It blows my mind that there are actually people who think like this. I found this out a couple years ago after just such an episode of Law and Order: SVU, where a mother admits to knowing her baby had a rash and a fever and was crying, and what's she do? Spank her and go to sleep, next morning the baby's found dead, so the mother buries the baby and blames it on her nanny (ala Casey Anthony), and WHO is arrested? The mother of the 5 year old boy who unknowingly had measles when he was in the park the same day as the baby.

After the episode, the boards were flooded with people arguing over you should be arrested if you don't get your kid shots vs. it should be the individual parents' decisions, not Big Brother's.

I have never had any vaccinations, my brother did as a child, and they about killed him. So what's the message? It's okay if your child dies so long as he isn't contagious? Screw that. I never had a measles shot, I never got the measles, I never had a mumps shot, never had the mumps, never had or got German measles, or polio, or small pox, chickenpox I got, and now that I've had it, I'm immune from it, you can't get that certainty from a shot, always a chance you could still get it.

And the question was brought up, if it should be illegal not to get kids shots, what about the kids who are allergic? So if your kid can't handle eggs, he has a free pass on making everybody else sick, but everybody else has to get their kids stuck with shots that will hurt, might not even work, or might even make them sicker than the illness could?

For the most part, the law in this country does NOT get to tell you what to put in your body, and I say it should stay that way, how about everyone else?

If a parent feels strongly enough about not vaccinating, it can be eluded. Through home schooling or certain private schools, parents can still provide their kids an education without subjecting them to vaccinations.

The problem with public schools becoming less strict about it is that there are going to be many more parents who don't do it simply because they do not have to than don't do it for researched, thought out reasons like your parents did after your brother had a bad experience with it.

I think that it is ok to have a family here and there who is not vaccinating due to whatever reason, be it personal belief or religion. But as soon as it is not a requirement, there are going to be way more not having it done and then we are going to see a problem with it. Then we are going to see more uncontrolled outbreaks of things like measles and even chicken pox.

vaccinate them kids I don't want measles or mumps or chicken pox!

Not illegal, that's a bit extreme and would likely lead to other problems. I think we should keep it at encouraged.

Shale wrote:

Oh, and that chickenpox you had. You are now in the same demographic as us old ppl and you can just wait around in your old age for shingles to pop up, which can be worse than the original disease.

For which they have anti-shingle cream, which we already have, which I use on my coldsores.

Maybe....maybe....it shouldn't be illegal, but I think it's totally nuts to not.

It'd be stupid as hell not to.

I think it should be illegal and don't understand why a parent wouldn't wanna safeguard their child against diseases that can be communicable. When it comes to health issues I think the law should always put the well being of the kid over all else. Including the parents beliefs and ideals.

Yes, absolutely. Especially if they are attending public/private school. I don't get parents who have some sort of moral, ethical or righteous aversion to vaccinating their children. To not do it is outright negligent IMO.

And what if the shot just about kills them and then they get what the shot is supposed to protect them from anyway? My brother had the chickenpox vaccine as a kid and he still got the chickenpox, twice, and neither was a light case either.

Supernova wrote:

And what if the shot just about kills them and then they get what the shot is supposed to protect them from anyway? My brother had the chickenpox vaccine as a kid and he still got the chickenpox, twice, and neither was a light case either.

You do know that this would be a freak occurrence and that the chances of immunization shots killing a child are astronomically low, right? I really don't understand the skepticism some parents have toward things like this. I'd be willing to bet that NOT getting the kids vaccinated carried more potential risks health-wise than the other way around.

All I know is that it seems anytime a relative or a friend of the family's gets a shot for something, they wind up getting what they're supposed to be protected from anyway, so in a case like that, why should they even bother? If you have a history of shots working for you, then yes I can understand that but my family is not made up of the normal, everyday, run-of-the-mill, works-for-everybody-so-works-for-us people, we ARE the 'freak occurrences', shots, medicine, whole bunch of stuff that's supposed to help us only makes us sicker; so why should a law enforce people who ARE like that being forced to take more shots to just become sicker when they could not take them, save the time and pain and have about the same effects?

Quote :

All I know is that it seems anytime a relative or a friend of the family's gets a shot for something, they wind up getting what they're supposed to be protected from anyway

I can understand if that is in your family's history, but your friends too? So, to you is seems that anytime they get a shot for something they wind up getting what they are supposed to be protected from anyway?

That would mean that you have seen several cases of Diphtheria, Whooping cough, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Hep B and Chicken pox in any friends who have been immunized against them anyway.

I respect people who choose not to vaccinate. It is their choice, but as I stated before, if there were not laws, people would opt of of it due to carelessness or laziness. Then there would be outbreaks of things all the time. The argument many make is that they have not immunized their child, yet he stayed safe. He stayed safe because most of his peers are immunized.

I know you are not a parent yet, but think about when you have a child if you do. Because your daughter may follow suit of your family and react poorly to vaccinations, you may opt to not get him/her immunized. Do you really want your child in settings with groups of children who are not immunized? It would put your child at risk in a big way.