Sunday, January 2, 2011
The Vaccination Question
Hate to start the New Year off with such a heated topic, but I was perusing my Brethren and Sistren's blogs this fine Sunday morning, as I await the final day of the regular season of the National Football League and hoping against all hope that Cleveland beats the Steelers and the Ravens beat the Bengals. That would be nice.
Someone posted a very lengthy comment, introducing himself and his story, in SingleDad's blog, in an older post. His story was...well, frankly astonishing. You should check it out.
The eerie and sad similarity between his son Kirk's tale and Bennett's?
The activation of seizures by a vaccination shot. Not the first time I have heard this tale, and I know that it will not be the last. A life, forever altered, a destiny forever shaped by one shot in the dark, so to speak.
There are stats, I won't go through them all here. They are staggering. You may seek them out if you wish. It only brings me down.
In the medical community here in the United Stats, it has been suggested to me by a friend of a friend that on the inside, in hushed whispers and dark corners, doctors very sadly refer to our kids as 'collateral damage'.
That vaccines are, overall, doing good in the amount of deaths they prevent and devastating outbreaks of certain diseases they have stopped, but that there is a willingness in the medical community to accept certain 'losses', ala our kids hearts, minds and souls, since they can't figure out what or why some of these vaccines have that neurological pre-disposition to react to whatever is inside our kids heads.
Saddest thing in the world one should ever have to hear about, especially when one of those kids just happens to be your own. Makes you think about things in life, a LOT of things, very differently.
Makes me look at the government differently, history differently. Everything. Makes me rethink the JFK assassination, if you can believe that. Yeah, I used to TOTALLY believe it was just one guy. I am not so sure about that anymore.
I am VERY suspect about the historical accusation that the U.S. Government was the first to use, essentially, a weaponized version of a disease against the American Indians, smallpox I believe, on blankets that were traded, thus being the first to actually create Biological Warfare.
I used to think that was bullshit. I am not so sure anymore. Just think about Slavery, Japanese-American (Nisei) Internment Camps, MK Ultra, Operation Keelhaul, the Tuskegee Experiment and many, many others.
Shit like that, and this vaccine stuff, makes me (at times, but not ALL times) embarrassed to be a member of not just this nation, but this species.
We are capable of SO much more humanity than this. It sucks we do not exercise it.
I hate the line of thinking that it is it is OK to sacrifice some to save others. That some lives are less valuable. Allow me to present some text from an article called Outside the Camp, written by by Marc D. Carpenter. Ironically it was one of the writings that originally fueled me to continue to try to release more Smart Bombs after the first ones didn't make a profit after the legal issues were settled, because I have a deep-seeded hatred for Atomic weapons, I can't stand that we created them.
Who knew that one day I would be using the piece in such a different way?
Eight years before the first atomic bomb was dropped (and 7.5 years before the first firebombing), the U.S. State Department issued a statement condemning Japanese bombing of civilian targets in China, arguing that 'any general bombing of an extensive area wherein there resides a large population engaged in peaceful pursuits is unwarranted and contrary to principles of law and of humanity.'
Almost a year later, the State Department issued a similar statement condemning as 'barbarous' the 'ruthless bombing of unfortified localities with the resultant slaughter of civilian populations, and in particular of women and children.'
On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing an estimated 70,000 people. Subsequent death from radiation poisoning, injuries, and necrosis brought the total deaths up to an estimated 140,000.
On August 9, 1945, it was planned that the second bomb be dropped on Kokura; however, because of cloudiness over Kokura, the secondary target of Nagasaki was chosen. The bombing of Nagasaki instantly killed an estimated 70,000 people. It is estimated that another 10,000 people later died of radiation poisoning, injuries, and necrosis.
On September 2, 1945, Japan formally surrendered.
President Truman, the United States military, and most citizens of the United States were of the view that the bombings were justified because they hastened the end of the war, thus possibly saving a million or more American lives.
When any Christian thinks about this justification for killing over 200,000 people, he will see the horrible implications of this kind of immoral reasoning. It is the 'numbers game'; i.e., it is okay to kill a certain amount of people (most of whom were non-combatants) in order that a larger number of people would be saved.
This is 'greater good', 'ends justify the means', moral relativism at its worst. Is it okay to kill one person to save the lives of two people? ('Person' is not a person who is about to kill you or is threatening to kill you; it is the average person on the street who has no intention of harming or killing you.)
Is it okay to kill ten people to save the lives of 100 people? Is it okay to kill 10,000 people to save the lives of 100,000 people? (And in the case of the atom bomb, we cannot be sure that a certain amount would be saved; the justification of the killing of hundreds of thousands of people is based on the possibility that a million or more people would have been saved.)
Consider this scenario: Suppose there is a person who needs a heart transplant, another who needs a kidney transplant, and another who needs a liver transplant. Why not take a person off the street and shoot him, then take his organs and use them to save the lives of the three people? You have killed one to save three. That is the numbers game. And it is utterly repugnant.
But bombs are such long-distance killing.
Let us bring it down to face-to-face killing. Using the numbers rationale for the slaughter of men, women, boys, and girls in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one would then have to defend the following: What if U.S. soldiers invaded Hiroshima and rounded up the civilian population, then the soldiers picked out all the young boys, 10 and younger, lined them up, and began systematically shooting them, one by one, in the head, until the government of Japan surrendered?
Suppose Japan then surrenders because it cannot take any more killing?
Those who would use the 'numbers game' to justify the bombings must also justify this heinous act, because, after all, this ended the war, and hundreds of thousands of people were possibly saved by just the shooting of a few thousand (or even a few hundred) boys. Any such thing could be justified, including systematic rape, systematic killing of families in gas chambers, or whatever, as long as more people are saved.
Now apply that same line of thinking to vaccines and the term 'collateral damage' being applied to your son or daughter whose life is forever and devastatingly altered by seizures, which, for whatever 'reason', started within 12-24 hours of receiving a vaccination.
Is it worth it?
Maybe for some families.
Not from my seat.