Mandatory vaccinations vs moral objection

[blackforest]

You’re right, it can’t be spread by “wondering around.” It can, however, be spread by blood, if, say your kid gets cut and comes into contact with another kid who has a cut. Is this likely in elementary school? How much do you want to bet? The health of your children?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

Could please you quantify for me how often this happens?

According to the CDC, universal Hep B vaccination was introduced not because children were spreading it willy-nilly during nursery school story-time but because public health officials couldn’t secure a captive audience among adults. Hepatitis B Virus: A Comprehensive Strategy for Eliminating Transmission in the United States Through Universal Childhood Vaccination: Recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP)

So it’s an issue of convenience, not keeping kids safe at school.

Again, it’s not the wandering. Can it be spread by sneezing, for example? Why yes, it can. What if I blow my nose and get some snot on my hand and contaminate a handrail on a stairway? Oops…

Only symptomatic carriers can spread it. If you know anything about the horrific symptoms of ebola, it’s highly unlikely that they’re “wander[ing] around a city” sneezing on people.

Don’t get me wrong - I’d get the vaccine for myself and my family in a second if ebola hit this country. But scientific accuracy is really important here.

I’d also like to see more cures for diseases. But research tends to be centered on vaccines instead. It’s a more practical business model.

Merck’s ebola vaccine does NOT use human fetal tissue; vaccines from Johnson & Johnson and Glaxo Smith-Kline DO.

She didn’t say that the vaccine uses fetal tissue but that it was developed from fetal tissue research, the specific mechanics of which I’m unaware.

Addressing your next post, the National Catholic Bioethics Center is free to express its opinions, but they are not Magisterial. The actual Vatican statement is pro-vaccine but does not mandate vaccines for Catholics. As you said, consistency is key. You’ve stated in other threads that you’re pro-choice on abortion; the Vatican is much more crystal clear on that issue.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

According to the CDC, universal Hep B vaccination was introduced not because children were spreading it willy-nilly during nursery school story-time but because public health officials couldn’t secure a captive audience among adults

As always, I read links people provide. I suppose it depends on what you mean by “captive audience among adults,” but your article clearly says “In the United States, most infections occur among adults and adolescents (2,3). The recommended strategy for preventing these infections has been the selective vaccination of persons with identified risk factors (1,2). However, this strategy has not lowered the incidence of hepatitis B, primarily because vaccinating persons engaged in high-risk behaviors, life-styles, or occupations before they become infected generally has not been feasible. In addition, many infected persons have no identifiable source for their infections and thus cannot be targeted for vaccination.” In other words, if they could identify the high-risk adults and vaccinate them, they would. But they can’t identify these people. So they want to vaccinate children: “Preventing HBV transmission during early childhood is important because of the high likelihood of chronic HBV infection and chronic liver disease that occurs when children less than 5 years of age become infected…Horizontal transmission of HBV during the first 5 years of life occurs frequently in populations in which HBV infection is endemic. The risk of chronic infection is age dependent, ranging from 30% to 60% for children 1-5 years of age.” So it seems reasonable (to me at least, not to mention the CDC and WHO) to vaccinate children.

…ebola, it’s highly unlikely that they’re “wander[ing] around a city” sneezing on people.

I agree–It’s highly unlikely. But possible. But since the consequences are so high, why roll the dice?

I’d also like to see more cures for diseases. But research tends to be centered on vaccines instead. It’s a more practical business model.

Cures are nice, but it’s nicer just not to get the disease at all. Should we concentrate our resources on opening more trauma centers for victims of car crashes, or just enforce seat belt laws? I’d vote for the seat belt laws. And vaccines.

As you said, consistency is key. You’ve stated in other threads that you’re pro-choice on abortion; the Vatican is much more crystal clear on that issue.

Being pro-choice is NOT being pro-abortion. My personal beliefs align with orthodox Catholic doctrine. But in terms of making abortion illegal, the minority (pro-life) does NOT have the authority to impose their beliefs on others who have different beliefs. In the case of vaccines, it’s a public health issue, and the science is 100% clear. If you argue that abortion is also a public health issue, most people would disagree because they do not believe a fetus in the early stages of development is a human being. But let’s not go there–this is about vaccines.

 

[blackforest]

As always, I read links people provide. I suppose it depends on what you mean by “captive audience among adults,” but your article clearly says “In the United States, most infections occur among adults and adolescents (2,3).

Yes, it paraphrases what I said. They couldn’t convince adults. So they made children bear the burden by threatening them with education access.

It does NOT describe any problem of Hep B running rampant in Kindergarten classrooms.

I agree–It’s highly unlikely. But possible. But since the consequences are so high, why roll the dice?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

Again, what is the exact chance of a Hep B - child catching Heb B in a classroom setting?

It seems that the fear-mongering over this makes First World mockery of people who’ve suffered from the ravages of polio.

Cures are nice, but it’s nicer just not to get the disease at all. Should we concentrate our resources on opening more trauma centers for victims of car crashes, or just enforce seat belt laws? I’d vote for the seat belt laws. And vaccines.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

Vaccines are a great business model because they involve forcing a liability-free, for-profit product on a massive population. But cures are more cost effective and less invasive of bodily autonomy.

Being pro-choice is NOT being pro-abortion.

If you read carefully, I didn’t say that:

You’ve stated in other threads that you’re pro-choice on abortion

I had to specify “on abortion” because pro-choice can mean other things. I’m pro-choice on things like education and vaccines.

It’s doesn’t make sense to lecture about the need to “obey” the Church on a mandate that it hasn’t even actually issued (vaccine compliance to the U.S. schedule) while going cafeteria-Catholic on an issue as clear-cut as abortion.

 

[pnewton]

Being pro-choice is NOT being pro-abortion. My personal beliefs align with orthodox Catholic doctrine.

This is true, but it is also true that the position on the Church is clear on the issue of legalized abortion as well. So here is a great example where the OP can look and see how a Catholic can be faithful to all the doctrine of the Church, while still having areas of conscientious disagreement. I would encourage all with such issues, whether it be the legalization of abortion, or morality of vaccinations to constantly strive to understand the minds of the Church in those areas of disagreement. It is this journey that makes us faithful to the Church more than our simply-minded agreement. My own areas have been the death penalty and remarriage.

Humility would suggest in such areas that we might be wrong and the Church right.