Posted on 08/17/2015 8:44:37 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Dr. Ben Carson, a likely 2016 GOP presidential contenders, believes there should be no “philosophical” or “religious” exemptions for vaccinations.
“Although I strongly believe in individual rights and the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, I also recognize that public health and public safety are extremely important in our society,” Carson told The Hill. “Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in this country and we should not allow those diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
How about medical, logical, or Constitutional reasons? Or commons sense—as in, distrusting the Federal-Pharma deal that shields the drug industry from any liability for damages genuinely caused through its vaccine business?
I'm all for tort reform, by the way. For instance, "Class Action" suits are unconstitutional on their face—since there are no "classes" in the USC. But tort reform does not rationally include turning the situation on its head, where the citizens have no right to seek damages for willful or reckless wrongdoing on the part of another citizen or corporation.
There’s a difference in saying yes you should get a vaccine versus saying “no exceptions”.
If for the sake of argument only, I will temporarily accept your premise. Who in the government will have the authority to proclaim a medical threat as a serious enough crisis to impose medical marshal law? Is a potential threat like bird flu sufficient or are there pandemic standards that have to be met? Playing devils advocate (or democrat strategist) suppose that a "vaccine" was developed that attacked the critical-rational function of the brain and so rendered the populace easier to rule, who or what mechanism would prevent the required 'treatment' from tyrannizing society. Surely independent thinking is a serious threat that can spread and some would even classify it as a mental disease, so a forced vaccine would be a duty of the governing elites right?
In the fwiw dept., if you want/need your children in the public school system, vaccinations are mandatory.
5.56mm
There’s a difference in saying yes you should get a vaccine versus saying “no exceptions”.
I'm puzzled about the last part. What "other people's children" would be threatened by unvaccinated children? Are these other children vaccinated? If so, what's the threat to them? Aren't they immune? . . . I mean, don't the vaccines work?
The article was from February, and I know that is a short time for evolving, but has anyone heard his position on this while campaigning? Or his 2A position?
Do you really want Ben Carson taking the 3:00 AM phone call?
Do you really want Ben Carson shaping how the 2nd amendment is interpreted?
What is Ben Carson’s vision for America?
If you don’t have a vision for America you are not qualified to be President. IMO.
You are addressing the issue of methodology, not the issue of necessity. No, the government should not be in the business of enforcing unnecessary or known harmful vaccines.
The government only has an obligation to enforce vaccination provided the consequences of the disease are sufficiently great and the probabilities of acquiring it are sufficiently large.
As to who should make such a decision, it ought to be through the recommendations of a surgeon general who has done due diligence in weighing the various factors involved.
Do you have a better suggestion for minimizing risk? At some level it is always going to have to break down into a judgement call from someone, preferably a very knowledgeable and qualified someone.
With your track record of arguing false equivalence, you are one of the last people who need to lecture me on honesty.
A Vaccination does not always work. Sometimes it does not actually convey the same degree of protection from one individual to another, and some vaccinated people can indeed acquire the disease for which they have been vaccinated.
It generally works, but still the safest move is to avoid exposure as much as possible.
You are suggesting that you don't need a main parachute because "doesn't the reserve chute work?"
Usually, yes, but why accept the increased risk?
Agreed, but it’s one of those catch 22 questions.
Go back to first grade and learn to read and then to understand what you read.
Don't underestimate the consequences of modern plumbing—both water supply and septic. We only recently have had masses of urban residents who bathe and wash their hands frequently, and who don't generally crap where they eat.
The plunge in mortality rates in surgery cases over the past century—after surgeons started washing their hands before surgery—should make us hesitate to credit vaccines for stopping the spread of very infectious disease that comes to our minds. Sanitation, washing and germ-awareness in themselves prevent the spread of disease on a scale that may dwarf the effect of vaccines.
The question is: Which vaccines are most cost-effective? With a state-enforced vaccination regimen run for the benefit of state-protected Pharma companies, all subsisting within a state-financed medical industry, there's no reliable way for that information to get out.
Do we want a vaccination industry with the factual track-record of the global-warming industry?
Oh okay yeah right... (sarcasm off)
Let me quote your post #25,
“I keep hearing this “being forced” rhetoric. What exactly do you mean when you say this? “
I don’t understand why you are the only person that thinks Ben Carson is not saying this?
Do you have to have everything spoon fed to you?
Everyone understands this except for you.... You are the only one confused and trying to say Ben Carson did not say this.
Of course you don’t bring up any examples so I can defend them and leave you in the dust.
In my limited experience traveling through the Third World, I'd say the opposite is the case. Because of our habits of washing our hands and having the self-control not to drink questionable water or jump into unknown rivers, epidemiological specialists who advise travelers do not counsel First-World travelers to get a vaccine for every disease they might encounter in-country.
Most infections in the Third World are a result of 1) sloppy sanitation practices; and 2) weak immune systems due to poor nutrition. (The under-use of bug repellent is probably in there, too.) It goes against the Westerners' instincts for self-hatred, but our constitutions are way tougher than those of Third World residents who are not in their countries' elite. The occasional, brief case of turista after landing in some foreign capital notwithstanding, First Worlders shake off or simply don't contract diseases that would knock a native flat.
So, I agree with your larger point: We should not take for granted the benefits of civilization. But I would add that many of these benefits are the result of smart habits that we teach our children.
To do such a thing would require me to pay attention to the things you write. It's enough for me to remember that they are generally straw man nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.