This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
FatalHeaven
#16: Should vaccinations be required?
I, personally, think they should. As a matter of community health. I know that, as with anything, risks come with vaccinations; But if I am disease-free and the person beside me refuses to get a vaccine and is now infected, it will raise my chances of being infected by that disease. Which will mean that them not getting vaccined is affecting the health of the people around them, the health of their community.
Further more, As far as the US, If states can make it illegal for a person to smoke cigarettes in a restaurant because smokers can cause health risks to others, why shouldn't they be able to make everyone vaccinate their children to prevent spread of disease. Not everyone that comes into contact with cigarette smoke will get cancer or die from some second hand smoke inhalation disease, but because there is a chance that someone may, lots of states have banned smoking in public establishments. How is this different from vaccinations? A child that isn't vaccinated can potentially become infected with a disease and then spread that disease to others. Eventually that disease can make its way to a person with a weak immune system and kill them. So basically by spreading that disease they have become a death dealer. I say if you don't want to vaccinate then you should be confined to your living establishment and not allowed to be out in any public place.
Harsh? Absolutely. I guess I just love my family and my own health too much to see it unnecessarily risked by someone else.
Post by
Interest
I also agree, although I wish there was a way besides intravenous. I like being healthy.
Post by
MyTie
The government shouldn't be allowed to require people to inject their bodies with anything. Cigarette arguments don't make sense either. The two arguments, are not equivalent either.
Post by
Adamsm
If a child goes to a public school, they should receive the vaccination, since they can put the other children at risk if they don't. Otherwise, like pretty much every other thing in regards to a child, it should be up to the parents.
Post by
Ksero
In Ontario, where I live, public school students are required to have most vaccinations or they can be suspended from school until they get them. The only way to not be suspended is if you cannot be vaccinated for religious reasons, or if they are allergic to the vaccines.
I didn't get the swine flu vaccine (like most of my school) because it wasn't the virus wasn't in our area. Then one of a girl from my school's sister's came back from a vacation the east coast, she had the virus. The girl from my school caught it from her sister, and infected 80% of the school (including me) in about a week. I could barely breathe for 3 months because while my immune system was weakened by the virus and I got a bacterial infection in my lungs. The few people who were vaccinated in my school were fine.
I agree that everyone should be vaccinated, but someone who is not vaccinated can't spread the disease vaccinated people, so if you are worried about your family make sure they are vaccinated and they will be fine.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
The two arguments, are not equivalent either.
Explain.
Neither smoking nor not being vaccinated is illegal. Both can give others sicknesses, cancers...etc if you don't either
get vaccinated
or in the cigarette example,
quit smoking/don't be around those who do.
They may not be on the
EXACT
same caliber but they are more equivalent than you seem to think.
Not to mention that say a parent doesn't believe in vaccinating their children and at the age of 5 or 10 or 12... the child gets a sickness that could have been prevented if they had been vaccinated. Furthermore, what if that same child told you that they themselves believe in vaccinations? Children without vaccinations are so often sick, and their own voices never heard.
Post by
Ksero
The two arguments, are not equivalent either.
Explain.
Neither smoking nor not being vaccinated is illegal. Both can give others sicknesses, cancers...etc if you don't either
get vaccinated
or in the cigarette example,
quit smoking/don't be around those who do.
They may not be on the
EXACT
same caliber but they are more equivalent than you seem to think.
Not to mention that say a parent doesn't believe in vaccinating their children and at the age of 5 or 10 or 12... the child gets a sickness that could have been prevented if they had been vaccinated. Furthermore, what if that same child told you that they themselves believe in vaccinations? Children without vaccinations are so often sick, and their own voices never heard.
The arguments are not equivalent because you can't "vaccinate" yourself against second hand smoke, if you breathe it in, it WILL harm you. You can get a vaccination against disease yourself, or for your kids, so that they dont get infected, even if they come into contact with the disease.
Post by
FatalHeaven
The two arguments, are not equivalent either.
Explain.
Neither smoking nor not being vaccinated is illegal. Both can give others sicknesses, cancers...etc if you don't either
get vaccinated
or in the cigarette example,
quit smoking/don't be around those who do.
They may not be on the
EXACT
same caliber but they are more equivalent than you seem to think.
Not to mention that say a parent doesn't believe in vaccinating their children and at the age of 5 or 10 or 12... the child gets a sickness that could have been prevented if they had been vaccinated. Furthermore, what if that same child told you that they themselves believe in vaccinations? Children without vaccinations are so often sick, and their own voices never heard.
The arguments are not equivalent because you can't "vaccinate" yourself against second hand smoke, if you breathe it in, it WILL harm you. You can get a vaccination against disease yourself, or for your kids, so that they dont get infected, even if they come into contact with the disease.
The example was made in the first place to pertain to the laws of such. If the government can mandate you can't smoke in certain areas/buildings due to the health risks to others; I don't see why they can't make it a law to have your vaccinations. I mean, our government concerns itself with much lesser things that I think this should be among the things it controls. And I seriously LOL at people who think it would give the government too much power. You can still live whatever life you want so long as you get a few shots as a kid so as not to risk yours or anybody elses health. Lord have mercy if the government passes a law that would make the Nation as a whole healthier.
Post by
Ksero
You seem to have missed my point, they can't make a law to make people get vaccinations because you can get one yourself and be protected if you come into contact with the infected person. If you walk by someone who is smoking and inhale second hand smoke, it does damage your lungs, so they made a law so that people wouldn't be unnecessarily harmed.
On top of that some people have adverse reactions to vaccinations, forcing them to take it would make them extremely ill or kill them.
Others are opposed to it for religious reasons, and forcing them to take it would be infringing on their right to religion.
Post by
gamerunknown
For someone who is awfully concerned with how easy it is for people to go into debt, you seem really unconcerned about criminalizing it.
Not criminalising it, if you note the context. Debtors prison was probably the wrong word, I meant something along the lines of a workhouse: where someone could go to work before their debts actually caused them to commit a felony, so they
wouldn't
cause society more harm or have a criminal record. People seem concerned that people have access to amenities by taking away other people's freedoms, so it'd be better if everyone had a chance to earn those amenities.
No problem with vaccinations.
MyTie: wouldn't marking people be reminiscent of Revelation 13?
Post by
MyTie
MyTie: wouldn't marking people be reminiscent of Revelation 13?
I do not attempt to draw political understandings from the book of Revelation. People who do that are either wrong, or wrong and crazy.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Vaccines should be forced along with education about them. In that case, we will get less idiots spreading deadly viruses around.
At what point should government's power be limited? When it no longer does good? Should government be given power over people's lives as long as it does something that is good?
Post by
gnomerdon
vaccines are too dangerous.
Post by
MyTie
vaccines are too dangerous.
This is a horrible argument. There is
no correlation with modern vaccines and any negative health effects
, even though this has been extensively studied.
Everyone, please don't mistake my argument, which is against government over reach to force good things, with those that are just flat out against good things.
Post by
gnomerdon
it was a response to borondize.
there are risks an infant and child has to bear if the polar opposite does happen. there are those cases. it's not 100% safe
edit: i also acknowledge that vaccines do in fact save more lives in the long run, but is still far from perfect.
Post by
Adamsm
it was a response to borondize.
there are risks an infant and child has to bear if the polar opposite does happen. there are those cases. it's not 100% safe
And it's even unsafer to leave those children vaccinated.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.