Flowchart: should I vaccinate my child?

[sirs]

I support the right of the parent(s) to make the choice on abortion. I also support their right to make their own decisions regarding vaccinations.

To support one, and not the other, regardless of which is which, makes no sense to me. If X cannot credibly support abortion and then argue against a parent's right to make a choice regarding vaccination, how can Sirs keep his credibility arguing the exact opposite?

Because one is about the sanctity of life.  The other is simply preventative measures, and should be left to the parent.  2 completely different concepts, thus no double standard

[Plane]

     The decision to run a risk with ones self or ones children might be reasonable or unreasonable or marginal, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the individual and the heads of families rather than defaulting to the government , so on the spectrum only those things that are nearly certain to cause serious harm should be a decision made by the government risks that are marginal or reasonable remain the province of the parent or the individual.

So, by that logic, let's stop making infant and child car seats mandatory. I'd bet way more are bought and used to avoid tickets than are ever actually needed in an automobile accident. Parents shouldn't be charged for neglect or endangerment for leaving candy colored laundry detergents in child's reach, or medications, drugs, alcohol or rat poison, or hey, even leavng guns and ammo laying about. Why is it you want only fetuses to live, but have no concern for them after birth? Enquiring minds would like to know.

That exaggerates the case I was making a bit, but I think I can go from this point.

Do you think that the police should be checking homes preemptively to baby proof them?

[hnumpah]

Because one is about the sanctity of life.  The other is simply preventative measures, and should be left to the parent.  2 completely different concepts, thus no double standard

Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.

[Plane]

Because one is about the sanctity of life.  The other is simply preventative measures, and should be left to the parent.  2 completely different concepts, thus no double standard

Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.

So the aborted child is just as dead as the unvaccinated child?

Since the aborted children are 100% successfully killed , but a majority of unvaccinated children survive , I see a difference in degree as well as a difference of kind.

[hnumpah]

Read what I said again, closely.

Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.

[sirs]

Because one is about the sanctity of life.  The other is simply preventative measures, and should be left to the parent.  2 completely different concepts, thus no double standard

Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.

 

That's not a given, H.  A child isn't guaranteed some childhood death if not vaccinated.   Abortion is 100% death.  There in lies the difference

[Plane]

Read what I said again, closely.

Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.

They are neither dead nor doomed when the decision is made.

I remember getting a brace of vaccinations in boot camp and a few more before every cruse , the Navy believes that the vaccines are a net plus though in the thousands of vaccinations they do see some bad reactions. Examining the odds, the Navy is probably right .

In particular I remember the flap that came with the anthrax vaccine , this was an emergency and it was believed likely that Saddam would attack with anthrax. There was a relatively high rate of bad side effects (still a minority) and it became a real question whether a soldier or sailor had any right to refuse to be vaccinated.

[hnumpah]

Personally, I think the religious worry too much about abortion for folks who worship a god who, several times, ordered entire populations wiped out, down to every man, woman and child, and in some cases their herds as well. They claim to be for freedom and less government regulation, except where it goes against their religious beliefs. They go on about religious freedom, while seeking to deny others their freedom from religion. But that's just me. I wonder about things.

[sirs]

You're going to have to provide some examples of how we're "denying others their freedom from religion".  Last I checked, I have yet to see one court case, where anyone from my "religious side" is attempting to mandate that you pray or attend sunday school, or even believe in God.  Last I checked it was those who don't practice religion, attempting to use lawsuits to force those who do, to accept and respect a choice of living contrary to their religious beliefs

In other words, it appears you have it bassackwards

[Plane]

  Has my appeal against murder been too religious?

   I guess it is true that only Christians are worried about lives that aren't their own.

[hnumpah]

You're going to have to provide some examples of how we're "denying others their freedom from religion".  Last I checked, I have yet to see one court case, where anyone from my "religious side" is attempting to mandate that you pray or attend sunday school, or even believe in God.  Last I checked it was those who don't practice religion, attempting to use lawsuits to force those who do, to accept and respect a choice of living contrary to their religious beliefs

In other words, it appears you have it bassackwards

The bakery case is one such attempt, where religion was brought up in order to discriminate against someone who believes differently. It's not necessariy a matter of the religious trying to mandate that others pray, attend Sunday school, or believe in some god; it's a matter of the religious trying to enforce their beliefs on others.

Don't believe in abortion? Don't get one. Work within the law to try to change the law. Don't bomb abortion clinics or threaten or even actually assassinate abortion providers.

Believe homosexuality is a sin? So are a lot of other things...how many sins do you commit every day? Woud you appreciate being denied service because of any of them?

Don't believe in same sex marriage? Then get a job where you are not required, BY LAW, to issue same sex marriage licenses or otherwise facilitate them.

You want to pray, go to church, whatever, by all means, go ahead. But remember, you are also accountable to civil law, and you are admonished to '...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...', meaning to obey civil law, pay your taxes, etc. And civil law, in this country, says that you can NOT discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, or sexual preference.

[hnumpah]

  Has my appeal against murder been too religious?

   I guess it is true that only Christians are worried about lives that aren't their own.

See the part of the previous post about civil law. At present, legal abortion is not defined as murder, regardless of how you characterize it. Neither are legal executions of condemned criminals, justified killngs by police officers in the line of duty, and many justified killings by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. If you disagree with any of those, work within the law to change the law.

[sirs]

You're going to have to provide some examples of how we're "denying others their freedom from religion".  Last I checked, I have yet to see one court case, where anyone from my "religious side" is attempting to mandate that you pray or attend sunday school, or even believe in God.  Last I checked it was those who don't practice religion, attempting to use lawsuits to force those who do, to accept and respect a choice of living contrary to their religious beliefs

In other words, it appears you have it bassackwards

The bakery case is one such attempt, where religion was brought up in order to discriminate against someone who believes differently. It's not necessariy a matter of the religious trying to mandate that others pray, attend Sunday school, or believe in some god; it's a matter of the religious trying to enforce their beliefs on others.

That's NOT forcing you to "become religious", or share their beliefs.  There are a gazillion other bakeries you could use allowing you to be as agnostic as you wish.  Rhetorically speaking, YOU, on the other hand appear to be trying to force this 1 bakery to become just like the other gazillion....forcing them to drop their religious beliefs to placate your feeling offended

Sorry, that was a really bad example since no one is being denied their right from religion.  Do you have any others?

[hnumpah]

It's a great example of 'Render unto Caesar...' The law prohibits discrimination, period. By trying to discriminate against anyone who does not believe as he does, the baker is trying to force his beliefs on others. And, in the meantime, violating the law. Period.

Oh, and you forgot to address abortion clinic bombings, assassinating abortion providers, trying to intimidate those seeking abortions, refusing to issue licenses for same sex marriage....There are any number of ways to illegally try to force your religious views on others.

[sirs]

The law indeed prohibits discrimination.   The Constitution however prohibits the attempt to diminish one's 1st amendment right to Religious freedom.  The latter is what trumps any misinterpreted notion of the former.  I'd recommend your recommendation....use the law to fix it, as in you're going to need to lobby enough folks to amend the Constitution

And since the bombings were never brought up, I never forgot them in the 1st place.  Any effort to bomb, hurt, or anything to damage someone else should be punished to the fullest extent of the law