CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp

[FundieFarmer]

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.

I didn't compare pregnancy itself to forced birth, I compared refusing a woman the right to choose to forcing her to give birth.

[Snarkylark]

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?

I don't know what the person that posted that meant by that comment and comparison. I'd have to think she meant that Hitler started his I do know that the reason people sometimes compare the holocaust to abortion is because it has killed millions. It's a loosely related argument that I do think minimizes the suffering of the Jewis people but that's why the comparison is made. I'm thinking she (I believe it was a female) thinks that Hitler started his "insanity" as she puts it with healthcare and is again making a loose comparison. Idk. History was and is NOT a favorite OR best subject of mine.

[Snarkylark]

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."

You have all made some good points. But I'm not here to spread paranoia. Never my intention.

[FakePigtails]

You have all made some good points. But I'm not here to spread paranoia. Never my intention.

But you did, and you refuse to recognize that.

[formergothardite]

I don't know what the person that posted that meant by that comment and comparison. I'd have to think she meant that Hitler started his I do know that the reason people sometimes compare the holocaust to abortion is because it has killed millions. It's a loosely related argument that I do think minimizes the suffering of the Jewis people but that's why the comparison is made. I'm thinking she (I believe it was a female) thinks that Hitler started his "insanity" as she puts it with healthcare and is again making a loose comparison. Idk. History was and is NOT a favorite OR best subject of mine.

You were the one who quoted this person yet you don't even have a basic understanding of what they were saying? You seem to have a tendency to quote and use information that you don't understand. I would recommend that you take time to really study and take a look at the information and resources you use so you don't end up quoting crazy people to prove a point.

sHe was saying that only allowing medical exemptions for vaccines is America trying to repeat Nazi Germany and that Hitler started it all with healthcare. Since you related these laws as us turning into China, I'm wondering if you agree with it. Now that hopefully you actually understand what you quoted.

[formergothardite]

You have all made some good points. But I'm not here to spread paranoia. Never my intention.

Maybe you didn't intend to, but you did. You make fear based wild claims about us turning into China all while not realizing that two states have had these laws for decades. You refused to admit you were wrong with that claim. You linked to a website full of fake science and the manipulation of information to fit an agenda, refused to admit it is a bad source of information and still claim that the link proves things that it doesn't actually prove.

[FundieFarmer]

I have a question for you, featuring a scenario I know to be true, because I'm curious as to what you'd do given your responses.

TW.

A patient sits before you, a young woman, and says she has been assaulted, and is now pregnant. That young woman has a congenital condition that, at this time, prevents her from a safe pregnancy, and cannot be safely corrected in the time before the child would be born (the only way to ensure a safe birth). Termination is very risky for her, but not as risky as delivery would be. She is asking you for options, and medical advice, as the nurse of her primary care provider. How do you jive your personal beliefs with this situation, to address her medical needs?

[formergothardite]

Here is my case. A woman who has been raised in poverty, grew up abused and with no stability sits in front of you. She has no education but she has been going back to school. She has two children already and had very rough pregnancies. At six weeks pregnant she is already suffering from so much morning sickness that she can barely make it to work and school. If she continues the pregnancy she will lose her job and have to drop out of school. If she has an abortion she will finish her two year degree, get a job, find the strength to leave the guy who abuses her and she will make a stable life for her two children. If she isn't allowed an abortion, she will lose her job, drop out of school, stay with her abuser, and keep the baby and raise it along with her other two children in an unstable environment. She could also die of complications from giving birth.

And the second option is the best of the two? This isn't hypothetical, this story is based on the study done with groups of women who got pregnant and were either able to get an abortion, or for whatever reason, unable to get one so forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. And yes, one of the women died.

[VelociRapture]

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.

Ok. So, based off your posts I think this is how you view abortion:

- Elective abortions are wrong.

- Rape and incest are wrong, but don't automatically mean a woman should be able to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the rape or incest.

- The mother should be allowed to end the pregnancy if the pregnancy is going to kill her - but only before she hits the 24 week mark because that is really the earliest a child can conceivably survive outside the womb.

Does that sound correct?

As it appears to me, if you don't support a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy then you are for the Government banning abortions (anti-choice). If you are personally opposed to abortion, but don't believe Government should have a say in what a woman decides, then you are pro-choice. So which is it? Do you think the Government should mandate whether or not abortion should be legal? Or do you think that the Government should not be able to mandate such a personal and important choice?

To use myself as an example: I don't like the idea of abortion. I hope I never find myself in a position where I have to choose. However, I don't feel that the Government has the right to pretty much force a woman to continue a pregnancy for any reason. So while I may be opposed to the general concept or repulsed by it or not want one for myself, I also realize that isn't the case for everyone. Therefore, I am pro-choice.

To tie back into the vaccination discussion, I consider my stance on both abortion and vaccinations to be "for the greater good.". It benefits the majority of society to have as many people vaccinated against infectious diseases as possible because it can stop the illness from quickly spreading and lessen the impact the symptoms have on an infected person.

I wish we lived in a world where every child was conceived in a loving and stable home to parents that love them and want them very much. I also wish that every loving couple that was stable and wanted children were able to conceive without any problem. . . but that isn't how the world works. Contraceptives don't always work properly, people forget to use protection, evil people rape and assault others, and there are times when it is deemed medically necessary to end a pregnancy. The world is not an ideal place; therefore, we can't impose ideal beliefs onto the vast majority of people.

[Mama Mia]

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?

Really minor and unrelated to the bigger issues -- but can you really drive a car on private roads without insurance? You can't in my state, which happens to be California. In order to register the car you have to provide proof of insurance. And you can't just not register the car -- they will give you big fines and eventually suspend your drivers license.

[FundieFarmer]

Really minor and unrelated to the bigger issues -- but can you really drive a car on private roads without insurance? You can't in my state, which happens to be California. In order to register the car you have to provide proof of insurance. And you can't just not register the car -- they will give you big fines and eventually suspend your drivers license.

Here, police can't give you tickets on private roads for non-deadly infractions unless they've been dedicated back to the city. For example, if you were in a shopping mall and blew through a stop sign, they couldn't ticket you unless the mall had given the roads back to the city, or you'd hit someone. It might be along those same lines.

[Snarkylark]

You guys bring up some good points, of course. I can't say what I'd do as far as advice for those women. I'm not going to be in a position to have to do that. It isn't MY decision how they should proceed. I could offer them support, resources, etc but benefit/risk is on the dr to explain for informed consent. I don't think the government should be able to tell us what to

do with our bodies but I don't think that makes me pro choice either because I think abortion is wrong. Does that make sense?

[Snarkylark]

Several states require car insurance. Mine is one of them. I've always carried insurance (at the very least, liability) because it's stupid not to. But that's not a medical issue.

[OkToBeTakei]

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

On top of that she says.

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.

Snarkylark has spent two threads trying to impose her opinion on two matters on others. Ezzo and vaccines.

She now drops in she is against abortion and does not believe gay people have the right to marriage. I don't really call that respecting other's beliefs. She may not see herself as an ignorant bigot. I have my doubts.

[Mama Mia]

Here, police can't give you tickets on private roads for non-deadly infractions unless they've been dedicated back to the city. For example, if you were in a shopping mall and blew through a stop sign, they couldn't ticket you unless the mall had given the roads back to the city, or you'd hit someone. It might be along those same lines.

Wow. Yea, not like that here. At all. :shock: My sons were in a grocery store parking lot once. And the cop who had pulled into the same parking lot not only gave them a ticket for expired registration -- but tore the car apart and had it impounded - just based on the registration being late. They weren't even driving. They happened to be shady looking teenagers at the time. They may even have been wearing hoodies.

[Snarkylark]

On top of that she says.

Snarkylark has spent two threads trying to impose her opinion on two matters on others. Ezzo and vaccines.

She now drops in she is against abortion and does not believe gay people have the right to marriage. I don't really call that respecting other's beliefs. She may not see herself as an ignorant bigot. I have my doubts.

I feel like I've spent the majority of my posts defending what I said and clarifying. Not trying to impose my views on others. I also never said I didn't believe gay people have the right to marriage. I don't have the right to tell them what they can or can't do. Respecting another's beliefs but not having the same beliefs yourself does not make a person a bigot. You don't agree with my beliefs, does that make you a bigot?

[FundieFarmer]

I feel like I've spent the majority of my posts defending what I said and clarifying. Not trying to impose my views on others. I also never said I didn't believe gay people have the right to marriage. I don't have the right to tell them what they can or can't do. Respecting another's beliefs but not having the same beliefs yourself does not make a person a bigot. You don't agree with my beliefs, does that make you a bigot?

I don't know that your posts themselves are imposing your views on others, but I do believe the actual execution of the ideas you've shared here would do so. The situation I described above was almost my own, except I was extremely, extremely fortunate in that I didn't get pregnant (or catch a baby, as Michelle would have it :lol: ). It's hard for me to get on your same page about things, because I (and others) have unfortunately had to personally experience those very nasty sides of life that are conveniently ignored in your perspectives. I don't know that I'd say you're an ignorant bigot, but I do stand by my statement that you have a very idealistic view of things that doesn't correspond with how reality works out.

[shatteredreality]

Several states require car insurance. Mine is one of them. I've always carried insurance (at the very least, liability) because it's stupid not to. But that's not a medical issue.

Are you a nurse? Do you keep up on medical journals & information? I can't work any more due to my illnesses but keep abreast of my medical journals. I know we are way past the post but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the connection of the flu vaccine to Hashimotos. I have it. Your diagnosis timing was a fluke but if you still work in the medical field, don't you want to be protected from some of the strains of the flu that others are passing around? Since your system is busy fighting off infection in one area its not doing its job in another. Leaving you immune compromised. Coming full circle back to the reason to be vaccinated (and this one is for your health, not that of society).

Then we focus on your belief system. It is so strong that if asked by a patient for information, resources etc. you will provide it as stated earlier BUT it will be resources pushing them to your beliefs, not unbiased resources. We all do it, it's human but very dangerous when in a position as yours that influential. Because again, at the end of the day, their life/dearh/preganancy/child will have no direct bearing on your life. You are just going around spouting your beliefs.

Wouldnt it be safer to take our individual opinions out of the equation & make laws for the betterment of society as a whole. You have auto insurance because it is stupid not to...the children should be vaccinated because it is stupid (& medically proven for the good of the community) not to!

[VelociRapture]

You guys bring up some good points, of course. I can't say what I'd do as far as advice for those women. I'm not going to be in a position to have to do that. It isn't MY decision how they should proceed. I could offer them support, resources, etc but benefit/risk is on the dr to explain for informed consent. I don't think the government should be able to tell us what to

do with our bodies but I don't think that makes me pro choice either because I think abortion is wrong. Does that make sense?

Actually, that pretty much is a pro-choice stance. Most (and I say most because there is always the chance someone out there will prove me wrong) pro-choicers don't like abortion, but they feel much more strongly that the Government has no right to make that decision for a woman because every situation is unique and there is never going to be a one-size fits all answer.

So, if you oppose Government interference with abortion you are pretty much pro-choice - not because you agree with it but because you don't think the Government should be involved in that decision.

[OkToBeTakei]

I feel like I've spent the majority of my posts defending what I said and clarifying. Not trying to impose my views on others. I also never said I didn't believe gay people have the right to marriage. I don't have the right to tell them what they can or can't do. Respecting another's beliefs but not having the same beliefs yourself does not make a person a bigot. You don't agree with my beliefs, does that make you a bigot?

I said I SUSPECT you may be a bigot. You don't appear to be able to explain the beliefs you do have other than by saying they are wrong. Abortion is wrong etc.

Your words.

I don't agree with gay marriage because of my beliefs

I'm never ok with abortion.

I am perfectly happy to be called a bigot if by disagreeing with you I believe that any couple despite their gender should be treated no differently to as you mentioned 'heterosexual' couples.

Yup I'm good with that.

[Snarkylark]

I don't know that your posts themselves are imposing your views on others, but I do believe the actual execution of the ideas you've shared here would do so. The situation I described above was almost my own, except I was extremely, extremely fortunate in that I didn't get pregnant (or catch a baby, as Michelle would have it :lol: ). It's hard for me to get on your same page about things, because I (and others) have unfortunately had to personally experience those very nasty sides of life that are conveniently ignored in your perspectives. I don't know that I'd say you're an ignorant bigot, but I do stand by my statement that you have a very idealistic view of things that doesn't correspond with how reality works out.

I'll admit to that. I grew up pretty sheltered, naive, even? I understand that life is not ideal for a lot of people. I want to help people and care for them. I don't care what race, religion, sexual preference, or socioeconomic status they are. I'm not here saying we should deny gay people marriages. I think that forcing religious beliefs on people who don't share them is much like sharia law or what ISIS is trying to do. There's no place for that here in the U.S. Whether I agree with it or not I don't think it's ok to force my beliefs on others. I think that that should go both ways, like with the whole cake issue. I don't believe gays have a right to force their beliefs on a private business by suing them over not making a dang cake. Seriously. Find another baker. A private business has the right to choose where their products go that have their name on them. Should a black baker have to bake a "white pride" cake? You'd probably all say "no!" And I agree.

[Snarkylark]

I said I SUSPECT you may be a bigot. You don't appear to be able to explain the beliefs you do have other than by saying they are wrong. Abortion is wrong etc.

Your words.

I am perfectly happy to be called a bigot if by disagreeing with you I believe that any couple despite their gender should be treated no differently to as you mentioned 'heterosexual' couples.

Yup I'm good with that.

I don't believe homosexuals should be treated any differently than heterosexuals. Does that mean I have to agree with that lifestyle? I don't think it does.

[FundieFarmer]

I'll admit to that. I grew up pretty sheltered, naive, even? I understand that life is not ideal for a lot of people. I want to help people and care for them. I don't care what race, religion, sexual preference, or socioeconomic status they are. I'm not here saying we should deny gay people marriages. I think that forcing religious beliefs on people who don't share them is much like sharia law or what ISIS is trying to do. There's no place for that here in the U.S. Whether I agree with it or not I don't think it's ok to force my beliefs on others. I think that that should go both ways, like with the whole cake issue. I don't believe gays have a right to force their beliefs on a private business by suing them over not making a dang cake. Seriously. Find another baker. A private business has the right to choose where their products go that have their name on them. Should a black baker have to bake a "white pride" cake? You'd probably all say "no!" And I agree.

I, for one, am really glad you said that. I lived a sheltered, and definitely naive life, for a long time. When I got out on my own, I made choices and got in situations that showed me how rough the world could be. Almost overnight, I went from super conservative, to a more tempered liberal. I began to understand why everything wasn't as black-and-white as my parents always said, and how their harsh (far harsher than yours!) ideas were wildly unrealistic, and in some cases, cruel. That's how I wound up where I am, but I know many friends who didn't go through that and are still happy as clams in their black-and-white worlds. They don't realize they are naive, and they certainly don't realize there are reasons behind looser philosophies- sometimes very powerful reasons. So, thanks for saying that. I get where you're coming from there.

[Snarkylark]

And I can't say that I'm ever OK with abortion because I do see it as a loss of life. I understand that there are cases where the mother will die if she does not terminate. And in those cases I would say to try to save the life of the mother. I don't think that abortion should be illegal in situations like this. I think there's grey area here and that's part of the problem for me.

[Snarkylark]

I, for one, am really glad you said that. I lived a sheltered, and definitely naive life, for a long time. When I got out on my own, I made choices and got in situations that showed me how rough the world could be. Almost overnight, I went from super conservative, to a more tempered liberal. I began to understand why everything wasn't as black-and-white as my parents always said, and how their harsh (far harsher than yours!) ideas were wildly unrealistic, and in some cases, cruel. That's how I wound up where I am, but I know many friends who didn't go through that and are still happy as clams in their black-and-white worlds. They don't realize they are naive, and they certainly don't realize there are reasons behind looser philosophies- sometimes very powerful reasons. So, thanks for saying that. I get where you're coming from there.

I think we are more alike than you think;)