Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

A terrible question.

Ok, I know this is a terrible question. BUT, I don't believe in the health benefits of vaccinating. I do believe in the benefits of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Which is funny since I don't believe in evolution.
Anyway, my question is, instead of vaccinations wouldn't it be better globally if we allowed the natural world to cleanse itself and make the general populace stronger by natural selection?

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 1:50 AM on Apr. 9, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (32)
  • Before vaccinations were being done on our soil deaths from the things we vaccinate for were on a decline. Good hygiene and proper nutrition helped with that. Vaccinations should only be for those with weakened immune systems. The rest of us that are healthy don't need them. Most adults do not get boosters and are no longer immune to many illnesses we vaccinate for yet we have not had wide spread outbreaks or deaths. If more doctors would actually research vaccinations instead of believing all that is in a pamphlet from a drug company things would be very different.


    My cousin in Europe vaccinates her child from some things but they have measles and chicken pox parties still. They don't have huge issues over there. We are a very paniked society and are actually hurting our kids by over vaccinating and over medicating our children.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:37 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

  • good "thought" but be prepared to get bashed by a ton of mommies... """""thought""""""
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:52 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

  • It sounds like a good idea until your child is the weaker one, or your husband, or your mom, or you... or all of the above..
    toriandgrace

    Answer by toriandgrace at 1:56 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

  • I don't see how a world can just "cleanse" itself of diseases such as polio or measles or mumps.
    sarapurser

    Answer by sarapurser at 1:59 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

  • No, it would be better if politics and profit didn't interfere in the basic needs of humanity - when deep, unnecessary poverty, war-caused famine, and oppressive regimes create situations of malnutrition, poor sanitation, and lack of education, and prevent people from basic human needs, then people die unnecessarily. I do not feel that this falls into "survival of the fittest" and I do believe in evolution.
    I don't vaccinate, but the people who suffer most from deadly outbreaks of VPD are not necessarily the people who are weak, in an evolutionary sense of the word. (Although it could be argued that Nietzche thought just that.) And one could argue the other way: that those who are "weak" are the ones who suffer adverse reactions to vaccines, and therefore that is an instrument of "weeding the herd." I wouldn't make that argument, personally. I'd be horrified if someone did: either way, eugenics is horrifying.
    Collinsky

    Answer by Collinsky at 2:02 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

  • Good theory, unless your child gets some debilitating disease that just paralyzes them, and doesn't kill them off. I sure wouldn't want my child having some horrible disease that they just waste away having before they die, especially when I could have prevented it.

    Nietzsche believed this would eventually happen, but he was a kook!
    2-1CavWife

    Answer by 2-1CavWife at 2:03 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

  • I am not talking of the world cleansing itself of diseases, but of people. People who would naturally succumb to disease. It is very late and I may not be thinking clearly. But it seems to be the way of strengthening the human race. (Only if the human race is not involved in the process.)
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:05 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

  • sure. and we can also eat raw meat, to strenghten up the gene pool. No more life saving surgeries, because that's human intervention. Why stop at vaccinations?
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:08 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

  • I would understand if it was my child, husband or myself. It is simple biology. And for the person who was concerned that they would be left paralyzed or something. The next plague would they probably wouldn't make it through.
    I do think this type of thinking is disturbing, but I am trying to be honest.
    The biggest problem with this thinking is exactly what Collinsky said. It isn't natural selection that put some of these third world populaces in this predicament anyway. It is other humans and regimes. I need to go to bed. I am thinking way too deeply.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:12 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

  • TO anon:08
    I would not have life saving therapy. It goes against my beliefs. My husband would try to force it on me, but if I am able to choose I would not do it, not for anyone.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:15 AM on Apr. 9, 2009

close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN