Jenny McCarthy Fires Back at Critics in New Column: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine" and "Every Child Is Different"
I don’t know why people even care about her opinion one way or another.
This lady is primarily known for participating in one type of activity that involves repeated injections and it sure as heck didn’t have anything to do with vaccines.
Because her voice broadcasts to many, who may, through ignorance aided by this woman, refuse to vaccinate their children due to unrealistic fears. It is important that every child gets their vaccines, not just for the children themselves, but because they can literally kill newborns and infants by contracting a disease that may only be a burden to themselves.
That’s your assessment, but that’s certainly not any kind of official Catholic position. I certainly don’t think its necessary to give so many vaccines to a child, although I’m not against vaccination in certain circumstances.
Even more importantly, the right of the parents to refuse vaccination is being questioned more and more, and I think this is a very serious matter. Present the science and arguments to the parents. Let them decide. Period.
Thankfully the fervor has died down- but this was the same kind of nonsense with circumcision. It should be up to the parents, not the state, not even science. Some wanted to pass a law forcing circumcision on the basis of “health”, others wanted to pass a law outlawing circumcision on the basis of it being “abuse”. First circumcision was regarded as unnecessary, then as necessary, and now as optional.
The “science” on vaccines is similar. Yes, they can help, but the ultimate effects on each child is unknown, and it is up the parents to decide. I think “every child is different” is a reasonable and obvious conclusion.
Is that an official Catholic position?
I often wondered about other negative side effects of vaccinations.
The problem with your argument is you are lumping vaccines and cirumcision together in terms of their potential negative affects.
A male not being circumcised certainly doesn’t carry the same risks(or really any risk for that matter)to the said male or others he may cone n contact ,as opposed to someone not immunized against potential life threatening illness.
Gotta love celebrity leadership. :rolleyes:
Failure to vaccinate is NOT just about risk to the unvaccinated person. The vulnerability to disease affects the greater community, including those outlier vaccinated people whose immunity has faded over time due to ill health, age or the random quirks of the universe. Ordinarily, those people enjoy the benefits of “herd immunity” meaning that since everybody around them is immune they never get exposed to the virus. That benefit gets lost when a significant number of people fail to be vaccinated.
That said, all vaccines are not of equal importance. IMO, things like the chicken pox vaccine are more about the economic convenience of dual income parents than real health risks to kids. Especially since it’s not clearly known yet if the vaccine will protect as well and as long as actually HAVING childhood chicken pox worked for us old timers.
The problem is when you say “parents should make up their own minds” is like saying parents should make up their own minds if they should buckle up their kids in a car. Just the mere idea that vaccines are something to be scrutinized and needing research is what leads to parents thinking they don’t need to do it because “its in doubt.”
Most of the EC vaccines are absolutely necessary and have no need to be scrutinized. Chickenpox isn’t as necessary for the children themselves, but it is absolutely necessary due to the potential spread, especially to any elderly who have never had the vaccine or the disease. Many of the others (MMR, pertussis, Hep B, polio, etc.) are absolutely ridiculous not to get your children vaccinated against, as they can kill your child or cripple them for life.
This does not however address the possibility of certain vaccines being taken from fetal cell lines (aborted).
That is another factor for Catholics, but not what McCarthy was addressing.
True, but the Catholic Church allows us to use those vaccines in cases where no alternative exists, so there is no disease that the Church asks us not to vaccinate for.
Of course not, and I think it was clear I wasn’t claiming that.
Yes, they are different in risk. I was referring more to the tendency of some to force their will on others on personal matters because “the collective says so”.
I understand what you are saying, but this is a dangerous argument if it goes too far. Sin is also a major cause of problems in society- including life-threatening ones. That doesn’t mean we should make personal decisions for people “for the sake of the collective”.
Okay, so parents should be forced to vaccinate? I remember Jesus going off on one of the pharisees when this individual complained that Jesus’ disciples didn’t wash their hands before eating. That could easily be taken as a collective health risk. If in the future medical science has come up with nano-robots to combat disease and repair cells, should parents also be forced to “vaccinate” their children with these?
How much power should the collective have over individuals? Should parents be forced to send their children to government schools? I mean, most parents are too dumb to decide for themselves and we shouldn’t put any doubt in their minds by even suggesting a choice, should we?
All this really goes to the heart of what freedom means. Of course individuals acting stupidly can seriously screw themselves- and others- up. But that’s what living in a free society entails. That people have the freedom to make even bad choices. Didn’t God himself give us this freedom? Should the Amish people have to vaccinate? After all, they are endangering themselves and others, right? They must be crazy not to use electricity! In fact, we could say it’s child abuse, right? Never mind the fact that we got along just fine without any of these things for most of human history.
Yes, there are some very stupid and irresponsible people out there. But in a free society, you try to educate, not legislate people’s choices. It’s not your call whether a parent chooses to vaccinate his child or not.
It is when it affects MY child. If I had a newborn, and they died from exposure to X disease due to the reckless endangerment of an anti-vaccinator towards their own and my child, I would fight with everything I had to get them arrested for it to put a stop to this nonsense.
Not vaccinating your children creates a huge fatality risk among the newborns (who can’t GET the vaccine) and elderly (who have an extremely poor immune system) in your neighborhood. It’s one thing to endanger your children; it’s quite another to endanger both your own children and your neighbor’s children. I may not be able to do anything about someone risking their child’s life, but I sure as all can be would fight to the death to protect the right to life of my own child, and that includes forced vaccinations of certain diseases, yes.
Of course families should be allowed to exempt their children from vaccinations that are highly unlikely to affect others (HPV, etc.) But it crosses a line when you risk the lives of other children that aren’t your own.
And what about when it affects MY child when the vaccine causes medical problems instead?! You have at your disposal plenty of medical advancements to aid the survival of your child, but you feel you need to FORCE others to undergo a medical procedure because it MIGHT affect your child? Other parents have a right to “fight to the death to protect the right to life of their own child” by not having them vaccinated if necessary. You have a right to send your child to an optional school that mandates vaccines if you like, but you have NO right to force it upon others.
You are very mistaken in what constitutes a “right”. You have absolutely no “right” to force anyone to do anything. You only have a right to be left alone, unless you decide to violate somebody else’s rights. I guess you don’t see the irony of how Christians are being pushed to legally do things that violate their conscious “for the good of the society”.
It reminds me of how certain corporations are said to be “attacking” women’s health because they don’t want to be forced to do things that the owners are against. Not being forced to do something is now an “attack”. The bully becomes the “victim”. You might think this has no bearing on what you consider to be a imminent safety issue, but that’s just a classification you have given it.
And I have to wonder: How insulting to God to believe that human beings straight of of the womb need man-made medicines in order to be “healthy” and “not a threat to others”? At least I find it profoundly disturbing and insulting.
Interesting story addition since its so recent and relevant. Vaccine deniers might want to check this out before they still claim that it’s alright to not vaccinate/endanger your children.
There’s a big difference, obviously, between vaccinating and buckling a belt. In and of itself there are no adverse side effects to wearing a seat belt, unlike simply getting a vaccine, which can have lifelong effects or cause death.
Vaccines ARE something to be scrutinized and DO need research, both by the medical industry and the individual. I can’t imagine you’re suggesting they don’t need scrutiny.
Actually the similarities are there, you’re just not seeing it. There ARE scenarios where the wearing of the seatbelt is what CAUSES a fatality in an automobile. Think the scenario where a 4 year old able to swim rides buckled in a car that is run off the road into a pond. Car sinks, kid drowns because he’s unable to unbuckle his belt in time. Tragedy, to be sure, but it’s lunacy to hold that exceedingly rare case up as a reason to rage against mandatory kid carseat laws. In the vast, overwhelming number of cases, the car seats save lives. Same goes for serious disease vaccines.
Once upon a time you did hear people argue that they would rather take their chances without a seatbelt than risk dying in a fire or drowning because they couldn’t get their seatbelt off in time. Time and experience have pretty much silenced those folks as batty. Time and experience will do the same to the serious disease vaccine refusers.
Vaccines effects do have to be scrutinized and challenged. But that has to be done in an educated and organized manner. Jenny McCarthy simply isn’t qualified. People educated and experienced in the field have to be consulted if your or I don’t directly have the expertise. There aren’t very many of those people who don’t vaccinate their kids. That ought to tell you something.
P.S. Where the REAL difference between seatbelts and vaccines come in is that the guy who refuses to wear the seatbelt doesn’t enjoy crash protection due to everybody else around him who does. The vaccine refuser, if he exists in very small numbers, is a freeloader on the benefits of herd immunity in that the disease is nearly eradicated because nobody is a carrier anymore. At least until there are enough refusers to cause an epidemic again. And that’s what’s starting to happen because of folks like Jenny.
The Government just needs to start mandating vaccines and be done with it.
We don’t the time or luxury to deal with the folks who would endanger their kids, and my kids.