# Where is the line - parents vs. community



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I was going to post in the thread about children and gender but let's just talk in general terms. *Where do you draw the line between parents' right to make choices for their children vs. when should the community (government) step in?* 

I generally hear people say that everyone should raise their children as they please as long as they do not harm their children. I think in some instances the line between OK and harmful is pretty clear (like sexual abuse or beating that causes broken bones) but in others ... not so much. 

Here are some examples that come to mind ...
Vaccinations
Drinking raw milk
Allowing child with cancer to decide whether they go through chemotherapy or not 
Allowing brothers and sisters to share a room
Having a big family and living in a small house 
...

So anyway, what is your definition of the line between parenting and abuse?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

FarmerKat said:


> I was going to post in the thread about children and gender but let's just talk in general terms. *Where do you draw the line between parents' right to make choices for their children vs. when should the community (government) step in?*
> 
> I generally hear people say that everyone should raise their children as they please as long as they do not harm their children. I think in some instances the line between OK and harmful is pretty clear (like sexual abuse or beating that causes broken bones) but in others ... not so much.
> 
> ...


What are your thoughts on those examples you posted?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

To a certain degree I have allowed my children to be involved with the larger decisions that have been placed before me. We have always gone the course that I would have originally gone but they were involved with the making of those decisions.

You citations above are all seemingly OK with me as long as they are as generic as presented.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Where do you draw the line between parents' right to make choices for their children vs. when should the community (government) step in?


You answered your own question:



> I generally hear people say that everyone should raise their children as they please as long as they do not harm their children.


The problems arise over what is "harm".
Most people just need to stop concerning themselves with everyone else


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

painterswife said:


> What are your thoughts on those examples you posted?


I did not want to start out with an answer to see where others stand ... but it is a fair question. 

As for all of the examples I listed, I believe the parents have the right to decide for their kids. I listed these examples because I have heard of all of those referred to as "abuse": you vaccinate - you are abusing your child because you are pumping their bodies full of chemicals, you don't vaccinate - you are abusing your child because you are denying them the protection vaccines offer. 

I believe that as long as a child is fed, clothed and has a safe loving home, it does not matter what the home looks like. You might remember there was a case of a family who lived in shacks they constructed themselves and their dwelling was deemed unacceptable. I personally did not view it that way. You can live in a mansion but if you are cooking meth there and it explodes and hurts everyone in the mansion, the mansion was not a safe home.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The problems arise over what is "harm".


I agree with that.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I wanted to add that I think it is fine for people to express that they disagree with certain parenting methods but I do not think we should have laws that to stop people from using these methods. 

For example, I feel strongly that 5 year old girls should not wear make up, padded bras and padded underwear to make their butt look bigger. Or I feel strongly that babies should be comforted when they wake up crying at night. But I don't think we should have a law defining it as abuse and prosecuting parents for doing it.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

On the other thread I found out about hormone blockers, never heard of them.
I don't get out much...they have these types of underwear for little girls now too?
Yikes!


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

doozie said:


> On the other thread I found out about hormone blockers, never heard of them.
> I don't get out much...they have these types of underwear for little girls now too?
> Yikes!


 I certainly hope not.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

The line is simple. Live and let live. It is not a problem, despite my sadness for the poor children of ignorant or whackjob parents, unless or until it intrudes on me or mine in any way. 

Don't vaccinate your children if that's what you want to believe. Doesn't bother me until they are exposed to mine, who are, but the even slight increased risk to mine because of your fear of what you don't understand is not acceptable.

Raise your children to be religious fundamentalists, or even to believe, in anything which isn't real. No problem, unless you or your children ever decide to talk about your beliefs to my children.

Project your sexual perversions onto your children. That is kind of a problem, but I'll remain silent anyway, until you or your children decide that it needs to be a public issue because your need for attention manifests in creating an issue about wanting a different locker room other than the one which is assigned to those of the same sex, thereby exposing my children to issues of sexuality, deviant to boot, much earlier than they are ready and/or than I decide. If your children are or you want to believe that they are normal either heter or homosexual, then simply teach them basic tact, self control, safety and respect toward others with regard to sexual issues and we won't have a problem.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Just read this:

http://www.sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=924&Itemid=649

The parents and the "naturopath" should be prosecuted. That poor child.

I don't give a rat's backside what adults do to themselves in the name of asininity but children don't get to make an informed choice and should be protected from ignorant parents no matter how well meaning they are.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Just read this:
> 
> http://www.sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=924&Itemid=649
> 
> ...


Exactly. The parents put up a "gofundme" but took it down because the were being "attacked."


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

basketti said:


> Just read this:
> 
> http://www.sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=924&Itemid=649
> 
> ...


Yes, it sounds like the parents should be prosecuted for withholding medical attention. 

But what law could you write that is going to prevent that the next time? The story said the child developed pneumonia and eventually meningitis, but I have to wonder - was this determined by autopsy or what - since there was no medical professional on the case? 

As heartbreaking as it is, I don't see what society could have done or should have done to save that child. Kids who get "normal" medical attention still get pneumonia. The difference is, they have parents who will seek treatment for them. Legitimate treatment. So other than prosecuting poor Ezekiel's parents, what is supposed to be done?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Yes, it sounds like the parents should be prosecuted for withholding medical attention.
> 
> But what law could you write that is going to prevent that the next time? The story said the child developed pneumonia and eventually meningitis, but I have to wonder - was this determined by autopsy or what - since there was no medical professional on the case?
> 
> As heartbreaking as it is, I don't see what society could have done or should have done to save that child. Kids who get "normal" medical attention still get pneumonia. The difference is, they have parents who will seek treatment for them. Legitimate treatment. So other than prosecuting poor Ezekiel's parents, what is supposed to be done?


I believe it's blatant child abuse. They withheld medical treatment because of their ignorance, and a kid died. It's no different than starving or beating a kid to death. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide, no new law needed.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

basketti said:


> Just read this:
> 
> http://www.sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=924&Itemid=649
> 
> The parents and the "naturopath" should be prosecuted. That poor child.


That article pretty much frames out this debate, but, I don't think, answers it. If anything, with a fair consideration, on illustrates why it is difficult/impossible to solve. 

I'll say up front, that if that were my child, no matter how strong my ideological or even religious convictions, I would have sought out care in any form, no matter what it cost me, either my wallet or my pride. 

BUT...even though nearly all of us would side with the doctor in this specific case, we have to consider some of the subtle details and risk arriving at an uncomfortable position to fairly assess this one. 

First, the story is being told by a doctor concerned with precisely the sort of specialty in question in this case. This doctor is supremely confident in their command over these diseases, and the science to which they've devoted their professional life. No matter their level of training and experience, they can't, if they're being truly honest, say with 100% certainty that their treatment could have saved the child, or that forgoing the treatment they have to offer would result in the child's death. They may be confident. Perhaps VERY confident, but they can't say with CERTAINTY- if they're being honest. 

So, where does that leave us?

An educated person with, I have no doubt, substantial credentials, tells us what the parents should have done. The parents have no such training, we're to assume, but they are still the child's parents. Do we expect the parents to cede all their control over their child's well-being because of the degree the doctor has?

What if the doctor's degree is in child psychology, and advises the parents, who have no like-degree, that their child should be raised without respect to gender? Who are the parents, with no training or experience in the field of psychology, let alone a specialty in gender-identification, to argue with the expert?

What if a degreed educator tells the parents of an autistic child that they will flounder in a home-school environment? The parents don't have a degree in education. Who are they to argue with the expert?

What is someone with a fashion degree tells the parents that they should let their 10 year old wear mini-skirts? Who are the parents to argue? 

How can we draw the line at physical abuse, when it's obvious that mental or emotional abuse can be every bit as destructive? What if an education or fashion expert can make an articulate argument as to why failing to take their advice will result in an increased risk that the child will grow up to be an outsider, live a disconnected life, and hurt themselves or someone else?

The case of not seeking out the help of a trained expert to treat a case of menengitis seems like a no-brainer, but it's not. 

I'm not saying that I want the parents to have completely unfettered control over every situation. But I AM saying that I don't know where you draw that line, and I don't feel like anyone that I know is qualified to draw that line- despite how many may be eager to step forward and say that they are qualified.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

basketti said:


> Just read this:
> 
> http://www.sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=924&Itemid=649
> 
> ...


The parents should be prosecuted but not the naturopath. The naturopath (a woman) never met the child or the parents, they were unknown to that health practitioner. http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...ck-boy/ar-BBqAF2m?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

The naturopath's office got a phone call from the boy's mother, who was a stranger to her. Mother said a friend who was a nurse had told the parents that she thought the child had meningitis and should go to the ER. The mother wanted the naturopath's office to recommend a treatment for meningitis. The naturopath instructed the clerk who took the call to tell the mother to take the child to hospital immediately.

Read the news story I linked to, it details some of what came up in court. The person who wrote the blog quoted doesn't have all the facts and was using the above incident as an excuse to slam all naturopaths.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Fennick said:


> The parents should be prosecuted but not the naturopath. The naturopath (a woman) never met the child or the parents, they were unknown to that health practitioner. http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...ck-boy/ar-BBqAF2m?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout
> 
> The naturopath's office got a phone call from the boy's mother, who was a stranger to her. Mother said a friend who was a nurse had told the parents that she thought the child had meningitis and should go to the ER. The mother wanted the naturopath's office to recommend a treatment for meningitis. The naturopath instructed the clerk who took the call to tell the mother to take the child to hospital immediately.
> 
> Read the news story I linked to, it details some of what came up in court. The person who wrote the blog quoted doesn't have all the facts and was using the above incident as an excuse to slam all naturopaths.



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

Agriculture said:


> The line is simple. Live and let live. It is not a problem, despite my sadness for the poor children of ignorant or whackjob parents, unless or until it intrudes on me or mine in any way.
> 
> Don't vaccinate your children if that's what you want to believe. Doesn't bother me until they are exposed to mine, who are, but the even slight increased risk to mine because of your fear of what you don't understand is not acceptable.
> 
> Raise your children to be religious fundamentalists, or even to believe, in anything which isn't real. No problem, unless you or your children ever decide to talk about your beliefs to my children.


The saying I've always heard is "your rights end at my nose". You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and wear a colander on your head while making offerings of essential oils to Cthulhu for all I care.... just keep it to yourself.

If what you're doing can harm others who aren't making the choices you are, than you should completely isolate yourself from others who are not of the same mind as you to protect innocents. For example - I don't give two shakes of a rat's tail if you smoke a carton of cigarettes every day. Your lungs, your body, your choice :shrug: But when you're standing outside of a building I *have* to bring my kids into, and the kiddos and I hack and cough thru your 20 foot smoke cloud on our way to the door, you have crossed the line. The last thing I need is my asthmatic kid ending up in the hospital because you want to be "free" to smoke your cancer sticks wherever you want. If you're addicted to nicotine, you have options - get the patch, grab some chewing tobacco, or smoke far away from doorways to buildings and restaurants.

So it's no surprise that I totally agree with laws that prohibit adults from smoking in vehicles that have minor children in them !


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

I take strong offense to the idea that community = government. 

There is a difference, and very little overlap, if any.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

bluemoonluck said:


> For example - I don't give two shakes of a rat's tail if you smoke a carton of cigarettes every day. Your lungs, your body, your choice :shrug: But when you're standing outside of a building I *have* to bring my kids into, and the kiddos and I hack and cough thru your 20 foot smoke cloud on our way to the door, you have crossed the line. The last thing I need is my asthmatic kid ending up in the hospital because you want to be "free" to smoke your cancer sticks wherever you want.


That's all Kool & the Gang, but how did you get to that building? Did you drag poor little asthmatic Timmy to that building in your car, using roads congested with other cars, full of other little Timmys, on your way to that building?

I certainly hope not. Timmy is asthmatic, you know. 

What about when you got there; did you wave your exhaust pipe in the face of that smoker, since you're "free" to drive your cancer pump wherever you want, including, say, into the parking lot there next to the door?

I don't like exhaust fumes, and they're carcinogenic. 

What gives you the right?

The "slippery slope" is usually not as slippery as the name would have you believe. It's just that we do such a good job of pushing each other down it.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That's all Kool & the Gang, but how did you get to that building? Did you drag poor little asthmatic Timmy to that building in your car, using roads congested with other cars, full of other little Timmys, on your way to that building?
> 
> I certainly hope not. Timmy is asthmatic, you know.
> 
> ...


Yep the average person gets more 'carcinogens' crossing a street, fueling up, or walking thru a parking lot than they do from that herd of smokers who have been forced into that small area.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

DisasterCupcake said:


> I take strong offense to the idea that community = government.
> 
> There is a difference, and very little overlap, if any.


 I was puzzled also. 
Government destroys community, it is not community.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Cigarettes are gross and poisonous but the younger generations have turned them into the devil. People think just because they caught a breeze of secondhand smoke they are going to get cancer, but they have no problem eating from microwaves, using cell phones, laptops, eating junk that is not even real food, wearing clothes with carcinogenic dyes that leach into their skin all day, breathing in a cocktail of cancer causing fumes that off gas in their perfect little homes. 

Just goes to show that we humans do what we are told to do. people were told to hate cigs at a young age and they do.

I hate them because I use to be a smoker and they made me sick, but that is just me.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

basketti said:


> Just read this:
> 
> http://www.sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=924&Itemid=649
> 
> ...


That's in Alberta and I've been following the trial. It is worth noting that the naturopath has testified that they did not actually see the child and the mother was picking up remedies for croup. 

A family member, who is a nurse saw the child and advised the parents that she felt the child had meningitis and needed to be taken to ER but the mother again called the naturopath and asked for a remedy for meningitis and was told at that time they would give her nothing and she had to take the child to ER. 

It's horrible that the child died but it is my understanding that the child was not being brought in to be diagnosed by the naturopath but simply calling in for croup remedies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bluemoonluck said:


> The saying I've always heard is "your rights end at my nose". You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and wear a colander on your head while making offerings of essential oils to Cthulhu for all I care.... just keep it to yourself.
> 
> If what you're doing can harm others who aren't making the choices you are, than you should completely isolate yourself from others who are not of the same mind as you to protect innocents. For example - I don't give two shakes of a rat's tail if you smoke a carton of cigarettes every day. Your lungs, your body, your choice :shrug: But when you're standing outside of a building I *have* to bring my kids into, and the kiddos and I hack and cough thru your 20 foot smoke cloud on our way to the door, you have crossed the line. The last thing I need is my asthmatic kid ending up in the hospital because you want to be "free" to smoke your cancer sticks wherever you want. If you're addicted to nicotine, you have options - get the patch, grab some chewing tobacco, or smoke far away from doorways to buildings and restaurants.
> 
> So it's no surprise that I totally agree with laws that prohibit adults from smoking in vehicles that have minor children in them !


Dont hold back.... Tell us how you really feel about smokers! :facepalm:
We used to have options.... Like smoking indoors, restaraunts, theaters, even on airplanes instead of being forced to go outside and pollute all that fresh air.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

City Bound said:


> I was puzzled also.
> Government destroys community, it is not community.


I was not saying that community equals government. Where I was coming from is that if community deems something unacceptable then the community generally expects the government to act on it.

For example, people living on a certain street (i.e. community) do not like people speeding on their street. They call the police (i.e. government) and ask them to run radar on their street and ticket speeders. 

Same thing if we deem something unacceptable when it comes to parental choices. People do not like their kids to be around unvaccinated kids. They lobby the government for laws to control vaccination. Government passes laws that unvaccinated kids are not allowed in public schools. 

I hope that clarifies where I was coming from.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

As for the smoking comments here ... so all of you who smoke you think those of use who do not want to inhale your smoke should just never leave our homes so you can smoke freely. Nice.

What happens if you visit non-smoking friends? Do you respect their wishes when they ask you to smoke on the porch or do you light up in their living room?


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

FarmerKat said:


> I was not saying that community equals government. Where I was coming from is that if community deems something unacceptable then the community generally expects the government to act on it.
> 
> For example, people living on a certain street (i.e. community) do not like people speeding on their street. They call the police (i.e. government) and ask them to run radar on their street and ticket speeders.
> 
> ...


And I hope what you're saying is that kind of thinking is dangerous. For example, I do not want the animal loving "community" to lobby the government or to be responsible for making laws which govern how I keep my animals. They can put diapers on their chickens or keep goats in the house and do whatever consenting adults do with house goats, but I don't want them telling me that I have to keep mine in heated barns or whatever other management ideals they dream up which they strongly feel are right.


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

FarmerKat said:


> I was not saying that community equals government. Where I was coming from is that if community deems something unacceptable then the community generally expects the government to act on it.
> 
> For example, people living on a certain street (i.e. community) do not like people speeding on their street. They call the police (i.e. government) and ask them to run radar on their street and ticket speeders.
> 
> ...


Thank you for clarifying. 

I think this idea is exactly what is wrong with our society today. Expecting government oversight in every aspect of our lives, to delineate right from wrong, is exactly the opposite of having freedom. With every law that is passed, a freedom is lost.

In a free country, there are inherent risks. Freedom and Security are mutually exclusive. If you would like to live in a completley secure society, where choices are made for you and you carry no risk, this is not the place. 

True freedom is risky. You are directly responsible for all of your actions and choices. Being informed with up to date and accurate information is incredibly important for a citizen of a free country. Poeple don't much like risk. Especially when they perceive their choices as limited, as many do, and the risks are perceived to outwiegh the benefits of having those limited choices. 

Make no mistake, there is a lot of money to be made in creating the perception in free people that their choices are limited. This is the main form of control for truly free citizens. Buying into this mindset sets the stage for loss of those freedoms, and consequently a reality of limited choices.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

FarmerKat said:


> As for the smoking comments here ... so all of you who smoke you think those of use who do not want to inhale your smoke should just never leave our homes so you can smoke freely. Nice.
> 
> What happens if you visit non-smoking friends? Do you respect their wishes when they ask you to smoke on the porch or do you light up in their living room?


Of course you respect the wishes of non smokers on their property. That's a no brainer. If a non smoker comes to *my* house, I'll go out on the porch and smoke. 

What about people's excess cologne/perfume? It chokes me! Car exhaust? Cleaning products? Fumes from putting fuel in your vehicle? Any time you leave your house and mingle with the public, you are gonna inhale something. Smokers used to be dispersed, one here one there. But now the "you can only smoke here" rules have them concentrated in a small area, making the smoke concentrated too. And dag nab it, us smokers just won't get with the program and keel over dead at age 45 like the propaganda says we are supposed to.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FarmerKat said:


> Vaccinations


Some parents find comfort in the fact that their kids go to a school where all kids have been vaccinated for dangerous diseases. Is it really a good idea to not have that? Who would be willing to take responsibility for a deadly outbreak?


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Who would be willing to take responsibility for a deadly outbreak?


Not the non-vaxers, that's for sure. Most we'd get out of them is an "Awwwe, so sorry." Maybe even an "Oops, looks like we we wrong." And what does that get us? For that matter what good does it do us even if someone does take responsibility? It's only words, yet the damage would have already been done.

I guess for the most part I don't care what other people do or think, but I don't want to be told that I can't or shouldn't challenge them if it affects me or mine, that it is considered intolerant, hateful, racist, sexist or whatever ist you want to come up with.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Some parents find comfort in the fact that their kids go to a school where all kids have been vaccinated for dangerous diseases. Is it really a good idea to not have that? Who would be willing to take responsibility for a deadly outbreak?


I'm thankful my grandson goes to a pediatrician that does not take patients who refuse to vaccinate for non-medical reasons. They apparently don't want the responsibility of the children in their waiting room being exposed to measles, etc.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Some parents find comfort in the fact that their kids go to a school where all kids have been vaccinated for dangerous diseases. Is it really a good idea to not have that? Who would be willing to take responsibility for a deadly outbreak?


Schools should have the right to not accept kids for enrollment who aren't vaccinated. 

I do believe in the parent's right to make that choice for their kid, but they also have to deal with the consequences of their choice. They might have to home school, use private school, etc. 

There are some kids who can't be vaccinated due to other health issues, but they are few and far between. So the herd immunity isn't compromised very much by them. But then you get a higher percentage of non-vacc kids because their parents believe the autism crap or for whatever reason, now the herd immunity is seriously compromised.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Agriculture said:


> And I hope what you're saying is that kind of thinking is dangerous. For example, I do not want the animal loving "community" to lobby the government or to be responsible for making laws which govern how I keep my animals. They can put diapers on their chickens or keep goats in the house and do whatever consenting adults do with house goats, but I don't want them telling me that I have to keep mine in heated barns or whatever other management ideals they dream up which they strongly feel are right.


Yes, that is what I was saying.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

basketti said:


> I'm thankful my grandson goes to a pediatrician that does not take patients who refuse to vaccinate for non-medical reasons. They apparently don't want the responsibility of the children in their waiting room being exposed to measles, etc.


Just curious ... does your grandson ever go to places like Disney theme parks? Ever travel to other countries? They are full of foreigners who are not vaccinated for the same things as American children.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

basketti said:


> I'm thankful my grandson goes to a pediatrician that does not take patients who refuse to vaccinate for non-medical reasons. They apparently don't want the responsibility of the children in their waiting room being exposed to measles, etc.


I'd also have to question the sensibility of a pediatrician who allowed her kum-by-ah, open to all thoughts and feelings mentality of accepting non-vaxers (other than for legitimate medical reasons) to over rule her medical knowledge and scientific reason. I would probably be looking for a new pediatrician for other reasons than just worrying about unvaccinated children coming into contact with mine in the waiting room.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

basketti said:


> I'm thankful my grandson goes to a pediatrician that does not take patients who refuse to vaccinate for non-medical reasons. They apparently don't want the responsibility of the children in their waiting room being exposed to measles, etc.


Medical advice isn't a buffet, where you take the advice you like and ignore the rest. That wouldn't result in quality comprehensive care. Sometimes I don't like my doctor's advice (like submitting to a colonoscopy) but I always show her the respect of taking her advice. If the day ever comes when I stop taking her advice I'll be looking for another doctor.

It should be a two way street. If a patient refuses to take a doctor's advice then he might suggest shopping for a new doctor.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

If the kids have had the vaccination then what threat to them are the kids who have not? The vaccination protects the kids who have it right?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

FarmerKat said:


> Just curious ... does your grandson ever go to places like Disney theme parks? Ever travel to other countries? They are full of foreigners who are not vaccinated for the same things as American children.


Or you can come on down to the border, we have plenty of bugs floating around, whooping cough, chicken pox and other assorted preventative nasties. Very seldom hit a mall in El Paso or Del Rio that you don't hear that distinctive cough. Fairly often ER's get shut down do to infectious diseases showing up. 

So around here everyone vaccinates it is imperative.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

City Bound said:


> If the kids have had the vaccination then what threat to them are the kids who have not? The vaccination protects the kids who have it right?


There are kids that medically (immune suppressed, too young, etc.) can't be vaccinated, and they are susceptible to any disease out there. They rely on herd immunity, and with so many parents deciding not to vaccinate they are more vulnerable than ever. There isn't so much risk to a fully vaccinated kid if their titers are high enough for immunity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by City Bound View Post
> If the kids have had the vaccination then what threat to them are the kids who have not? The vaccination protects the kids who have it right?


The more times a virus is passed to others, the more chances there are for it to mutate into a strain that the vaccines will have no effect upon

If a kid brings a disease to school, the others exposed could still carry it home to younger siblings not yet vaccinated.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Since we turned to vaccines ... is it child abuse to take a 3 months old baby (who by the standard CDC schedule would not have received all vaccines) to a foreign country where it is not common to vaccinate for those diseases? Should the parents be prosecuted for exposing their child to this environment?


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

It was earlier stated, as their opinion, that kids should not be allowed to attend school if they had not been vaccinated. I'm assuming that the scope is limited to public schools rather than private schools.

In our state, you can get an exemption from vaccinations for two reasons. Religious beliefs or personal beliefs.

Let's just take the religious side. If it was law that you had to have vaccinations to go to school in that particular area, wouldn't you being discriminating against that religion?

It was also stated that some people can't take vaccinations for medical reasons. Should they be prohibited from attending school?

I have an acquaintance that has a 30 yo son. Since getting vaccinations at infant age and then developing autism shortly thereafter, and living with him in a wheelchair for many years, when she later got pregnant again, does it surprise you that she was adamant that her new daughter would not be getting vaccinations? Should that decision prevent her child from attending school?


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

I don't recall so many autistic kids when I was younger, or maybe the numbers are around the same and the media hype just makes me think there are more now. Then there was the controversy of the doc saying vaccinations caused autism, then years later the news reports that the doc said he made it all up. But then much research results broadcast by media are simply industrial propaganda and can not be trusted. 

Not being vaccinated can be a problem and being vaccinated can be a problem, hard place to be in.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

FarmerKat said:


> Since we turned to vaccines ... is it child abuse to take a 3 months old baby (who by the standard CDC schedule would not have received all vaccines) to a foreign country where it is not common to vaccinate for those diseases? Should the parents be prosecuted for exposing their child to this environment?


That's a good question.

Some countries won't permit foreign visitors to enter their countries without all visitors producing medical proof of having been immunized in advance. 

Some countries won't permit their own citizens to leave their own country without having been immunized in advance if they're going to another country where people don't get immunizations. Because they don't want their own citizens bringing back diseases when they return home.

I have a question that goes hand in hand with yours. Sort of a reverse question. No doubt there are still some poor and undeveloped countries where people don't have access to vaccines and other immunizations and they have no immunity to new foreign diseases. 

So ....... should travelling parents be prosecuted for introducing their own unvaccinated child (a potential disease carrier - let's call her Typhoid Child after the original Typhoid Mary) into a country where their visiting child can transmit diseases to the unvaccinated citizens of that country?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

logbuilder said:


> ........ I have an acquaintance that has a 30 yo son. Since getting vaccinations at infant age and then developing autism shortly thereafter, and living with him in a wheelchair for many years, when she later got pregnant again, does it surprise you that she was adamant that her new daughter would not be getting vaccinations? ......


It does surprise me.

Autistic children don't _develop_ autism after they are born, they are _born_ already autistic. 

It's possible that some kinds of immunizations might aggravate an autistic child's other pre-existing health problems but immunizations won't cause autism because the autism is already there from birth. 

Autism doesn't generally cause any physical handicaps, certainly not handicaps that would require the autistic person to need a wheelchair. The vast majority of autistics are extremely healthy physically. The mental and emotional handicaps of autism might exacerbate pre-existing physical health condition(s) that caused the child's physical handicaps but autism won't cause physical handicaps. 

Are you sure your acquaintance's child is actually autistic and not suffering from cerebral palsy? Cerebral palsy causes physical handicaps as well as mental handicaps that are sometimes similar to the mental handicaps of autistics. But cerebral palsy isn't caused by immunizations either.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Fennick said:


> It does surprise me.
> 
> Autistic children don't _develop_ autism after they are born, they are _born_ already autistic.
> 
> ...


No, I'm not sure it is autism. He is in a wheelchair, doesn't speak, can't eat by himself, uses a cathater, very crooked body. Whatever it is, she attributes it to vacinations.

I have a cousin with CP and he can talk, eat and think fine. My accquaintances son is much more challenged.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

logbuilder said:


> No, I'm not sure it is autism. He is in a wheelchair, doesn't speak, can't eat by himself, uses a cathater, very crooked body. Whatever it is, she attributes it to vacinations.
> 
> I have a cousin with CP and he can talk, eat and think fine. My accquaintances son is much more challenged.


It may be cerebral palsy as well, there are varying degrees of severity. Or any number of other things.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Fennick said:


> Autistic children don't _develop_ autism after they are born, they are _born_ already autistic.
> 
> It's possible that some kinds of immunizations might aggravate an autistic child's other pre-existing health problems but immunizations won't cause autism because the autism is already there from birth.


I believe this as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmerKat said:


> Since we turned to vaccines ... is it child abuse to take a 3 months old baby (who by the standard CDC schedule would not have received all vaccines) to a foreign country where it is not common to vaccinate for those diseases? Should the parents be prosecuted for exposing their child to this environment?


It's not "abuse" so much as foolish.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "abuse" so much as foolish.


 
Right. Abuse would be to take the child there intentionally without vaccinations with the intent that the child catch a disease that they are not immunized for.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Should parents be jailed for feeding their kids junk that is full of sugar/ carbs/ artificial posions / ultra proceesed that cause them to get obese or diabetes or future camera etc?


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

haley1 said:


> Should parents be jailed for feeding their kids junk that is full of sugar/ carbs/ artificial posions / ultra proceesed that cause them to get obese or diabetes or future camera etc?


 
Are you serious?

Minus the artificial flavors, the ultra processing, the unnatural preservatives, then the rest of it is ok in moderation.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

FarmerKat said:


> Since we turned to vaccines ... is it child abuse to take a 3 months old baby (who by the standard CDC schedule would not have received all vaccines) to a foreign country where it is not common to vaccinate for those diseases? Should the parents be prosecuted for exposing their child to this environment?


I decided to come back to this question again to address something else.

I don't think the parents should be prosecuted for exposing their unvaccinated child to this environment. If, in the long run, the child dies due to their foolishness they will be facing more than just prosecution anyway. 

However, let's pretend for a moment that I am the community that these parents and child call their home. Since I am the community I would require the parents and their child(ren) to be quarantined and medically tested at their own expense and fully cleared before they can return home to the community. If quarantine and tests show positive results for communicable diseases then they cannot return to the community until they have been healed and cleared with a clean bill of health.

I'm mindful of the ebola scare that happened not too long ago and of how many people were demanding that all travellers travelling from countries where there is ebola should be denied entry until undergoing full quarantine and shown to be not carriers and of having a clean bill of health.

How many people in the western hemisphere have received the new ebola vaccine? I know I haven't. I don't know of anybody in my community who has.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

I certainly agree with the "slippery" slope remark. It seems, as a modern society, we continue to expand the meaning of words like "abuse" to mean ever expanding types of activity. Mom lets little kid go to the park without a coat in the winter in New York....abuse? We will jump right up and say oh my goodness- what a rotten mom before we hear the rest of the story and realize that the five year old stashed his coat just outside the house to go play in the sunshine with friends....yup he got too cold and it became a medical problem.

Seldom do we, here on this forum, get the whole story on anything before making all kinds of off the cuff comments pro or against. Amazingly we are just like the countries we come from...each with a society/community that is ever more invasive into our personal lives with the help of a hungry media.

Sensationalism sells, mundane does not. There fore this may really all be about the mighty dollar after all. The media works to suck us in and puff us up so we will also watch the commercials for medicines with a long list of side effects and our next new car which we can likely not afford. I really think it is all a game and society as a whole is the loser.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

FarmerKat said:


> I was going to post in the thread about children and gender but let's just talk in general terms. *Where do you draw the line between parents' right to make choices for their children vs. when should the community (government) step in?*
> 
> I generally hear people say that everyone should raise their children as they please as long as they do not harm their children. I think in some instances the line between OK and harmful is pretty clear (like sexual abuse or beating that causes broken bones) but in others ... not so much.
> 
> ...


 *Vaccinations: *Up to parents unless and until the children enter the public school system. 

*Drinking raw milk: *Of absolutely no concern of government. 


*Allowing child with cancer to decide whether they go through chemotherapy or not: *Of absolutely no concern of government. 


*Allowing brothers and sisters to share a room: *Of absolutely no concern of government. 

*Having a big family and living in a small house: *Of absolutely no concern of government.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *There are kids that medically (immune suppressed, too young, etc.) can't be vaccinated, and they are susceptible to any disease out there. *They rely on herd immunity, and with so many parents deciding not to vaccinate they are more vulnerable than ever. There isn't so much risk to a fully vaccinated kid if their titers are high enough for immunity.


Should these kids not be allowed to attend public school since they might bring an illness to school?


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *Vaccinations: *Up to parents unless and until the children enter the public school system.


So how would this play out in practice? If the child has not be vaccinated, they would not be allowed to attend public school? If that is the case, I assume the parents would need to find another schooling option which would probably be private schools that do not have that policy. Private schools cost money, sometimes lots of money. The parents are paying for the public schools thru their local taxes but are being denied the right of their children attending the school they are forced to support. Should they still be required to pay for the public school or might they be exempt from that portion of their taxes?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *Vaccinations: *Up to parents unless and until the children enter the public school system.
> 
> *Drinking raw milk: *Of absolutely no concern of government.
> 
> ...


But you'd have them limit access to abortions based on your religious views.
You'd have them control which restroom a transgender person wants to use.
You'd happily have them allow discrimination in public businesses.

Do you see the conundrum?

You want them to control the things you want but everything else is of 
"no concern"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

logbuilder said:


> Should these kids not be allowed to attend public school since they might bring an illness to school?


Many of them don't attend school and not all of them are even children.
Cancer patients , transplant recipients and many elderly people have suppressed immune systems also.

Vaccinations protect everyone as long as those who can get them actually do get them


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

logbuilder said:


> So how would this play out in practice? If the child has not be vaccinated, they would not be allowed to attend public school? If that is the case, I assume the parents would need to find another schooling option which would probably be private schools that do not have that policy. Private schools cost money, sometimes lots of money. The parents are paying for the public schools thru their local taxes but are being denied the right of their children attending the school they are forced to support. Should they still be required to pay for the public school or might they be exempt from that portion of their taxes?


Most private schools require vaccinations. Home school is the best option for intractable anti-vaxxers. And yeah, you still have to pay taxes for public schools just like people who don't have kids do, or I did while home schooling and paying tuition for private school.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> *Vaccinations: *Up to parents unless and until the children enter the public school system.


I'll help simplify your line-responses above:

*Public School System:* Of absolutely no concern of the government.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> But you'd have them limit access to abortions based on your religious views.
> You'd have them control which restroom a transgender person wants to use.
> You'd happily have them allow discrimination in public businesses.
> 
> ...


Do you see that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about? 

Religion has nothing to do with my fight against abortion. It is simply my aversion to taking an innocent life. One of the few valid roles, of government, is the protection of innocent life from those who would intentionally harm it. 

First, I have less than no control as to which restroom a transgendered person wants to use. I would have the transgendered use whichever bathroom their biological gender would suggest. I cannot go into a woman's bathroom as I am biologically male, no matter if I feel like a female or not. 

As to my support for the property rights and the right of association of private business owners, It is not I who wants to force my views onto others. 

I want them to NOT control most things. I do not want them to force others to "play nice". It is you and your ilk who wish to use force of government to do just about everything except protect the unborn, not I. You should reflect on that.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

logbuilder said:


> So how would this play out in practice? If the child has not be vaccinated, they would not be allowed to attend public school? If that is the case, I assume the parents would need to find another schooling option which would probably be private schools that do not have that policy. Private schools cost money, sometimes lots of money. The parents are paying for the public schools thru their local taxes but are being denied the right of their children attending the school they are forced to support. Should they still be required to pay for the public school or might they be exempt from that portion of their taxes?


I would love to not pay for public schools as they are largely a vast waste of money, but, alas everyone, who pays local taxes, has some of that money stolen for use in public schools. 

To be clear, I do not suggest that it is a smart idea not to vaccinate your children. Quite the opposite, in fact.


----------

