It seems two reasons exist for the process being ignored by so many.
First Doctors are saying it no longer is if we will have an outbreak of a few truly awful illnesses but when.
Neglect, parents just not thinking about the kids health.
And that group, convinced the process its self harms kids, even some claim brain damage.
A third important issue has arisen, it is proposed all Children,*bar those of moral? objectors* be banned from pre school.
What do others think.
I refuse to see it as nanny state issue, and firmly, think all children be immunized unless known and proved health risks exist.
Hands up, as a child I fell in to the neglect category, mum and dad during harsh and hard times dropped the ball, Lions picked it up!thanks to them we got our shots.

If you immunize your own child how can there be a health risk to your child?

It is none of your business what other parents do with their children.
There are many valid concerns about immunizing children and not you or some politician has a right to force another person to inject a poison into their child's body!

And given the reputation of pharmaceutical companies in this day and age, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could kick you with a broken leg, standing on crutches and having arthritic hips!

"""
even some claim brain damage.

as a child I fell in to the neglect category, mum and dad during harsh and hard times dropped the ball, Lions picked it up!thanks to them we got our shots.
"""

Explains everything!

Dear Belly,

<<it is proposed all Children,*bar those of moral? objectors* be banned from pre school.>>

This is inaccurate: it is proposed that specific pre-schools that so wish may bar non-immunised children.

I have no problem with that - as far as I am concerned, pre-schools (as well as any other voluntary institute) should be able to select whatever children they wish, setting whatever conditions of entry they wish, for whatever reason or even for no reason at all, including immunisation if that's their cup of tea.

Parents who are not happy about it may send their kids to a different pre-school or even start their own.

The state has no right under any circumstance to force immunisation on anyone, but in the case of serious health risk to the community it has a right to ban those who are not immunised from public places.

Raw Mustard, there is no need to get so personal with Belly.
He has a right to his own opinions, as have you, however misguided your opinions are.

Yuyitsu is correct.

No one has the right to force immunization on anyone else's kids, however there are many children too young to be immunized yet, or too sick for other reasons to be immunized yet.

The parents of these non-immunized children have the right to be separated from the very real likelihood of contracting communicable diseases from the 'conscientious objectors' children too.

Let the un-immunized kids have their own schools.

I am very pro immunization admittedly, having personally cared for people with polio, whooping cough and the brain disease associated with measles. Mumps in young boys and men can, and still does, cause infertility.

I challenge anyone to hold a violently coughing and vomiting newborn baby, that's gasping for breathe, and goes on for months, not to be upset at the parents for deliberately not immunizing their older child that brought the infection into the house.

Ignorance is bliss...right up until it happens to your child because of your choices.

Thanks Susionline, but as it is RM has little to be concerned about, in time he/she may develop an intellect, even understand being hot stuff is related to childish behavior.
Y you are a bright bloke, so you should know this subject has many, on every side.
Some parents, linked maybe to a now rejected Medical report, from a now challenged series of Doctors, fear the process.
And too, some parents fear after their children have been immunized, close contact with those who have not.
Thousands of web pages exist on this subject.
My mentioned exposure, 62 years ago, was to Polio.
What ever the reason, and surely we know many exist, kids should be given every protection.
Whooping Coff, is becoming a child killer and endemic from now till mid spring.
Others will know far more than me about the threats,I in no way, want to include *RACIAL PROFILING* in this thread.
But we are seeing rebirth of once beaten, or we thought so, illnesses.
Maybe we need more education targeting these folk but not just them.
A separate but far more concerning issue , despite others views, is how do we handle parenting that exposes immunized kids to those who for any reason, have not been.
These diseases can mutate and exposure may see those thought to be protected at risk.
Last yet again, I hope those posters wanting to link race or creed, to this problem UNDERSTAND education and awareness in my view not race is at fault.

It is none of your business what other parents do with their children.
RawMustard,
I think you
re dreadfully wrong on this one. Anyone who has to share this planet has a right & indeed a responsibility to pull others into line. Be it social behaviour or fighting/preventing/curing illness.
Immunization has reduced the incidence of decease in some ways however, whilst a lot of the treatments have resulted in healthier bodies it has increased the incidence of mental illness.
Treatment also increased pollution.

The scientific evidence is clear. The benefits of vaccination vastly outweigh the risks. Also, because many vaccinations are not 100% effective, and vaccination effectiveness relies on group immunization, the risks of non vaccinated children extend to some extent to other children.

While the law gives idiot parents the right not to vaccinate their children, it should also give responsible parents the right to ensure their kids' safety and exclude non vaccinated children from their playgroups and child care centers

Good Morning all,
Yes the state has the legal right to force Immunization on the population just as much as it has the right to force us to obey the road rules or not smoke in planes.
The government is the democratically elected voice of the people and if we don't like it we vote them out at the next election full stop.
This doesn't preclude the moral issue though and therein lies the quandary.
The government is giving parents the choice in a democratic way. If you object to the Immunization protocols then don't put your kids in preschool. Look after them where you should. In the home.

Yes, RM,

You might like to spout your twaddle to the parents of new-born babies who contract whooping cough.

http://www.public.health.wa.gov.au/2/274/2/pertussis_whooping_cough_fact_sheets.pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-04/wa-facing-whooping-cough-epidemic/3757546

Before a child is six months old, and receives the final of it's bi-monthly immunisations (at 2,4, and 6 months of age) it's vulnerable to infection.

We've all seen videos of very young babies in the grip of what can be a deadly disease. These babies haven't even had the chance to be immunised fully. If the disease is out there, they are extremely vulnerable.

And that's on top of the danger to society of dwindling of herd immunity regarding other diseases like polio, measles and diphtheria.

The point is that we don't see what were once common deadly and maiming diseases anymore.

It makes us complacent.

The one reason they are banished from society has been "near" universal immunisation.

There is a common mistake in many of the discussions surrounding vaccination and it is occurring in this one as well. Firstly a vaccination (or schedule of vaccinations) does not provide immunity. At best it MAY prevent the disease but often does not (hence the number of cases of whooping cough amoungst people who have received the whooping cough vaccination). The second mistake is calling vaccinations, 'immunisations' as using the latter term in this way gives an impression that immunity has been achieved. Immunity is simply not achieved as a result of a vaccination. Personal choice in the issue of vaccination must be upheld. If this personal choice is removed and vaccinations became mandatory with no exemptions possible then the government would need to set up a compensation scheme for those people damaged by vaccinations.
Tired

With the abandoning of the immunization of children we are exposing them to a mach greater danger of being violently ill or death.
Tuberculosis was practically eradicated and now is getting back. Polio is getting back wit vengeance. As for some doctor recommending not immunizing the small kids on the religious or mistrust ground,I will be curious are their kids vaccinated.Australia as a free country is open to individual translation and influence from various religious group.
The proposal not to admit not immunized kids in kindergarten is a step in right direction.Parents of not immunized kids suppose to kary the burden of medical or hospital costs bay them self.

That's all very well, tired....however, most people who reject vaccinations are nicely cocooned by societal herd "immunity".

That's because most people choose vaccination against these diseases.

It's great to think one can "opt out", but still have a relative immunity through other people's actions.

Immunisation greatly reduces the risk of catching
a disease, which in turn reduces the risk of
complications, including death.

In this day and age, when we are fortunate enough
in this country to give our children this protection
I can't see responsible parents not doing so.
Protecting your children as well as sparing others
they come in contact with.

I have seen the ravages of whooping cough and what it
does to a baby. It's not something that I would wish
on any child. Especially as it can be preventable.

According to the Australian Medical Association -
childhood immunisation rated in Australia remain high
and steady in most areas - at around 92 per cent.
I guess that says it all.

Actually Poirot, I have one child who is totally unvaccinated (as a result of informed choice) and that child was directly exposed to whooping cough as a 15 month old (played with a child who had a cough that was later diagnosed as whooping cough - that child was a fully vaccinated toddler) and my child did not get the disease.
Tired

tired,

Oh well...there you go!

It makes one wonder why we bother vaccinating at all(sarc)

I've heard other anti-vacs bragging that their children have never caught anything dastardly....totally ignoring the fact that other people's choices are responsible for the state of play in this country.

Your child was very lucky. Just the same as many people didn't contract polio etc when it was rife.

That's no reason to dismiss the value of vaccination, because the odds of anybody's child contracting a preventable disease is far lessened because of modern practice.

Tired, you might want to check your facts.

Yes, some vaccinated people contract whooping cough anyway, but it is often a much milder form of the disease than if they hadn't had the vaccination.
Whooping cough vaccinations don't last for life, so adults need booster shots now, especially if a baby is due in their lives, eg parents to be and grandparents to be.

Society is trying to protect the very young babies and the sick children who can't have the vaccination yet, from contracting the full whooping cough disease, which often leads to death.

The children who develop a severe reaction to immunizations are few and far between.
And indeed, many of these reactions are not proved medically to actually be a consequence of the immunizations, such as autism.

If there were no immunizations available at all, then eventually millions would die or suffer terrible complications from diseases such as polio, diphtheria, and TB.
Most intelligent people are aware of this fact.

Poirot I dont think it was luck rather that he had a very strong immune system and just because i have made an informed decision not to vaccinate does not mean that i have dismissed vaccination entirely. However I do feel we have a right to make an informed decision.

Suseonline i do hope that you are not implying that people who make an informed decision not to vaccinate are not intelligent? That would be a very offensive thing to suggest. I would like to gently suggest that you inform yourself as you are still referring to vaccinations as immunisations which implies that immunity is gained when vaccinations do not provide immunity. These are two completely different things.
Tired

tired,

While obviously you're entitled to make your own decisions, the vaccination program over the years has gone along way to eradicating those preventable communicable diseases.

I quite enjoy living in a society where polio, diphtheria, measles, etc aren't prevalent.....and there are many countries in the world who don't possess our standard of community health, where these diseases still ravage the population.

I see it like a big "tig-of'war" game - where if you're on a team with many people, you can probably let go and nothing much would happen....but if a whole lot of your team mates let go then you'd all be overwhelmed quite quickly.

Tell me, tired. What do you think would happen if all parents decided not to vaccinate?

Here's a country battling those diseases.....http://www.indianexpress.com/news/calling-the-shots/1106667/1

Some people who are refusing vaccination for their children, think they are doing the right thing.
What if the child later dies because of that act.
Is it child neglect? ,ever?
I am sure it should be, nothing you will do with your life matters in my view as much as the kids.
The debate rages, both sides stick to their guns.
But has one side the right to tell the other?
Think carefully.
IF so and I had young kids I would not want them exposed to non vaccinated kids.

Belly, why would you not want your children to interact with non vaccinated children? If you are so convinced about the safety and efficacy of vaccinations and the vaccination programme then an unvaccinated child should pose not threat. All parents have the right and should retain the right to make an informed choice whether or not to vaccinate. I choose to educate my child with both sides of the debate and eventually it will be his choice whether or not to vaccinate himself as he is now a teenager he is quite intelligent and mature enough to read both sides of the debate and much of the literature. I will support his informed decision. Reading, educating ourselves and being informed is an ongoing activity in this household.

Here is a new article on the push for 'no jab, no play' legislation
http://theconversation.com/with-vaccination-rates-stable-no-jab-no-play-rules-are-beside-the-point-14522?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+22+May+2013&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+22+May+2013+CID_0f96affba7b7f3594f1668f7a5d0f0a3&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=With%20vaccination%20rates%20stable%20no%20jab%20no%20play%20rules%20are%20beside%20the%20point

Tired, you said earlier today, “Suseonline i do hope that you are not implying that people who make an informed decision not to vaccinate are not intelligent?”

Tired, how smart does a mother have to be to reject the science? How uneducated does a mother have to be to generalise from the particular? So, your son did not get whooping cough? He may have had a sub-clinical infection and thus was a reservoir of infection. Have you ever held a child with whooping cough? How would you feel if one of your child’s friends caught whooping cough?

Suseonline probably did not say or imply that you were not intelligent, but I am willing to say that if I had children in a school situation I would demand that the classes exclude children who are not vaccinated from mixing with my child. I see un-vaccinated children as local and intimate pool of infection.

I would also like to add that the greatest contribution modern medicine has made is in the field of public medicine. Improved techniques are good and antibiotics may be a passing benefit, but public health measures are the only medical field to kick real goals, and people like you Tired make it a little bit harder.

Geoffrey Kelley

tired,

It's not really a question of the efficacy of the vaccination.....can you give another reason why polio, diphtheria, measles are no longer common communicable diseases in our society?

That's a serious question.

Why do you think they are no longer around?

".....then an unvaccinated child should pose no threat..."

As I intimated before, non-vaccinating parents are happy to live in a community/society where these diseases have been eradicated through programs and the cooperation of vaccinating parents.

Tired, you have posted a reference that is at odds with my views re ‘no jab, no play’. I can see the softly softly approach the authors are recommending, but I am not convinced by their argument.
Why don’t you, as a ‘vaccine refuser’ go back and read the paragraphs under the heading “Changing the minds of vaccine refusers”. I think you ought to read the whole article again and see if it really does give you, as a ‘vaccine refuser’, any comfort.
Geoffrey Kelley

Firstly I am NOT a vaccine 'refuser' but made an informed choice not to vaccinate my child, a decision that is constantly reviewed as i continue to read and learn. To imply that my child may have or had some sort of infection that could cause illness in another is yet another way of trying to scare not only me but others. You IMPLY that i am not informed, that I am not intelligent, that we are somehow a threat. Non of these are true. So please stop such attacks as non are true. Those people who choose to vaccinate their child make their decision to do so and those who do not choose not to - every parent will make their own choice. I will not condone you if you choose to vaccinate your child however trying to state that any unvaccinated child is a threat is scaremongering, stating that vaccinated and unvaccinated should not socialise together is only discrimination, nothing more and nothing less. I respect your decision please respect the decision of my child and myself to make an informed decision not to vaccinate.
Tired

Tired,

No one is saying you're not intelligent.

What we're saying is that widespread vaccinations have eliminated many deadly communicable diseases that were once prevalent. This has come about because parents cooperated with the program.

While you may think it's neither here nor there to have the odd child unvaccinated, problems will arise if a greater number of parents decide they're not going to do it. It's all very well to sail along depending on societal immunity for your protection, but if vaccination rates fall significantly, these diseases with reemerge.

For instance, you say your child had such a strong immune system, that he/she was able to resist the whooping cough of the child with whom he/she was socialising. Maybe - or maybe not - you'll never know whether it was passed on or not.

What I'm saying is that if your child had been travelling through a community with no vaccination programme, he or she would have had many many more encounters with these diseases - and may not have been so lucky.

Tired,
I think you and others that do not vacinate should visit an older cemetary, say Gore Hill in Sydney where you will see hundreds of infants graves so obviously the infant death rate was high.

Alternately, perhaps google some records about infant deaths before and then after vacination became widespread.

Its a bit like comparing deaths from infection up untill penicilin was discovered and used and then deaths from infection since.

Nobody is saying that vaccination provides complete protection. That is not the issue. What the issue is is obeying the law of the land. The choice is up to the individual. Either obey the law and live within the community as a law abiding citizen or disobey the law and live outside the community spectrum. Either way you cop the consequences of your actions. Possibly you put your child's life at risk as well. Who knows they may decide to imprison parents who fail to vaccinate. If they do the do so within the framework of the law of the land and we can only change it at the ballot box.

Sorry Tired, but how can you make an 'informed choice' re vaccinations or immunizations when there is no doubt that these medicines stopped epidemics of communicable diseases?

Did you get the info from the "I'm not gonna vaccinate my kid because....just coz!" site then?
And yes, I would go so far as to question the intelligence of those who don't vaccinate their children.

Tired, you posted a reference and by their definition you are classed as a ‘vaccine refuser”’. You cannot play games. You either accept vaccinations or you do not. As you do not accept vaccination for your child you are declaring that you refuse. You cannot gild the lily and pretend to be ‘informed’. Your information might sound good to you but it does not stand up to scrutiny.
You say earlier, “You IMPLY that i am not informed, that I am not intelligent, that we are somehow a threat.” No, I did not imply those assertions, I stated them. You child is a threat to others. He is a reservoir of nasties leaching off the children that are vaccinated. And that is your choice.
But, as you are so strongly against vaccination, surely you do not object to parents such as me who will not allow your child into the same classroom as mine? Our rights are equal are they not? Your child ought to be in the class of ‘refusers’ where they can share their common viruses happily knowing their mothers’ are ‘informed’. Just don’t share your reservoir of bugs with my kids!

Geoffrey Kelley continued

You see I am just as much a believer in my side of science as you are of yours.
The reference you posted is an interesting one. Note the paragraph, “For the small group of parents actively declining vaccines – now officially known as “vaccine refusers” – the solutions are more challenging. While nationally they may be up to 2% of parents, they tend to cluster in regions like the Northern Rivers of NSW and Sunshine Coast of QLD. This is of concern because diseases prevented by vaccines are more likely to occur in such regions. Parents in these communities are committed to their views and hard to change.”
As an intelligent woman, why do you think these parents tend to cluster? The researcher is telling us that this particular cohort of society is easily influenced and they tend to believe their own b*llshit rather than accept the science. You may believe in you heart of hearts that you are an intelligent woman exercising her God-given right of choice. If that is true, then you had better believe that I also believe that I have the right to exclude your child from associating with mine!

Geoffrey Kelley

Just out of interest tired: are your pets vaccinated?

There's a doco called 'Jabbed: Love, Fear and Vaccines' on SBS1 Sunday 26th at 8:30. It sounded quite good in the review I read. I encourage you all to watch it.

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks for that Tony, I will watch that show.
Anti-vaccine supporters won't watch it though, because it will only show them how foolish they have been,

Dear Chris,

<<Yes the state has the legal right to force Immunization on the population just as much as it has the right to force us to obey the road rules or not smoke in planes.>>

?state having a legal right?

What a circular, thus meaningless statement - "legal" by definition means "kosher according to the state"!

Other people have no moral right to force me or you or anyone else to inject poison into our blood-stream. This is sheer violence and the fact that these people organise themselves into a state doesn't change that fact.

We do accept that unless one is a saint, reasonably-necessary violence is acceptable in (and only in) self defence: the legitimate powers of the state are derived from nothing but the sum of the powers of the individuals that approve that state and collectively entrust in it their own powers of self-defence.

Poisoning others is not a reasonably-necessary measure of self-defence because self-defence can similarly be achieved without violence, in this case simply by denying those who are not vaccinated access to public places.

As for the examples you gave, roads and planes are public places, so individuals are not a-priori allowed in them. Rather, the public who owns those places normally allows individuals conditional entry: breaking the conditions of entry is in effect trespass, which allows the public to defend itself.

<<The government is the democratically elected voice of the people>>

What nonsense? Which people? The only people whom a government may have power over are those who willingly gave their power away to it.
Just because a certain group of people, a subset of the population, formed and approve a state and its government, gives them no power whatsoever over others outside their group, regardless of the inner-workings of their group.

<<If you object to the Immunization protocols then don't put your kids in preschool. Look after them where you should. In the home.>>

I fully agree, but so does the government need to rescind its demand that my kids attend school, thus everyone is made happy.

Tired thanks for your contributions, they are quite interesting.
In them you claim the right to not vaccinate.
And by inference tell us you do so *because it is your right*
Then you question others rights to the opposing view.
Do you understand you, by your stance, in my view are part of the problem, not the solution.
Lets look at Polio, until recently we had wiped it out, in this country.
That lung disease that killed or harmed so many, was gone.
Dreadful mass killers wiped out.
BUT some tell us the very tool that killed them, here at least, is not fool proof.
I and surely most of us, can not understand parenting that inflicts risk on children, and calls it love.
And I question rights that let this risk be taken, not with parents lives but the child, do we have a duty to those children to intervene?

To be fair, Belly, I don't believe tired was questioning our rights to an opposing view.

Yuyutsu,

Let's not get too pedantic about which "poisons" we introduce into our bodies as health measures

Anybody who drinks scheme treated water (that's water treated with chemicals to kill pathogens) is introducing "poisons" into their system.

I know you don't particularly give credence to our "physical" form, but most of us do what we need instinctively to preserve our "physical" well-being.

Just ask the people in developing countries about the value of chemically treated water, especially if one lives in a heavily populated area and doesn't have access to pristine a environment. I think they'd prefer it to parasites and cholera.

What makes something poisonous is the dosage. Anything, in high enough dosages, is poisonous - even water.

We hear a lot from the anti-vaxers about mercury and aluminium, but what they don’t seem to realise is that a tuna fish sandwich has nine times the mercury than all vaccines combined, and that an antacid tablet has 1000 times the aluminium.

For anyone wanting to investigate both sides of the story here (or any story), I would recommend taking with you Sagan’s baloney detection kit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJmRbSX8Rqo).

There is a difference between an informed decision and a misinformed decision.

Thanks AJ...regarding dosage and poison.

Meant to mention that in my post.

Re water... "I think they'd prefer it to parasites and cholera."

Once you get past the fact that we are drinking recycled dinosaur urine the rest is easy.

WmTrevor,

Are you saying there's something wrong with recycled dinosaur urine?

(Filed under "Some Wines I've Encountered":)

Final say from me.
No one is denying anybody the right to do whatever they want to. I have the right to kill and maim but I also have to accept the legal consequence of my actions.
If I choose not to "poison" my children then that is OK just as long as I accept the fact (consequence) they may either die of some horrible disease or live a healthy life.
However if the government decrees they may not attend preschool because they don"t have a "ticket" then they don't.
I think recent events with fluoridation says it all. You got it whether you wanted {liked) it or not.

Poirot, if you subscribe to endothermic theories the answer is no of course there is nothing wrong with recycled dinosaur urine - unless it is still warm.

(Filed under "Some Whines I've Encountered":)

Dear Poirot,

<<Let's not get too pedantic about which "poisons" we introduce into our bodies as health measures>>

The word "introduce" usually describes a wilful act, but according to the dictionary may also mean "insert". Surely we inadvertently insert various toxins into our body, through the water we drink and the air we breath, but my concern is primarily with the active meaning of the word.

<<I know you don't particularly give credence to our "physical" form, but most of us do what we need instinctively to preserve our "physical" well-being.>>

Looking at common human behaviours I doubt that the later is exercised by 'most', but that's something for another discussion.

The way to treat our body should not be according to its own credence: it is our duty to treat our physical body as a temple, as a place of worship rather than as an object of worship. A place of worship should be kept clean, as far as we can, in order to express our reverence for the activities we perform in it.

<<Just ask the people in developing countries about the value of chemically treated water, especially if one lives in a heavily populated area and doesn't have access to pristine a environment. I think they'd prefer it to parasites and cholera.>>

There are stages of development, all valid in their own time and place:

The first, to which you allude, is the transition from inertia into wilful and active ambition.
The second is the transition from wilful activities into tranquillity.
The third is transcending the lot - inertia, activity and tranquillity.

In this thread, I plead for the rights of those in the second stage, with no intention to hinder those that are still in the first stage, who need not bother about these things. It's indeed silly for one who still regularly consumes drugs to kill the pains of fever or the dentist's drill, tuna fish sandwiches and antacid tablets (see AJ Philips above), not to mention alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs, to be fussy and pedantic about vaccination - they are not there yet.

Everyone has the right to keep their children safe by isolating them from the children of idiots.

Parents have the duty of care for their children. Refusal to vaccinate is child abuse.

Dear SM,

<<Everyone has the right to keep their children safe by isolating them from the children of idiots.>>

You are bursting in an open door - this is already the 8th page in this thread, still with not a single suggestion to the contrary.

<<Parents have the duty of care for their children. Refusal to vaccinate is child abuse.>>

Evolved souls who are in need of a pure body to match their pure spirit for the final segment(s) of their journey, choose for that purpose to be born to evolved parents who understand their special spiritual needs.

So talking about child-abuse, such evolved parents would bitterly betray their children if they allowed them to be vaccinated.

By the grace of God, such evolved parents will certainly find a way, somehow or another, to fulfil their duty and protect their children from spiritual harm, even if it costs them prison or being burnt at the stake. Perhaps they could be hiding in a cave with their children or perhaps far in the country where the authorities would simply never come to know that they were born, or perhaps they would forge false vaccination documents, but in any case you have nothing to worry about your little ones contracting germs through them, because neither the parents nor the children would be interested anyway in associating with your atheist children.

While I can see why others will not, I agree with Shadow Minister.
And many more would, if we had a pandemic on our hands.
It is true some will always think that in doing what maybe most think is wrong, is protecting the kids, is it?
Look at the silly thought once rampart in South Africa, that aids was not transmitted by sex.
Look at the apparent death of Cholera, due to a vaccine.
We will, one day confront a pandemic such as the extreme flue deaths world wide in the early 20,s, would it, in that case be ok if governments ordered vaccination for all.
The issue has many sides I put it up for discussion because the debate has been front and center in the real word.
Both sides claiming rights, I think they important rights belong to the kids.

Dear Belly,

<<Both sides claiming rights, I think they important rights belong to the kids.>>

I agree.

Now the question is WHAT are the rights of the kids.

Should a government decree vaccination for all, an adult could at least cry: "Over my dead body, I will not be vaccinated, I will not contaminate this temple of my body" then fall on their sword or jump from a tall building, "Aaaaarrrgggghhhh".

A baby cannot even do that, it only has its parents to represent him/her and protect his/her total interests, spiritual as well as the physical.

Now if you are a Christian, think of the Baby Jesus, chased by Herod's soldiers and hidden in a manger by his parents:

Rare evolved souls come to this earth from time to time needing a human body to complete their last leg(s) of the journey as humans and to teach and bless us all. Parents must have earned lifetimes of merit to give birth to such great souls and the land where they are born is blessed.

If Australia is to ever be controlled by a cruel and oppressive atheistic regime which persecutes its saints and advanced souls who came down to lead a life of purity, because it considers us to be mere pieces of meat, then cursed be this land. Saints and sages will still be born elsewhere while this land be barren.

Yuyitsu, you seem to have gone off track in this thread?

Are you suggesting it is only the Godless atheists who vaccinate their children, and you wouldn't want the unvaccinated Christian children in the same preschool as these atheist children anyway?

That's an awfully un-Christian thing to suggest, surely?

If there is a God, don't you believe that he or she gave the scientists the ability, and maybe even the ideas, to produce vaccines against the dreadful diseases that this God sent down to us in the first place...?

Oh boy, now even I am going off my head...sorry, off the track!

It is amazing that anyone could consider a vaccine to be a 'poison', when it is only a vehicle to introduce an innocuous form of something which already exists in the environment, purely to stimulate the body's immune system to recognize these as 'foreign' and 'dangerous', and thereby strengthen our body's ability to detect and fight off what might otherwise become severe and potentially fatal infections. They strengthen 'the Temple' against the ravages of invasion by foreign and unwanted organisms - and all Temples require repair and restoration occasionally, to preserve and protect them from the ravages of 'the elements'.
Do our bodies deserve less care?

Of course, not everyone is equally susceptible - just as 'the Black Plague' did not kill everyone, nor Typhoid, Yellow Fever, Diphtheria, etc - but very many have died from contracting such infections.
Some people may also become 'carriers' - like 'Typhoid Mary' - who may be asymptomatic, showing no signs of infection, but who may nonetheless unknowingly infect very many others, with potentially devastating consequences amongst the 'non-vaccinated'.

We routinely vaccinate our pets and livestock, and we ought be aware of the potential consequences of not doing so - parvo-virus and distemper in dogs, tetanus and strangles in horses, black-leg, pulpy-kidney and leptospirosis in cattle, etc. And, those who maintain livestock are well aware of the hazard presented by a neighbour who fails to vaccinate his stock.
Unfortunately, vaccines are not yet available for many threats. Still the work goes on, for the consequences of not doing so could be dire.
Do our children deserve less care for their well-being?

Vaccines have been, and continue to be immensely successful in limiting the incidence and the impacts of very many dangerous infections, and, with our available antibiotics becoming increasingly less-effective, the development and application of effective vaccines is becoming increasingly important. Vaccines also remain our only effective weapon against viral infections.
The non-vaccinated are, unfortunately, an unnecessary risk to all.

In NSW at least Television adds continue to try to get all vaccinated.
And despite many views I think they act on behalf of most of us.
Examples of what some would think is child neglect exist.
Even child deaths, because of parents making their views not the child,s, speak for kids.
Years ago after blowing two tyrs at once I entered a true alternative lifestyle , [Hippy] commune.
After welcoming me, and agreeing to sell me the wheels from an old truck, I was proudly offered a tour, a friendly one.
Under a bed children slept in, was a red belled black snake!
I was offered a sight of those kids playing with it.
That returns to me here.
RIP HAZEL

Dear Suse,

<<Are you suggesting it is only the Godless atheists who vaccinate their children, and you wouldn't want the unvaccinated Christian children in the same preschool as these atheist children anyway?>>

Oh, that has nothing to do with Christianity in particular or any other specific spiritual path.

Regardless of your specific path, the terrain over which the spiritual journey passes begins with inertia and ignorance, continues into wilful activities, then into peace and tranquillity, then finally transcends them all.

For most of us in the West, disciplined wilful activity towards worldly goals is an established fact and already an accomplished mode of life. Humanity has conquered many diseases, landed vehicles on Mars and is even trying to control global climate, with a remarkable success in stopping the expansion of the ozone hole.

I have no intention, God forbid, to disrupt the progress of those that still haven't reached that point, who are still working their way from the animal stage to the human stage.

Yet comes a time when one realises that wilful action is futile, that it has no answers to the fundamentals of life, when it no longer satisfies one's inherent urge to re-unite with God - then begins the next stage of the journey where wilfulness is gradually discarded and replaced with peace and tranquillity.

It is during this stage, when one learns to restrain and ultimately abstain from wilful activities that vaccinations become a problem. Not as much the chemicals (though they too become more noticeable as the aspirant's body becomes otherwise purer), but the wilfulness itself, the whole idea of trying to avert and fight germs. As opposed to the initial ignorant stage where one is unaware of germs, here one knows about germs, but accepts God's will, that if it's their time to be sick or die, then it's God's loving gift just the same.

While one is at this stage, still working their way from wilfulness into tranquillity, then yes, worldly temptations and unwholesome influence are a problem that threaten to take one backwards, so playing with worldly children can present obstacles.

Dear Saltpetre,

<<They strengthen 'the Temple' against the ravages of invasion by foreign and unwanted organisms - and all Temples require repair and restoration occasionally, to preserve and protect them from the ravages of 'the elements'.
Do our bodies deserve less care?>>

Strengthen - Yes, Desecrate - No.

The means are at least as important as the goals.

Quoting 1 Kings, chapter 6, verse 7:

---
In building the temple, only blocks dressed at the quarry were used, and no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built.
---

Sure Solomon could use iron tools if he wanted, it was the late bronze age, edging towards the official iron age, so they had the technology which could make the building process much easier - but Solomon understood the principle of restricting wilfulness and being humble before God.

Y has confronting and honestly hard to follow views when talking of religion.
Seems too in this matter.
I watched a brief morning debate about this issue this morning.
Think but not sure it was the ABC news 24channel.
I found the on one hand an informed Doctor, and the other a seemingly not as well armed, campaigner for not vaccinating much like the public debate.
Those against have trouble putting a case others can grasp up.

Jabbed - Love, Fear and Vaccines.

On SBS 1 right now, from 8.30pm.

I watched it Ludwig.
Found it tragic and confronting.
As we talked about it here the greater world was too.
That poor mum!
Having been refused ,well no, advised her children did not need vaccination for some illnesses.
Then have one die and the other very nearly?
Sad and confronting advice about near dead disease coming back.

ABC and other sources have taken this subject a long way.
Yesterdays speech by the Micro soft boss was telling.
But it too highlighted those not being vaccinated by far, seem to be from slothful parents rather than a very much smaller group of concerned parents.