Should Religious Exemptions to Vaccination be Allowed?

We have been assigned a school project and our debate topic is as follows: Should Religious Exemptions to Vaccination be Allowed in the State of North Carolina?

Background:
Every US state has a vaccination requirement to enter schools, this is to keep vaccination rates high enough to protect everybody.
However, parents who want their kids to die, are just lazy or actually believe in god(s) can request religious, and in some cases, philosophical exemptions, which are always approved. In my school project, this does not apply, however, since the State of NC does not accept philosophical exemptions.



Question:
Should people be allowed to request Medical Exemptions in the US? State your reasoning with solid evidence

Stuff you may want to read but do not have to:

• The US Supreme court made the following statement:
  
• The issue I am focusing on is not whether governments should have the RIGHT to vaccinate everybody, but whether they should just go ahead and DO IT.

 

Joining a Southern California school district, I was required to get a vaccination for Pertusis (also known as whooping cough).
After I had put it off all the way through registration, they finally said that I must get vaccinated or be barred from the school; HAH YEAH RIGHT.
I inquired in the main office as to what my options were, and sure enough I was handled an exemption document. All I had to do was have my parents sign off, and my own signature as well.
I did not to state my reasons at ALL.
My beliefs tell me that I don't WANT a virus injected into my body.
If you do, then have at it bro.
BTW: a percentage of vaccinations fail and actually make you ill.
-last time I checked, if 200 people are immune to a disease, and 1 person isnt, it does not matter to ANYBODY except that 1 unimmunized person if they get sick.
F*ck getting 'immunized'. I bet you probably got your "swine flu" shot too?

 

LOL.
Wow just read that supreme court statement.
Let me rephrase it;
"Although we acknowledge people have rights, we are pretty sure that we can suspend them for the greater good- despite the fact these communicable diseases are non-lethal".
Not accepting philosophical objections, and forcing someone to get a shot or not attend school is COMPLETELY ignoring our natural rights.
Nobody has the right to stick a f*cking needle in your arm. Period.

 

Several facts that are wrong on your part

-last time I checked, if 200 people are immune to a disease, and 10,000 (100,000 in some cases) people aren't, it definitely matters

Yes, precisely. Constitutional rights only apply to you so long as you do not infringe on other's rights
By not taking the reasonable step of vaccinating yourself, you are infringing on other's right to life

Who said that?

Smallpox: 3/10 chance of death, 10/10 chance of permanent scarring and disfigurement*
Tetanus: 2/10 Chance of death
Diphtheria: 1/10 Chance of death
Hepatitis B: 2.5/10 Chance of death
Meningococcus: 1.4/10 Chance of death
Pneumococcus: 1.4/10 Chance of death
HIB: 0.6/10 Chance of death

Many of these diseases also create permanent disfigurement

*While smallpox no longer exists, it would never have been eradicated if it were not for vaccines

 

Bump. The debate is coming soon, any ideas would be welcome.

 

Okay here's the deal.
We're talking about SCHOOL situations. The second you jump from a population of a few hundred, to 10,000, then drastically to 100,000 you have flipped the script. The debate has changed to one of pro's and con's of vaccines and no longer how those pro's and con's apply to NON-higher level education. Why? Colleges/universities are essentially business and not public institutions, which EVERY person of a specific age group MUST attend for accredited education (it is this way in the US im not sure about your country).

So, my stance would be that, REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM THESE VACCINES IS NOT LUDICROUS. And by NO means threatens the population. You're talking about MY rights infringing on the people around me by not being vaccinated? Do you think the kids getting these vaccinations are questioning the SCIENCE behind the vaccines, like they have ANY understanding of even GENERAL microbiology? Much less applied-virology??
Honestly this post is garbage as you're stating that other's rights to not want to inject themselves with a virus should be taken away.
Maybe read some George Orwell before coming back?

Done with you.

 

I would suggest just walking away from this one.

 

Well for a start, please don't double post. Post editing exists for a reason

Anyhow, the reason I said 10,000 and 100,000 is because you claimed that 0.5% of a population is susceptible to these diseases (1 for every 200)

Taking that same pool of immune people - 200 - the correct number of susceptible people verges on 10,000 or 100,000, if it were not for vaccines

Second of all, you have still not cited a reliable, published peer-reviewed study that proves that vaccines cause a significant amount of harm

Second of all, I have here a success story to counter all of your "Horrible deaths". Do you remember smallpox? Probably not. It was eradicated in the 1980s because of a massive WHO campaign to vaccinate as many people as possible, including in places such as Sierra Leone, and the Republic of Congo, which are horribly dangerous places. If it were not for vaccines, the chances of you catching smallpox would have been pretty large, and you would have likely died from it as well. Now compare that to the danger of injecting a properly manufactured substance into your body to eliminate future suffering.

 

In a way, that is true, but that applies to all laws. You can't speed because you are at gunpoint for it. You cant Steal, embezzle, Murder, Rape, or buy certain substances at gunpiont. What is special about this that it should be takin into consideration different than any other law

The real question here is whether the gun should be permitted for use in this situation (At gunpoint)

 

If you want to be broad in your argument, then sure, that's the way to go .

I find it distasteful that you cannot reject a vaccination based on philosophical debate. Fuck, vaccinations are based on a philosophical question themselves. "Will I catch that disease?" They're basically saying that their probability overrules your rights.

 

I meant it could be used in just about any discussion. Just because it can be used, doesn't mean it should be. If you're going to debate something, being as specific as possible generally produces better arguments and better results.

It is a correct, and valid argument, but that doesn't mean it should be used . The argument is also not appropriate as the threat here is not life-endangering, merely restriction from public schooling.

Which are based on assumptions. And just because the potential spread of disease is based on that, it does not mean that vaccines are based on that as well. The question still remains a solid 'IF', which is where I see the irony.

Two points to present for the argument:

"If I get sick, I might get others sick."
"If I don't get sick, I get stuck with a needle which makes me sick."
The irony in dismissing claims to the latter yet forcing your own 'if-thenmaybe' upon the person is what I find ludicrous.

 

to simply answer this question, no. Its not like vaccinations have partly led to a more healthy longer living population or anything.

 

Yeah they have?
Vaccinations are a major reason the US is not a polio hotspot

Will replyto the others later

 

Hard to follow the train of thought of this thread, so I'll add my two cents and see if I can stay on track.

Vaccinations have always been a hot topic, and for good reason. Ever since the introduction of a vaccine there has been undying praise and harsh criticism. The praise stems from the FACT that vaccines have improved humanity's way of life by eliminating the threat of some very contagious and horrible disease.

A commonly misunderstood fact about vaccines is that most vaccines are "weakened forms" of the virus but most are actually a dead form of the virus. Receiving an injection of a dead virus makes it impossible to contract the disease. Two live, but weakened, vaccinations that come to mind are the chickenpox vaccine and the MMR. While there is a VERY slim, I emphasize that; VERY SLIM, chance of contracting the disease, it would be in a much less severe form. Live vaccines, like the polio one mentioned earlier in the thread, are no longer in use. Most crucial vaccines today are dead viruses.

So, my opinion on the issue is as follows. Vaccines which use dead forms of the virus should be required as they not only keep the population healthy, but show no risk to the child. Vaccines which use the weakened form of the disease, however, could be left up to the individual (though I see no reason for opting out).

 

Here is my reply to you all.
@Sythe: Basically, everything you say is true, but it is not relevant enough to the situation to really be argued against. It would be a great argument if we were discussing the necessity of government, but we are not. The fact that everything is done at gunpoint or threat thereof is not relevant to the actual, specific situation of vaccination. A more reasonable argument would be along the lines of "The statistics show that not enough people request such exemptions for this to be necessary" but "This is wrong because you are threatened at gunpoint" is an ineffective argument, and, in the long run, is done for your own good (Of course, if you were scared of the government, you could run to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and hope you survive till tomorrow

@Deacon: Why does the needle make you sick? The needle does not contain anything that is going to make you sick

@Mech: The live vaccines are just as safe as the dead ones. They will not get you sick. The only dangers of vaccines are overall dangers of the body overreacting and giving you a fever, which is not serious.

 

Live vaccines do have the possibility of getting you ill, but not to the fullest extent of the disease. They are as safe in that they will not cause you to suffer any long term ill-effects, but they are not as "safe" in the respect that they do have the possibility of making you ill. This is, however, not a good enough reason to avoid them altogether.