does it ever work if one partner is pro vaccination and the othervis anti vaccination?

[superstarheartbreaker]

Just wondering if this issue is a bone of contention or has split anyone up? Ive met a lovely man who wants kids and so do I but for some reason we got talking about vaccinations. He Iis very anti vaccination and hasnt got his kids done whereas im very pro vaccination. For some reason I know this is a big issue for me. Am I being daft? I guesd I just get people who fall for conspiracy theoriescand scaremongering. There are many other qualities about him I do get and admire though. Very early stages so do I carry on?

bigknickers I don't think anyone is (certainly they shouldn't be) having a go at you for your choice to delay, given that you made an informed decision in specific circumstances. Delay may have brought its own risks, but don't most aspects of child rearing include balancing risk and benefit? When it was safer, you had it done. That sounds eminently sensible. What people are saying is that where there are no contraindications, it is preferable to stick to the recommended schedule. Not "oh my baby is so tiny, I can't bear to stick a needle into him/her" - but sound medical judgement.

Generally agree with mistlethrush and cogito - in that in my experience anti-vac people tend to hold entrenched and inflexible views on other things.

I know of one relationship like this where the husband browbeat the wife into not having child vaccinated amongst other things like insisting his wife not take folic acid or iron tablets. He was very 'do things the natural way'.

The EA relationship descended into DV. They have now split up and one of the first things she did was take her children to be vaccinated.

My messages were certainly not remotely judging other people's stance on vaccination. Bigknickers - you appear to delay for a reason which is a very valid standpoint.

My point was entirely relative to the relationship between the two people that I know of that have the difference in views that the OP has asked about.

I don't want to get into a pro or anti discussion at all. I try to avoid that sort of discussion on here.

I think that you should put it on the line like this:

"Any future children I have WILL be vaccinated. This is non negotiable." and then leave the decision about whether to stay or go up to him.

That is if you even want to be with someone who has such ignorant views and who has put his children's health at very serious risk, not to mention the risk he thinks it's acceptable to take with the lives of those who CANNOT be vaccinated, such as children with leukaemia, babies with heart defects etc. It's only the decisions of the people who do the right thing and get their kids vaccinated that is protecting his kids from getting sick, and preventing his kids from getting sick and passing these devastating diseases to vulnerable members of society.

Starlight, how exactly do you ensure only 'mild forms' of diseases exist in the population?. We have done the anti vac experiment for most of history and people just got disabled, died and suffered horribly.

As a note, about how serious GPs take these childhood diseases, in one surgery they had a separate waiting area for children with any rash.

They are mild because most children's immune systems have already been exposed. The effects are mild, rather than the disease. And regular exposure keeps the immune system topped top.

But though a scientist this isn't my field, nor a point I am willing to argue as I am making an argument neither for this or against it. I am willing to bet however, that most of those that have chosen not to vaccinate know a lot more about these issues than I as it is incredibly responsible to take the burden of choice and not simply follow the herd unquestioningly.

Many diseases have left the population as and when the population developed their own immunity. Not ever died out disease has been vaccinated against.

'My sister couldn't have vaccinations for medical reasons so my mum inexplicably didn't get me done either.'

Now that is just ridiculous. What on EARTH were her reasons? Fairness perhaps?

Many diseases have left the population as and when the population developed their own immunity.

Care to give an example?

plague?

and many we vaccinate against were on the decline before we introduced vaccinations.

"People who are anti-vaccination tend to be pretty ignorant IMHO so no... I wouldn't carry on"

Well said.

I think many people dont realize that as a species we evolve slower than viruses and bacteria do. And also, as a species, we "tame" our environment so much that our bodies get less and less natural resistance, so we are caught in a vicious circle. So opposite really. We evolve slowly, in the opposite direction of better resistance.

This goes for animals too. Wolves are still resilient against food poisoning and they can eat eat any cut of meat even with salmonella or ecoli, and not get sick, where dogs get sick. (Source, the wolf sanctuary)

You would think vultures were pretty resilient creatures? Eating long dead animals, picking the bones bare. A few years ago health authorities on Gran Canaria had to treat vultures with salmonella food poisoning.
They wondered if it could be because most livestock these days are routinely treated with antibiotics. (I have not heard what the outcome of the investigation was)

We have eradicated the big killers such as small pox, the plague, leprosy, and illnesses such as meningities, tubercolosis is less common.

I would be very skeptical to a person who was "anti vaccinations" and would not vaccinate his own children. It is foolish. It is a head in the sand mentality of a person who is refusing to see the world and the environment for what it is.

I would accept all childhood immunizations without a second thought.

I would not say no thanks to a Tetanus jab. Without one, the consequence of a small thing like stepping on a rusty nail could be pretty dire.

If I travel, I would get a hepatitis B shot, I would get a rabies vaccination if going to India or places were rabies is a problem. My husband was bitten by a rabid dog, and it gave him time to get to a hospital and get treatment. I would take malaria prophylactic, and I would vaccinate against yellow fever, diptheria, dengue if going to a region where this is necessary.

This man, would he not travel? Would he not protect himself or his children against these illnesses?

I would only be skeptical to certain new vaccines which had not been properly tested or approved.

Starlight, I know this isn't your own argument, but the one you are presenting is utterly heartless. Seriously, we should let people suffer and die as this might ultimately lead to a natural immunity developing? And although some diseases may die out ( with a helping hand of those suffering it being ostracised from society) many others do not, especially those that disable, but do not always kill their hosts. Why take this route when we can vaccinate people instead? And these diseases weren't mild which is why we developed vaccines. I really find this 'mild' argument utterly senseless.

Not a chance - anti-vaxers, "evil western medicine", conspiracy theorists, religious types, people into homeopathy or reiki - can not take them seriously, let alone consider children with someone like that!

The plague is still around.

Starlight, I see what you are saying, but I think it is to late for that.

There are other chemical factors in place in our environment that is not working in our favour, I believe.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23843656 The Plague, August 2013

And where it has disappeared it was not because of simple immunity (although during large epidemics, and before it was known what caused it, it would have wiped out all that were not immune) but thanks mainly to better hygiene.

Either he's uninformed, or I would think it a red flag for mental health issues. I think people who don't vaccinate are irrational, and I would wonder where else this would assert itself. I wouldn't split up with someone over this, but I would definitely put them firmly in 'fling' territory rather than life partner.

Regarding the OP, I would also gently probe about other often contentious issues, such as homeopathy, aliens, the moon, Big Brother...
Even politics and religion.

Include views on disciplining children.

I'll be surprised if he doesn't have entrenched views about other things as well.

Had his ex agreed with not vaccinating her children?

I disagree with those who are equating religion with quack therapies etc. religion is about FAITH in something essentially unknowable. It is subjective and experiential and emotional. Quack therapies often employ pseudo science and claim to be verifiably true and evidenced or evidential, when they are not.

Sorry, I didn't mean if he was simply religious, but about his views on religion. If he was a religious extremist, I'd be running for the hills.