pShould vaccinations for children be legally required?

Next>

Results

56 %

Yes, they should.

44 %

No, they shouldn't.

@May '12 c 105 comments V 203 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

203 Votes

u

1 hr
DesignerLM voted

v No, they shouldn't.
12 hr

Bill2E

v No, they shouldn't.

Government control of private lives, no not a good idea, make the shots available free of charge to children but don't require them.

Post
21 hr
cr8z4amerika voted

v No, they shouldn't.
u

Sun
Avoicenmany voted

v No, they shouldn't.
u

May 18
DrSilicon voted

v No, they shouldn't.
u

May 18

tomincali

v Yes, they should.

with all the illnesses being brought in from other countries our kids are exposed to all sorts of things, even things we once stomped out. are kids need to be protected by whatever means as they would if traveling to other countries,after all they are exposed to all these places at school.

Post
u

May 18
RobG voted

v Yes, they should.
May 16

JohnnyDee

v No, they shouldn't.

Rights of the individual. I choose to get most vaccinations, I reserve the right to not get the ones I do not wish to, that extends to doing so on the behalf of my child.

Post
u

May 16
The_Bald_Guy endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, they shouldn't.
u

May 15
LilliB voted

v Yes, they should.
May 15
jamie91 endorsed LeslieAbi

v Yes, they should.
u

May 15
Alphacent voted

v Yes, they should.
u

May 14
Angry_man endorsed Neo_NtheMatrix

v No, they shouldn't.
May 14
mmm314 endorsed LeslieAbi

v Yes, they should.
u

May 14
HouTx79 voted

v Yes, they should.
May 13
Fyi1957 endorsed Razorbreath

v Yes, they should.
u

May 12

URBS

v Yes, they should.

For communicable diseases yes as it effects all of the population.

Post
May 12

FFS-

v No, they shouldn't.

You'll find most legislation of this type is due to lobbying by big pharm. just ask gov perry in tx

Post
May 9

DARSB

v Yes, they should.

Of course vaccinations should be mandatory. Ever see a baby die of whooping cough?

Post
u

May 9
OdinForPres voted

v Yes, they should.
u

May 9
JVJx voted

v Yes, they should.
u

May 7
bleakoutlook voted

v No, they shouldn't.
May 7
Carolann endorsed Iamjim42

v Yes, they should.
u

May 6
MaxPain voted

v Yes, they should.
May 5
LonePalm endorsed marianjames

v Yes, they should.
May 5
NormalFlora endorsed marianjames

v Yes, they should.
May 4
Philof endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, they shouldn't.
May 4

Politic-n

v No, they shouldn't.

No more Nanny state. There are too many vaccinations now anyway, most are not needed. Public schools even require chicken pox vaccinations! That used to be a right of passage and is no big deal. Lets the kid get out of a couple days of school at least. Big pharmaceutical companies are pushing these laws so they can make more money off people. The politicians are in bed with the pharaceutical companies, and we are all the lab rats for their products.

Post
u

May 4
Slowmo endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, they shouldn't.
May 4
johnny_potseed voted

v No, they shouldn't.
May 3
BravoJuliet endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, they shouldn't.
May 3

NoAmnestyEVER

v Yes, they should.

As soon as vaccinations are safe (which is probably never) they should be required. Since they're clearly not, they should only be used on anchor babies of illegal aliens, who bring the most diseases to school.

Post
May 3
GunPolitics endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, they shouldn't.
May 2
Deste66 voted

v Yes, they should.
u

May 2

BossTweed

v Yes, they should.

It is vital with 14 million foreigners illegal squatters in our Country.........Tuberculosis has been reintroduced to calif public schools due to the massive infestation of illegals. Our failure to stand up for Border Integrity is having a terrible impact on our own children. We just don't measure up to previous generations of American citizens and parents.

r3 replies

Post
May 1
Colin2k41 voted

v Yes, they should.
May 1
mudpike voted

v No, they shouldn't.
May 1
PaulBartomioli endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, they shouldn't.
May 1
darkmoonman endorsed marianjames

v Yes, they should.
u

May 1
treedcat25 endorsed marianjames

v Yes, they should.
Apr 30
mwr endorsed marianjames

v Yes, they should.
u

Apr 30
fraps endorsed marianjames

v Yes, they should.
u

Apr 30

4PeteSake

v Yes, they should.

There are always crackpots who believe vaccinations caused some unrelated condition but spreading disease to other people is unacceptable.

Post
Apr 30
loganrollo endorsed Neo_NtheMatrix

v No, they shouldn't.
Apr 29

spytheweb

v No, they shouldn't.

Vaccine Ingredients -"This following list of common vaccines and their ingredients should shock anyone. The numbers of microbes, antibiotics, chemicals, heavy metals and animal byproducts is staggering. Would you knowingly inject these materials into your children? Acel-Immune DTaP - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556 * diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed, formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) gelatin Act HIB" Read, there's alot more: http://rense.com/general59/vvac.htm

B1

Post
Apr 28
GuitarGuy19 voted

v No, they shouldn't.
Apr 28
Mnementh voted

v No, they shouldn't.
Apr 27

bsking

v No, they shouldn't.

I would like to formally change my vote to yes they should be required but only for children that belong to the collective.

B1

Post
Apr 27

Concerned_Cit

v No, they shouldn't.

When laws are passed "for your own health", watch out! Greedy pharmaceutical companies love this mentality.

B2

Post
Apr 27
oldman75 voted

v Yes, they should.

12 hr

Bill2E

v No, they shouldn't.

Government control of private lives, no not a good idea, make the shots available free of charge to children but don't require them.

Post
u

May 18

tomincali

v Yes, they should.

with all the illnesses being brought in from other countries our kids are exposed to all sorts of things, even things we once stomped out. are kids need to be protected by whatever means as they would if traveling to other countries,after all they are exposed to all these places at school.

Post
May 16

JohnnyDee

v No, they shouldn't.

Rights of the individual. I choose to get most vaccinations, I reserve the right to not get the ones I do not wish to, that extends to doing so on the behalf of my child.

Post
u

May 12

URBS

v Yes, they should.

For communicable diseases yes as it effects all of the population.

Post
May 12

FFS-

v No, they shouldn't.

You'll find most legislation of this type is due to lobbying by big pharm. just ask gov perry in tx

Post
May 9

DARSB

v Yes, they should.

Of course vaccinations should be mandatory. Ever see a baby die of whooping cough?

Post
May 4

Politic-n

v No, they shouldn't.

No more Nanny state. There are too many vaccinations now anyway, most are not needed. Public schools even require chicken pox vaccinations! That used to be a right of passage and is no big deal. Lets the kid get out of a couple days of school at least. Big pharmaceutical companies are pushing these laws so they can make more money off people. The politicians are in bed with the pharaceutical companies, and we are all the lab rats for their products.

Post
May 3

NoAmnestyEVER

v Yes, they should.

As soon as vaccinations are safe (which is probably never) they should be required. Since they're clearly not, they should only be used on anchor babies of illegal aliens, who bring the most diseases to school.

Post
u

May 2

BossTweed

v Yes, they should.

It is vital with 14 million foreigners illegal squatters in our Country.........Tuberculosis has been reintroduced to calif public schools due to the massive infestation of illegals. Our failure to stand up for Border Integrity is having a terrible impact on our own children. We just don't measure up to previous generations of American citizens and parents.

r3 replies

Post
May 16

JohnnyDee

You do know there is no vaccine against tuberculosis.

Post @JohnnyDee
u

May 16

BossTweed

@JohnnyDee Border Control is the only solution needed to prevent TB. But, that's asking too much and our kids just don't mean enough to us to demand that these diseases are kept away from them by logical Border Security measures.

Post @BossTweed
May 17

JohnnyDee

@BossTweed You are absolutely correct, and the version of TB coming to America from the bowels of Mexico is antibiotic resistant,

Post @JohnnyDee
u

Apr 30

4PeteSake

v Yes, they should.

There are always crackpots who believe vaccinations caused some unrelated condition but spreading disease to other people is unacceptable.

Post
Apr 29

spytheweb

v No, they shouldn't.

Vaccine Ingredients -"This following list of common vaccines and their ingredients should shock anyone. The numbers of microbes, antibiotics, chemicals, heavy metals and animal byproducts is staggering. Would you knowingly inject these materials into your children? Acel-Immune DTaP - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556 * diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed, formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) gelatin Act HIB" Read, there's alot more: http://rense.com/general59/vvac.htm

B1

Post
Apr 27

bsking

v No, they shouldn't.

I would like to formally change my vote to yes they should be required but only for children that belong to the collective.

B1

Post
Apr 27

Concerned_Cit

v No, they shouldn't.

When laws are passed "for your own health", watch out! Greedy pharmaceutical companies love this mentality.

B2

Post
Apr 27

AndrewMC

v No, they shouldn't.

No they shouldn't. BUT.....Every parent should have to sign a waiver if they don't want to take part. If their child becomes ill as a result of not having them vaccinated, then the parents must bear all financial burdens of treatment. They cannot access public health systems if they opt out of vaccination programs. The way I look at is, if my kids are vaccinated, they don't need to worry about getting sick from one who has not been. And if the parent is responsible for paying for treatment, they have born the cost of their decision. Alternatively, I would argue that any child in public school should be vaccinated. If you want your child in private school, it's u...

B1

Post
Apr 24

Vance1

v No, they shouldn't.

were does The Constitution say you have to do this?

Post
Apr 24

Ryuo

v No, they shouldn't.

The government does not have that right, WE do, and if we gave government that right, they'd screw it up.

B1

Post
u

Apr '13

tklawsonpharm

v Yes, they should.

Although vaccinations are loosely connected to neurological disorders and autism, the benefits of inoculating for Hepatitis, Chicken Pox, Mumps measles,HPV, others are a very small risk against the overall benefit.

Post
Jun '12

autiger

v Yes, they should.

For the good of everybody.. Different than the "seatbelt" law

Post
u

Jun '12

Freedom

v No, they shouldn't.

Hell no, of course it figures with a site like topix they would take these types of issues and turn it around to make it seem anyone who doesn't have there child vaccinated is a bad person and try to purport that the government should be able to Force someone to take something they create it's just like giving a lab rat a test drug, or simply giving them poison to put them down. Oh hey I have an idea why don't you create a topix topic that states should the government be allowed to take your child if they don't get vaccinated or perhaps should the government be allowed to take your child for reasons of progressive behavioral issues as a result of taking these vaccines....

B2

Post
Jun '12

POMZKR

v No, they shouldn't.

It dose not take a village to raise a child it takes two people a mother and a father and people who think that the government should have any say so in our medical decisions well when I look around everything else they have control over is going to shit so ...

B1

r1 reply

Post
Jun '12

dances-weebles

yeah... children should be cared for by two people who know a whole lot more than our doctors, and medical scientists... not.

Post @dances-weebles
R Load more comments...

May '12

marianjames

v Yes, they should.

It's necessary, to protect all children and preserve mass immunity. It's really maddening that so many parents are rejecting science and refusing vaccinations. Vaccination is a medical miracle, people. It's why no one you know is horribly scarred by smallpox, or dead from diphtheria.

B1

r3 replies

e22 endorsed

Post
May '12

ir0nw0lfe

v No, they shouldn't.

First off, let me say that I'm in favor of vaccinations for children. With that said, I'm also a big fan of religious freedom and personal responsibility. If the school system requires a list of vaccinations then it is incumbent upon the parent to do some research and talk to their pediatrician concerning the benefits and risks of each vaccination. Based on that information, reach an educated decision as to which vaccinations are worth having. There maybe those whose religious or personal choices prohibit their child from being vaccinates. In the case of highly contagious diseases, bear in mind that those choices may end up with the school district excluding your child...

B1

r4 replies

e14 endorsed

Post
May '12

Neo_NtheMatrix

v No, they shouldn't.

The Constitution does not give any government official the right to demand parents poison their children. If a parent decides to dope their children up, that choice should be the parents'. The government has no authority to force its poisons on anyone.

B3

e6 endorsed

Post
May '12

LeslieAbi

v Yes, they should.

This definitely should be mandatory! Just like we have to wear our seatbelts when in a vehicle this is a safety precaution. Some may say wearing a seatbelt in certain instances can actually cause damage but the overwhelming consensus is that the huge majority of the time seatbelts save lives. Just like vaccinations, sometimes you become ill from getting them in the long run they are preventing these kids from harmful and sometimes deadly viruses/diseases that if not kept in check could run rampant through society causing a lot more damage.

r2 replies

e5 endorsed

Post
May '12

AlexanderKM

v No, they shouldn't.

I am the father of a beautiful little baby girl and quite frankly the thought of these vaccinations terrifies me. First off I don't know what's in them Secondly I wouldn't trust the government to administer shots to my DOG - and definitely not to my One-And-Only Thirdly I don't see the need to vaccinate a baby to these mock-up 'pandemics'. Swine flu? Granted I was seventeen back then but I KNOW that it was hardly a pandemic. So I do not feel the POTENTIAL benefits are even close the potential drawbacks. I've heard of this stuff affecting the cognitive abilities of children so all in all - stay out of my household gov't!!!

B3

r2 replies

e2 endorsed

Post
May '12

Fuchsia

v No, they shouldn't.

No. Vaccines can have risks that they refuse to tell us. Science isn't always scientific. There are ways to use funding to skew the results. I also support religious exemptions. If you are afraid my hypothetical unvaccinated child will harm yours, then you can make sure yours are vaccinated without worrying about mine.

B2

r4 replies

e2 endorsed

Post
May '12

drahos

v No, they shouldn't.

Many years ago doctors endorsed particular brands of cigarettes. The doctors were ignorant to the dire consequences, but the manufacturers knew all of the dangers but were more concerned with the money. The vaccine industry is the exact same way. Doctors and patients have been duped once again and will not realize it until the severe damage reaches a breaking point.

B3

Post
u

Jun '12

brytboy

v No, they shouldn't.

Is there anyone here who said YES, and is also pro-choice? if so you are such a complete hypocrite. You can't say people have a right to make their own choices with their body on one point, and ignore that right on another topic.

B3

r1 reply

Post
u

May '12

karma

v Yes, they should.

If they are not legally required , there are some parents who would not get them, not due to the cost, but simply due to the lack of motivation. I do understand that there are parents who don't believe in vaccinating their children and thus I think a simple waver could be signed at each interval when it was mandatory that the child receive a set of vaccinations. The parent would be made aware that if their child then contracted said ailment and suffered extreme irreversible affects that could have been avoided had they been vaccinated, said parents would be held liable. Making vaccinations legally required simply for the most part keeps our children safe... it's the r...

r2 replies

e3 endorsed

Post
u

Jun '12

Freedom

v No, they shouldn't.

Hell no, of course it figures with a site like topix they would take these types of issues and turn it around to make it seem anyone who doesn't have there child vaccinated is a bad person and try to purport that the government should be able to Force someone to take something they create it's just like giving a lab rat a test drug, or simply giving them poison to put them down. Oh hey I have an idea why don't you create a topix topic that states should the government be allowed to take your child if they don't get vaccinated or perhaps should the government be allowed to take your child for reasons of progressive behavioral issues as a result of taking these vaccines....

B2

Post

Politix

pShould vaccinations for children be legally required?

Results