MMR INTERESTING CONFLICTS

"Colin Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I'm not an unlimited supporter of parental discretion
in this area

I don`t think many parents would quibble if they were
simply offered the single jabs instead. This is a
simple way to get over the MMR controversy and keep the
numbers up.

I am not a parent, but would prefer to have single jabs
offered as a choice rather than the now (perhaps unfairly)
tarnished MMR.

...

Why? So your kid will have to get 6 jabs instead of two,
along with TRIPLE the trips to the clinic or doctor's office
AND triple the costs.

"HCN" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ztq2c.189470$jk2.676459@attbi_s53...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I'm not an unlimited supporter of parental
discretion in this area

I don`t think many parents would quibble if they were
simply offered the single jabs instead. This is a simple
way to get over the MMR

controversy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and keep the numbers up.

I am not a parent, but would prefer to have single jabs
offered as a choice rather than the now (perhaps
unfairly) tarnished MMR.

...

Why? So your kid will have to get 6 jabs instead of two,
along with

TRIPLE

Quoted message said:

the trips to the clinic or doctor's office AND triple
the costs.

And triple the risks of site infections?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Colin Wilson said:

Quoted message said:

So I'm not an unlimited supporter of parental discretion
in this area

I don`t think many parents would quibble if they were
simply offered the single jabs instead. This is a
simple way to get over the MMR controversy and keep the
numbers up.

Not for measles it wouldn't, now that Wakefield et al have
managed to scare plenty of people about that, too.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not a parent, but would prefer to have single
jabs offered as a choice rather than the now (perhaps
unfairly) tarnished MMR.

Why? So your kid will have to get 6 jabs instead of two,
along with TRIPLE the trips to the clinic or doctor's
office AND triple the costs.

So if I chose to pay those costs (or had than option) ?

Quoted message said:

And triple the risks of site infections?

Shouldn`t the risk of infection be for me to decide ? -
after all, patients are taken into dirty hospitals to
contract MRSA

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal
replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-
generated spam * --- My new email address has "ngspamtrap"
& @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

"Colin Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I am not a parent, but would prefer to have single
> jabs offered as a choice rather than the now
> (perhaps unfairly) tarnished MMR.
Why? So your kid will have to get 6 jabs instead of
two, along with TRIPLE the trips to the clinic or
doctor's office AND triple the costs.

So if I chose to pay those costs (or had than option) ?

Quoted message said:

And triple the risks of site infections?

Shouldn`t the risk of infection be for me to decide ? -
after all, patients are taken into dirty hospitals to
contract MRSA

You sure can decide that. However, it is afactoid that is
overlooked.

AFIAC, putting kids through multiple injections when there
is no real reason to do so is child cruelty. I am glad
that they are developing a 5 in 1 vaccination to save kids
more pain.

My younger son went through a lot of pain for testing when
he was younger and dreaded going to the doctor. We knew it
was necessary, and did it. If i coul dhave saved him *one*
needle, I would have.

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

So the question then becomes: where does parental
discretion end? Me, I'd argue that *not* vaccinating
children for potentially fatal diseases comes perilously
close to child abuse.

my children are vaccinated, but i chose to have it done by
single vaccines rather than the mysteriously "must have"
triple combined vaccine.

and it could only be defined as neglect not abuse, neglect
is not doing domething whivh is to the detriment of the
child whereas abuse is actually doing something to the child
which is to their detriment. thus it could be argued that if
there is a link between MMR and problems for the child (such
as is believed to be the case in Japan where they have
stopped MMR altogther or in the USA where parenst have
litigated for damages to thier children or as in other Ec
countires that offer the choice) then the state is actually
abusing these children.

of course as eminants of the state, doctors should really
give children the sinlge vaccines if that is all the parents
will consent to, otherwise it is in contravention of the
Children Act 1989. of course doctors are "persuaded" (by
monetary reward) to ensure massive uptake of the MMR and
needless to say over half of the CSM are shareholders in the
pharmacy company concerned.

this isnt about what is best for our children (i believe
vaccination is though) it is about what is most profitable
at the expense of our children

--
jon
________
keep claude happy and snip the garbage to make it work

"Mark Probert-March 5, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So the question then becomes: where does parental
discretion end? Me, I'd argue that *not* vaccinating
children for potentially fatal diseases comes
perilously close to child abuse.

Since it only comes close, can I presume that you don't
feel it crosses the line into child abuse?

And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that make it
something that should be left to the discretion of the
parents? Doesn't that mean that it is, in fact "the
place of the government and health services to educate
and provide, not dictate and force"?

I think it crosses the line into child neglect.

Hmmm...in a response to the original post I quoted from, you
said "Who said differently? Is Strawman your favorite
character in the Wizard of Oz?"

Now, it seems, you are the one who is saying differently.
If you think that not vaccinating children constitutes
neglect (a debatable position, but you're entitled to your
opinion and I wish to explore the logical extension of
such a position), then what should the government do about
such neglect?

Presumably, you feel that the government should insist,
through force of law, that parents vaccinate their children,
just as the government insists that parents provide food,
clothing, shelter, and education for their children.

If that is an opinion held by more than just a few
individuals, and particularly if it is an opinion held by
individuals in positions to determine government policy,
then the OP's comment is a legimate concern, not a straw
man argument.

If that is not your opinion, then what, in your opinion,
should the government do about the 'neglectful' parents who
refuse vaccinations for their children?

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 5, 2004" <Mark Probert03-05-
[email hidden]> wrote

in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> So the question then becomes: where does parental
> discretion end? Me, I'd argue that *not* vaccinating
> children for potentially fatal diseases comes
> perilously close to child abuse.

Since it only comes close, can I presume that you
don't feel it crosses the line into child abuse?

And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that make
it something that should be left to the discretion of
the parents? Doesn't that mean that it is, in fact
"the place of the government and health services to
educate and provide, not dictate and force"?

I think it crosses the line into child neglect.

Hmmm...in a response to the original post I quoted from,
you said "Who said differently? Is Strawman your favorite
character in the Wizard of Oz?"

Now, it seems, you are the one who is saying differently.
If you think that not vaccinating children constitutes
neglect (a debatable position, but you're entitled to your
opinion and I wish to explore the logical extension of
such a position), then what should the government do about
such neglect?

Presumably, you feel that the government should insist,
through force of law, that parents vaccinate their
children, just as the government insists that parents
provide food, clothing, shelter, and education for their
children.

If that is an opinion held by more than just a few
individuals, and particularly if it is an opinion held by
individuals in positions to determine government policy,
then the OP's comment is a legimate concern, not a straw
man argument.

If that is not your opinion, then what, in your opinion,
should the government do about the 'neglectful' parents
who refuse vaccinations for their children?

I do not believe that they should be forced to vaccinate. If
a child is injured by not being vaccinated, then the parents
should be held accountable.

"Mark Probert-March 8, 2004"

Quoted message said:

I do not believe that they should be forced to vaccinate.
If a child is injured by not being vaccinated, then the
parents should be held accountable.

so by that token, if child is injured by being vaccinated,
especially when no choice is given of means of vaccination
despite alternatives being availiable. then the government
should be held accountable? or the medical profession that
claim there is NO risk from combined vaccines?
--
jon
________
keep claude happy and snip the garbage to make it work

"jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 8, 2004"

Quoted message said:

I do not believe that they should be forced to
vaccinate. If a child is injured by not being
vaccinated, then the parents should be held accountable.

so by that token, if child is injured by being vaccinated,
especially when no choice is given of means of vaccination
despite alternatives being availiable. then the government
should be held accountable?

nope. If the child is deomnstably harmed by being
vaccinated, then there must be an actual review of why. If
the parents were properly advised of the risk, etc. then
there is no accounting to be done. Further, there must be
proof that the vaccination produced a known harm that could
reasonably be foreseen.

In the case where the parents refuse vaccination, they get a
free pass if there is no harm. If they are properly warned
of the risks of non-vaccination, then they bear the
responsiblity.

or the medical

Quoted message said:

profession that claim there is NO risk from combined
vaccines?

Where did you read that? I have never, ever seen a doctor
make such a claim. I have, however, seen that alleged by all
of the anti-vac liars.

nizkor.orgstraw man.htmlOpen ↗

"Mark Probert-March 8, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 5, 2004" <Mark Probert03-05-
[email hidden]> wrote

in message news:<[email hidden]-
y.cv.net>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message new-
s:[email hidden]...
> > So the question then becomes: where does parental
> > discretion end? Me, I'd argue that *not*
> > vaccinating children for potentially fatal
> > diseases comes perilously close to child abuse.
>
> Since it only comes close, can I presume that you
> don't feel it crosses the line into child abuse?
>
> And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that make
> it something that should be left to the discretion
> of the parents? Doesn't that mean that it is, in
> fact "the place of the government and health
> services to educate and provide, not dictate and
> force"?

I think it crosses the line into child neglect.

Hmmm...in a response to the original post I quoted from,
you said "Who said differently? Is Strawman your
favorite character in the Wizard of Oz?"

Now, it seems, you are the one who is saying
differently. If you think that not vaccinating children
constitutes neglect (a debatable position, but you're
entitled to your opinion and I wish to explore the
logical extension of such a position), then what should
the government do about such neglect?

Presumably, you feel that the government should insist,
through force of law, that parents vaccinate their
children, just as the government insists that parents
provide food, clothing, shelter, and education for their
children.

If that is an opinion held by more than just a few
individuals, and particularly if it is an opinion held
by individuals in positions to determine government
policy, then the OP's comment is a legimate concern, not
a straw man argument.

If that is not your opinion, then what, in your opinion,
should the government do about the 'neglectful' parents
who refuse vaccinations for their children?

I do not believe that they should be forced to vaccinate.
If a child is injured by not being vaccinated, then the
parents should be held accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Accountable how? Legal
action of some sort? Or simply by having to care for their
injured child?

In article <[email hidden]>,

jon said:

"Mark Probert-March 8, 2004"

Quoted message said:

I do not believe that they should be forced to vaccinate.
If a child is injured by not being vaccinated, then the
parents should be held accountable.

so by that token, if child is injured by being vaccinated,
especially when no choice is given of means of vaccination
despite alternatives being availiable. then the government
should be held accountable? or the medical profession that
claim there is NO risk from combined vaccines?

Only anti-vac cretins accuse doctors of claiming that
vaccines have NO risk.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 8, 2004" <Mark Probert03-08-
[email hidden]> wrote

in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 5, 2004" <Mark Probert03-05-
[email hidden]>

wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in message news:<[email hidden]-
lny.cv.net>...

Quoted message said:

> "abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> -"]news:[email hidden]-
> m...
> > > So the question then becomes: where does
> > > parental discretion

end?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > Me, I'd argue that *not* vaccinating children
> > > for potentially

fatal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > diseases comes perilously close to child abuse.
> >
> > Since it only comes close, can I presume that you
> > don't feel it crosses the line into child abuse?
> >
> > And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that
> > make it something

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > should be left to the discretion of the parents?
> > Doesn't that

mean

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > that it is, in fact "the place of the government
> > and health

services

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > to educate and provide, not dictate and force"?
>
> I think it crosses the line into child neglect.

Hmmm...in a response to the original post I quoted
from, you said "Who said differently? Is Strawman your
favorite character in the Wizard of Oz?"

Now, it seems, you are the one who is saying
differently. If you think that not vaccinating
children constitutes neglect (a debatable position,
but you're entitled to your opinion and I wish to
explore the logical extension of such a position),
then what should the government do about such neglect?

Presumably, you feel that the government should
insist, through force of law, that parents vaccinate
their children, just as the government insists that
parents provide food, clothing, shelter, and education
for their children.

If that is an opinion held by more than just a few
individuals, and particularly if it is an opinion held
by individuals in positions to determine government
policy, then the OP's comment is a legimate concern,
not a straw man argument.

If that is not your opinion, then what, in your
opinion, should the government do about the
'neglectful' parents who refuse vaccinations for their
children?

I do not believe that they should be forced to
vaccinate. If a child is injured by not being
vaccinated, then the parents should be held accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Accountable how? Legal
action of some sort?

Perhaps, depending on the motivations, etc. However, you
rnext point is far more appicable...

Quoted message said:

Or simply by having to care for their injured child?

Having to care for a disabled child knowing that you are the
cause of that disability seems about right. Having two
special needs kids, I know how hard it is to deal with all
of the additional problems of raising our kids. Fortunately,
we did everything right. I cannot imagine how we would feel
if we had the slightest amount of guilt.

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 8, 2004" <Mark Probert03-08-
[email hidden]> wrote

in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 5, 2004" <Mark Probert03-05-
[email hidden]>

wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in message news:<[email hidden]-
lny.cv.net>...

Quoted message said:

> "abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> -"]news:[email hidden]-
> m...
> > > So the question then becomes: where does
> > > parental discretion

end?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > Me, I'd argue that *not* vaccinating children
> > > for potentially

fatal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > diseases comes perilously close to child abuse.
> >
> > Since it only comes close, can I presume that you
> > don't feel it crosses the line into child abuse?
> >
> > And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that
> > make it something

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > should be left to the discretion of the parents?
> > Doesn't that

mean

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > that it is, in fact "the place of the government
> > and health

services

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > to educate and provide, not dictate and force"?
>
> I think it crosses the line into child neglect.

Hmmm...in a response to the original post I quoted
from, you said "Who said differently? Is Strawman your
favorite character in the Wizard of Oz?"

Now, it seems, you are the one who is saying
differently. If you think that not vaccinating
children constitutes neglect (a debatable position,
but you're entitled to your opinion and I wish to
explore the logical extension of such a position),
then what should the government do about such neglect?

Presumably, you feel that the government should
insist, through force of law, that parents vaccinate
their children, just as the government insists that
parents provide food, clothing, shelter, and education
for their children.

If that is an opinion held by more than just a few
individuals, and particularly if it is an opinion held
by individuals in positions to determine government
policy, then the OP's comment is a legimate concern,
not a straw man argument.

If that is not your opinion, then what, in your
opinion, should the government do about the
'neglectful' parents who refuse vaccinations for their
children?

I do not believe that they should be forced to
vaccinate. If a child is injured by not being
vaccinated, then the parents should be held accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Accountable how? Legal
action of some sort?

Perhaps, depending on the motivations, etc. However, you
rnext point is far more appicable...

Quoted message said:

Or simply by having to care for their injured child?

Having to care for a disabled child knowing that you are the
cause of that disability seems about right. Having two
special needs kids, I know how hard it is to deal with all
of the additional problems of raising our kids. Fortunately,
we did everything right. I cannot imagine how we would feel
if we had the slightest amount of guilt.

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 8, 2004" <Mark Probert03-08-
[email hidden]> wrote

in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 5, 2004" <Mark Probert03-05-
[email hidden]>

wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in message news:<[email hidden]-
lny.cv.net>...

Quoted message said:

> "abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> -"]news:[email hidden]-
> m...
> > > So the question then becomes: where does
> > > parental discretion

end?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > Me, I'd argue that *not* vaccinating children
> > > for potentially

fatal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > diseases comes perilously close to child abuse.
> >
> > Since it only comes close, can I presume that you
> > don't feel it crosses the line into child abuse?
> >
> > And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that
> > make it something

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > should be left to the discretion of the parents?
> > Doesn't that

mean

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > that it is, in fact "the place of the government
> > and health

services

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > to educate and provide, not dictate and force"?
>
> I think it crosses the line into child neglect.

Hmmm...in a response to the original post I quoted
from, you said "Who said differently? Is Strawman your
favorite character in the Wizard of Oz?"

Now, it seems, you are the one who is saying
differently. If you think that not vaccinating
children constitutes neglect (a debatable position,
but you're entitled to your opinion and I wish to
explore the logical extension of such a position),
then what should the government do about such neglect?

Presumably, you feel that the government should
insist, through force of law, that parents vaccinate
their children, just as the government insists that
parents provide food, clothing, shelter, and education
for their children.

If that is an opinion held by more than just a few
individuals, and particularly if it is an opinion held
by individuals in positions to determine government
policy, then the OP's comment is a legimate concern,
not a straw man argument.

If that is not your opinion, then what, in your
opinion, should the government do about the
'neglectful' parents who refuse vaccinations for their
children?

I do not believe that they should be forced to
vaccinate. If a child is injured by not being
vaccinated, then the parents should be held accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Accountable how? Legal
action of some sort?

Perhaps, depending on the motivations, etc. However, you
rnext point is far more appicable...

Quoted message said:

Or simply by having to care for their injured child?

Having to care for a disabled child knowing that you are the
cause of that disability seems about right. Having two
special needs kids, I know how hard it is to deal with all
of the additional problems of raising our kids. Fortunately,
we did everything right. I cannot imagine how we would feel
if we had the slightest amount of guilt.

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 8, 2004" <Mark Probert03-08-
[email hidden]> wrote

in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 5, 2004" <Mark Probert03-05-
[email hidden]>

wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in message news:<[email hidden]-
lny.cv.net>...

Quoted message said:

> "abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> -"]news:[email hidden]-
> m...
> > > So the question then becomes: where does
> > > parental discretion

end?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > Me, I'd argue that *not* vaccinating children
> > > for potentially

fatal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > diseases comes perilously close to child abuse.
> >
> > Since it only comes close, can I presume that you
> > don't feel it crosses the line into child abuse?
> >
> > And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that
> > make it something

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > should be left to the discretion of the parents?
> > Doesn't that

mean

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > that it is, in fact "the place of the government
> > and health

services

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > to educate and provide, not dictate and force"?
>
> I think it crosses the line into child neglect.

Hmmm...in a response to the original post I quoted
from, you said "Who said differently? Is Strawman your
favorite character in the Wizard of Oz?"

Now, it seems, you are the one who is saying
differently. If you think that not vaccinating
children constitutes neglect (a debatable position,
but you're entitled to your opinion and I wish to
explore the logical extension of such a position),
then what should the government do about such neglect?

Presumably, you feel that the government should
insist, through force of law, that parents vaccinate
their children, just as the government insists that
parents provide food, clothing, shelter, and education
for their children.

If that is an opinion held by more than just a few
individuals, and particularly if it is an opinion held
by individuals in positions to determine government
policy, then the OP's comment is a legimate concern,
not a straw man argument.

If that is not your opinion, then what, in your
opinion, should the government do about the
'neglectful' parents who refuse vaccinations for their
children?

I do not believe that they should be forced to
vaccinate. If a child is injured by not being
vaccinated, then the parents should be held accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Accountable how? Legal
action of some sort?

Perhaps, depending on the motivations, etc. However, you
rnext point is far more appicable...

Quoted message said:

Or simply by having to care for their injured child?

Having to care for a disabled child knowing that you are the
cause of that disability seems about right. Having two
special needs kids, I know how hard it is to deal with all
of the additional problems of raising our kids. Fortunately,
we did everything right. I cannot imagine how we would feel
if we had the slightest amount of guilt.

"Mark Probert-March 8, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If that is not your opinion, then what, in your
> opinion, should the government do about the
> 'neglectful' parents who refuse vaccinations for
> their children?

I do not believe that they should be forced to
vaccinate. If a child is injured by not being
vaccinated, then the parents should be held
accountable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Accountable how?
Legal action of some sort?

Perhaps, depending on the motivations, etc.

Here we disagree sir.

Quoted message said:

However, you rnext point is far more appicable...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or simply by having to care for their injured child?

Having to care for a disabled child knowing that you are
the cause of that disability seems about right.

Seems an appropriate accountability to me as well. Same sort
of accountability that's used for parental decisions with
other potentially serious consequences such as bad
nutritional/drinking/drug use habits during pregnancy,
allowing your child to participate in risky sports
activities, choice of disciplinary measures, etc.

Quoted message said:

Having two special needs kids, I know how hard it is to
deal with all of the additional problems of raising our
kids. Fortunately, we did everything right. I cannot
imagine how we would feel if we had the slightest amount
of guilt.

Now, imagine what parents who have a child that was injured
by getting the vaccination rather than the disease itself
feel and perhaps you can understand why there are those who
object so stridently to mandating vaccinations (and other
such decisions) rather than allowing parents to decide for
themselves.

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Snip

Quoted message said:

Now, imagine what parents who have a child that was
injured by getting the vaccination rather than the disease
itself feel and perhaps you can understand why there are
those who object so stridently to mandating vaccinations
(and other such decisions) rather than allowing parents to
decide for themselves.

Since there are no mandated vaccinations, what are you
talking about?

"Mark Probert-March 9, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, imagine what parents who have a child that was
injured by

getting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the vaccination rather than the disease itself feel and
perhaps you can understand why there are those who
object so stridently to mandating vaccinations (and
other such decisions) rather than allowing parents to
decide for themselves.

Quoted message said:

Since there are no mandated vaccinations, what are you
talking about?

Legal jargon confuse you, Mark? Every state mandates
(requires) that kids enrolling in school show proof of
vaccination against, or immunity to, various diseases. The
fact that exemptions are available DOESN'T negate the
requirement. (This is a very, very old argument!)

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-March 9, 2004" <Mark Probert03-09-
[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, imagine what parents who have a child that was
injured by

getting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the vaccination rather than the disease itself feel
and perhaps you can understand why there are those who
object so stridently to mandating vaccinations (and
other such decisions) rather than allowing parents to
decide for themselves.

Quoted message said:

Since there are no mandated vaccinations, what are you
talking about?

Legal jargon confuse you, Mark? Every state mandates
(requires) that kids enrolling in school show proof of
vaccination against, or immunity to, various diseases. The
fact that exemptions are available DOESN'T negate the
requirement. (This is a very, very old argument!)

Every state says that if the mommies and daddies want to
ship their kidies off to school tobe with other kiddies,
thenthey have to be vaccinated, unless they opt for an
exemption.

Of course, thoough, they have thechoice of keeping the
kiddies at home and not vaccinating them. Thus they have a
choice, and when one has a choice, there is no mandate.

Thus, I do disagree with you. There are no mandated
vaccines. A child can grow up, get a vaccine preventable
disease and die, all by the choice of the parents.