$640.00 to fill the tanks...

Bob Noel wrote:
In article .com,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.

Explain that to the parents whose kids became
paralyzed/retarted/infected/died as a direct result of vaccines. I
know, the probability of that happening is low, but if it happens to
YOUR kid, it doesn't matter what that mathematical probability is. The
ones who actively choose not to immunize have taken steps to become
educated about the risks and benefits of vaccines than the vast
majority who blindly follow what the doc says.

are you serious? you think everyone who doesn't immunize has thought this
through?

True, not everyone has thought this through, that's why I said "ones
who actively choose not to immunize". But the ones who made a conscious
and educated choice should not be criminalized as negligent.



Try explaining to a
widow whose husband died in a small plane crash why everyone who
doesn't fly are criminally stupid, because flying is a vey safe
activity. As you know, flying is a calculated risk and a choice. You
can't force that upon everyone just because you and the FAA think it is
safe.

cripes. The vaccine is to prevent a deadly disease. Flying doesn't
prevent death (except maybe being bored to death by a non-flying
"life"). To use that as an example or arguement is dumb.


May be it was a bad example, I just wanted to make it aviation-centric.
But it is not a foregone conclusion that routine vaccines prevent
deadly deseases. There are arguments for and against, and it is our
responsibility to be informed. What I often see is that the people who
have never bothered to look into this are quick to label the others as
dumb or negligent so that they can feel good about their decision to
remain dumb.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
"minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
they had children?

Jay, I thought you didn't like socialism or social engineering? :-)

Matt

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.

Wasn't the recent measles outbreak carried into the United States/Iowa
by an unvaccinated child who became infected in England?

john smith wrote:
In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.

Wasn't the recent measles outbreak carried into the United States/Iowa
by an unvaccinated child who became infected in England?

Mumps, actually.

I'm convinced I had a mild case back this spring - and I was vaccinated
as a child. Remember, immunizations don't 100% protect you.

Jay Honeck wrote:
Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
"minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
they had children?

There was a whole movement in the 1930's to do just that, the "eugenics
movement". It culminated with Hitler's experiments. So that one may not
be such a good idea.

Actually, there ARE self induced "requirements" to having a child that
MOST of us abide by. And institutions such as church and family set
"rules" for having children. It is just that when government does it,
it is a disaster.

In article om,
"Doug" wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
"minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
they had children?

There was a whole movement in the 1930's to do just that, the "eugenics
movement". It culminated with Hitler's experiments. So that one may not
be such a good idea.

Actually, there ARE self induced "requirements" to having a child that
MOST of us abide by. And institutions such as church and family set
"rules" for having children. It is just that when government does it,
it is a disaster.

Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with
low birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are
contemplating increasing it.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:15:43 GMT, john smith wrote:
Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with
low birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are
contemplating increasing it.

To follow this logic to its full conclusion, we end up with the world
being overpopulated by the idiots... Just like when I see a woman with
4 kids in the grocery store... "FOUR kids? Couldn't figure out what
causes it or are you just CATHOLIC?"

Skylune wrote:
We do subsidize GA in the USA however. Ah, priorities and politics.....

No, we don't. Actually we collect up GA taxes and hold them in account
to make the deficit look smaller.

-Robert

Skylune wrote:
by "Robert M. Gary" Aug 17, 2006 at 09:02 AM
We do subsidize GA in the USA however. Ah, priorities and politics.....

I agree. Building interstate infrustruction to increase standard of
living for all is a priority.

-Robert