can drive my car on private roads, but if I want to use the public roads I have to buy insurance. In California you can have an unvaccinated child, you can send your unvaccinated child to private school, but if you want to use the public school system then you have to vaccinate unless you have a medical exemption. Why is one okay for snarkylark, but one isn't. What is it about it being medical that makes it okay to put the rest of society at risk?

[happy atheist]

How many times are you going to avoid answering the Hitler question?

I find it quite telling that she is unable to say "I disagree with Hitler." I mean, seriously?

[formergothardite]

I find it quite telling that she is unable to say "I disagree with Hitler." I mean, seriously?

Well this is what she is avoiding saying if she agrees with:

Seems they're trying to repeat Nazi Germany -- how Hilter started the insanity--- healthcare. Be brave and check an honest history book. God bless the children

She said I could say she didn't agree with it, but if I was going to take a guess, based on her not immediately saying that this is crazy talk, if I was going to say anything, I would say she agreed with it. Perhaps she will be inclined to give a straight answer at some point.

[Snarkylark]

I think we all disagree with Hitler! What are you wanting me to say here because I truly don't get it?

[formergothardite]

I think we all disagree with Hitler! What are you wanting me to say here because I truly don't get it?

Do you agree with this?

Seems they're trying to repeat Nazi Germany -- how Hilter started the insanity--- healthcare. Be brave and check an honest history book. God bless the children

You said that I could say you disagree, but why not just tell us?

[Snarkylark]

I sort of already addressed the rape/ invest part by saying I really don't know how I feel about it. Because one the one hand I believe abortion is wrong. So is rape/ incest but by themselves don't equal death. I think it's different when the mother's life is at stake and early delivery after the point of viability isn't an option. I can't compare pregnancy to forced birth as someone did loosely up thread because it's the natural order of what happens after getting pregnant. But I'm not talking about taking rights away from women, either. I'm simply saying why I believe what I do and I believe the fetus has a right to live too.

[happy atheist]

I want you to say, "You've all made some good points about what constitutes a reliable source, and about how, as a degreed medical professional, I should stop spreading paranoia. You've given me a lot to think about and I'm going to go do that now."

But since I know that's asking far too much, I'd settle for, "Maybe quoting people who jump straight to Hitler and Nazi Germany isn't a very good idea, and if I find myself doing that I should take a moment to consider the totality of what that person is saying, because chances are it isn't rational. Simply cutting out the part about Hitler doesn't make everything okay."