Should vaccinations be required in the United States? |
Absolutely Not!
Injecting infants, children, and adults with poison is attempted murder in any other situation, so how are vaccines any different? Because a bunch of paid-off "professionals" say so? A large percentage of the so-called "outbreaks" were MAN MADE and spread BY the vaccines! They alter your DNA, and kill your own body's natural defenses. Stop the madness!
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely
In order for children to attend public schools it is mandated that they have received certain vaccinations (PPD, Measles, flu). Also healthcare of any individual who has not been vaccinated affects over all recovery from certain diseases.
Posted by: Doulos1202Yes
From a utilitarian standpoint- duh. Anyone w/ out a vaccination could become a carrier of that disease, thus making the spread of that disease MUCH easier to those who have had vaccinations.
If people don't like science, well, tough luck, it happens to explain a lot of things. You may NOT use your religion or your freedom to take away from the general safety of the public or from any other individual. I.E. get vaccinated. I don't see how vaccination can possibly be against one's religious beliefs any way considering all the major religions were founded well before we even knew about bacteria.
I am a religious christian and I approve this message.Posted by: Dr.StrangeloveVaccinations should be required as they reduce the chances of any particular disease to spread.
Vaccinations should be required within the United States. Individuals that are not vaccinated not only put themselves at risk but others around them. A larger group of people not vaccinated increases the rate at which a disease reproduces, which allows for new strains with increased virulence. In addition people with reduced immune functions will suffer higher rates of exposure then would occur otherwise.
Posted by: BroderickSVaccinations should be required in the United States because of the implications concerning the public good and the avoidance of spreading disease.
There are some vaccinations that should be required in the United States. Over the years, it has been proven that the spread of many serious diseases can be controlled with the use of vaccines. I am in favor of requiring vaccinations for children who attend public schools. Since dangerous diseases can spread rapidly when children are in close contact, it only makes sense to require the immunizations for the greater good.
Posted by: R0d0FerdyOf course yes.
Vaccinations helps keep away viruses. It helps promote a healthier lifestyle and country. With everyone getting vaccinations, our country would be more virus-free.
Posted by: AnonymousCommunity Health
I don't care if your child ends up crippled from polio if you choose not to vaccinate, and the government has no right to tell you to do so. However, vaccination is not that simple. When you choose not to vaccinate your child, you put many people at risk who cannot choose. When your choice causes babies under 6 months to die, through no fault of their own, when it can be so very easily prevented, then yes, the government not only has the right, but the obligation to step in. In addition to very young children, there are many others who are put at risk. Vaccines work not only based on the immunity they provide to individuals, but they work based on a community level.
Posted by: AnonymousWhether someone is vacciened affects the people around them
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. They should not choose their societal welfare.
Posted by: AnonymousYES
Vaccinations increase hurt immunity, which in turn eradicates diseases.
They stop children from getting life threatening diseases; refusing your child to vaccination is child abuse!!
There is more risk in not having vaccinations to having vaccinations! The benefits outweigh the consequences.... What consequences?! There are none. You don't get diseases, that's it!Posted by: AnonymousProtect my family
The best way to protect families is to keep from getting sick. If you get a vaccine you will have a low chance of getting a specific disease.A vaccine is a shot that will help the immune system be prepared for a disease that may or may not happen.
Posted by: AnonymousYes
It keeps us from all being diseased.
Posted by: DeathbeforedishonourLarge scale vaccination programs have been hugely successful in the eradication and prevention of diseases that plague humanity.
Vaccinations are a safe and effective way of preventing many of the serious diseases that plague humanity. Large scale vaccination programs in the past have been hugely successful in the eradication of diseases like polio. In addition, vaccinations can significantly lower the cost of health care by preventing outbreaks. Lowered health care costs allow more people to purchase health care and provides an additional boon to our nations over all health.
Posted by: IarsChromeVaccinations save lives.
If you saw the effects vaccine-preventable diseases like polio, smallpox, measles, invasive pneumococcal disease and TB more frequently you would not ask this question. It is the success of vaccines, and their reduction of the visibility these diseases, that causes people to downplay the risks of disease and make a fuss about one's right to choose. Weigh the risks properly, people.
Posted by: AnonymousNo vaccination, no leaving the house
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.
Posted by: AnonymousVaccination is not a threat.
The scientist who made the study claiming that vaccinations were a threat lost all of his degrees and was mocked by the entire scientific community. The only way to eradicate a disease is for 80% of a community to be vaccinated. The Whooping-Cough outbreak was due to the fact that brilliant parents thought that the vaccine was dangerous. The side-effects of vaccines are extremely well understood and claiming that any vaccine cause mental illness is absolutely incorrect and should never be used as an excuse to not be vaccinated.
Posted by: AnonymousVaccinations should be required in the US, they have helped vanquish many diseases, and sometimes you need to do something for society as a whole.
I believe vaccinations should be required in the US. Thanks to vaccines, we have seen polio, tuberculosis and even the chicken pox nearly eradicated. While there are some children who have difficulties with the vaccines, the negative affect these diseases have on society is devastating. Therefore, vaccinations should be mandated in the US.
Posted by: JayceCOf course.
Vaccines save lives! Not just your own, but the people around you who are too young to be vaccinated or have health problems that prevent them from being vaccinated. When a person refuses a vaccine they put an unnecessary health risk on themselves and those other people. How would you feel if you developed whooping cough and passed it on to your newborn baby? And to you people who say "we don't need it. No one gets these diseases." Why do you think these diseases are rare now days.?
Posted by: Anonymousto the person who said "Not At All"
This is in response to the respondent who said that flu shots are just to calm the fears of media hype- because she/he never once got sick. Listen to yourself. You got vaccinated. You didn't get sick. You are making an argument IN FAVOR of vaccinations. And, is Australia an 3rd world country? Their healthcare system was crippled because of so many employees caught H1N1.
Posted by: AnonymousYes
Yes because if no one had a vaccine than how would anyone prevent a new disease? everyone would be sick and they would go haywire for a cure. I know my opinion is not as sufisticated as the other ones but its very simple... vaccine...no sickness, Yeah! Thats my oppinion and just like the other person said ITS CHILD ABUSE IF YOU DONT LET YOUR CHILDREN GET A VACCINE. Thats just a disease waiting to happen...
Posted by: AnonymousYES
They should because if one person gets a diseases then they spread it then more and more people would get it and with out a vaccination the whole contry could die off
Posted by: AnonymousThe perpetrators of the spread of illnesses are the ones who foolishly refuse to get vaccinated.
There may be minor side effects to a vaccine, unless you are allergic to it. However there is no conclusive evidence that shows vaccines are deadly. It is the fault of those stupid people who refuse to be immunized that diseases such as malaria are still around. If every human was vaccinated against those diseases, not only could we eventually become independant of the vaccine since the genetics of the parent would be transmitted to future generations, we could focus on more serious conditions such as AIDS and Cancer.
Posted by: Anonymous
No.
If I'm ever forced to put that freakin' poison in my body, I'm moving to Ireland.
Posted by: AnonymousIndividual rights matter
Vaccines are not harmless, and everyone should have a right to choose for themselves or their children whether they wish to subject themselves to those risks. Vaccines have become much less about public health, and much more about corporate profits. Vaccines are a BIG money maker, and the manufacturers relentlessly lobby to get as many people as possible to have to take them. It makes no sense to artificially mess with our natural immune system unless absolutely necessary. Messing with nature will lead to negative consequences. There are way too many cases of autoimmune disorders, neurological problems etc. that need to be explained.
Posted by: Anonymouswell..no
people have there right to not want to get vaccinated. if someone doesn't want to then we shouldn't make them.
Posted by: imnotsayingimjustsayingPEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE
I do believe vaccines are a good idea but people should have free will. People should be educated on the risks and benefits of having a vaccine so they can make up their own mind and do what they think is best for themselves and the people around them. Freedom is really important and everyone has the right to choice.
Posted by: AnonymousVaccinations should be a personal choice for the parents, since vaccinations will cause illness in many children.
As parents, we are often told what we have to do either to or for our children. So many choices have already been taken away. The fact that there could be more is maddening. Vaccinations themselves are potentially dangerous, anyway, with most kids getting a fever from them. Some children get really sick and have to be hospitalized. No one should be able to force a parent to put their child in potential danger.
Posted by: TownNoamDefinitely Not.
Nothing should be put in your body that you were not born with.
How do you expect to establish your own immune system if everything to "protect" yourself is just injected into your body. Also, the sicknesses mutate, so in actuality, you're never 100% protected.
The best thing you can do is eat healthy and take care of your body. If it wasn't meant to be there in the first place, then why put it in your body?Posted by: AnonymousAdverse reaction study register for vaccination.
Whilst l am not anti vaccination l am pro choice. In essence l support the concept of most vaccination programs that are for predominately life threatening illnesses. However l believe it is against our democratic right to enforce such rules. L also believe a register should be set up for families with a history of adverse reactions to such immunisation ie developed the disease within 2 weeks of injection or had an immediate adverse reaction both of which is the case with various members 0f my family. L would encourage my children to home school rather than vaccinate if choice was taken away as it is wrong to give a potentially life threatening injection to an otherwise healthy child as seems to be the case with the whooping cough vaccine with my family. L did not want to immunise my 1st child for whooping cough because of a predisposition in family history of reaction or more commonly developing the illness being immunised against within the 2 week incubation period. My husband and doctor together implied l was being paranoid when l did not want to immunise and pressure was bought to bare. L vaccinated my 1st child with disastrous and immediate consequences. My child went blue and almost died. If my daughter or son were to have children l would strongly object to them being immunised. Even after this event with my 1st child, with my second child l encountered overly zealous type health professionals who wanted to risk vaccinating my second child inspite of my personal experience. They were dismissive of my previous experience due to government information which dictates immunisation is necessary and good for all. Because of the lack of compassion l encountered l believe a register should be set up for people and families with a history of reaction. My son was immunised in 1988 and as a first time mother l had no medical knowledge and was given no information as to the danger signs and did not know what to do when my child begun fitting. L did not even know what a fit was. My husband luckily told me what to do when l rang him concerned. Since then l notice the Aust. Govt now carry information on adverse reactions and how to deal with them should they occur and this ethically and legally speaking is information which should have always been supplied but wasn't to avoid alarm. L discovered no register of adverse reactions and studies of family history exists or has been undertaken. I guess because there is no money in it and because the benefits of mass immunisation outweigh the detriment of a few. This is all very fine unless you happen to be one of the few. No mother in her right mind would immunise willingly if they had undergone and had my families history of reaction. So please some sympathy and understanding that a blanket approach cannot be applied to all in this debate.
Posted by: AnonymousShould Be A Choice
In decisions such as vaccinations there should be a choice and individuals should not be condemned from such choice.
Posted by: firequeenDefinitely NOT
We should not be forced to put foreign things in our bodies. Our bodies belong to ourselves, we should be able to decide what goes into them. I don't believe that vaccines are safe. I think they are the cause of many problems we see in children today such as SIDS, autism, and ADHD. They pump these little babies with so much crap when they are born, when their immune system is not even strong yet! We should have the freedom to choose.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely not.
It is against certain religious ideas, and some people simply do not support the idea, religious or not, thereby violating the first amendment.
Posted by: adontimasuNo, but government can provide incentives to vaccinate.
Individual rights do matter. However, it's okay for the government to require vaccinations as a prerequisite to attending public schools. The government can (and should) consider the safety interests of the other children at the school. In doing so, the balance probably weighs in favor of requiring vaccinations for all children to insure against the spread of disease. This sort of government action is already the standard; they're not forcing parents to vaccinate - only protecting others from harmful effects of such a choice.
What's coming soon is that the government will exclude (or simply not include) unvaccinated children from mandatory insurance coverage. Insurers don't like unvaccinated children (they are huge liabilities on their books) and probably won't insure them. Regulations can force them to cover, but the government, as a way to motivate people to vaccinate, will probably not include unvaccinated persons as a protected class.Posted by: AnonymousPotential For Harm
Even though morally people should get vaccinations what if a vaccination were dangerous for some reason? Then it would be an atrocity if the government forced people to take it.
Even if it's been tested, mistakes can be made.Posted by: MasturDbtorVaccinations are potentially dangerous and jeopardize the safety of children. No one should be required to undergo any medical procedure against their will.
Vaccinations should not be required in the United States or any other nation. Vaccines are not 100% safe, and there are people who are allergic to certain vaccines. Forcing those people to get vaccinated jeopardizes their safety. Furthermore, America is a democratic country, and the people should not be forced to submit to any sort of medical procedure unless they themselves choose to.
Posted by: MarIMiIkIt's a free country.
I shouldn't be forced to have my baby injected with all kinds of stuff if I don't want to. Whether or not you are vaccinated should be up to you and/or your parents, not the government.
Posted by: martiansharkPersonal choices belong to the person
Pretty succinct, and already stated, but a choice relating to a person, in this case, vaccination, should be made by the person. I think vaccinations are the smart choice, but that's for everyone else to decide for themselves.
Posted by: DetectableNinjaNo
Because sure vaccines helped many years ago but today meaningless things are put into a single shot-a vaccine. We the people have a voice and if we are against vaccines why should they be pushed to us? There will be mobs and craziness if the government says we HAVE to take vaccines!
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely Not!
Injecting infants, children, and adults with poison is attempted murder in any other situation, so how is vaccines any different? Because a bunch of paid off "Professionals" say so? A large percentage of the so called "Outbreaks" were MAN MADE and spread BY the vaccines! They alter your DNA, and kill your own body's natural defenses. Stop the madness!
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because vaccinations are already required for children to attend public schools, so what else really needs to be done?
Forcing people to vaccinate their children further restricts civil rights. If a person wants to enroll their child in public school, they must vaccinate them. If they don't, they can home school. If you want to protect yourself and your children, you already have the right and freedom to vaccinate. That's all you need.
Posted by: R4v4g3rPavIFreedom of choice.
There are inherent risks involved in getting a vaccination. For example some vaccines contain Thimerosal, which is a mercury containing preservative. People should be able to decide for themselves, not the government. Our government has already taken away too many of our liberties. Adults can make their own informed decisions.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's their right body and their right
I believe that people have the right to their choice to get vaccinated or not. I do not believe it is up to the government to decide for them.
Posted by: Microsuckunless
unless there's a zombie attack on the population, then your going to need it, but that's like top secret and alarm only will be sounded at the third dong midnight, lord, oh lord, have mercy. But really i wont go get one because i grew up in the 90's and watched to much X files. My little sis gets here's and she gets a sticker too :) YEAH!
Posted by: AnonymousNo. you shouldn't be forced to do anything to your own body.
If I believe I do not want the vaccination, than no one will force me to do it. It is a free country, and if I believe vaccinations are dangerous for the body I will not have one. If I get sick its on me, but I will not be forced to take a vaccination.
Posted by: AnonymousChildren should have the right to choose when they are older
Children should have the right to govern over their own bodies. It is the children who suffer from bad side effects and its their lives who are at risk. They should be able to make their own consent when they are old enough to understand the side-effects and informed consent.
Posted by: AnonymousNot at all,
I've gone an entire flu season without getting the flu. I've had H1N1 and never died or was hospitalized. Vaccines are given to calm the fear of a massive epidemic of a type of virus that is hyped by the media, because it infects more then 75% of the population in a 3rd world country...
Posted by: AnonymousWe live in America, the land of the free; parents should make this decision for their children, not the government.
Currently, in most states, parents have the option of refusing vaccinations for their children for religious or ethical reasons. So we don't have to worry about mass "non vaccinations" because the majority of parents have their kids vaccinated. But we should retain the right to choose which ones we don't want. Spain, for example has banned the guardia vaccine because of deaths and other problems with so many young girls. Much research has come out lately revealing doubts about the safety of some vaccines. Parents have the right to be informed and to make the decision whether or not to vaccinate and which ones to use.
Posted by: NettN355Appalled at anyone thinking that vaccination should be MANDATED!!
IF there were no risks involved, it still shouldn't be mandatory. However, there are risks, PERIOD! No one has ever claimed that they are 100% safe, or effective for that matter. Not ONE person should be forced to vaccinate, to then in turn have a negative reaction, no matter how small. "Low risk" factor is so quickly used, and seems to hold so much weight in the arguments. But you will care if you or someone you love becomes part of that supposedly small percentage. 1 injury is 1 injury too many. To all those YES voters, you should do a little more research!
Posted by: jgunther959Vaccinations are a potential health threat
There have been studies that link some of the childhood innoculations to developmental disorders such as ADHD, ADD, and Autism, just to name a few. Not to mention that some individuals have become ill with the very disease they are being innoculated for, along with it compromising thier immune systems. I think it should be a choice made by the parents, not forced upon them like they are some kind of criminal. What ever happened to being able to protect your family? If you force people to take vaccinations out of fear, or out of malice, then you are violating thier fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness.
Posted by: AnonymousParents should be free to make health care decisions for their children.
Children are not the property of the state and should not be treated as such. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and parents are alone responsible for the health and welfare of their children. The government will not care for children that are adversely affected by vaccines, nor will the government care for children who get sick, despite the vaccine. Parents must have the freedom to make parental decisions.
Posted by: TrashyBrain42No, a person has the right to choose what goes into their body or what doesn
The government has not right to regulate what goes into our bodies. It is NOT the government's job or anybody else's job to ensure that you are safe from illness. it is your job only. Also vaccines contain quite a bit of questionable ingredients such as mercury and formaldehyde.
Posted by: AnonymousNo way this should be required!
A vaccination is a mix of toxins put in your body. Evidence proves that it could do more harm than good to your body. And to people who say it could cause a risk to other people, well obviously the ones who believe that take a vaccine. If your precious vaccine works you shouldn't be worried about that, yet you still are. This just further proves that vaccines don't work and and people shouldn't be forced to inject unknown chemicals into their body.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, no, no.
Vaccinations are toxic. We don't even know what's exactly in them. Disadvantages highly outweigh the advantages. They completely destroy the immune system and cause long term health problems. Basically, it is a great way to disable the body's immune system, this way, keeping people sick. It's all about the money: if people do not get sick, how will pharmaceutical giants live? Here is the question for all those who support vaccinations: how is it possible, that the country, where the WHO resides (Geneva, Switzerland) does not have recommended vaccinations? All those very important people assemble in a country which actually doesn't require vaccinations? Aren't they scared to go out to the street? Well, no, they aren't scared. Because this whole thing is just a tool to keep people scared: you have to be vaccinated, you have to be very careful, this sickness can kill you if you don't inject weak virus into your body... instead of vaccinations, keep a healthy immune system and you will be fine. Make sure you only trust independent research.
Posted by: Anonymous