Then in that case - then children who cannot take the shot for medical reasons, should not be allowed in public schools.
How would you fee if a child got sick and died because of your son - who could not have a shot for medical reasons.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
VACCINATIONS In NY State
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Then in that case - then children who cannot take the shot for medical reasons, should not be allowed in public schools.
How would you fee if a child got sick and died because of your son - who could not have a shot for medical reasons.
NoQuieroUnQueso
Member
By law, all kids must be buckled in while in a car. Does that violate parent's rights? No one is mandating that kids gets vaccinated, though I believe parents should because dying kids are a bad thing. They're just saying that if you want your kids to attend a public school, they need to be vaccinated so no other kids get serious illnesses. If not, there are other options. There's homeschool, private school, you don't have to send your kids to public school if you don't want to.
But seriously though, what parent is okay with risking their kid getting a terrible disease that is easily preventable? Who looks at their newborn baby, this fragile new life, and goes "Meh, let 'em get measles. If they die, they die." Again, back to the car analogy, I guess any parent could decide to not buckle their kid. I mean, what are the odds they're going to get into an accident? What are the chances they're going to get smallpox or whooping cough? Well, it only takes one car crash, and it only takes one case of smallpox, and you are now burying your child.
Why would any parent want to even risk that? Especially when it's so easily preventable. One tiny seatbelt, one tiny shot, and you're saving tiny lives.
NoQuieroUnQueso
Member
If that child is vaccinated, they're not going to get sick from the kid who can't have a shot for medical reasons.
Yes, it does violate the parents rights - esp when car seats could cost in excess of $100
Technicality - you might be correct - but in reality they are!
Actually you are incorrect - even private Christian Schools are required to have all students be given the shot.
Why would any parent want to even risk that? Especially when it's so easily preventable. One tiny seat belt, one tiny shot, and you're saving tiny lives.[/QUOTE]
FWIW - There is no guarantee that a seat belt will save your life - in fact - there have been cases where the seat belt was the cause of death.
Disclaimer - Yes - if you "play the numbers" seat belts DO save lives - and they save many more than would be the cause of death.
Unless I missed it- did you answer my questions from post # 101
Then in that case - then children who cannot take the shot for medical reasons, should not be allowed in public schools.
How would you fee if a child got sick and died because of your son - who could not have a shot for medical reasons.
NoQuieroUnQueso
Member
I answered it, don't worry. I said if everyone at school was properly vaccinated, then the child who can't get shots for medical reasons won't be getting anyone sick.
That and the immunocompromised child probably won't be in school, he'll be in the hospitable fighting for his life. People with weakened immune systems, when they catch something, go under quick. They don't slowly notice the symptoms and get gradually worse, they go from 0 to 100 in an instant. Because their immune systems are too weak to fight it off. Though most parents with kids like that are watching them closely, and the minute something is wrong they rush them off to the doctor.
And if you play the numbers, vaccines save lives as well. Think of all the babies that would've otherwise died of measles, smallpox, or whooping cough if not for vaccinations. Before vaccines, infant mortality rates were very high. That number has since dropped because we have vaccines which prevent babies from catching deadly illnesses.
Last edited:
NoQuieroUnQueso
Member
That explains your responses.
Seriously, what is so confusing about babies not dying from life-threatening diseases?
Okay lets add something new -
The leadership of the Onondaga (Indian) Nation School - says they do NOT have to follow
the law of New York State - since technically are a separate nation!
Now the Onondaga Nation School is part of the Lafayette School Distinct - which is NOT
under control of the Indian Nation!
The leadership of the Onondaga (Indian) Nation School - says they do NOT have to follow
the law of New York State - since technically are a separate nation!
Now the Onondaga Nation School is part of the Lafayette School Distinct - which is NOT
under control of the Indian Nation!
A couple of things here - All I am saying is that decision should be left up to parents, especially if it is based on Religious Grounds.
(Now I'm sure there are things that you accept from the Bible, that I could probably say has no basis. - then that is interpretation.)
Of course, I do not want children to die - but the question becomes - how far will the govt go. How about this example - suppose a 6 year old child
is about to be baptized - (which of course would be immersion) but for whatever reason the child drowns. Then the States comes down and passes a
law that say a child cannot be immersed until the age of 13.
Then what?
NoQuieroUnQueso
Member
Well, there are already laws against drowning people, and the only way anyone would drown would be if someone got held down under until the bubbles stopped coming up. Even if a kid got water up his nose, as soon as you pull him up he'll be coughing it up. The body has a natural defense system to that kind of stuff. And I've yet to hear about anyone drowning while being baptized, so if that ever did happen I would almost question malicious intent. And it would take more than one incident to make it a government issue anyway.
As far as government intervention, I wish there was no need for it. Again, if all parents had kept their kids safely buckled in a car, there would be no need for the government to pass a law to keep kids buckled. If some parents didn't beat their kids to a broken mess, there wouldn't be a need for anyone to intervene to protect the child. But it happens, and something should be in place to protect children from life-threatening harm. But that's also why we're supposed to have a democracy, so the people have a say in the laws that are passed.
And it could very well be left to the parents' decision, but I draw the line at antivaxxers telling other people how to raise their own kids. I've seen some go as far as to tell parents who vaccinate that they're abusing their children.
This is the reason I keep banging my head (which stops now). YOU DON'T answer my questions - you go off on tangents.
YES, I do realize about natural defense.
BUT people HAVE actually died while being baptized - thus my example is not out of the question!
So if you would actually answer my question - I would be more than glad to read it.
Otherwise, please don't waste my time.
Salty
PS - and the deaths I found on the net - was NOT due to the pastor holding someone under the water too long.!
NoQuieroUnQueso
Member
It's mainly because the scenario is unrealistic. The fact that the government hasn't done anything, even though people have died from baptisms, shows that. The government isn't going to ban food just because children have choked, that's the extreme example you've given. If they did start putting limits on religious practices, then that would be the time to rise and dismantle the government.
To answer your question as to what happens if the government limited baptisms to 13 if a child drowned: They haven't, and they won't. If they did, Revolutionary War Part 2.
While perhaps the government shouldn't mandate vaccines, I do believe parents should vaccinate. What do you think would happen if nobody vaccinated their children?
Thats the reason I said "IF"
Yet there are things the govt has done that 100 years ago - we would say - "but the govt making abortion legal - oh - that would never happen!)
Yet, this is how it happens - one baby step at a time and over a period of Time..... as Barney Fife said:
But they have
don't be so sure they would do nothing. --- Previously I mentioned BJU would not allow blacks to attend - whether that was right or wrong - it was based on a religious belief. Same thing with the Mormons - the Fed govt forced them to give up their religious belief of polygamy.
Looks like you are coming around a little bit.
If nobody vaccinated their kids - would some die - of course.
Some 6,000 children die in car collision every year - and that does NOT include the 3,000 who were not buckled up.
What law should be passed to keep that 6,000 from dying?
BTW, I do use vehicle analogies - as I am a certified driving instructor.
Last edited:
NoQuieroUnQueso
Member
The thing is though, that car accidents don't breed and spread. If you want to look at the infant mortality rates back before vaccines were invented, they were very high. If nobody vaccinated their kids, MANY babies would either die or be permanently crippled from life-threatening diseases. Just take a trip to a cemetery sometime. All the baby graves that you see from before 1950/60, that was life-threatening diseases. We're talking around 1500 deaths from measles per million. That ends up being a lot more than 6000 a year. You'll see less child graves after that point because vaccines. Since then, infant mortality rates dropped 74%. I'd say that was a lot bigger number than dies in car crashes.
The Impact of Vaccines on Mortality Decline Since 1900—According to Published Science • Children's Health Defense
Since you dont like to answer questions - I am out of here.
NoQuieroUnQueso
Member
Oh boy. You're the one not responding to anything I said.
To answer your question: There can be no law that keeps everyone from dying. The best the laws can do is reduce the number of deaths a year. Without seat belt laws, those 6000 would be tens to hundreds of thousands.
Do kids still die of diseases even though vaccines exist? OF COURSE. But vaccines significantly reduce the childhood death rates. Does the fact that vaccines caused infant mortality rates to drop by 74% not mean anything to you?
You can't pass laws that prevent everyone from dying. But you can keep thousands of babies from dying unnecessarily by giving them a simple shot. You can't be pro-life and say that even some babies dying from disease WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO is okay.