Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children

Well, in this round I'm gonna focus in the already given arguments and not try to go much further. So, let's recap. You say that whether and individual can have a perfect and healthy life until he dies, he should always take vaccines, because even if the danger is so low, "outweighs any supposed benefits to not vaccinating yourself". Well, you see, it's proved that vaccines have side effects, and I don't say this just because I saw one time in a questionable website, I say this because it's all over the web. http://www.activistpost.com... http://healthimpactnews.com... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://articles.mercola.com... http://vactruth.com... Well, it may not cause autism, or any disease in particular, but the amount of information about it's side-effects must be put on the balance. I don't believe that every vaccine has side-effects, and that aren't good things attached, but I don't believe either that there is only good in this. Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable business in the world. Millions of pills are made every year, and people are more and more sick. My father is a natural doctor, and I see that every day. How is this possible? Profit! So it's logical that vaccines can be a mean to make their hospitals running. Going back a little, you mentioned that it's better to vaccine even if in a lifetime we never would need them. You say that the the risks overweights any benefits. So imagine that you could say for sure that one of the vaccines have a bad side-effect. You are lowering the chance of having the possibility to contract some kind of disease to 0, because you have already contracted from vaccines. So you say that this is better? Doom yourself from the very start, just because "the risk" of catching something? "I don"t say cultivate morality; I say become more conscious, and you will be moral. But that morality will have a totally different flavor to it. It will be spontaneous; it will not be ready-made." OSHO http://www.osho.com... I guess you have misconceived my words. You talk of moral like some kind of code you have to follow, like the 10 commandments, but that isn't morality. That isn't freedom, and you are mistaking liberty with libertinism. Moral is good, the kind of moral that makes us human beings, not the kind that make us cattle. In order to be free and be moral, we have to question ourselves. I don't believe you ever thought about vaccines having side-effects for example, and because you didn't know, and didn't questioned yourself before making a decision, that makes you moral correct? Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. Just following what they tell us doesn't make us moral people, because if we lived in a different society were killing wasn't bad, If I kill someone, does that would made me moral? Well, you make a distinction between the article I cited and reality, and you say that my sources may be dubious, and while this, you only cited things from one source mostly, while I putted here various sources from different entities, what in my opinion makes a more reliable source, that just stating things from one website. And you still affirm " is merely grasping at straws to make his case, cannot outweigh legions of other scientist and their more credible findings.". I admit that the website may not be the more trusted, but with the new sources I linked here. You also say that I cannot refer sources and tell people to read it. I just told you that so you understand better why I say and affirm my point, because I still have more than all the words to use.. Thank you