Based on the headline, I thought the article might discuss a different issue — claiming a religious exemption to validate being unvaccinated, when it’s really just that one “doesn’t like what’s in them,” as one acquaintance told me. I think one should be able to choose, with one’s doctor, to delay or skip vaccines when medically necessar…
Based on the headline, I thought the article might discuss a different issue — claiming a religious exemption to validate being unvaccinated, when it’s really just that one “doesn’t like what’s in them,” as one acquaintance told me. I think one should be able to choose, with one’s doctor, to delay or skip vaccines when medically necessary or if one has a religious objection, but I think more and more often these days, people watch a YouTube video and just don’t want to get them. I don’t think that’s a good reason but have encountered it a surprising number of times in my conservative, Catholic area.
If concern about the contents of a pharmaceutical product is not a good reason to question whether one ought to be compelled to consume that product, I don’t know what is a good reason! Perhaps the objectionableness of the contents doesn’t stand up to further scrutiny, but I think it makes sense to ask questions- especially as the manufacturers are not liable for defective products.
There are avenues of redress for true vaccine injuries, which I know do happen, which include monetary damages being given to families. It doesn’t necessarily come from the manufacturers, but it is available.
Well, holding the companies themselves financially accountable would lead to other problems like bankruptcy and then not being able to develop any other vaccines or medicines. Holding them directly accountable would lead to many other issues; this middle way seems like the best option.
My concern is this: if the companies are not liable, what is the incentive for them to do the proper due diligence when it comes to testing their products for safety? What would it look like if, for instance, car seat manufacturers were not liable for defects in their products? Bankruptcy of vaccine manufacturers is definitely not a problem as the system stands currently, THAT is for sure! lol! So they solved that problem, absolutely.
I think the YouTube video jab is unfair. At present my children are all vaccinated with what's legally required in my state, but I do have an interest in non-conventional and alternative medicines. That interest started as a response to how hard contraception is pushed as a matter of public health policy and by individual doctors, which is probably pretty familiar to most practicing Catholic women. It isn't hard to go from that and wonder what else they might be wrong about.
The public health response to Covid also jarred a lot of people out of complacency. I'd love to just be able to trust everything the CDC says, or that doctors say, but I can't unknow what I have learned, and that's going to affect my decision making. If they use more force, I get more suspicious.
It was literally the reason given to me by an acquaintance; her reason for not vaccinating her children was that she didn’t like what was in them based on a YouTube video she had seen. I asked if she claimed the religious objection because of fetal stem cell lines from aborted fetuses, and she said, “no, I just don’t like what’s in them.” And I think that’s why some states are trying to eliminate the religious exemption, because it’s being abused.
If I don’t like what’s in a food product, I choose not to eat that food product. Maybe I could come up with a more eloquent way to say “I don’t like what’s in it,” but it seems silly or foolish to willingly consume something that has ingredients I deem to be harmful or suspicious. It is a shame we don’t have a pharmaceutical industry (or an actual food industry, but off topic…) that isn’t more transparent and forthcoming about the ingredients of their products.
I agree that the term “religious exemption” is sometimes misleading or inappropriate which is why I believe “conscience exemption” might be a more fitting category name. After all, one mustn’t be religious to object to fetal cell line use in vaccine derivation…
Based on the headline, I thought the article might discuss a different issue — claiming a religious exemption to validate being unvaccinated, when it’s really just that one “doesn’t like what’s in them,” as one acquaintance told me. I think one should be able to choose, with one’s doctor, to delay or skip vaccines when medically necessary or if one has a religious objection, but I think more and more often these days, people watch a YouTube video and just don’t want to get them. I don’t think that’s a good reason but have encountered it a surprising number of times in my conservative, Catholic area.
If concern about the contents of a pharmaceutical product is not a good reason to question whether one ought to be compelled to consume that product, I don’t know what is a good reason! Perhaps the objectionableness of the contents doesn’t stand up to further scrutiny, but I think it makes sense to ask questions- especially as the manufacturers are not liable for defective products.
There are avenues of redress for true vaccine injuries, which I know do happen, which include monetary damages being given to families. It doesn’t necessarily come from the manufacturers, but it is available.
That is true. But it is true that the companies themselves are not liable, which leads to other downstream problems.
Well, holding the companies themselves financially accountable would lead to other problems like bankruptcy and then not being able to develop any other vaccines or medicines. Holding them directly accountable would lead to many other issues; this middle way seems like the best option.
My concern is this: if the companies are not liable, what is the incentive for them to do the proper due diligence when it comes to testing their products for safety? What would it look like if, for instance, car seat manufacturers were not liable for defects in their products? Bankruptcy of vaccine manufacturers is definitely not a problem as the system stands currently, THAT is for sure! lol! So they solved that problem, absolutely.
I think the YouTube video jab is unfair. At present my children are all vaccinated with what's legally required in my state, but I do have an interest in non-conventional and alternative medicines. That interest started as a response to how hard contraception is pushed as a matter of public health policy and by individual doctors, which is probably pretty familiar to most practicing Catholic women. It isn't hard to go from that and wonder what else they might be wrong about.
The public health response to Covid also jarred a lot of people out of complacency. I'd love to just be able to trust everything the CDC says, or that doctors say, but I can't unknow what I have learned, and that's going to affect my decision making. If they use more force, I get more suspicious.
It was literally the reason given to me by an acquaintance; her reason for not vaccinating her children was that she didn’t like what was in them based on a YouTube video she had seen. I asked if she claimed the religious objection because of fetal stem cell lines from aborted fetuses, and she said, “no, I just don’t like what’s in them.” And I think that’s why some states are trying to eliminate the religious exemption, because it’s being abused.
If I don’t like what’s in a food product, I choose not to eat that food product. Maybe I could come up with a more eloquent way to say “I don’t like what’s in it,” but it seems silly or foolish to willingly consume something that has ingredients I deem to be harmful or suspicious. It is a shame we don’t have a pharmaceutical industry (or an actual food industry, but off topic…) that isn’t more transparent and forthcoming about the ingredients of their products.
I agree that the term “religious exemption” is sometimes misleading or inappropriate which is why I believe “conscience exemption” might be a more fitting category name. After all, one mustn’t be religious to object to fetal cell line use in vaccine derivation…