Private and religious schools operate somewhat differently. The public has less say, and the state government cannot tell a school such as the private Christian school, Republic School, to not ban books. The school board should still think over the arguments for banning books and their flaws. One argument is that “It is difficult to understand how a school board and administration that claims to be Christian… expose children to such immoral and vulgar material” (Source A). This person argues that certain books go against Christian values, so it should be banned, along with any similar book.
When we finally got our independence the people were scared. They were scared about how things would work. They were scared about how the newly formed government would protect the rights/liberties if its citizens. There were laws and documents that were signed to make sure that everyone one was treated right.
If Mill had his say about this argument he would not oppose limiting the liberty of choice when it comes to Mandatory Vaccination program for two main reasons that are presented in his Liberty Principle. First, the fact that not being vaccinated may well cause harm to others, children who did not meet the age for their vaccination, as it was claimed by physicians in the PBS documentary. The second reason is the fact that most of these vaccinations are given to children who are clearly not adults. According to his theory, he is against limiting liberties given to sane adults. Mills Liberty serves as a good guide in this moral issue, it can help one critically think about their stand on mandatory vaccination.
Even if that meant vaccinating my child against my personal beliefs, mandated or not and without a shadow of doubt, I would have my children vaccinated. For I am unable to comprehend as to why a parent would what to put their own children at risk or for that matter, other children at risk, because of their own personal beliefs. I feel that it is a selfish decision for a parent not to have their child properly vaccinated. After reading this week’s lesson if feel it’s quite clear that people should not have the option to choose to have their children vaccinated. The impact to one’s children and unknowingly to the community is far to great of a risk not to mandate vaccinations for all.
This option may allow parents who are uncomfortable with vaccinating their children all at once with some flexibility. Parents may have had bad experiences with so many vaccinations at once such as high fevers and spreading them out can alleviate that and still continue to keep children getting vaccinations. The con to spreading out vaccinations is that it can cause herd immunity to fail (Lehman, 2015). According to Schwartz and Caplan (2011), the currently recommended vaccination schedule does not put healthy children at risk but the risks of spreading out the vaccinations is clear (Schwarz & Caplan, 2011). When spread out, the likelihood of a series being complete is low, children go through longer periods without protection, and delayed vaccinations can also increase the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases in the community (Schwarz & Caplan,
The United States is trying to create a worldwide immunity against diseases that are easily preventable by making it required. It protects children from getting sick. Many misleading accusations were said like how vaccinations are dangerous and can cause autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), diabetes, etc..
In the United States Constitution the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” ("First Amendment.”) How is it in a country where freedom of speech is held so sacred, we are unable to read about it in books? Another question might be, why are we unable to protect our children from such harmful materials? These are questions asked by many as we experience censorship on a regular basis. Censorship is mainly focused on books that children and schools are reading in America.
Today, many laws are trying to limit parental rights in the medical decision making of their teens. What would happen if the child makes the wrong decision? Parents have full on custody and are financially responsible for their child until the child is eighteen. Dr. Stacey Berg (2015), a professor of Pediatrics and medical ethics at Baylor College of Medicine, declared that “Not much happens right when you turn 18, but in the eyes of the law you 're allowed to make really bad choices for yourself if you want to"(Leonard, p.1). Teen are not capable in making such decisions on health.
The term “pro-choice” has fallen out of favor when the American public. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) recently discovered that the word just does not seem to have the power to motivate the general population in the way it did when it was first coined. And while other pro-abortion groups may continue to use it, Planned Parenthood is attempting to cast a wider net by abandoning it all together. In the modern media culture, the term “pro-choice” has been used for everything from abortion-on-demand to giving parents the option to choosing what kind of school their child can attend throughout their life.
In the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) the Supreme Court determined that “government violates the Establishment Clause if: it does not have a secular purpose; its primary or principal effect advances or inhibits religion, meaning that regardless of its purpose, the action cannot symbolically endorse or disapprove of religion; or it fosters an excessive entanglement of government with religion.” As school administrator, I would first clarify what the teacher felt the value of including verses in the instruction were. I would tell the teacher I would want to hear her/his side of the story before reporting to the parent. I would ask the following questions: Does the activity or lesson have a secular (non-religious) purpose?
Parents and guardians believe myths and Facebook posts instead of well educated doctors to determine if their child should be vaccinated. This is a huge mistake! By not vaccinating your children properly you are not only putting them at risk, but the people around them that they encounter daily (CDC). Parents should not be able to make up an uneducated excuse to keep their children from being properly vaccinated. Immunizations need to be completely required for students to attend a public school in order to keep their local community disease
According to the first amendment everyone has the freedom of speech, but does that include putting other children at risk for not choosing to no inoculate others? Parents have the right to exercise their religion and not vaccinate their children, but that also puts children who are to young to receive their vaccinations at risk. Some parents have the preconceived notion that the new “cocktails” of vaccinations are to blame for the contraction of autism in their children which is why they refuse to inoculate their children. Having said that, one of our founding principles is “individualism”, we have to respect people’s decisions even if it is outside the cultural norm. Although, medical evidence is inconclusive at this point in time, however the research is still ongoing.
What were they thinking? What are sets of parents thinking giving birth to a beautiful baby and naming it "Lucifer" and "Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii"? In the article, "No, You Can 't Name Your Baby Lucifer: New Zealand Releases List of Banned Names" by Lateef Mungin it states, "As the agency put it, acceptable names must not cause offense to a reasonable person, not be unreasonably long and should not resemble an official title and rank." (Paragraph 10) Parents should not be able to name their children something bizarre no matter what their reason is behind it. Would you like your child to be seen as a threat to others?
Censorship The United States Government is finding new ways to censor citizen’s freedom. Are they taking it too far by removing online content and books that might be considered offensive to the general public. The government should not take away offensive reading content for three reasons. Firstly all citizens should not be limited to what books they are allowed to read considering we have been granted freedom from the government with the first Amendment. Secondly, books are people’s best teachers and provide real life knowledge for kids and adults who are trying to comprehend subjects that we not taught throughout the many years of education.
California is the only state to require, by law, everyone to receive a vaccination. There are 47 states states allow adults and children to be exempt from receiving vaccinations because of their beliefs. There are 19 states that allow a person not to get vaccinated based on their philosophical reasons. If there is a family that believes they do not need to be vaccinated because they do not think the vaccine is safe, they do not have to get vaccinated. If a family’s religious beliefs go against getting vaccinated, they do not have to get vaccinated.