The Argument for Abortion is the Same as the Argument Against Vaccination

Vaccinations should not be compulsory and as they are not in the US then the OP is pointless.

States in the U.S. mandate immunization, or obtaining exemption, before children enrol in public school. Exemptions are typically for people who have compromised immune systems, allergies to the components used in vaccinations, or strongly held objections. All states but California (Dem) , West Virginia (Rep), and Mississippi (Rep) allow religious exemptions (strange how two Republican states do not allow religious exemption), and fifteen states allow parents to cite personal, conscientious or philosophical objections.

 

As I previously wrote, technically people are allowed to reject vaccinations, but practically the ability to object is made as onerous as possible in order to force people to take the vaccinations. Try being in the military or health care profession and objecting to a vaccination, or try being a parent and objecting to vaccinations for your child.

Its even difficult to have children in public school or day care opt out of the flu vaccine. Last year the flu vaccine effectiveness was
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/flu-vaccine-effective-expected-cdc/story?id=29293197

The vaccine has an 18 percent effectiveness against the dominant H3N2 flu strain, the CDC reports. Earlier in the season, flu shot protection level was estimated at 23 percent. ​

With all the hype about getting an annual flu vaccination, would you have ever guessed it was so ineffective? If you believe in "herd immunity", 18% is far, far below the herd immunity level.

And would you want a child to take an essentially worthless injection every year, including the years they are most susceptible to chemical hazards?

And what is the trend? It is to mandate vaccinations, not to respect a persons right to their bodily integrity.

Look at some of the vaccinations being required in many states - mumps, measles, chicken pox. 50 years ago, everyone got these illnesses, they were common and other than a week off from school there were almost never any complications (a trivial number). Now these same illnesses are being discussed as if they were polio or small pox. Why? Who benefits from requiring people take ineffective vaccinations and vaccinations for trivial illnesses?

 

I'm not disputing .. but we are wandering a little off topic.

 

I *do* have a right to not vaccinate without having to isolate myself. If you are vaccinated, then you have nothing to fear from those who aren't. I am not anti vaxx (I think anti vaxxers are whackadoodles) and in fact, have my basic vaccinations (DPT) but there are some vaccines I refuse to get ie. the flu shot. The govt. should never, ever be able to tell me what to put into my body in order to live in society - the only exception I can think of right now is if I have a highly contagious disease and refuse treatment, then they should be able to isolate me.

 

Sorry but I worked through the h1n1 epidemic here when we were so short on masks we were putting them on the patients. I have seen people die from the flu so forgive me if I would like to see better compliance

 

The flu shot is not very effective, the general claim is that it is 60% (some say 80%) effective but that is an exaggeration.

The CDC announced in March 2015 that the 2014-2015 flu shot was 18% effective. The troubling part is that the CDC knew in 2014 that the flu virus had mutated and the prepared vaccine was going to be ineffective - yet still kept up their nationwide program to have everyone injected.

In the USA, in public schools the children from kindergarten on up are all lined up and given the flu shot (unless the parent opts out). At that age, children are most susceptible to chemical hazards. Why would you want to give those children an essentially worthless shot year after year?

Studies are showing that annual flu vaccination is not nearly as effective as claimed. This study http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/conte...ract?sid=7ad27582-da5c-4e7e-81af-f7e6b0855667
shows that
"In vaccinated subjects with no evidence of prior season vaccination, significant protection (62% [95% CI, 17%–82%]) against community-acquired influenza was demonstrated. Substantially lower effectiveness was noted among subjects who were vaccinated in both the current and prior season. There was no evidence that vaccination prevented household transmission once influenza was introduced; adults were at particular risk despite vaccination. "

So apparently the vaccine only works against light to moderate contact (community transmission) but not in high contact environments such as the family - or perhaps the hospital.

***

In the USA, there are few people who are opposed to all vaccinations. The opposition is to the high number of vaccinations (for example, 24+ "pokes" for 9+ vaccinations in the first 24 months of life, not including the annual flu shot which is "recommended" starting at age 6 months).

Some vaccines are accepted readily, others should be optional. For example, there is no opposition to the polio vaccine, but a lot of opposition to the chicken pox vaccine.

 

You both have excellent points..

A few years back I had a flu shot in the morning and spent the afternoon in the ER because I couldn't breath...despite the hospital staff never admitting that is what caused this episode, that is what caused this severe allergic reaction.

My spouse gets a shot every year with no reaction.

So, we should all be free to decide what to do with our bodies.

 

Once again you focus on one aspect of the report ignore the others the flu has multiple strains and the report you linked to only stated one strain was not as effective as it should be. The flu shot does give you some degree of immunity even so. We are playing numbers here same as you do in a war. Yes some soldiers will die but many more will survive if the right tactic are used. vaccinations are the right tactics. Take it from somebody who seen more than one person die of the flu if it attacks the lungs fully even ventilation will not help. During the height of the H1N1 epidemic we had to put people on cardiac bypass keep them alive. Many of these were pregnant women because that strain attacked pregnant women, or rather pregnant women were more susceptible and reacted more. There are reasons for that and it is quite complicated. Do you want to put pregnant women at risk because you think someone somewhere may not have made a flu vaccination as strong as you would expect it to be? Ps In some cases abortions had to be performed to save the life of the mother

And your research paper you need to firstly has a small population secondly states and it's own conclusion that it's results were lower than other research studies of the same type

 

You might have an egg allergy. But we do not force those with reactions to get the flu. That is what herd immunity is about but it does not work if a large proportion of the population opt out

 

I posted one study, there are many that show the same result. Even the CDC admits the flu vaccine effectiveness fluctuates considerably. The CDC stated the 2014/2015 flu vaccine was 18% effective, it was a trivalent vaccine not geared to just one virus. This years vaccine is showing 51% effectiveness.

The studies on the 2009 H1N1 flu showed that the vaccine was 62% effective for the seasonal H1N1 but 10% effective for the "pandemic" H1N1 that emerged unexpectedly. A second flu vaccine that came out later that year targeted the new H1N1, the CDC claims that one was 82% effective against the "pandemic" H1N1.

And there is another example of flu vaccine failure. The 2009 vaccine targeted the wrong flu virus and a second vaccine was required. With the flu vaccine, the virus to develop a vaccine against has to be predicted based mostly on the conditions in Asia (the source of most flu virus). If they predict incorrectly - and they do a lot - then people still get the flu even though they were vaccinated.

You can always find someone who had a severe complication to the flu, or chicken pox, or "fill in the blank". That does not mean that condition is a public health hazard requiring mandatory vaccination.

The larger point is that there are too many vaccinations in the USA, some people want everyone to take every vaccination. Polio and small pox are not the chicken pox. Polio and smallpox are terrifying, chicken pox is a week home from school.

The demand for mandatory vaccinations against all kinds of illnesses is just another symptom of the "snow flakes" who are afraid of everything.

 

Would be interesting to know what the real monetary loss and labour loss was due to chicken pox and flue prior to country wide immunization.

 

Chicken pox was considered a standard childhood illness acquired before or during elementary school. Chicken pox is a trivial illness for children but can have complications for adults. When a child in the neighborhood had chicken pox parents brought their young children over (particularly if the children were getting "old" and had not had it yet) to visit so they could get the illness and be over it.

The monetary and labor loss was near zero, it was no different than a child getting a cold and having to stay home from school. In fact, other than the red spots which can itch and should not be scratched or they leave a little scar, it was just like a cold.

Today, with so many single parents, it might be different since the parent might have to stay at home with the child.

But there is another longer term potential cost - acquiring those minor illnesses at an early age seems to have strengthened and matured the immune system making the person less susceptible to illness in the future. By vaccinating against all those former mild childhood illnesses (mumps, chicken pox, measles, etc) people might be getting sick more frequently as adults.

 

I haven't heard abortionists say anything like that. It's not their body they are performing surgery on, so why would they?

 

That is their choice to take the risk.

 

You must be kidding.

Start here:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/my-body-my-rights/
"My Body, My Rights" Amnesty International Campaign for reproductive rights

Joy Behar ("The View") arguing that "Its my body" http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2016/05/23/ "“I’m telling you, if it was me, and I wanted to do it, I don’t care who care – who tells me what to do,” she argued. “It's my body, I do what I want.”"

NARAL facebook https://www.facebook.com/naralprochoiceamerica “Control of my life, my plans, my career, my body, and my sexuality.”

ProChoiceMinnesota (NARAL) http://www.prochoiceminnesota.org/get-involved/programs/comnov11.shtml "As a woman, I declare autonomy of my own body and its functions."

NARAL Wisconsin http://www.prochoicewisconsin.org/what-is-choice/talking-about-choice/pro-choice-responses.shtml
"Anti-Choice Statement: The right of the unborn to live supersedes any right of a woman to "control her own body."
Pro-Choice Response: We shouldn't trivialize a woman's right to control her own body. Margaret Sanger said, "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body." The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to choose is tied to women's progress in all spheres of life."

The "its my body" claim is fundamental to the abortion movement. Google it.

And this is why the pro-abortion movement will lose. Pro-life people understand the pro-abortion arguments far better than the abortionists.

 

Abortionists perform abortions.

They are not the ones who have the abortions, they are the ones who give the abortions.


There is no "pro-abortion" movement , there is your dreaded "women have as much rights as men " movement that you hate and that movement has successfully kept abortion legal for over forty years.
So what you erroneously call the "pro-abortion" movement is doing fine ...

AND even if by some miracle RvW is ever overturned abortions would keep happening and happening and you can never stop them

 

See the proof? I understand the abortionist argument, I can even make the pro-abortion argument better than any I have seen in this forum (but for obvious reasons will not), while the abortionists can just whine and try to ridicule. That's why you are going to lose.

 

Oh? What are "abortionists" going to lose ? Their memory of how to perform an abortion? I don't think so

 

I don't see anything indicating that any of those are abortion doctors. Your post is an epic fail.

 

The argument of whether or not abortion is indeed murder or not is not on to be had by politicians, religious leaders, or people sitting in a basement behind a computer screen. The argument belongs to scientists, more specifically human embryologists. The questions is, when an abortion is performed, is the life of a human being ended, and if so at what point does an unborn child become a human being?
The answer, according to most every reputable embryology textbook, is that a human being begins to exists at the moment of fertilization. (please please look up the report Princeton University published written by Diane N. Irving titled "When Do Human Beings Begin?")

Now, as far as immunization is concerned, it is my belief that people who choose not to allow their child immunizations should be subject to criminal charges. I mean, Its the same thing as saying "I will not buckle my child in because there is a small chance that if I hit the breaks hard they could hurt their neck." even though if you were to be involved in a major accident your child would likely be killed. IF you choose not to allow your child immunizations, you are increasing their chances of contracting deadly diseases.
Also, in my personal opinion, if I have a child who is not yet old enough to receive a certain vaccine and they come in contact with your child who IS old enough, but you refuse to vaccinate them, and my child contracts a life-threatening disease, you wont be able to run fast enough or hide well enough to keep me from beating you until you are in the same condition as my child or worse. Do not mess with Mama Bear, my dear.

 

Wow. Why are you so violent and why do you hate freedom so much?

BTW, if your kid isn't vaccinated, perhaps you should keep him/her home until he/she is, if you are so concerned about it. I'm not anti vaxx, but it's a personal choice, as it should be.

 

Yes well people work. And when people work that means children have to go to daycare or a baby sitter. It is not a question of choice, it is a question of responsible parenting.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

There should be a parent at home with the child.

 

Lol.... ok.... I am SO happy for you that your family can make ends meet off of one parents income. However, that is not the case with most working class families. People simply cannot afford for one parent to take off the first 12 years of the child life and home school them so they never come in contact with children who have not been vaccinated(18 or older if you could the annual flu vaccines). In this economy it is virtually impossible. Not to mention the amount of single parents out there.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Actually there is not consensus on this. although the beginning of A life can be traced to fertilisation it will not continue unless there is implantation. It is estimated that between 50 and 70% of all fertilised eggs fail to implant. Of those that do a fiurther significant number fail or miscarry so it is far from certain that any fertilised egg will become even an embryo let alone a human
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_rate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage

I chose Wiki as a simple explanation but am happy to debate on a more academic level

Oh! And your quoted author? Can one say vested interest http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/irving