Should state mandate immunizations? N...

Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July

There are 9772 comments on the Chattanoogan.com story from May 4, 2011, titled Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July. In it, Chattanoogan.com reports that:

Immunizations are one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways to protect children against childhood diseases and Tennessee law requires documented immunizations.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chattanoogan.com.

Trucks

Clemmons, NC

#7289 May 1, 2013
No

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7290 May 1, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I AM the People. The US was established as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, but incorporating democratic principles.
Do you truly advocate tyranny of the majority over the Rights of the Individual?
It has been long established that your rights as an individual do not extend to endangering others.

You have the right to free speech, but not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

You have the right to the religion of your choice, but not to the _practice_ of child sacrifice.

You can own a business, but not one that pollutes the water supply.
You can own a firearm, but not if you are going to fire it randomly into crowds.
You're in "favor" of my autonomy? I'm so glad that the almighty YOU have given your august "favor" to my right to make my own decisions, and to live my life the way I choose.
And you do, but you need to accept the consequences of those decisions. If you choose not to vaccinate your kids, then you are choosing not to send your kids to public school, public parks, public pools, etc.
As for the "public safety" issue, if you and your children have yielded to the government mandate and been vaccinated, what do you have to worry about? Shouldn't you be immune? If so, then what does it matter to you what I do?
Your ignorance of how immunization works does not change how it works.

Herd immunity works not because it prevents you from ever getting the virus, but because it limits the number of hosts for the virus so it doesn't have time to adapt around the vaccine.

Additionally, there are individuals who can not be vaccinated (kids in cancer treatment for example).

If a virus hits an area and there are enough hosts, then it will stick around, adapt, and eventual infect others.

If there aren't enough hosts, it will infect one or two people, fail to adapt and die out.

If you elect to have your kids serve as hosts for the virus, you are endangering the lives of everyone.
People can educate themselves, or not, as they choose. They can think for themselves, or not, as they choose as well. You obviously think that the government should rule over the people, and I would guess that you would prefer a "soft tyranny" under an oligarchy, not unlike what the EU constitution established a few years back.
BTW the option you present is not legal, as allodial ownership is no longer an option for the 99.9% of the people. Nice for you that so few know what that word means, eh?
You are free to make decisions, but you are NOT free to avoid the consequences of the decisions you make.

You can choose to not educate your children, but then your children are NOT going to go to the University of your choice.

This isn't a matter of majority rule or government control.

It's simply a matter of choice and the consequences of that choice.

If you choose not to vaccinate your kids, then you are choosing to keep your children away from the children of responsible parents because you will be endangering their lives.
geez

Ringgold, GA

#7291 May 1, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been long established that your rights as an individual do not extend to endangering others.
You have the right to free speech, but not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
You have the right to the religion of your choice, but not to the _practice_ of child sacrifice.
You can own a business, but not one that pollutes the water supply.
You can own a firearm, but not if you are going to fire it randomly into crowds.
<quoted text>
And you do, but you need to accept the consequences of those decisions. If you choose not to vaccinate your kids, then you are choosing not to send your kids to public school, public parks, public pools, etc.
<quoted text>
Your ignorance of how immunization works does not change how it works.
Herd immunity works not because it prevents you from ever getting the virus, but because it limits the number of hosts for the virus so it doesn't have time to adapt around the vaccine.
Additionally, there are individuals who can not be vaccinated (kids in cancer treatment for example).
If a virus hits an area and there are enough hosts, then it will stick around, adapt, and eventual infect others.
If there aren't enough hosts, it will infect one or two people, fail to adapt and die out.
If you elect to have your kids serve as hosts for the virus, you are endangering the lives of everyone.
<quoted text>
You are free to make decisions, but you are NOT free to avoid the consequences of the decisions you make.
You can choose to not educate your children, but then your children are NOT going to go to the University of your choice.
This isn't a matter of majority rule or government control.
It's simply a matter of choice and the consequences of that choice.
If you choose not to vaccinate your kids, then you are choosing to keep your children away from the children of responsible parents because you will be endangering their lives.
If everyone is so scared of others not vaccinated , then why don't you take your family and live in a bubble somewhere far, far away.....smh
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7292 May 1, 2013
Good point Geeze. Had to chuckle at that one.
Nuggin wrote:
It has been long established that your rights as an individual do not extend to endangering others.
You have the right to free speech, but not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
You have the right to the religion of your choice, but not to the _practice_ of child sacrifice.
You can own a business, but not one that pollutes the water supply.
You can own a firearm, but not if you are going to fire it randomly into crowds.
<quoted text>
And you do, but you need to accept the consequences of those decisions. If you choose not to vaccinate your kids, then you are choosing not to send your kids to public school, public parks, public pools, etc.
<quoted text>
Your ignorance of how immunization works does not change how it works.
Herd immunity works not because it prevents you from ever getting the virus, but because it limits the number of hosts for the virus so it doesn't have time to adapt around the vaccine.
Additionally, there are individuals who can not be vaccinated (kids in cancer treatment for example).
If a virus hits an area and there are enough hosts, then it will stick around, adapt, and eventual infect others.
If there aren't enough hosts, it will infect one or two people, fail to adapt and die out.
If you elect to have your kids serve as hosts for the virus, you are endangering the lives of everyone.
<quoted text>
You are free to make decisions, but you are NOT free to avoid the consequences of the decisions you make.
You can choose to not educate your children, but then your children are NOT going to go to the University of your choice.
This isn't a matter of majority rule or government control.
It's simply a matter of choice and the consequences of that choice.
If you choose not to vaccinate your kids, then you are choosing to keep your children away from the children of responsible parents because you will be endangering their lives.
Do you remember I said you should not assume anything where I am concerned? You really should have listened.

I should really thank you though. You have very nicely encapsulated the mentality that has led us into this oligarchical tyranny, and the reasoning that has convinced the "herd" to abdicate their rights as Americans.

In short, if I've read your posts properly, you believe the people are too stupid to conduct their own affairs, so the government must do it for them. We disagree.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7293 May 1, 2013
geez wrote:
<quoted text>If everyone is so scared of others not vaccinated , then why don't you take your family and live in a bubble somewhere far, far away.....smh
So, 99% of the people should be isolated so that the 1% who refuse to get vaccinated can make irresponsible choices?

That makes sense to you?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7294 May 1, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
Good point Geeze. Had to chuckle at that one.
<quoted text>
Do you remember I said you should not assume anything where I am concerned? You really should have listened.
I should really thank you though. You have very nicely encapsulated the mentality that has led us into this oligarchical tyranny, and the reasoning that has convinced the "herd" to abdicate their rights as Americans.
In short, if I've read your posts properly, you believe the people are too stupid to conduct their own affairs, so the government must do it for them. We disagree.
This has nothing to do with rights.

You HAVE the right to no vaccinate your kids.
IF you make that choice, you are forgoing the ability to have your kids attend public school.

No one has taken your rights away. You just have to live with the consequences.

You want don't want freedom from government, you want freedom from responsibility. You want to make whatever choice you want to make and not suffer any consequences of making that choice.

That's not how a society works.

Don't go blaming the government for your bad decisions.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7295 May 1, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
In short, if I've read your posts properly, you believe the people are too stupid to conduct their own affairs, so the government must do it for them. We disagree.
You have the right to bear arms.
You have the right to fire off those arms.

Should you have the right to fire off those arms into crowds of people? Isn't it the government infringing on your rights by telling you that doing that is dangerous to everyone else.

Am I advocating a nanny state when I say we should have police that arrest people who fire guns into crowds?

If you choose to not vaccinate your kids, you are endangering THEIR lives _AND_ the lives of everyone else.

It is perfectly reasonable for _EVERYONE ELSE_ to say "We don't want your dangerous kids around our kids."

Choices HAVE consequences.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7296 May 1, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the right to bear arms.
You have the right to fire off those arms.
Should you have the right to fire off those arms into crowds of people? Isn't it the government infringing on your rights by telling you that doing that is dangerous to everyone else.
Am I advocating a nanny state when I say we should have police that arrest people who fire guns into crowds?
If you choose to not vaccinate your kids, you are endangering THEIR lives _AND_ the lives of everyone else.
It is perfectly reasonable for _EVERYONE ELSE_ to say "We don't want your dangerous kids around our kids."
Choices HAVE consequences.
Who is talking about firing guns into crowds of people? Me? No, that would be you. As I've already covered, your rights end where mine begin, and mine end where yours begin. You immediately assume I will violate someone else's rights; why? Come to think about it, you do a lot of assuming.

Let me give you a little glimpse into a larger picture.

http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/tax-services-mult...

This is a PDF form discussing global taxation from 5+ years ago. Interesting read, but what does it have to do with us? Well, that's where link 2 comes in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

Back when this was being talked about in certain forums, and the news media was widely ignoring it, the "official buzz" was that this was just a treaty agreement and not really finalizing the EU's Constitution, establishing an Oligarchy which passes laws that individual parliaments may discuss and even disagree with, but have no power to alter.

Whether the government has the power to mandate vaccinations or not is a very small issue, but it is not insignificant. Illegal immigration is also a small, but not insignificant, issue which speaks to a larger issue already coming together globally.

Once I kept links to items worthy of note, but in 2008 and 2009 many of those websites went offline. Google "Non-productive Eaters" and look for the connection between that term and the Nazis. I just did that search and through 3 pages didn't see but one possibility for such a connection. However there are other hits that might make one wonder just how trustworthy any government is, or is likely to be in the coming years.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7297 May 1, 2013
My point is, as it has always been, the sovereignty of the individual over the permitted authority of the government. The government has only the authority we allow it to have, no more, but if we allow it too much authority bad things tend to happen.

Consider how many deaths in Oak Ridge over the past 70 years have been the result of contamination, but were covered up by the government to avoid its own responsibilities. Same government that falsely reported a VC attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, which embroiled us in Vietnam and cost 58,000 men and women on the US side, and God only knows how many South Vietnamese, Viet Cong, Cambodians, Laosians, and Chinese. Same government that kept the US in some conflict for 2/3 of the 20th Century. And you want us to trust this government?

Who would be stupid enough to trust such a government? Certainly not a Free People, but maybe people indoctrinated on the doctrines of interdependency would.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7298 May 1, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
Whether the government has the power to mandate vaccinations or not is a very small issue, but it is not insignificant.
You think it is not significant because your child didn't die of a preventable disease as a result of someone else electing to forgo vaccination.

I suspect if you talk to the parents who have lost children to the resurgence of measel and mumps, you would find that THEY think it's a VERY significant issue.

You are perfectly within your rights to endanger your children. You are not within your rights to endanger EVERYONE ELSE'S children.

And when ignorance leads to dangerous behavior, it is important for SOMEONE to step in and tell the ignorant minority to STOP doing the thing which is endangering the majority.

Refusing to vaccinate your kids endangers the lives of EVERYONE.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7299 May 1, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
My point is, as it has always been, the sovereignty of the individual over the permitted authority of the government. The government has only the authority we allow it to have, no more, but if we allow it too much authority bad things tend to happen.
Consider how many deaths in Oak Ridge over the past 70 years have been the result of contamination, but were covered up by the government to avoid its own responsibilities. Same government that falsely reported a VC attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, which embroiled us in Vietnam and cost 58,000 men and women on the US side, and God only knows how many South Vietnamese, Viet Cong, Cambodians, Laosians, and Chinese. Same government that kept the US in some conflict for 2/3 of the 20th Century. And you want us to trust this government?
Who would be stupid enough to trust such a government? Certainly not a Free People, but maybe people indoctrinated on the doctrines of interdependency would.
This sort of argument is beneath you and you know it.

It's not the "same government".

The medical doctors who are advising the CDC on how to prevent massive outbreaks of preventable diseases are NOT responsible for the war in Vietnam.

This would be like me arguing that "the same citizens who shot all those kids in Newtown are opposing vaccines".

After all, that guy was a citizen. You are a citizen. Same thing.

It's a childish line of argument, and if you can't see that, you've got a bigger problem on your hands than just killing your own children.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#7300 May 1, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So, 99% of the people should be isolated so that the 1% who refuse to get vaccinated can make irresponsible choices?
That makes sense to you?
Unfortunately, judging by the level of intelligence that the Scud Trolls possess, on this Forum alone, I would have to say the Gov't. is right to assume that some of the People aren't capable of making their own decisions, in any sane and rational way.
My 2 Cents

Murfreesboro, TN

#7301 May 1, 2013
SexySassySenior wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, judging by the level of intelligence that the Scud Trolls possess, on this Forum alone, I would have to say the Gov't. is right to assume that some of the People aren't capable of making their own decisions, in any sane and rational way.
The government does not have the right to "assume", any way anyhow, assumption is never the right approach.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7302 May 1, 2013
My 2 Cents wrote:
<quoted text>The government does not have the right to "assume", any way anyhow, assumption is never the right approach.
There's no assumption here.

We know what viruses are. We know what vaccines are. We know how vaccines work. We know what happens when people don't get vaccinated.

It's a public safety issue.

Just like putting out fires or arresting criminals.
Hey

Sparta, TN

#7303 May 1, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This sort of argument is beneath you and you know it.
It's not the "same government".
The medical doctors who are advising the CDC on how to prevent massive outbreaks of preventable diseases are NOT responsible for the war in Vietnam.
This would be like me arguing that "the same citizens who shot all those kids in Newtown are opposing vaccines".
After all, that guy was a citizen. You are a citizen. Same thing.
It's a childish line of argument, and if you can't see that, you've got a bigger problem on your hands than just killing your own children.
Being that these medical doctors get Big Bucks from Big Pharma to push their wares,And Big Media Gets Big Bucks to push their wares,and Big Government gets Big Bucks to push their wares what do y'all think of that Viox recall that Merck knew was lethal but they made billions and paid a few milllion in fines and no jail time? Who wrote those prescriptions a topix troll? How about Bayers aids contaminated drug? Governrment passed and troll prescribed?Yes? FDA even knew that was contaminated didn't they? Yes they did.
How about CDC's Thorsen and his 'Danish study" and his Fraud and Money laundering trick?This was the big study on the Autism connection to vaccines wasn't it? I heard y'all mention Wakefield but no Thorsen Or that other CDC credible that was indited for child molestation and a little animal fun in the bedroom.TRUST? SURE.
Y'all talked about the mumps and the danger so everyone must get the vaccine.Is this that Merck vaccine you'd be speaking of to save the day? The one that is up on fraud charges, the fraud of their Mumps vaccine?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7304 May 1, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
Being that these medical doctors get Big Bucks from Big Pharma to push their wares,And Big Media Gets Big Bucks to push their wares,and Big Government gets Big Bucks to push their wares what do y'all think of that Viox recall that Merck knew was lethal but they made billions and paid a few milllion in fines and no jail time? Who wrote those prescriptions a topix troll? How about Bayers aids contaminated drug? Governrment passed and troll prescribed?Yes? FDA even knew that was contaminated didn't they? Yes they did.
How about CDC's Thorsen and his 'Danish study" and his Fraud and Money laundering trick?This was the big study on the Autism connection to vaccines wasn't it? I heard y'all mention Wakefield but no Thorsen Or that other CDC credible that was indited for child molestation and a little animal fun in the bedroom.TRUST? SURE.
Y'all talked about the mumps and the danger so everyone must get the vaccine.Is this that Merck vaccine you'd be speaking of to save the day? The one that is up on fraud charges, the fraud of their Mumps vaccine?
Your argument fails on a number of levels, but most significantly it fails in this way:

You argue that doctors you don't know are getting money you can't demonstrate they are getting from groups you can't name and that because of this money, you can't trust their opinion despite the fact that the results are verifiable.

However, you give Wakefield a pass despite the fact that we KNOW he invented the autism scare specifically to sell his vaccine. We KNOW he faked his research. We KNOW he did it for money. And we KNOW he doesn't have any results to demonstrate his claim.

You so have 6-7 UNKNOWNS in your argument and no valid reasoning, but you accept it with blind faith.

Meanwhile the argument with NO unknowns is rejected because...

CRICKETS.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7305 May 1, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no assumption here.
We know what viruses are. We know what vaccines are. We know how vaccines work. We know what happens when people don't get vaccinated.
It's a public safety issue.
Just like putting out fires or arresting criminals.
Your response, in the context of the post you're responding to, seems a bit ambiguous, so if I may clarify; who is this "We" you're referring to?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7306 May 1, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response, in the context of the post you're responding to, seems a bit ambiguous, so if I may clarify; who is this "We" you're referring to?
Educated people.

Educated people know how vaccines work and how herd immunity works. Uneducated people don't.

It's evident in this very thread where the poster says that kids who already got vaccinated don't need to fear the fact that other kids aren't getting vaccinated.

This shows a clear ignorance of how vaccines and herd immunity works.

I hate to have to keep beating a dead horse, but this is simply a matter of public safety.

The government is not going to take your kid and inject them against your will. However, if you choose not to adhere to the laws of the land, then you must suffer the consequences of that choice.

In this case, refusing to vaccinate your kids means you need to home school them in order to protect the health and safety of the children of responsible parents.
Hey

Sparta, TN

#7307 May 1, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument fails on a number of levels, but most significantly it fails in this way:
You argue that doctors you don't know are getting money you can't demonstrate they are getting from groups you can't name and that because of this money, you can't trust their opinion despite the fact that the results are verifiable.
However, you give Wakefield a pass despite the fact that we KNOW he invented the autism scare specifically to sell his vaccine. We KNOW he faked his research. We KNOW he did it for money. And we KNOW he doesn't have any results to demonstrate his claim.
You so have 6-7 UNKNOWNS in your argument and no valid reasoning, but you accept it with blind faith.
Meanwhile the argument with NO unknowns is rejected because...
CRICKETS.
I frankly haven't seen your back ups.You sound like a mouth piece for big Pharma your self.
Just google Doctors get big kick backs from drug companies.
I put sites up before about the difference between GMOs and other crops and you just continue to say they have been created in the same manner for years and years and that's not the truth.
However you seem to be giving Thorsen a pass and this crook stole a $ million plus of that which was for the Autism study.That study was the one that was used to keep giving the pass, on saying there was no link to Autism and vaccines.No problem here.
You seem to be the one accepting on blind faith for you just keep repeating what MSM and Big Govt.tells you.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7308 May 1, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
I frankly haven't seen your back ups.You sound like a mouth piece for big Pharma your self.
Just google Doctors get big kick backs from drug companies.
You simply don't have enough information to even understand what you're talking about.

If some doctor gets a kick back for prescribing drug A over the generic version of it, that has NOTHING to do with vaccines.

The majority of medical professionals dealing with creating vaccines are not doctors who are dealing with patients and prescribing medicine. They are medical researchers who are trying to save lives.

And they've been succeeding for decades. Right up until Wakefield started getting kids killed over nothing.
I put sites up before about the difference between GMOs and other crops and you just continue to say they have been created in the same manner for years and years and that's not the truth.
Of course it is. You are trying to say that ALL crops fit into one giant category. Then, you need to accept that fact that every single crop we have is the result of hundreds if not thousands of years of genetic modification by humans.

There are no wild cows. There are is no wild corn. Wild apple trees produce inedible fruit.

Everything in the supermarket is the result of humans messing with the natural order to produce what we want over what would survive normally.
However you seem to be giving Thorsen a pass and this crook stole a $ million plus of that which was for the Autism study.That study was the one that was used to keep giving the pass, on saying there was no link to Autism and vaccines.No problem here.
You seem to be the one accepting on blind faith for you just keep repeating what MSM and Big Govt.tells you.
I don't know who Thorsen is, but I can tell you it's not _ONE_ study that shows no link between autism and vaccines. It's HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of studies from all over the world.

There are retroactive studies evaluating existing databases that demonstrate that the levels of autism are EXACTLY the same among the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

There are mechanism studies that demonstrate that there is no mechanism by which it could occur.

There are genetic studies that demonstrate an underlying genetic condition behind autism which can not be retroactively introduced into a fetus by a vaccine that occurs three years later.

There have been studies about claims about mercury.
There have been studies about claims about acid.
There have been studies about claims about the number of vaccines and how quickly they come.

There have been tons and tons and tons of studies.

The reason I bring up ONE study from Wakefield is that it's the study that STARTED this unfounded rumor using fraudulent data.

BILLIONS of dollars have been wasted proving the Wakefield lied, and yet here you are still trying to convince parents that they shouldn't vaccinate their children which has, to date, caused hundreds of deaths in the US alone.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Nashville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
TN Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn dIsarms DEA ... 1 hr Truth 7
Money question 2 hr giving 7
How Far Would You Go In Supporting Trump? 4 hr General Bone Spur... 137
Pick Up After Your Dog!! 10 hr ThomasA 16
News Is Marcus Mariota the long term solution at QB ... (Oct '16) 13 hr Vice Farts 18
Impossible bipolar co worker Sun Mom 12
Taking a Knee Sat NAFTA 68

Nashville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Nashville Mortgages