What would you say if the government told you what brands of clothing your children have to wear? How about when you have to set their bedtime? Or what brands of food they have to eat?
Most of you reading this blog would probably cry foul and work to repeal these dreadful laws, right? The thing is, the government is already doing this sort of thing! They tell you how long they must wear booster seats, they must wear bicycle helmets, and you better make sure that they get all these vaccinations, many of which they don't need.
While the booster seats and bicycle helmets are good ideas, it is not the government's place to tell parents how to raise their children. The government cannot replace good parenting, no matter how many laws they pass, how tightly they enforce them, or how many home-schoolers' children they try to take away.
Vaccinations are in a different league than booster seats and bicycle helmets. Often, the diseases that vaccinations attempt to prevent are nearly harmless, and some get through the immunization. Many diseases that are vaccinated against aren't very infectious, so there is no reason to require vaccinations there.
Case in point: hepatitis. There is no way to catch except through sex or contact with human waste that is carrying it. Now, if teens are following the law, then there should be no reason to require that they get the shot. Instead of following that logic and suggesting that teens get the vaccination, the government has decreed that they must get it, therefore promoting the notion that all teenagers engage in sex.
To compound the problem, the only way to waive the shot for your child in most states is to claim a religious objection. Many parents don't want their kids to get it, because they feel that having them get the shot sends a message something like this: "Don't have sex, but if you do, then at least you shouldn't get hepatitis."
There is also evidence that an overload of vaccinations causes the immune system to weaken, making the recipiant more prone to catch diseases that he hasn't been vacinated against. Why? Because our bodies are designed to learn to fight diseases by catching diseases. Vaccinations, which are less potent versions of the disease that they are supposed to stop, just don't cut it.
There are also cases like the HPV vaccine that is supposed to help protect girls against a form of cancer. Of course, many legislatures immediately made it a mandatory vaccine. Their were two problems: the first was that, since HPV can only be caught through sex, many felt as though the government was encouraging sex in girls as young as twelve. The second problem was that there had been virtually no human testing of the vaccine, and no one had any idea of what the side effects could be.
Too much government intervention is never good for the public. It is inefficient, usually unnecessary, and it leads to a suppression of democracy. So, before you support any more laws requiring vaccinations, remember, "big brother is watching."
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Each right we have through the constitution comes with a responsibility.
However, too many are raised with an entitlement attitude, where they do not want to take those responsibilities, and have no problems giving up their rights so long as they can get something for nothing and still watch reality tv.
It's ok to them for the government to pass intrusive laws, taking authority that it was never meant to have, as long as the current pop-culture people agree with the law.
That has, always, been how communism and socialism took hold in countries... did what the populace wanted, passed laws and laws all designed to make the people happy, slowly eroding personal responsibility and freedom.
We are like frogs in a pot. We don't have the sense to jump out of the pot if the water is heated slowly, until we die.
It has become so bad that those who try to stand up for their rights and that WANT to take those responsibilities are ridiculed by the populace. You want to embrace the 2nd Amendment? You must be a kook gun nut redneck drunk hick! You think that the government shouldn't pass that new income tax raise? What a greedy evil person you are! Don't like Universal healthcare? You must hate the children and like seeing people suffer!
meanwhile, the socialists laugh and, like a boa constrictor, slowly squeeze.
I never really understood the whole "It takes a village to raise a child." What if everyone in the hypothetical village doesn't agree on how to raise a child? I want to raise my child MY way. There is no reason why anyone should tell you how to raise your child unless you're mistreating them.
A lot of teens engage is sex anyway, though that number is decreasing.
And I believe that you can get cervical cancer without having sex...
well, under communism, it isn't the village that has a say.
the leaders tell the village how to raise that child and tell the child when he or she grows up what part he or she 'has the honor of' playing in the village.
And they call that 'freedom'
When Hillary said that it takes a village to raise a child, she was referring to HER deciding how to raise that child and YOU funding it.
Ok, you're right, I'm sorry.You can get cervical cancer without having sex. Let me clarify: it is quite difficult to get HPV without having sex.
Seems like more of a fact than a position. The only way that you avoid this as a parent is to isolate your child.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I wasn't referring to communism. I was, in fact, referring to Hilary.
I'm against government madates for most things. Imunizations are one case where they make some very good sense.
Total elimination of a disease is better than just limiting it. By imunizing against sexually transmitted disease the gov. has not required you to have sex. The presumption that almost everyone will is valid.
Fairly strict testing is done before these vaccines are released. There is always risk, but the risk of the disease being prevented is generally greater. Any specific example may not bear this out, but the mechanisms in place FDA, etc. address that fairly well.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
The supposition that government should mandate something because "they make some very good sense" is a slippery slope. It could be argued that restrciting people's free political expression makes sense because it eliminates civil strife, whereas democracy only limits it.
People are more influenced by societal expectations than you seem to think. When people are constantly saying that "you shouldn't sleep around, but if you do, then at least you won't get this disease", then it reinforces the idea that sleeping around is okay, leading to a decay of morals and civilization. The point here is that the government can't change people for the better, that takes personal responsibilty to achieve. Goverment mandates erode personal responsibilty.
By the way, vaccines are usually well tested, but the HPV vaccine was not.