5 ms·

Some people view their right to not vaccinate, not circumcise, have a home birth of their son and then home-school him, to be an essential religious freedom pro

by pzxc 12y ago

Some people view their right to not vaccinate, not circumcise, have a home birth of their son and then home-school him, to be an essential religious freedom protected by the first amendment, no different than their right to be a conscientious objector of military conscription. This is a far more complex issue than it appears. Don't dismiss it derisively, as if only an idiot could disagree with you. (Not speaking to anyone in particular) (Also not saying I support this position) Edit... ...I guess this is the last time I try to express an unpopular opinion in comments. Ironic that it's an opinion I don't even hold. Groupthink yay rah rah rah!! :)

JoshTriplett 12y ago
Only one of those three behaviors affects other people.
bronson 12y ago
Your decisions on circumcision and home birth do not affect my infant child's ability to live. Your decision on vaccination does.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - falcolas 12y ago
    <soapbox> The line regarding circumcision should be drawn at "genital mutilation". </soapbox>
- threatofrain 12y ago
  Actually, as long as your child is normal, unlike the child in this article who cannot be vaccinated, then your child should be fine. This was only a case because one child had a medical reason to not be medicated, but in consequence, you know, that child could also get other people sick, and heaven forbid there are two special exceptions in one school.
  - TulliusCicero 12y ago
    Actually, vaccinations do not 'take' 100% of the time, so there are kids who were vaccinated, but are still not immune.
    - threatofrain 12y ago
      I didn't know that, thanks for the info. Does that mean that they yet cannot transmit? Or that the vaccine just doesn't work in those cases?
      - nl 12y ago
        I believe it just doesn't work. The measles vaccine is actually one of the most effective vaccines in the world. According to Greg Wallace, lead of the measles, mumps, rubella and polio team at the CDC, two doses are 97 percent effective against infection.... But in some people, that response just doesn’t happen. No one knows why. Either your body doesn’t produce enough antibodies, or the ones it does produce aren’t specific enough to latch on to the virus and kill it.... even with two doses, you can get some failure,” says Wallace, “whether it’s because the initial response isn’t perfect, or because the response waned in some people.”[1] The sad thing is that once the numbers of unvaccinated people goes up, really infectious diseases like measles are transmitted to those who have the misfortune of having an ineffective vaccine much more often: If you have a group of 1,000 people concentrated in a small space—like oh, say, hypothetically, an amusement park—about 90 percent of them will be vaccinated (hopefully). One person, maybe someone who contracted measles on a recent trip to the Philippines, moves around, spreading the virus. Measles is crazy contagious, so of the 100 people who aren’t vaccinated, about 90 will get infected. Then, of the 900 people who are vaccinated, 3 percent—27 people—get infected because they don’t have full immunity.[1] [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/01/vaccinated-people-get-measles-disneyland-blame-unvaccinated/ http://www.wired.com/2015/01/vaccinated-people-get-measles-d...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
moultano 12y ago
If they viewed driving drunk as an essential religious freedom, we would rightly punish them for endangering the lives of others. Having an unvaccinated child in public is endangering the lives of others and should be treated as such.
hayksaakian 12y ago
This seems perfectly fine in so far as your choices do not generally harm society directly. Home schooling your child will not cause an epidemic. Its really only vaccination or lack thereof which has far reaching consequences.
bequanna 12y ago
Ok, but I think you're missing the point here. It would be OK if you were to refuse vaccinations and only you had to bear the costs of that decision: You get sick, you die, the end. That is not the case here. There are, potentially, huge external costs to your decision. You may get sick and infect others with poor immune systems. Other people might die. I think a good comparison here would be parents who expose their children to second hand smoke. Sure, it's your choice to smoke, and if you get sick or die from smoking, fine. But when you force others to bear the consequences of your decisions, and impact their health, well, that isn't fair and it shouldn't be legal to do so. EDIT: First, most of these parents are not making this decision for religious reasons any more than they are not eating gluten for religious reasons. Additionally, hiding behind religious expression/freedom is BS. There are plenty of religious practices that would be illegal if followed. I know it's cool to be PC, but you need to stop somewhere. If a religion promoted cannibalism or human sacrifice, we certainly wouldn't allow that, would we?
- pzxc 12y ago
  But how do you quantify it? How much harm is caused to herd immunity by 1 more child not getting vaccinated? What is the expected value of that -- the probability that the disease for which the vaccine is available actually occurs in such a way that the voluntarily-nonvaccinated person contracts it and then passes it on to someone who is involuntarily nonvaccinated? How does the expected value of that harm (probability assessment) compare to the expected value of harm from secondhand smoke? What about the harm from wood fireplaces? What about swimming pools and trampoline and the probability of injury or death from both? All I'm saying is, some of the commenters in this thread are (in my opinion) being just as irrational and hyperbolic as the anti-vaccine crowd. (Especially the people replying to me playing devil's advocate). For example the one comparing it to drunk driving. And it's a shame.
  - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
    Fortunately we have these things called "science" and "math" and we have no trouble quantifying these things. Or are you suggesting that there is literally only ONE child in the entire world that is not vaccinated? I'm not sure this is making any sense, to be honest. We have a lot data about times when vaccines did not exist. We have a lot of data about what happened after there was widespread vaccinations. We also have data now about significant numbers of people following an actress' decision to not vaccinate and the resulting emergence of infections. I don't think anyone is being irrational or hyperbolic. I think it is irrational to compare antivaccinationism with anticircumcisionism. That is just outlandish.
anathebealo 12y ago
While I understand how most of the things you listed are covered under religious freedoms, I cannot comprehend how not vaccinating a child counts towards that. Not being vaccinated puts your child in direct danger of contracting a disease and further spreading it to others. First amendment rights are valid unless you are putting others in harm's way. I'm from New Hampshire and we are, by law, required to have vaccines up to date before attending the first day of school (http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/New-Hampshire-vax-req.pdf http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/New-Hampshire-vax-req.pdf). I've never understood why all states don't require this.
- kybernetikos 12y ago
  > I've never understood why all states don't require this. It makes perfect sense to me that people might be a little bit concerned about the precedent of allowing the state to mandate that they undergo a medical procedure. It surprises me that people worry about freedom issues around being forced to have medical insurance, surely being compelled by law to be vaccinated is more worrying. Bodily integrity is normally regarded as a fairly key right, and the idea that I should be held responsible for what the microorganisms in my body do later (which some in this discussion are arguing) seems pretty crazy to me.
stevenjohns 12y ago
I think you're being downvoted for two things: 1. Conflating things like circumcision and home schooling with vaccination. While there may be an argument for circumcision and against home schooling, it is a far cry from the arguments that support vaccination and the direct effect that vaccination has on the global - not just local - community. 2. The suggestion that religious freedoms extend beyond a single person. It's really not that complex of an issue: do what you want as long as it doesn't have a direct negative impact on those around you. If that involves cheering for Jesus, praying five times a day, not eating meat on Friday or not working on the Sabbath, go for it. But the moment religious elements start to negatively impact others, including elements like restrictions of free speech, slavery and FGM, we see it as immoral and extending beyond religious freedom. In this case, by not vaccinating your child, you are potentially (and very likely to be) putting your child and others through harm, making it less of a religious issue and much more of an issue of blatant negligence.
- pzxc 12y ago
  Thanks for trying to explain, but I don't think you're right. I think the downvotes are a reflexive action for a lot of people. (I'm guilty of this, too. - Maybe we all should take a few more seconds before downvoting something we disagree with if it's meaningfully contributing to the discussion) Specifically, (1) I am comparing them, but I am not conflating them. I never said they were all the same thing, I just said they were all viewed as protected religious actions by some people. And (2), as I mentioned in my other reply, nonvaccination does not have a direct negative impact on those around you. It does have an indirect negative impact, but so does secondhand smoke, wood smoke from a wood fireplace, smog from living in an urban area, or just the risk from driving a car. You can't really declare nonvaccination to be indisputable evil without comparing the probabilities to actions and circumstances that may be just as harmful but which we allow.
  - bronson 12y ago
    > You can't really declare nonvaccination to be indisputable evil without comparing the probabilities to actions and circumstances that may be just as harmful but which we allow. Sure I can. That's just another version of the "we shouldn't go into space before we solve world hunger" argument. Even though smog is a larger and more pernicious problem, we should still try to solve the smaller problems that come behind it. (and, of course, I don't think anybody is saying nonvaccination is indisputable evil. I assume that's hyperbole)
ossreality 12y ago
Wait, "not circumsizing" is the norm. Did you mean the other way? Ugh.
dinkumthinkum 12y ago
No, I dismiss it out of hand. Circumcision, home birth, etc blah blah blah ... this is a poor argument. Whether you are circumcised or your mother had a home birth has not affect on others that I am aware. If those silly examples did have such effects on others then sure they should be measured in the same way. Religious beliefs can logically be made of exactly the set of any possible utterance. A religious belief can easily be that you don't believe people of a certain race should exist or what have you. Do we call that "complex" issue and just let be simply because it is the result of a religious utterance? No, that's ridiculous. In order to have a functioning society we must be pragmatic and not limit the scope of how religious utterances affect society as a whole. As far as your "conscientious objector" example, do you seriously think that in a situation where a truly significant percentage of people held that view AND it was tolerated by society that a country such as the US with its constitution that you are citing could exist? Sure, since it is an insignificant number then it is accepted and has no appreciable effect on society but if it meant that the country would not be able to sustain a military, things would be quite different. Things are more complex but not because we can simply cite religious utterances willy-nilly but because we want to sustain societies and there must be a level of cooperation among individuals.

by pzxc 12y ago

JoshTriplett 12y ago

Only one of those three behaviors affects other people.

bronson 12y ago

Your decisions on circumcision and home birth do not affect my infant child's ability to live. Your decision on vaccination does.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- falcolas 12y ago
  <soapbox> The line regarding circumcision should be drawn at "genital mutilation". </soapbox>
threatofrain 12y ago
Actually, as long as your child is normal, unlike the child in this article who cannot be vaccinated, then your child should be fine. This was only a case because one child had a medical reason to not be medicated, but in consequence, you know, that child could also get other people sick, and heaven forbid there are two special exceptions in one school.
- TulliusCicero 12y ago
  Actually, vaccinations do not 'take' 100% of the time, so there are kids who were vaccinated, but are still not immune.
  - threatofrain 12y ago
    I didn't know that, thanks for the info. Does that mean that they yet cannot transmit? Or that the vaccine just doesn't work in those cases?
    - nl 12y ago
      I believe it just doesn't work. The measles vaccine is actually one of the most effective vaccines in the world. According to Greg Wallace, lead of the measles, mumps, rubella and polio team at the CDC, two doses are 97 percent effective against infection.... But in some people, that response just doesn’t happen. No one knows why. Either your body doesn’t produce enough antibodies, or the ones it does produce aren’t specific enough to latch on to the virus and kill it.... even with two doses, you can get some failure,” says Wallace, “whether it’s because the initial response isn’t perfect, or because the response waned in some people.”[1] The sad thing is that once the numbers of unvaccinated people goes up, really infectious diseases like measles are transmitted to those who have the misfortune of having an ineffective vaccine much more often: If you have a group of 1,000 people concentrated in a small space—like oh, say, hypothetically, an amusement park—about 90 percent of them will be vaccinated (hopefully). One person, maybe someone who contracted measles on a recent trip to the Philippines, moves around, spreading the virus. Measles is crazy contagious, so of the 100 people who aren’t vaccinated, about 90 will get infected. Then, of the 900 people who are vaccinated, 3 percent—27 people—get infected because they don’t have full immunity.[1] [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/01/vaccinated-people-get-measles-disneyland-blame-unvaccinated/ http://www.wired.com/2015/01/vaccinated-people-get-measles-d...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

moultano 12y ago

If they viewed driving drunk as an essential religious freedom, we would rightly punish them for endangering the lives of others. Having an unvaccinated child in public is endangering the lives of others and should be treated as such.

hayksaakian 12y ago

This seems perfectly fine in so far as your choices do not generally harm society directly. Home schooling your child will not cause an epidemic. Its really only vaccination or lack thereof which has far reaching consequences.

bequanna 12y ago

Ok, but I think you're missing the point here. It would be OK if you were to refuse vaccinations and only you had to bear the costs of that decision: You get sick, you die, the end. That is not the case here. There are, potentially, huge external costs to your decision. You may get sick and infect others with poor immune systems. Other people might die. I think a good comparison here would be parents who expose their children to second hand smoke. Sure, it's your choice to smoke, and if you get sick or die from smoking, fine. But when you force others to bear the consequences of your decisions, and impact their health, well, that isn't fair and it shouldn't be legal to do so. EDIT: First, most of these parents are not making this decision for religious reasons any more than they are not eating gluten for religious reasons. Additionally, hiding behind religious expression/freedom is BS. There are plenty of religious practices that would be illegal if followed. I know it's cool to be PC, but you need to stop somewhere. If a religion promoted cannibalism or human sacrifice, we certainly wouldn't allow that, would we?

pzxc 12y ago
But how do you quantify it? How much harm is caused to herd immunity by 1 more child not getting vaccinated? What is the expected value of that -- the probability that the disease for which the vaccine is available actually occurs in such a way that the voluntarily-nonvaccinated person contracts it and then passes it on to someone who is involuntarily nonvaccinated? How does the expected value of that harm (probability assessment) compare to the expected value of harm from secondhand smoke? What about the harm from wood fireplaces? What about swimming pools and trampoline and the probability of injury or death from both? All I'm saying is, some of the commenters in this thread are (in my opinion) being just as irrational and hyperbolic as the anti-vaccine crowd. (Especially the people replying to me playing devil's advocate). For example the one comparing it to drunk driving. And it's a shame.
- dinkumthinkum 12y ago
  Fortunately we have these things called "science" and "math" and we have no trouble quantifying these things. Or are you suggesting that there is literally only ONE child in the entire world that is not vaccinated? I'm not sure this is making any sense, to be honest. We have a lot data about times when vaccines did not exist. We have a lot of data about what happened after there was widespread vaccinations. We also have data now about significant numbers of people following an actress' decision to not vaccinate and the resulting emergence of infections. I don't think anyone is being irrational or hyperbolic. I think it is irrational to compare antivaccinationism with anticircumcisionism. That is just outlandish.

anathebealo 12y ago

While I understand how most of the things you listed are covered under religious freedoms, I cannot comprehend how not vaccinating a child counts towards that. Not being vaccinated puts your child in direct danger of contracting a disease and further spreading it to others. First amendment rights are valid unless you are putting others in harm's way. I'm from New Hampshire and we are, by law, required to have vaccines up to date before attending the first day of school (http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/New-Hampshire-vax-req.pdf http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/New-Hampshire-vax-req.pdf). I've never understood why all states don't require this.

kybernetikos 12y ago
> I've never understood why all states don't require this. It makes perfect sense to me that people might be a little bit concerned about the precedent of allowing the state to mandate that they undergo a medical procedure. It surprises me that people worry about freedom issues around being forced to have medical insurance, surely being compelled by law to be vaccinated is more worrying. Bodily integrity is normally regarded as a fairly key right, and the idea that I should be held responsible for what the microorganisms in my body do later (which some in this discussion are arguing) seems pretty crazy to me.

stevenjohns 12y ago

I think you're being downvoted for two things: 1. Conflating things like circumcision and home schooling with vaccination. While there may be an argument for circumcision and against home schooling, it is a far cry from the arguments that support vaccination and the direct effect that vaccination has on the global - not just local - community. 2. The suggestion that religious freedoms extend beyond a single person. It's really not that complex of an issue: do what you want as long as it doesn't have a direct negative impact on those around you. If that involves cheering for Jesus, praying five times a day, not eating meat on Friday or not working on the Sabbath, go for it. But the moment religious elements start to negatively impact others, including elements like restrictions of free speech, slavery and FGM, we see it as immoral and extending beyond religious freedom. In this case, by not vaccinating your child, you are potentially (and very likely to be) putting your child and others through harm, making it less of a religious issue and much more of an issue of blatant negligence.

pzxc 12y ago
Thanks for trying to explain, but I don't think you're right. I think the downvotes are a reflexive action for a lot of people. (I'm guilty of this, too. - Maybe we all should take a few more seconds before downvoting something we disagree with if it's meaningfully contributing to the discussion) Specifically, (1) I am comparing them, but I am not conflating them. I never said they were all the same thing, I just said they were all viewed as protected religious actions by some people. And (2), as I mentioned in my other reply, nonvaccination does not have a direct negative impact on those around you. It does have an indirect negative impact, but so does secondhand smoke, wood smoke from a wood fireplace, smog from living in an urban area, or just the risk from driving a car. You can't really declare nonvaccination to be indisputable evil without comparing the probabilities to actions and circumstances that may be just as harmful but which we allow.
- bronson 12y ago
  > You can't really declare nonvaccination to be indisputable evil without comparing the probabilities to actions and circumstances that may be just as harmful but which we allow. Sure I can. That's just another version of the "we shouldn't go into space before we solve world hunger" argument. Even though smog is a larger and more pernicious problem, we should still try to solve the smaller problems that come behind it. (and, of course, I don't think anybody is saying nonvaccination is indisputable evil. I assume that's hyperbole)

ossreality 12y ago

Wait, "not circumsizing" is the norm. Did you mean the other way? Ugh.

dinkumthinkum 12y ago

No, I dismiss it out of hand. Circumcision, home birth, etc blah blah blah ... this is a poor argument. Whether you are circumcised or your mother had a home birth has not affect on others that I am aware. If those silly examples did have such effects on others then sure they should be measured in the same way. Religious beliefs can logically be made of exactly the set of any possible utterance. A religious belief can easily be that you don't believe people of a certain race should exist or what have you. Do we call that "complex" issue and just let be simply because it is the result of a religious utterance? No, that's ridiculous. In order to have a functioning society we must be pragmatic and not limit the scope of how religious utterances affect society as a whole. As far as your "conscientious objector" example, do you seriously think that in a situation where a truly significant percentage of people held that view AND it was tolerated by society that a country such as the US with its constitution that you are citing could exist? Sure, since it is an insignificant number then it is accepted and has no appreciable effect on society but if it meant that the country would not be able to sustain a military, things would be quite different. Things are more complex but not because we can simply cite religious utterances willy-nilly but because we want to sustain societies and there must be a level of cooperation among individuals.