Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to school

[awesome guy]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

[Hokie CPA]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

He's saying you want those kids to go to school, get sick, need thousands of dollars in hospital care per case, and you want We the People to be on the hook for their bills.

[TheH2]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

You're recommending a system of vouchers for people that refuse to vaccinate their kids. Seems like an odd incentive for not doing something that is detrimental to the health of ones own child, and those around them.

Although it has nothing to do with the stupidity of your devil's advocate arguments, just a funny policy quark of vouchers for no vaccinations.

[awesome guy]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

He's saying you want those kids to go to school, get sick, need thousands of dollars in hospital care per case, and you want We the People to be on the hook for their bills.

try again. The only reason costs are an issue is from your heard of sheep thinking the bill is their responsibility. And we are talking public school. Everyone using it is a class of free loaders. Only with vouchers, they can make choices on the school.

[HokieFanDC]

yep. And the parents of all 50 of those kids choose to accept that risk. The other 450 didn't have nothing to worry about. So what's the problem?

Smallpox was eradicated. Wouldn't it be cool if Diphtheria were eradicated? Or Measles or Whooping Cough? Don't we want to keep the number of cases as low as possible? I would think zero cases is infinitely better than 50+.

You reach that same result as the 50 die off. I find it interesting that the so called libertarians are effectively for eminent domain over other people's bodies.

You are right now guilty of making the same false choice accusations we levy against so many of our liberal friends. It's not a 'vaccinate or don't get an education' choice. Home school and private school is an option. Hell, the parents of those 50 kids could get together and start their own private school/leper colony to save costs. I'm not typically a public school advocate. I left public school in eighth grade and didn't go back until I enrolled at Virginia Tech. But the fact is simply this.... if you're going to use government schools, you have to obey government rules. And the government rules, with the backing of a super-duper-majority of the society as a whole, stipulate that children have to have certain vaccinations before they may enroll in public school. Don't like it? Don't go to public school.

There really isn't much choice, and it isn't related to govt vs private schools. Most private schools also require vaccinations. You know, because it's basic common sense.

What do you know about common sense?

Vaccinations are only required per regulations.

Vaccinations are required because they protect everyone against the spread of disease.
Most people think that's a good thing.

[TheH2]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

He's saying you want those kids to go to school, get sick, need thousands of dollars in hospital care per case, and you want We the People to be on the hook for their bills.

Yes, that was also part of the argument on what page 1 or 2 of this thread? I think he ignored it.

So, AG, have you made up your mind. Are you for or against this now?

[awesome guy]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

You're recommending a system of vouchers for people that refuse to vaccinate their kids. Seems like an odd incentive for not doing something that is detrimental to the health of ones own child, and those around them.

Although it has nothing to do with the stupidity of your devil's advocate arguments, just a funny policy quark of vouchers for no vaccinations.

I realize you're infinitely intelligent, but why are you saying vouchers would only be for vaccine free schools? They would be for any school and the private school, or public for that matter, sets the policy. Easy enough and no class of free loader is expanded upon.

[awesome guy]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

He's saying you want those kids to go to school, get sick, need thousands of dollars in hospital care per case, and you want We the People to be on the hook for their bills.

Yes, that was also part of the argument on what page 1 or 2 of this thread? I think he ignored it.

So, AG, have you made up your mind. Are you for or against this now?

You being for it has provided able evidence that being against it is the correct choice. My body, my privacy, my domain.

[Hokie CPA]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

He's saying you want those kids to go to school, get sick, need thousands of dollars in hospital care per case, and you want We the People to be on the hook for their bills.

try again. The only reason costs are an issue is from your heard of sheep thinking the bill is their responsibility. And we are talking public school. Everyone using it is a class of free loaders. Only with vouchers, they can make choices on the school.

No... we're talking about ER visits and hospital stays that could be avoided by getting a shot. And if the parents are poor, the shots are part of the Medicaid program. There is no reason to not get the vaccines other than the parents are obstinate morons who put more credence into what they here from a ditz like Jenny McCarthy than their own doctor. Give your kids the shots and send them to public school if it's such a hardship.

[HokieFanDC]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

He's saying you want those kids to go to school, get sick, need thousands of dollars in hospital care per case, and you want We the People to be on the hook for their bills.

Yes, that was also part of the argument on what page 1 or 2 of this thread? I think he ignored it.

So, AG, have you made up your mind. Are you for or against this now?

You being for it has provided able evidence that being against it is the correct choice. My body, my privacy, my domain.

Why do you vaccinate your kids? Because you think it's the smart thing to do, or because it's a govt regulation?

[TheH2]

No... we're talking about ER visits and hospital stays that could be avoided by getting a shot. And if the parents are poor, the shots are part of the Medicaid program. There is no reason to not get the vaccines other than the parents are obstinate morons who put more credence into what they here from a ditz like Jenny McCarthy than their own doctor. Give your kids the shots and send them to public school if it's such a hardship.

The amount of savings from vaccines is immense. It is also an extremely important tool in getting people out of poverty in other countries. It really shouldn't be hard (even for AG) to understand that getting a cheap vaccine costs far less money than treating the disease. This doesn't even include the extra benefits of actually having healthy people.

[awesome guy]

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

He's saying you want those kids to go to school, get sick, need thousands of dollars in hospital care per case, and you want We the People to be on the hook for their bills.

Yes, that was also part of the argument on what page 1 or 2 of this thread? I think he ignored it.

So, AG, have you made up your mind. Are you for or against this now?

You being for it has provided able evidence that being against it is the correct choice. My body, my privacy, my domain.

Why do you vaccinate your kids? Because you think it's the smart thing to do, or because it's a govt regulation?

I'm not arguing if it's smart or not. I'm arguing whose choice it is. Of course you and the other authoritarians think it's your choice.

[TheH2]

Not OK. You should make changes.

If and only if we had school vouchers or a fee based public system, I could go along with such requirements. Because there really isn't any force involved as the parents could use a private school without extra burden. Otherwise, they need to be accommodating.

Way to create a class of free loaders off government money that don't want to do the logical thing and vaccinate their kids. A nice way to reward stupidity. Of course it is a moot point because the private schools likely require immunization.

What in the hell are you trying to say?

You're recommending a system of vouchers for people that refuse to vaccinate their kids. Seems like an odd incentive for not doing something that is detrimental to the health of ones own child, and those around them.

Although it has nothing to do with the stupidity of your devil's advocate arguments, just a funny policy quark of vouchers for no vaccinations.

I realize you're infinitely intelligent, but why are you saying vouchers would only be for vaccine free schools? They would be for any school and the private school, or public for that matter, sets the policy. Easy enough and no class of free loader is expanded upon.

I misunderstood you then. I thought you would be for the requirement of vaccines if the students were offered vouchers (albeit likely a moot point because the private schools likely require vaccines). You were make a broader point that if vouchers already existed.

[HokieFanDC]

What in the hell are you trying to say?

He's saying you want those kids to go to school, get sick, need thousands of dollars in hospital care per case, and you want We the People to be on the hook for their bills.

Yes, that was also part of the argument on what page 1 or 2 of this thread? I think he ignored it.

So, AG, have you made up your mind. Are you for or against this now?

You being for it has provided able evidence that being against it is the correct choice. My body, my privacy, my domain.

Why do you vaccinate your kids? Because you think it's the smart thing to do, or because it's a govt regulation?

I'm not arguing if it's smart or not. I'm arguing whose choice it is. Of course you and the other authoritarians think it's your choice.

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

[awesome guy]

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

[HokieFanDC]

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

Just to be clear. You think that getting a vaccination means you are 100% safe from getting a disease? It sounds like you're saying that.

[awesome guy]

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

Just to be clear. You think that getting a vaccination means you are 100% safe from getting a disease? It sounds like you're saying that.

No. Just 99%. There's more risk in them getting injured at recess than picking up a disease from the unclean. And besides, you're inoculated after catching it. So the problem sorta solves itself.

Your fears are unwarranted. The kid at risk is the one without inoculation.

[HokieFanDC]

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

Just to be clear. You think that getting a vaccination means you are 100% safe from getting a disease? It sounds like you're saying that.

No. Just 99%. There's more risk in them getting injured at recess than picking up a disease from the unclean. And besides, you're inoculated after catching it. So the problem sorta solves itself.

Your fears are unwarranted. The kid at risk is the one without inoculation.

99% is high, and it depends on the specific disease, but at least you understand that they vaccinated kids get sick. And you realize that the success of vaccinations is in part due to the high % of people who are vaccinated. If more people do not get immunized, the success rate goes down.
Which increases the risk to everyone else. There's zero reason to increase the risk of your kid getting sick, sometimes very sick, because someone is making a bad choice.
As for inoculation, that's true for some diseases, not true for all. And that assumes you survive it.

[awesome guy]

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

Just to be clear. You think that getting a vaccination means you are 100% safe from getting a disease? It sounds like you're saying that.

No. Just 99%. There's more risk in them getting injured at recess than picking up a disease from the unclean. And besides, you're inoculated after catching it. So the problem sorta solves itself.

Your fears are unwarranted. The kid at risk is the one without inoculation.

99% is high, and it depends on the specific disease, but at least you understand that they vaccinated kids get sick. And you realize that the success of vaccinations is in part due to the high % of people who are vaccinated. If more people do not get immunized, the success rate goes down.
Which increases the risk to everyone else. There's zero reason to increase the risk of your kid getting sick, sometimes very sick, because someone is making a bad choice.
As for inoculation, that's true for some diseases, not true for all. And that assumes you survive it.

Cry me a river or put your kids in bubble suits

[HokieFanDC]

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

Just to be clear. You think that getting a vaccination means you are 100% safe from getting a disease? It sounds like you're saying that.

No. Just 99%. There's more risk in them getting injured at recess than picking up a disease from the unclean. And besides, you're inoculated after catching it. So the problem sorta solves itself.

Your fears are unwarranted. The kid at risk is the one without inoculation.

99% is high, and it depends on the specific disease, but at least you understand that they vaccinated kids get sick. And you realize that the success of vaccinations is in part due to the high % of people who are vaccinated. If more people do not get immunized, the success rate goes down.
Which increases the risk to everyone else. There's zero reason to increase the risk of your kid getting sick, sometimes very sick, because someone is making a bad choice.
As for inoculation, that's true for some diseases, not true for all. And that assumes you survive it.

Cry me a river or put your kids in bubble suits

Par for the course, you're the one crying like a baby in this thread, get a grip.

[awesome guy]

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

Just to be clear. You think that getting a vaccination means you are 100% safe from getting a disease? It sounds like you're saying that.

No. Just 99%. There's more risk in them getting injured at recess than picking up a disease from the unclean. And besides, you're inoculated after catching it. So the problem sorta solves itself.

Your fears are unwarranted. The kid at risk is the one without inoculation.

99% is high, and it depends on the specific disease, but at least you understand that they vaccinated kids get sick. And you realize that the success of vaccinations is in part due to the high % of people who are vaccinated. If more people do not get immunized, the success rate goes down.
Which increases the risk to everyone else. There's zero reason to increase the risk of your kid getting sick, sometimes very sick, because someone is making a bad choice.
As for inoculation, that's true for some diseases, not true for all. And that assumes you survive it.

Cry me a river or put your kids in bubble suits

Par for the course, you're the one crying like a baby in this thread, get a grip.

Lol. It took you 4 pages to say anything close to sensible. Your fears don't give you authority over everyone else's medical choices.

[SuwaneeTim820]

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

Again, is it really necessary for you to call everyone you disagree with an idiot?

[HokieFanDC]

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

Again, is it really necessary for you to call everyone you disagree with an idiot?

AG is the Saul Alinksy of UWS.

[awesome guy]

It's not "my" choice, it's the choice of society, enforced by the govt. In this case, the local govt. There are tons of regulations that protect the lives of our citizens, and this is one of them, a good one.
If someone is stupid enough to put his kid at risk by not vaccinating against measles and smallpox, that's his choice. But, he doesn't get to endanger others b/c he's an idiot.

And you're an idiot for thinking your kid is at risk from that decision. And a collectivist to boot comrade.

Again, is it really necessary for you to call everyone you disagree with an idiot?

AG is the Saul Alinksy of UWS.

He-larious. Read what you wrote early on as well as in other threads today. My sin is retaliation, yours is provocation.

[hokie80]

AG - from the original post (pre-HIV tangent)

What right does a parent have to send a kid to public school?

And again - I still fail to see where the government is forcing them to have their kid vaccinated. As far as I can tell, the requirement by the school for admission doesn't impact their right to choose to not vaccinate (no matter how idiotic their reasoning).

Another question (taking religion out of it). If a parent decides to not get their minor child vaccinated against say, smallpox and the child later contract smallpox from another anti-vax infected child, should the parent be considered for child endangerment charges?