If you are against vaccinations, you are an immediate threat to public health - Page 2

http://www.911truth.org/

Your point? The fact that there is a conspiracy theory out there doesn't surprise me.

Understood.


This is not accurate. The vaccine can be given after someone is sexually active.


A few points, one most 13 year old girls do not share their sexual interests with their fathers. Second I've some seriously crazy decisions made by girls when those hormones kick in and lastly, almost all women create a "I'm the chaste, nice one" persona if the adults around them require it.

I do not have a daughter, only sons but if I did I would probably talk to her about doing the same thing. That isn't the problem. The problem is would you want your daughter and her body to submit medically to whatever concerns myself or others cared to force on her claiming societal concern.

Of course men get HPV too and it can be a problem.

My point is, vaccines are not 100percent safe. You can't force me to do something against my will that is potentially not safe

Not getting vaccinated is not safe. Not just for you, but for others. By not getting vaccinated yourself, you are imposing something that is not safe on others.

Ok... YES! Mode of transmission is very important in determining whether a vaccine needs to be mandatory or not.

Avoiding HPV is easy ... No sexual contact.
Avoiding measles? ... Not so easy... It's airborne and you can get it just by standing near an infected person on the subway.

If a girl is not sexually active, there's no need for it. Once she decides to give it up, the the vaccine may be the responsible thing to do.

So there should be no opting out, unless you choose to opt out, in which case it's perfectly fine?

I wouldn't put it that way.


Yes.


Yes.


I would oppose it being mandatory, yes. Both diseases are avoidable. Also, realize I don't oppose vaccines in general, nor do I oppose HPV vaccine. I simply oppose mandating it for 12 year olds.

Anyone who doesn't assume that EVERY human being is potentially sexually active is living in denial.

Here's a bit of denial. While both of you are busy calling everyone stupid, you still haven't addressed what you would do to those "criminals" who refuse to submit their bodies to state demands.

I don't think "sex is icky" or "immoral" at all.


I don't hold "those beliefs" nor does my position have anything to do with religion.



...is what your strawman arguments are. I simply oppose mandatory HPV vaccine for reasons I've already stated. Now, more communicable diseases? That is different.

What does "potentially sexually active" mean? And really..."every" human being? Let me guess, you're one of those that believe we should have sex education in Kindergarten?

Because one can choose not to have sex. One can choose to have protected sex. No one is getting HPV from walking into a classroom or using a public bathroom. I'm not opposed to the vaccine at all..it's clearly beneficial. But that doesn't mean it should be mandatory...for freaking 12 year olds.

Can you give it up with the ridiculous strawmen? I mean I understand it is all the left can do now since you've watched President Obama engage in this bullshit for close to three years now, but seriously, it's a bit pathetic.

Please explain how not forcing 12 year old women to lose control of their bodies is the same thing as claiming no desire to eradicate sexually transmitted diseases.

Here's how ridiculous your reasoning happens to be.

I'm pretty sure in the future, almost every human being will have sex. Since this is an activity that nearly every human being will participate in why shouldn't we eradicate the concept of consent.

Here's the list of states that grant philosophical and religious exemptions.

You know which states aren't there BR? Mississippi and West Virginia. That is where you rest on this matter regarding women and control of their bodies. Your reasoning states they are sluts so we get to do whatever we want to protect themselves and us aka society from what will happen regardless.

It's insulting and you repeat yourself ad-nauseum because that is all you can do. There isn't any way to defend your claims and desires here.

The same exact thing we do to parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids for measels. Hint... they don't go to jail.

You do know that HPV is easily transmitted even if you use a condom, right? Or are you ignorant of that fact as well?

And to say people can "choose not to have sex" is so moronic it's not even worth rebutting. But maybe you can ask Sarah Palin how that worked out for her family.

So what is this thread actually about? Issuing no-vaccine tickets to those who don't have needle marks?

Hint, you're not answering the question since the thread topic specifically notes that there should be no personal belief waivers and obviously BR wouldn't endorse religious wavers. Your answer amounts to see the current law when the topic of the thread demands the law be changed.

So answer the question and stop dodging it.

All fifty states have legislation requiring specified vaccines for students. Although exemptions vary from state to state, all school immunization laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons. Almost all states, except Mississippi and West Virginia, grant religious exemptions for people who have religious beliefs against immunizations. Twenty states allow philosophical exemptions for those who object to immunizations because of a personal, moral or other beliefs.

So to answer your question using as an example, what happens when you refuse to vaccinate your child for measles in California, absolutely nothing because you exercise your right to a philosophical exemption and you take your child to school.

BR specifically declared this shouldn't and wouldn't be allowed if he had his way.


This from the man who ignorantly claimed the HPV virus couldn't be administered after one has had intercourse and who wants to strip every 12 year old girl in the United States of their rights because of a problems in parts of the world where people die due to lack of medical care.

As for how it worked out for Bristol Palin, I have no doubt that if we compared her net-worth and yours, even at 21 years old and obviously not coming from parents who were not rich, as she was growing up, that she'd come out ahead. So I'd say it worked out for her just fine.

I'm not sure I want to live in a country where the government can compel you to be injected with a substance you don't want.

You just can't let it go. I oppose mandatory HPV vaccine. I've already explained why. I've already explained that I don't oppose the vaccine itself. I've already explained that I could support mandatory vaccines for certain other diseases which are more communicable.

As for HIV, you're merely speculating. You don't know that it could wiped out. In fact, since there is no cure (only treatment), your prediction is unfounded.

So leave, or fall down on the floor and hold your breath as part of your continual tantrum.

HPV will not be eradicated by this vaccine. The vaccine doesn't hit all strains and there are also secondary causes other than HPV that cause cervical cancer. Scream all you want, threaten all you want, your utopia will not arrive even if you claim everyone who points this out is mean and stupid.

This is just a lie.

I may not have been clear, but I was never claiming that. What I meant was that once you're infected with HPV, the vaccine has absolutely no effect, so it absolutely must be administered before there is a chance of infection, which means before someone has intercourse.

According to the CDC, that's not entirely true. Use reduces the risk of cervical cancer, though the effect on HPV is not known. Then, there is this article from a few years back...



I understand the notion is absolutely ridiculous to you, but it happens every day for millions of people. People abstain, and for various reasons. No one HAS to have sex. That is the real difference when we're discussing mandatory immunizations. Airborne diseases are another matter.


That's exactly the kind of low, despicable comment I've come to expect from liberals in full meltdown mode.

This is what you wrote.


That is pretty damn clear in my book.


What vaccine isn't ineffective after you've been infected? You know tonton questions like this are poised to you all the time and you just ignore them. In the real world though society doesn't ignore them and that is why you and BR find yourself in this place where you are continually ranting and angry about why all the supposedly stupid and mean people don't do what you want. It's because they don't just ignore the counterpoints and they must be answered. It's the same reason why Obama with all his bad logic and strawmen is so unpersuasive even with his supposed "oratorical gifts."

The reality is that all human activities have risk factors. The reality is that in a country where women can get medical care and where they won't die of cervical cancer but also won't die of common things like diarrhea, the chance of dying from cervical cancer caused by HPV is profoundly small. It's so small that in actuality it is better to question what those 4,000 women do to ignore the signals their body is sending them rather than get treatment rather than forcing every girl to lose choice with regard to their bodies. Out of 2.5 million deaths in the U.S. this year, 4,000 will be from cervical cancer. That means by forcing every 12 year old girl to undergo vaccination, and you must force all of them to avoid spreading it, not just make it sound smart, be free, and raise public awareness, it must be mandatory per BR, then you MIGHT, MIGHT lower the death rate by 0.0016.

However I really doubt it would lower it because again, much like prostate cancer, cervical cancer is a very non-aggressive and slow progressing cancer. Also you fail to address this point....

Cervical cancer usually develops very slowly. It starts as a precancerous condition called dysplasia. This precancerous condition can be detected by a Pap smear and is 100% treatable. That is why it is so important for women to get regular Pap smears. Most women who are diagnosed with cervical cancer today have not had regular Pap smears or they have not followed up on abnormal Pap smear results.

In otherwords, when these women die, they have to determine a primary cause but it is likely due to an entire lifestyle that reflects poor health choices and we all shouldn't be made to suffer for those poor choices. The prevention guides all mention early sex and multiple sex partners. It also mentions smoking as a cause. Should we regulate and control all women's choices in those areas as well? Diabetes will kill many more people than HPV. It's rate is rising due to the number of people that make bad choices regarding food. I suppose in an attempt to improve the death rate by .0016% there, we ought to all forgo diet choices. We can just get our three assigned meals a day from the government so we can be saved from ourselves.

Please continue to ignore all the points I make. Hell put me on ignore like BR. Then you can get progressively more angry and profane when you don't see anyone being persuaded by your viewpoints and arguments.

Now is it not safe for others? They can Chose to be vaccinated. If they chose not to be, That is a risk they have chosen to make. How am I imposing any risk on them?

He's misogynist and scared to death of his teenage daughter having sex. I will feel sad when he finally gets Bristolled, honestly, but it's a likely result.

You can't tell a girl 'sex is what sluts do, don't do it' and expect her to listen. You have to appeal to her intelligence and tell her exactly why she's too young, and not spread lies that it's not a good thing (in all honesty, it's one of the best, and she's too smart not to know that) when done responsibly but only when she's emotionally, financially and and developmentally ready for any unexpected consequences.

I'm honestly surprised Mystic doesn't know this already.

I love PO. Next week, we'll be discussing the benefits, ethics and risks of male infant circumcision, and all the posters here will completely switch sides.

He's against mandatory vaccination, not all the stupid strawmen and bad intentions you keep tossing into the air since your authoritarian bullshit can't win anyone over.


Nearly zero isn't the same a cured or gone. Stop making crap up and stop deluding yourself.


The real misogynists want to force women to subjugate their bodies for their societal utopian delusions.


Somewhere out in the real world, there are plenty of kids who don't listen. Plenty of parents who talk to their kids and who don't sound like a bad stereotype out of the 50's and plenty of bad things still happen. Calling names doesn't change that fact and no matter how many strawmen you craft and how many points you ignore, your argument falls flat on it's face. Just insult more people, call more names and be dumbfounded as to why you, just like the occupy movement, make a lot of noise but accomplish little.


You're surprised that you've inferred another person stupid? That isn't surprising at all.


Did you go down and occupy your local park's restroom and lure some kids inside to educate them?


I doubt anyone here would advocate for mandatory circumcision.