Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

I will negate the resolution. Some things my not apply to todays debate becuase I debate this case at tournaments. LD AC, NC, AR, NR, AR2! Let's begin "Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all." Edmund Burke an English philosopher (1797) once said this. Compulsory immunizations take away the justice in society, taking this justice away is like not having it at all. Taking away justice takes away a person's individual rights. If I do not agree with the fact that the vaccine may or may not cure me, then why should I be forced to get it? This goes against the unalienable rights of any person in the world in our individual right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore I negate today's resolution Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. My value for this round is justice, moral rightfulness or lawfulness and my criterion is individual rights what a person gets in accordance with what is good, proper, or just. Justice protects all countries law under their way of justness. Individual rights are part of a person's justice along with freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I'd like to start off with a few definitions from Random House Dictionary: Public health: health services to improve and protect community health, esp. sanitation, immunization, and preventive medicine. Concerns: to trouble, worry, or disquiet Justify: to defend or uphold as well-grounded Compulsory immunization: required or mandatory vaccination that makes an individual immune, as against a disease, only exemptions by law. Observation 1: LD is a moral debate, and with this debate you must choose the side which upholds their value and criterion better than their opponent, through the side's arguments and how it relates to today's resolution. In my arguments you will see me uphold my value and criterion extremely well, numerous times. To win this debate I must show you why my values triumphs my opponents and why I should when today's debate. A person is not topical anymore if they get off the subject of the resolution, and therefore loses today's debate. Observation 2: For my opponent to successfully when this debate they must uphold their value and criterion to show why we should have MANDATORY immunizations better than I show we shouldn't and show this through their arguments. If they drop my arguments, observations, sub points, value or criterion my opponent should lose this debate. They should also concede if I have better arguments that tie to the resolution and contentions. Also, just as a reminder opponents my not bring up new arguments after attack. Compulsory is NO room for exceptions, no matter what. My case however says we should still have these immunizations and inform citizens and persuade them to get vaccinations, but we should not FORCE the public to get these. Contention one: Vaccines may cause adverse side effects. Saying the government can do whatever they want is not right. Sub Point A: Many parents are worried that there are side effects to vaccines, particularly fears over some vaccines being a factor to autism. Dr Andrew Wakefield provided evidence in the lancet journal that there is a link between vaccination and autism. "We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance." Sub point B: One in three people that get vaccinations get side effects. Some side effects can be fatal some paralyzing. Cheerleader got flu shot and got neurological problems. More regularly there can be a slightly raised temperature, sickness, tiredness and headache. However most people don't know they are allergic till after the harm is done, and compulsory immiz. Wouldn't leave room for allergic side effect exemptions. Contention Two: Compulsory immunization requires unnecessary spending. Sub point A: Local and federal officials require ordinary citizens to spend large amounts of time, money, and energy to exempt themselves and their family members from vaccinations that are known to be highly toxic and dangerous. They do this because most of these officials honestly believe immunizations are useful. They are uninformed and should not be blamed for their uninformed beliefs. It becomes your duty to protect your family from their uninformed beliefs and the current injustices of the world and do the required paperwork to exempt your family. Sub point B: The governments of the world don't think about how they are ripping justice and individual rights from their people's hands. These CI's aren't giving people there individual rights to choose whats just to put in their body. A global ban on all compulsory vaccinations as the law will end this unjust nonsense and burden on the general public and inform those uninformed citizens to stop receiving these harmful immunizations. A global ban on all compulsory vaccinations and immunization would also keep uninformed citizens from being misinformed by local officials who state that vaccinations are mandatory. A global ban on all compulsory immunizations will give true "free choice" to vaccinate or not and restored justice and individual rights' to the public under the law. Contention Three: These immunizations can get in the way of a person's beliefs. Sub point A: The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from discriminating between people based on their religious beliefs. In most countries the same rules apply. So it would be safe to say that these compulsory immunizations are unconstitutional. If a person's religion says that they may not take these vaccines, but their government is making them, then the person's government, to them, is deeming them to hell. Sub point B: Governments can't go against a person's religious beliefs because it is taking away from their justice and individual rights. Wouldn't you be infuriated if your government was to tell you that they don't care what God tells you, you will listen to what they think is good for you? Religious experience is hard for anyone to go against and to ask them to do so is like a slap in the face.