Munkees demand vaccine choice for New Jerseyans!
I'm not saying I'm opposed to vaccines, and I accept that my years in New Jersey Business journalism have made me very wary of the pharmaceutical industry. But I want the chance to make an educated choice, and not suffer the mandates of a government that proudly touts our state as "America's Medicine Cabinet."
So I'm urging all of you to support the conscientious objection exemption to mandatory vaccination of babymunkees. Nineteen (19 out of 50!) other states have it. Why can't we?
Are you listening, District 24 representatives? I think you are, and I'm proud of you!
Inform yourself, and make your own choice, yes or no. I don't want vaccines banned. I don't want them recalled. I don't want pharmaceutical industry workers to lose their jobs. I haven't even decided yet what I want to do when the baby comes. What I want is the right to decide as an intelligent, involved (soon-to-be) parent what's best for my Sprout.
Car Horseshit
1 day ago
13 Comments:
If I'm to understand it correctly, the current law is if your kid isn't vaccinated, he/she's not going to school, correct?
If that's the case, I can get behind it. You have the choice of not vaccinating your kid, just home teach.
I guess I'm asking (again, if it's as I understand it) is it fair to my child (who is vaccinated) to go to school with children who aren't. I don't think it is, as it seems like an unfair risk for my kid.
(Note, I don't give a rat's ass who does and doesn't vaccinate their kids, as I understand the reasoning behind it, I'm just saying I don't think it's right to put other children at a potential risk for a belief system. A kid who's vaccinated does not put a kid who's not at risk of anything.)
Stewie's a pinko commie.
OMG IT'S NOT LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE!
*addendum*
My verification word is "pirtype", which sounds like dirty ape, which is a child who hasn't been vaccinated.
Don't let your kids be pirtypes. :(
I'm totally anti-vaccine; humans & pets. (Ha! Like you didn't have a clue already. ;-)
But, as far as that goes... I feel everything medical should be one's individual choice. No government intervention.
Read 1984!!!;-D
Stew, some of the vaccines you give your child may do more harm than good, others are unnecessary and some are legitimate.
The problem is, mandating multiple vaccines forces parents to potentially overmedicate their children without giving them the choice to selectively decide what to take.
For instance, would you inject your child with live Hep-B cells (essentially, an STD) the day he or she is born?
Would you give a 1-year-old a flu vaccine with live flu viruses, before their immune system has fully developed?
I'm not necessarily for or against certain vaccines, maybe even all. But I want the right to decide what is best - some vaccines don't have the fundamental scientific testing that goes into the vast majority of prescription drugs.
The American rate of such problems as ADD and Autism has increased alongside the number of mandated vaccines, according to some studies.
And why should I have to home school, when I am paying school taxes? Why wouldn't I deserve to take advantage of the educational system I'm helping to fund?
A kid who's vaccinated could very well put a kid who's not at risk - a mandatory MMR vaccine contains live cells - a bad reaction could make a child contagious.
It's a question of informed decision - do you take everything the government mandates at face value? Blind faith in government doesn't sound like the Stewie I know.
Oh, laws no I don't take everything the government takes at face value. lol.
But, at the same time, I don't want a (relatively) small group of people putting others at risk.
To say you (general you) don't have a choice is disingenuous, because you do have one, albeit a shitty one. But a choice nonetheless.
Should more studies be done? Absolutely! But I promise you I do not want a child who hasn't been vaccinated for the mumps or measles in the same class as mine (or, I guess to be more fair at this point, my niece or nephew). Sure, they might have been vaccinated, and in theory they would be safe, but I don't want that theory tested.
Is the current policy fair, no, I would concede that it's not to those parents who don't wish to vaccinate their children. But having kids vaccinated before heading off to a public school is the lesser of two evils at this point.
The American rate of such problems as ADD and Autism has increased alongside the number of mandated vaccines, according to some studies."Some" being key word there. Back in the early 90s (or late 80s?), some studies also showed that milk was bad for your kids. "Some" studies have shown that second hand smoke is life threatening (which "some" studies now are showing to be false).
I completely agree you (again, general you) should be informed when making a decision, but this is going about it the wrong way. And the option open to you currently (again, albeit shitty) is an option. No one is forcing parents to take the vaccine. Not the government, not the school, not the doctors. Nobody.
And why should I have to home school, when I am paying school taxes? Why wouldn't I deserve to take advantage of the educational system I'm helping to fund?Completely irrelevant. I can give you taxes I would not like to pay because I don't have use for what they fund, as I'm sure you me. I can give you taxes I don't mind paying that my neighbor hates. This is a non-issue.
I don't know. I won't sugarcoat it and say I'm for this, because I'm not. I'm glad I'm not a parent because I'd probably be pretty irate about it, should it pass (and if the issue was here in MD, I would be irate about it for my niece's and nephew's sake). It's a completely valid argument to question the vaccinations, but there is far from enough evidence to justify a move as bold as this. If you could show me, yes, here are the facts: MMR causes Autism, then, man, I'd be behind you 100%. But right now all I'm seeing is MMR might be the cause of autism, but we don't know, as nobody knows what causes autism. Millions of kids get the MMR, but of those millions a small percentage is autistic. In the mean time, however, we are going to put some kids at risk until all the facts come in.
I don't think that works for me.
Would now be the time to point out that, if you choose to vaccinate your child, it won't matter whether I do or not, because your child will be vaccinated against anything my child might get?
I already addressed that:
But I promise you I do not want a child who hasn't been vaccinated for the mumps or measles in the same class as mine (or, I guess to be more fair at this point, my niece or nephew). Sure, they might have been vaccinated, and in theory they would be safe, but I don't want that theory tested.
;)
I don't want to play Russian roulette with a kid's health.
I don't want to play Russian roulette with a kid's health.But with zero (not "some," not "many," but zero) long-term studies of the vast majority of vaccines' effect on health, if you give your child/niece/nephew every mandatory vaccine, that's exactly what you are doing. Many diseases you vaccinate for are treatable and generally non-life threatening in an industrialized Western nation. Let's say you are faced with a week of the flu or a lifetime of ADD, don't you want the right to make an informed choice? You may very well choose the vaccine and take your chances that the risk of ADD is minimal. You may very well decide the studies that link vaccines and ADD are all wet, and choose the vaccine. But under the current system in 31 of 50 states, the choice is not yours, either way.
I'm not necessarily opposed to vaccination. I want two things: a) the ability to selectively vaccinate, rather than face a mandated and lengthy list; and b) the ability to research information on my own, and make a choice one way or the other since the government has in some ways abdicated that role.
Here's an example of potentially unnecessary vaccination: New Jersey has a law that any college student must have the MMR vaccine. I am 34 years old and have never had measles, mumps or rubella in my life. I work on campus every day. I signed up for a grad class, and due to the gaps in my medical records from my adoption, I had to get a booster shot, ostensibly for the protection of those around me. Sure, you can say I don't have to take the class and therefore avoid the shot. But if the shot is for the safety of those on campus... I'm on campus every day anyway.
It's a "big government" argument, and one of the places where I range into that odd mix of conservatism and libertarianism is big government. (You know I'm not a conspiracy theorist.) It's the same with abortion, gay marriage, whatever, with me, on a lot of issues. I might very well choose the party line and vaccinate. But it's about choice vs. mandate. I'll choose choice (almost) every time.
I think the very core of where I disagree with you is your use of mandate and choice.
You claim they are mandated and there is no choice, but everything I'm reading says you are incorrect.
By all means correct me if I'm wrong so I can debate while at least appearing to be intelligent, but you insist that there is no choice when in fact their is. A choice you don't like, sure, but a choice.
You also seem to be claiming these vaccines are mandated. By definition, mandate means an order. You are not ordered to vaccinate a child. I guess you are if you want the child to be in a public school, but you are not legally obligated to vaccinate a child if you don't send him/her to public school, no?
Because of all of this, I cannot get behind your big government argument, as I don't see the government forcing you to do anything. If you want A, you have to do B, yes, but you there are options to not getting A.
Regarding your college and you not needing a shot: Your college is retarded. It should be all or none, I agree with you. (A weaker argument could be while you are on campus every day, you are (assumedly -- by the school, not by me) in closer proximity with the students. But, like I said, weak argument, but one I'd suspect the school to use.)
Again, it goes back to choice, of which you have.
The more I read, though, the more I realize we could be splitting hairs. I don't care if a kid doesn't have a flu shot before he gets to school. He really should, but it's not that big of an issue.
But MMR and other disease vaccines? Yeah, that's not even a debate with me. Mumps can kill a kid, and with (and let's be honest here) nobody knowing for sure if it causes autism or not, it's HUGELY selfish to put other kids at risk for what one believes. You want your kids to not be inoculated against the mumps and measles? Rock on with your bad self. You want to put my kids at risk with your little germ infected petri dish? Kiss my ass and home school the little science project.
(Again, general you, here, but if you chose to not give your kid the MMR shot, I have no problem saying this to you. lol.)
At the end of the day, though, this affects neither of us at this point. This isn't even being debated in Maryland and by the time your kid gets to school, maybe (or better yet, hopefully) they'll be either a solution, compromise or, ideally, an answer.
First, keep in mind someone's little science project may very well be attending school under the religious exemption.
The trouble is, you claim religious exemption, it's all or nothing. No vaccines, or all of them. Nothing in between.
And yes, there is the option of home-schooling. But it is the only option: No day care, no preschool, no kindergarten, no public or private school.
In other words, I can't even start a no-vaccine private school or child-care out of my own home if I were so licensed to educate. This applies to everyone.
Except Christian Scientists, for instance.
Bear in mind, too: New Jersey mandates more vaccines than any other state, including Maryland. And I can't avoid so much as one, without avoiding them all, even ones I would find beneficial.
Even drugmakers admit vaccines can have major side effects - so, again, in some cases, there is as much a risk of permanent harm coming to your child from the vaccine itself as from the disease.
Maryland, by the way, does not have a philosophical exemption, either.
Myself, I am willing to consider every vaccine on its merits. It's not about avoiding vaccines or illness; I want my child healthy. It's about informed consent - if a vaccine has a great risk of making my child unhealthy, I don't want that, either.
Eric did a pretty good job defending vaccine choice so I won't say much other than the possible side effects of vaccines are not only autism, but also SIDS, encephalitis (swelling of the brain), childhood arthritis and cancer. Eric and I have not made up our mind--we might very well choose to selectively vaccinate. But I'll tell you, mumps is not a fatal disease--it's rare to die of mumps--same for chicken pox and the flu. It's not going to kill most unvaccinated kids. And I'd rather my kids develop natural immunity from diseases, not artificial immunity from vaccines.
"The American rate of such problems as ADD and Autism has increased alongside the number of mandated vaccines, according to some studies."Some" being key word there. Back in the early 90s (or late 80s?), some studies also showed that milk was bad for your kids. "Some" studies have shown that second hand smoke is life threatening (which "some" studies now are showing to be false)." Sorry I can't figure out how to do italics, Steve. But milk is bad for your kids. Read The China Study. Life threatening or not, I don't want any second-hand smoke around my children either.
And I'd rather my kids develop natural immunity from diseases, not artificial immunity from vaccines. There is so much wrong with that statement, I will bow out.
Good luck in your battles.
Post a Comment