Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to school
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:53 pm
Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
https://uwsboard.com/
Agreed that this is tough. As uncomfortable as I am with the government forcing a vaccination, I believe the public's general health trumps ideology. These nutjobs need to vaccinate their kids.hokie80 wrote:Tough one. But I will say the anti-vax crowd does concern me.
Just trying to think of a situation that attending school is a right.
They aren't being forced to vaccinate. They just aren't being allowed to attend public school without them. They can always home school.nolanvt wrote:Agreed that this is tough. As uncomfortable as I am with the government forcing a vaccination, I believe the public's general health trumps ideology. These nutjobs need to vaccinate their kids.hokie80 wrote:Tough one. But I will say the anti-vax crowd does concern me.
Just trying to think of a situation that attending school is a right.
Agreed.nolanvt wrote:Agreed that this is tough. As uncomfortable as I am with the government forcing a vaccination, I believe the public's general health trumps ideology. These nutjobs need to vaccinate their kids.hokie80 wrote:Tough one. But I will say the anti-vax crowd does concern me.
Just trying to think of a situation that attending school is a right.
That's true. I'm def. leaning toward being okay with this ruling. Just vaccinate your kids already.hokie80 wrote:They aren't being forced to vaccinate. They just aren't being allowed to attend public school without them. They can always home school.nolanvt wrote:Agreed that this is tough. As uncomfortable as I am with the government forcing a vaccination, I believe the public's general health trumps ideology. These nutjobs need to vaccinate their kids.hokie80 wrote:Tough one. But I will say the anti-vax crowd does concern me.
Just trying to think of a situation that attending school is a right.
The other issue however is that as a taxpayer, they are funding the school as well.
Hokie CPA wrote:I agree. If you want to use government schools, you play by government rules. You don't have to vaccinate your kids. But if you choose to go that route, you have to home school them. As for the taxpayers' lament? I fund a veritable plethora of government programs that I don't use. Boo f••king hoo. Too bad for you if you have to pay for schools you don't use. My brother and his wife don't have kids, but they still pay taxes and fund the schools where they live. If I could opt out of funding Obamacare I would, but they won't let me do that, will they?
They aren't telling them what to do. They simply are telling them what is required for admission. They can home school or see if a private school will accept them (good luck though with vax).awesome guy wrote:Hokie CPA wrote:I agree. If you want to use government schools, you play by government rules. You don't have to vaccinate your kids. But if you choose to go that route, you have to home school them. As for the taxpayers' lament? I fund a veritable plethora of government programs that I don't use. Boo f••king hoo. Too bad for you if you have to pay for schools you don't use. My brother and his wife don't have kids, but they still pay taxes and fund the schools where they live. If I could opt out of funding Obamacare I would, but they won't let me do that, will they?
Where does that end? Can the government keep them off roads? Out of public places? The path your advocating leads to leaper colonies. Is that where you want to go? And lets expand this to other illnesses, like someone who comes to work sick. Can we get compensation for them spreading their germs? Or even something preventable like a STD or AIDS. Can they be banned from government premises too?
Playing Devil's advocate to an extent as I haven't made up my mind on this. But I am very uncomfortable with the government telling us what to do health wise. There are many pitfalls.
hokie80 wrote:They aren't telling them what to do. They simply are telling them what is required for admission. They can home school or see if a private school will accept them (good luck though with vax).awesome guy wrote:Hokie CPA wrote:I agree. If you want to use government schools, you play by government rules. You don't have to vaccinate your kids. But if you choose to go that route, you have to home school them. As for the taxpayers' lament? I fund a veritable plethora of government programs that I don't use. Boo f••king hoo. Too bad for you if you have to pay for schools you don't use. My brother and his wife don't have kids, but they still pay taxes and fund the schools where they live. If I could opt out of funding Obamacare I would, but they won't let me do that, will they?
Where does that end? Can the government keep them off roads? Out of public places? The path your advocating leads to leaper colonies. Is that where you want to go? And lets expand this to other illnesses, like someone who comes to work sick. Can we get compensation for them spreading their germs? Or even something preventable like a STD or AIDS. Can they be banned from government premises too?
Playing Devil's advocate to an extent as I haven't made up my mind on this. But I am very uncomfortable with the government telling us what to do health wise. There are many pitfalls.
Again, they aren't being forced. They have options.awesome guy wrote:hokie80 wrote:They aren't telling them what to do. They simply are telling them what is required for admission. They can home school or see if a private school will accept them (good luck though with vax).awesome guy wrote:Hokie CPA wrote:I agree. If you want to use government schools, you play by government rules. You don't have to vaccinate your kids. But if you choose to go that route, you have to home school them. As for the taxpayers' lament? I fund a veritable plethora of government programs that I don't use. Boo f••king hoo. Too bad for you if you have to pay for schools you don't use. My brother and his wife don't have kids, but they still pay taxes and fund the schools where they live. If I could opt out of funding Obamacare I would, but they won't let me do that, will they?
Where does that end? Can the government keep them off roads? Out of public places? The path your advocating leads to leaper colonies. Is that where you want to go? And lets expand this to other illnesses, like someone who comes to work sick. Can we get compensation for them spreading their germs? Or even something preventable like a STD or AIDS. Can they be banned from government
Playing Devil's advocate to an extent as I haven't made up my mind on this. But I am very uncomfortable with the government telling us what to do health wise. There are many pitfalls.
They're forcing their hand with the faux option of home school vs. home schooling. Do we want the government to have this power?
Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.awesome guy wrote:hokie80 wrote:They aren't telling them what to do. They simply are telling them what is required for admission. They can home school or see if a private school will accept them (good luck though with vax).awesome guy wrote:Hokie CPA wrote:I agree. If you want to use government schools, you play by government rules. You don't have to vaccinate your kids. But if you choose to go that route, you have to home school them. As for the taxpayers' lament? I fund a veritable plethora of government programs that I don't use. Boo f••king hoo. Too bad for you if you have to pay for schools you don't use. My brother and his wife don't have kids, but they still pay taxes and fund the schools where they live. If I could opt out of funding Obamacare I would, but they won't let me do that, will they?
Where does that end? Can the government keep them off roads? Out of public places? The path your advocating leads to leaper colonies. Is that where you want to go? And lets expand this to other illnesses, like someone who comes to work sick. Can we get compensation for them spreading their germs? Or even something preventable like a STD or AIDS. Can they be banned from government premises too?
Playing Devil's advocate to an extent as I haven't made up my mind on this. But I am very uncomfortable with the government telling us what to do health wise. There are many pitfalls.
They're forcing their hand with the faux option of home school vs. home schooling. Do we want the government to have this power?
Great, if they aren't being forced then they can send to their kids to school unvaccinated. Issue averted.hokie80 wrote: Again, they aren't being forced. They have options.
The power to do so has been around for a century, probably longer. It helped eradicate smallpox. Those pitfalls are taking a long time to materialize.awesome guy wrote:Hokie CPA wrote:I agree. If you want to use government schools, you play by government rules. You don't have to vaccinate your kids. But if you choose to go that route, you have to home school them. As for the taxpayers' lament? I fund a veritable plethora of government programs that I don't use. Boo f••king hoo. Too bad for you if you have to pay for schools you don't use. My brother and his wife don't have kids, but they still pay taxes and fund the schools where they live. If I could opt out of funding Obamacare I would, but they won't let me do that, will they?
Where does that end? Can the government keep them off roads? Out of public places? The path your advocating leads to leaper colonies. Is that where you want to go? And lets expand this to other illnesses, like someone who comes to work sick. Can we get compensation for them spreading their germs? Or even something preventable like a STD or AIDS. Can they be banned from government premises too?
Playing Devil's advocate to an extent as I haven't made up my mind on this. But I am very uncomfortable with the government telling us what to do health wise. There are many pitfalls.
Say a kid had AIDS. Can they be kept out too?HokieFanDC wrote:Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.
Public school isn't a right.awesome guy wrote:Great, if they aren't being forced then they can send to their kids to school unvaccinated. Issue averted.hokie80 wrote: Again, they aren't being forced. They have options.
In most cases, probably not. AIDS is not as dangerous as the illnesses that require vaccination.awesome guy wrote:Say a kid had AIDS. Can they be kept out too?HokieFanDC wrote:Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.
Exactly. It's not a communicable disease. Smallpox, measles, diphtheria, polio, etc. are easily transmitted and also easily prevented via vaccination.HokieFanDC wrote:In most cases, probably not. AIDS is not as dangerous as the illnesses that require vaccination.awesome guy wrote:Say a kid had AIDS. Can they be kept out too?HokieFanDC wrote:Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.
VT is a college. This is public primary school that is supposed to be for everyone. The parents face jail time and fines for truancy.hokie80 wrote:Public school isn't a right.awesome guy wrote:Great, if they aren't being forced then they can send to their kids to school unvaccinated. Issue averted.hokie80 wrote: Again, they aren't being forced. They have options.
Next canard.
Seriously, you are way off on this.
To get into VT, you have to meet certain qualifications. Not just anyone can attend. By your logic that means that some are "forced" to meet those qualifications.
It doesn't meet the test of logic. Sorry.
HokieFanDC wrote:In most cases, probably not. AIDS is not as dangerous as the illnesses that require vaccination.awesome guy wrote:Say a kid had AIDS. Can they be kept out too?HokieFanDC wrote:Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.
You can't get AIDS from someone by sitting behind them in class or standing close to them in the lunch line.awesome guy wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:In most cases, probably not. AIDS is not as dangerous as the illnesses that require vaccination.awesome guy wrote:Say a kid had AIDS. Can they be kept out too?HokieFanDC wrote:Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.
Say what? It's worse than most of them. It's deadly and requires a lifetime of ever changing medicines to treat. AIDS is an awful disease, simply awful.
The point still stands, can the school keep out kids with AIDS or other deadly and transmittable diseases (hope this keeps ya on point).
You can if you're in contact with their blood, like while in PE or other school activities like sports.nolanvt wrote:You can't get AIDS from someone by sitting behind them in class or standing close to them in the lunch line.awesome guy wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:In most cases, probably not. AIDS is not as dangerous as the illnesses that require vaccination.awesome guy wrote:Say a kid had AIDS. Can they be kept out too?HokieFanDC wrote:Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.
Say what? It's worse than most of them. It's deadly and requires a lifetime of ever changing medicines to treat. AIDS is an awful disease, simply awful.
The point still stands, can the school keep out kids with AIDS or other deadly and transmittable diseases (hope this keeps ya on point).
Get back to me on that when AIDS becomes airborne and you can catch it by someone breathing on you. There are only a few diseases for which vaccinations are required to attend public schools and all of them are highly contagious and can be deadly. AIDS can be deadly if it's not treated, but it doesn't qualify as highly contagious.awesome guy wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:In most cases, probably not. AIDS is not as dangerous as the illnesses that require vaccination.awesome guy wrote:Say a kid had AIDS. Can they be kept out too?HokieFanDC wrote:Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.
Say what? It's worse than most of them. It's deadly and requires a lifetime of ever changing medicines to treat. AIDS is an awful disease, simply awful.
The point still stands, can the school keep out kids with AIDS or other deadly and transmittable diseases (hope this keeps ya on point).
Nope. Not tough. No school for nutjobs' kids. Easy.nolanvt wrote:Agreed that this is tough. As uncomfortable as I am with the government forcing a vaccination, I believe the public's general health trumps ideology. These nutjobs need to vaccinate their kids.hokie80 wrote:Tough one. But I will say the anti-vax crowd does concern me.
Just trying to think of a situation that attending school is a right.