Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

Pro contends that the criterion of utilitarianism morally upholds the justification of compulsory immunizations. However, there are several problems in the application of that value in this regard. For instance, one must consider the variability of the human experience. In other words, according to utilitarianism saving the most lives would be of utmost priority, morally speaking. However, suppose that 3/4 of the people were completely AWFUL human beings, and the other 1/4were excellent, intelligent and wonderful people. In that case, wouldn't it be most beneficial and even morally preferable to keep the 1/4 of decent people alive, instead of the 3/4 scum? This is where utalitarianism as an argument ultimately fails in this regard. Second, keeping the previous point in mind, there are a number of other variables in every situation which must also be taken into consideration - not just individual lives. Third, a hasty decision like this is made before knowing any of the potential consequences. In other words, what if demanding this immunization actually had way more negative effects than positive in the future? Or what if getting the immunizations was beneficial in the short-run, but not in the long-run. It would appear then that jeopardizing one's future help to purchase a little temporary safety in the present is not morally or even logically preferable in most cases. While it's true that people can potentially host the disease and thus promote its spread, I fail to see why this is even an issue. Because mandating an immunization basically means that you've got a cure for this disease, then those who get the disease will just take that immunity and thus be done with it. So, in this way, those who want to take the medicine because it pertains to their well being as they see fit will be able to get the shot, but the government won't be infringing upon any rights of the individual. Which brings me to my next point: The government's responsibility is to protect the rights of the people. Rights are things that humans are born with which no one or government should ever infringe upon. They are basic, universal and objective. One's power of attorney over their own personhood (body) is a right; it is the property of said person. Next Pro points out that immunizations are effective in eradicating diseases. I don't doubt it; that's the point of them. However, not all cures are beneficial to people. For instance, penicillin is one of the most common healing facilities in all of medicine. However, I know a handful of people who are allergic to this aid, and as such, if they were given penicillin in an emergency situation, they would actually be in greater danger because they would have a bad reaction to the drug. So, my point here in this regard is that it may not be beneficial for all people to take a certain immunization. Some may have a bad reaction with detrimental effects to it. Pro concludes his round by saying that the economy suffers when the people suffer, and as such, we should protect that sphere as well by mandating these immunizations. First let me begin by stating that I don't think the government should be regulating the economy, so this is a moot point. I am a capitalist. Second, the reality is that when some people die, others benefit (i.e. people who gain inheritance, or insurance companies, for instance). Similarly, when people are down on their luck economically, others are prospering off of the hard times of others. So, while some people may suffer financially, some - maybe even more, on balance - might benefit. As such, I advocate in favor of a free market. Seeing as how I touched upon all of Pro's contentions thus far, as well as offered some of my own, I'll end this round here for now and send it back to Pro. I'd like to wish him good luck in this debate as well :)