A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some parents would rather take the risk of not vaccinating than vaccinating, which is their God- totally impersonal universal law given choice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

When it comes to vaccinations, the correct choice for almost all children is to receive vaccinations. There is even a US government program called "National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program" (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) because the government recognizes that vaccines may sometimes cause harm, but they are so very important for public health that the government insures against that possible harm.

So, yes, you can tell other parents what to do, because there is a correct answer, and the correct answer is to get your child vaccinated.

So very important to whom? Certainly not to the parent's of a child who died as a result. There is no amount of money that can make up for a wrongful death of a child due to a vaccine that the government didn't know enough about, and forced on a family.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Many people would argue that it's morally and ethically wrong to allow people to endanger others because they're ignorant of things like why herd immunity is important and/or they're too lazy to bother to get themselves or their kids vaccinated.

First and foremost is the law of self-preservation, and it is up to a parent to decide what they feel will help preserve their families in the best way possible. You cannot impose a decree for a family to inject something into their child that they don't want, for the sake of others. There are also other factors that come into play that can offer immunity than bombarding our children with more and more vaccines that may have dire consequences.

Children today receive more than 12 times as many vaccine doses than in 1940

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Continuing the mantra that the medical profession is incompetent, but promoting a system where anyone can claim to be a doctor and set up practice without any oversight at all. If they think they are a doctor, then they are one.

And choices about vaccinating children are better left to fear and ignorance rather than actually knowing the facts. That sounds a lot like Lessanology that is based on ignorance rather than actually learning something about vision, psychology, and conscience.

Again, you are just announcing your ignorance every time you post. You have no conception, not any, of what this book is about. Nada!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

If you were a parent, and you want to do the right thing based on the most current up-to-date and scientific information, you would vaccinate your children. Not vaccinating your children is the behavior that is morally and ethically wrong.

There is no morally right and wrong in this situation; just what a parent feels is the best for their child. It is morally wrong to tell a parent what to do because you don't know how a vaccine is going to affect their child. How would you feel if you told a parent that a particular vaccine was good for their child, and they were one of the unlucky ones and the child was hurt by the very vaccine that was meant to help him? In the new world doctors will leave it up to parents based on the most updated information, but never would they tell a parent what to do. Why would they take this risk, and feel terrible guilt if something bad happened? There would be no reason.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which responses do you feel demonstrate a lack of information, and on what basis did you conclude that they were uninformed?

Because all that I have heard in here is that they are troofers. No one has offered any proof that the Zeitgeist movement is anti-Semitic. You of all people are wary of generalizations, and yet you do that very thing when it suits you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So very important to whom? Certainly not to the parent's of a child who died as a result.

And what of the parents who children have died or been disabled from whooping cough, measles, and meningitis because of a high rate of non vaccinated people in their communities? Herd immunity is the only protection for those too young to vaccinate, or those with compromised immune systems.

There is no amount of money that can make up for a wrongful death of a child due to a vaccine that the government didn't know enough about, and forced on a family.

There is also no amount of money that can make up for a death due to disease. The baby in the article died of whooping cough. She was too young to be vaxed and she contracted it in her community. There have always been many more deaths due to these diseases than there have been due to vaccination reactions.

Additionally, millions of people are not vaccinating their kids, they are getting exemptions and/or delaying them, so it is mostly voluntary now. This has led to outbreaks and resurgence of these once almost eradicated diseases. So you got your wish....aren't you happy?

Q: Can pertussis be prevented with vaccines?

A: Yes. Pertussis, or whooping cough, can be prevented with vaccines. Before pertussis vaccines became widely available in the 1940s, about 200,000 children got sick with it each year in the US and about 9,000 died as a result of the infection. Now we see about 10,000-25,000 cases reported each year and unfortunately about 10-20 deaths.

Pertussis vaccines are recommended for people of all ages. Infants and children should get 5 doses of DTaP for maximum protection. A dose is given at 2, 4 and 6 months, at 15 through 18 months, and again at 4 through 6 years. A booster dose of Tdap is given to preteens at 11 or 12 years of age.

Any adolescents or adults who didn't get Tdap as a preteen should get one dose. Getting Tdap is especially important for pregnant women and others who care for infants. You can get the Tdap booster dose no matter when you got your last regular tetanus booster shot (Td). Also, you need to get Tdap even if you were vaccinated as a child or have been sick with pertussis in the past.

Learn more about preventing pertussis.

Whooping cough can be deadly for babies. Learn how to protect them through vaccination. See this infographic.
Q: Why is the focus on protecting infants from pertussis?

A: Infants are at greatest risk for getting pertussis and then having severe complications from it, including death. About half of infants younger than 1 year old who get pertussis are hospitalized, and 1 or 2 in 100 hospitalized infants die.

There are two strategies to protect infants until they're old enough to receive vaccines and build their immunity against this disease.

First, vaccinate pregnant women with Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably at 27 through 36 weeks. By getting Tdap during pregnancy, mothers build antibodies that are transferred to the newborn, likely providing protection against pertussis in early life, before the baby can start getting DTaP vaccines at 2 months old. Tdap also protects mothers during delivery, making them less likely to transmit pertussis to their infants.

Second, make sure everyone around the infant is immunized. This includes parents, siblings, grandparents (including those 65 years and older), other family members, babysitters, etc. They should get the age-appropriate vaccine (DTaP or Tdap) at least two weeks before coming into close contact with the infant.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because all that I have heard in here is that they are troofers. No one has offered any proof that the Zeitgeist movement is anti-Semitic.

You didn't watch the first movie as suggested, which is the evidence of 9/11 Trutherism and Anti-Semitism, by way of the well known and venerable Jewish Financial Conspiracy Theory being supported.

Various anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories sprang up in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks claiming that a Jewish or Israeli conspiracy was behind the attacks, or that the whole incident was faked in order to serve Jewish and Zionist interests. A common myth, spread by racist websites and chain emails, is that hundreds or even thousands of Jewish employees in the World Trade Center were forewarned of the attacks missed work on September 11th 2001.

Variations on these conspiracies that may not appear overtly anti-Semitic often have a latent anti-Semitism about them as the words "Illuminati," "New World Order," "international bankers," and "financiers" are Mad Libbed in for "Jews" and "international Jewry."

So, it seems you are the uninformed one, since you haven't investigated Zeitgeist at all, and those you claim were uniformed are, in fact, informed as they have investigated.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no morally right and wrong in this situation; just what a parent feels is the best for their child. It is morally wrong to tell a parent what to do because you don't know how a vaccine is going to affect their child. How would you feel if you told a parent that a particular vaccine was good for their child, and they were one of the unlucky ones and the child was hurt by the very vaccine that was meant to help him? In the new world doctors will leave it up to parents based on the most updated information, but never would they tell a parent what to do. Why would they take this risk, and feel terrible guilt if something bad happened? There would be no reason.

What the parent feels should be informed by the facts, and the facts support getting the vaccines. I'm not telling you people should be forced to vaccinate. I'm telling you that vaccination is the morally correct choice, and has always been the morally correct choice for the vast majority of people.

If a parent "feels" that vaccination is not right for their child, their "feelings" are probably wrong. If, in the extremely unlikely case that the vaccines harm their children, they shouldn't feel guilty, because they made the best decision from the best information they had available.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no morally right and wrong in this situation; just what a parent feels is the best for their child. It is morally wrong to tell a parent what to do because you don't know how a vaccine is going to affect their child. How would you feel if you told a parent that a particular vaccine was good for their child, and they were one of the unlucky ones and the child was hurt by the very vaccine that was meant to help him? In the new world doctors will leave it up to parents based on the most updated information, but never would they tell a parent what to do. Why would they take this risk, and feel terrible guilt if something bad happened? There would be no reason.

And what if your unvaccinated child contracted a disease and infected an infant...and that infant was one of the unlucky ones that died from the disease. Who would feel the guilt in that instance?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by specious reasons

If, in the extremely unlikely case that the vaccines harm their children, they shouldn't feel guilty, because they made the best decision from the best information they had available.

Very good point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How would you feel if you told a parent that a particular vaccine was good for their child

I have never heard a doctor, public health official, or anyone, say a vaccine is "good for" a child, only that vaccines offer the best protection we have available against diseases that are definitely proven to be bad for children. The lesser of two evils as Lessans might say, or the better of two less than ideal options.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will defend whomever I want to defend. ... I didn't read the article.

That's right, you didn't read the article. And because of your laziness you ended up defending people who sent letters to the grieving parents of dead child.

Bravo, dumbass.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First and foremost is the law of self-preservation, and it is up to a parent to decide what they feel will help preserve their families in the best way possible.

What you're advancing here is a right to endanger others intentionally. 'Fraid you'll have to proffer some sort of argument on that point. The usual support-free Lessantonian pontification won't do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Children today receive more than 12 times as many vaccine doses than in 1940

Ranger Mike is a charlatan who's gotten rich by pandering to the frightened and the stupid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So very important to whom? Certainly not to the parent's of a child who died as a result.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what of the parents who children have died or been disabled from whooping cough, measles, and meningitis because of a high rate of non vaccinated people in their communities? Herd immunity is the only protection for those too young to vaccinate, or those with compromised immune systems.

That is why until further testing proves which children could get a lifethreatening reaction, we must be able to decide for ourselves whether we are willing to vaccinate or not. This is a political issue, and it is an important one because freedom of choice has always been the winner in every situation involving government, and will continue in this vein because everyone wants the freedom to choose, especially when it comes to their own flesh and blood.

There is no amount of money that can make up for a wrongful death of a child due to a vaccine that the government didn't know enough about, and forced on a family.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is also no amount of money that can make up for a death due to disease.

Or death brought on by the very thing that was intended to protect him. Don't you understand the slightest thing I'm saying, or is it too difficult to hear because anything that has to do with Lessans must be wrong?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The baby in the article died of whooping cough. She was too young to be vaxed and she contracted it in her community. There have always been many more deaths due to these diseases than there have been due to vaccination reactions.

It doesn't matter how many have been hurt; the fact that even one has been hurt does not give the government the right to play Russian roulette with our children. Why are you giving your rights away?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Additionally, millions of people are not vaccinating their kids, they are getting exemptions and/or delaying them, so it is mostly voluntary now. This has led to outbreaks and resurgence of these once almost eradicated diseases. So you got your wish....aren't you happy?

Happy about what? I'm not telling parents it's wrong to vaccinate, but they must understand the risk and for government to mandate what parents do is ethically wrong.

Obviously it can, but we must take into account the few who are being sacrificed for the sake of many. Who should have that power to determine which child dies or gets seriously injured in favor of the masses? This should not be up to government.

Yes, certain vaccines can eliminate deaths, but you have to look at the other side, which you're not doing. You refuse to even hear the other point of view because you're so in defensive mode. Tell me LadyShea, what if it was your boy that was hurt by a vaccine? Would you use statistics to defend your position, or would you think about this more deeply? I am not telling anyone what to do, but the vaccine industry is telling me what to do. That is not democratic at all. Why don't you see this? Are you that blind? No one is saying that a vaccine might not do some good, but the reality remains that it COULD do some harm, therefore a parent must be given the right to make their own choice.

All of this information is considered by most parents, and still we have parents who do not buy this recommendation. For those who do not want to give their child an injection, the government should not be able to use force. It is so unamerican to put a parent in jail for not agreeing with government guidelines. This is big brother in action.

[LadyShea]

Happy about what? I'm not telling parents it's wrong to vaccinate, but they must understand the risk and for government to mandate what parents do is ethically wrong.

Happy that parents have a choice*, of course. Nobody is actually forced to vaccinate their children, you know, it is simply a requirement for being in certain public institutions.

If parents do not want to do vaccinate their kids they can 1) get an exemption to allow their unvaccinated kids to attend public school or 2) not put their kids in public school at all. They are free to homeschool or private school...but if they are going to utilize the government run educational system, they have to abide by the rules of that system.

For those who do not want to give their child an injection, the government should not be able to use force. It is so unamerican to put a parent in jail for not agreeing with government guidelines

They don't use force, they only compel vaccinations if you want to use their education services. As has been explained to you multiple times. Who do you think has been jailed for failure to vaccinate?

*And happy that the choice availability has led to multiple outbreaks of diseases.

[LadyShea]

Yes, certain vaccines can eliminate deaths, but you have to look at the other side, which you're not doing. You refuse to even hear the other point of view because you're so in defensive mode. Tell me LadyShea, what if it was your boy that was hurt by a vaccine? Would you use statistics to defend your position, or would you think about this more deeply?

As I have told you several times, I am very familiar with the other point of view. I did heavy research on this issue before my son was born. I informed myself and accepted the known risk of vaccinating the same as I accept the known risk of putting my son into a car.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are unfamiliar with your position or have not investigated all angles.

I am not telling anyone what to do, but the vaccine industry is telling me what to do. That is not democratic at all. Why don't you see this? Are you that blind? No one is saying that a vaccine might not do some good, but the reality remains that it COULD do some harm, therefore a parent must be given the right to make their own choice.

The vaccine industry isn't telling anyone what to do...what are you talking about? And parents do have choices.

[LadyShea]

Michigan Law Review - First Impressions - Choices Should Have Consequences: Failure to Vaccinate, Harm to Others, and Civil Liability

If an ethical basis for tort liability exists, it resides in providing a mechanism by which someone who is made worse off by the careless or self-serving actions of another can claim recompense for that harm. Negligence law recognizes that persons should be accountable for their decisions and actions when those decisions and actions unreasonably place others in harm's way. A parent whose child suffers brain damage, death, or disability as a result of contact with another child whose parents chose to forgo vaccination has been harmed unfairly. While the current system in the United States has a publicly funded mechanism for compensating those injured as a result of vaccine side effects, there is no corresponding public mechanism to guarantee that a child harmed by an unvaccinated child will receive the medical care, services, and support necessary. The best mechanism for justice in this situation may be the tort system. It would be unreasonable for those who have made good-faith efforts to participate in the vaccination program to suffer harm at the hands of those who have not, without some mechanism for recompense.

By vaccinating, I am only putting my own child at (known, informed) risk. If I don't vaccinate, I am risking many other people. Which is more moral?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You didn't watch the first movie as suggested, which is the evidence of 9/11 Trutherism and Anti-Semitism, by way of the well known and venerable Jewish Financial Conspiracy Theory being supported.

So, it seems you are the uninformed one, since you haven't investigated Zeitgeist at all, and those you claim were uniformed are, in fact, informed as they have investigated.

Where does it suggest that the Zeitgeist movement is anti-Semitic or has anti-Semitic tendencies? Prove to me that these words, New World Order, international bankers, and financiers have an absolute link to anti-Semitisim on a large scale. I am not saying one way or the other because I don't know. Until I do, they get the benefit of the doubt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Michigan Law Review - First Impressions - Choices Should Have Consequences: Failure to Vaccinate, Harm to Others, and Civil Liability

By vaccinating, I am only putting my own child at (known, informed) risk. If I don't vaccinate, I am risking many other people. Which is more moral?

That is such a bad example. That's like saying if I save my child from drowning, others will die as a result because I cannot save all, I am immoral. This is not an intellectual debate. If it's a choice between saving 3 people or saving your child, what would you do? Be honest here. As far as guilt inducing tactics to get parents to give their child a vaccine, it has not been proven that these newer cocktails (more and more vaccinations being added to the already over-crowded vaccine schedule) are of any great benefit to society. We don't know enough about the long term side-effects of all these injections. So our children become the guinea pigs. Is that what you want? And you don't think that this has anything at all to do with big pharma and all those who are profiting?

[The Lone Ranger]

No.

It would be like -- because you're worried that your kid might be in danger of drowning -- shoving everyone else's kid into the pool. Not only are you increasing the chance that your own kid will drown, you're selfishly increasing the chance that other parents' kids will drown, too.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because all that I have heard in here is that they are troofers.

No one has ever suggested that every Zeitgeister is a 9/11 troofer. My only assertion in that regard is that Peter Joseph Mercola is a troofer. That assertion is correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has offered any proof that the Zeitgeist movement is anti-Semitic.

Maybe that's because no one has ever said that the entire "Zeitgeist movement" is anti-Semitic.

Just curious: are the above strawmen the result of your poor reading comprehension or your penchant for intentional misrepresentation?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I have told you several times, I am very familiar with the other point of view. I did heavy research on this issue before my son was born. I informed myself and accepted the known risk of vaccinating the same as I accept the known risk of putting my son into a car.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are unfamiliar with your position or have not investigated all angles.

I never said they were unfamiliar. I researched too and came to a different conclusion although I had no choice but to vaccinate because my children went to school, and I did not claim exemption for religious reasons. You're missing the point. This is more of a political issue than a health issue. We cannot let government take away our freedom of choice when it comes to our children.

I am not telling anyone what to do, but the vaccine industry is telling me what to do. That is not democratic at all. Why don't you see this? Are you that blind? No one is saying that a vaccine might not do some good, but the reality remains that it COULD do some harm, therefore a parent must be given the right to make their own choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The vaccine industry isn't telling anyone what to do...what are you talking about? And parents do have choices.

Really? I guarantee that in my school district, children would not be allowed entrance if they are not vaccinated. So what choices are you talking about?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can choose what you want for your own child, but you cannot tell other parents what to do with their children.

That is why until further testing proves which children could get a lifethreatening reaction, we must be able to decide for ourselves whether we are willing to vaccinate or not.

There is no amount of money that can make up for a wrongful death of a child due to a vaccine that the government didn't know enough about, and forced on a family.

Don't you understand the slightest thing I'm saying, or is it too difficult to hear because anything that has to do with Lessans must be wrong?

It doesn't matter how many have been hurt; the fact that even one has been hurt does not give the government the right to play Russian roulette with our children. Why are you giving your rights away?

Happy about what? I'm not telling parents it's wrong to vaccinate, but they must understand the risk and for government to mandate what parents do is ethically wrong.

Obviously it can, but we must take into account the few who are being sacrificed for the sake of many. Who should have that power to determine which child dies or gets seriously injured in favor of the masses? This should not be up to government.

Yes, certain vaccines can eliminate deaths, but you have to look at the other side, which you're not doing. You refuse to even hear the other point of view because you're so in defensive mode. Tell me LadyShea, what if it was your boy that was hurt by a vaccine? Would you use statistics to defend your position, or would you think about this more deeply? I am not telling anyone what to do, but the vaccine industry is telling me what to do. That is not democratic at all. Why don't you see this? Are you that blind? No one is saying that a vaccine might not do some good, but the reality remains that it COULD do some harm, therefore a parent must be given the right to make their own choice.

All of this information is considered by most parents, and still we have parents who do not buy this recommendation. For those who do not want to give their child an injection, the government should not be able to use force. It is so unamerican to put a parent in jail for not agreeing with government guidelines. This is big brother in action.

As usual Peacegirl makes an unsupported statement and takes an untennible position. Now instead of admitting a mistake or just walking away, she tenaciously defends her position with the usual Lessanisms.

Appeal to future testing to prove her position.

Set up and attack a strawman, in this case she claims we are loosing our freedom to choose, when it has been explained that we can still choose to vaccinate or not.

Accusing others of not understanding her position because they do not agree with it.

Attack the institutions that have the most expertise in the areas in question, in this case the medical profession and the government agencies responsible. I understand that many government agencies are rife with incompetence but this branch is better than most and many of the deadly diseases have been all but eliminated through these efforts. Now Peacegirl wants to throw it all away to make her daddy look good.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No.

It would be like -- because you're worried that your kid might be in danger of drowning -- shoving everyone else's kid into the pool. Not only are you increasing the chance that your own kid will drown, you're selfishly increasing the chance that other parents' kids will drown, too.

You are also missing the point. If there were strong reasons as to why you did not want your child vaccinated, it is not the same thing as pushing other children into the pool. The herd immunity theory is not without controversy.

Vaccine exemptions: Do they really put others at risk?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are also missing the point.

No, you are -- and it's almost-certainly intentional on your part.

By refusing to vaccinate your own children, not only are you increasing your own child's risk, you're endangering other people's kids as well.

The herd immunity theory is not without controversy.

That's exactly like saying that biological evolution is "not without controversy." That a handful of willfully-ignorant people with an axe to grind -- people who demonstrate exactly zero understanding of the theory -- dispute it does not mean that it's "controversial."

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I researched too and came to a different conclusion although I had no choice but to vaccinate because my children went to school, and I did not claim exemption for religious reasons.

In other words, you DID have a choice and chose not to claim the exemption.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is more of a political issue than a health issue.

That's right, just like the manufacture and use of improvised explosive devices is more a political issue than a safety issue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We cannot let government take away our freedom of choice when it comes to our children.

We cannot allow the government to take our God-given freedom to manufacture, buy, sell and use improvised explosive devices. Sure, innocents will get blown to bits every now and then, but that's the price we pay for freedom. As for IEDs falling into the wrong hands, everyone knows that the best solution to a bad guy with an IED is a good guy with an IED.

Seriously, though:

(1) What, exactly, do you think "the government" is? You're sounding a bit like a lolbertarian whackadoo here.

(2) There's no freedom of choice, remember? You've described choice as an "illusion" multiple times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what choices are you talking about?

The answer's more than a little obvious. Think hard. You can do it!