Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications.

Framework:I will be advocating we shouldn’t have compulsory vaccinations by reason of religious exemption.Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted.In various states, and actually a majority, religious exemption for vaccinations are already permitted. [4] [5] A change from the status quo would subsequently require a policy change. As the current policies are already in place, it is evident that the majority of states accept the religious reasoning behind denying vaccinations. It has been accepted in the past, and should thus be accepted and permitted now.Moreover, there are instances which support the idea of religious exemption. For example, a women in New York won the right to not vaccinate her son, based on religious convictions. [8] This is another example of how religious exemption is already accepted and permitted.Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs.It is fact that the vaccinations themselves, and their components could violate religious beliefs. For example, some religions (such as Jews and Muslims) do not condone the consumption of pig. [6] It is also fact that some vaccinations that could be deemed *necessary* contain forms of pig. [7]Forcing individuals to vaccinate their children with vaccines that are derived from organisms which violate religious convictions of the parents and/or the children themselves is a direct and specific example of an infringement on religious freedom.Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution.The First Amendment of the Constitution shows the government cannot prohibit the exercise of a religion. [9] This means that the government cannot make a law interfering or prohibiting the exercise of a religion. [10] In regards to vaccinations, the free exercise clause allows exemption from vaccinations. Former editor-in-chief of USA Today explains, "the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment mandates state accommodation for members of religious groups who object to the vaccinations on religious grounds. The free-exercise argument follows the logic that requiring children to perform an action (in this case to receive a vaccination) that is abhorrent to their religious beliefs and/or practices places a significant and undue burden on their free-exercise rights." [11]Because the constitution allows a free exercise of religion, and exemption is neutral and not favoring a religious establishment, permitting religious exemptions is the most pragmatic option.Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe.Religious reasons for denying vaccinations is quite widespread. One of those reasons is also safety. Beyond moral convictions, these stretch to safety, and how they could harm the body. The Institute of Medicine admits, "Vaccines are not free from side effects, or “adverse effects." [12] Moreover, the retracted link of MMR autism suggested in 1998 isn't the only thing parents should be worried about. Many vaccinations aren't totally safe. [13] For religious reasons, parents do not want to put their children in danger. As there is a possibility, this is another reason to permit religious exemption. Andraz Melansek notes "Many vaccines have significant adverse effects, of which the most serious can result in death." [1] Dangerous vaccinations exist, and if we make vaccinations compulsory, we can't avoid these effects. Holland explains "There are several major safety concerns: (1) inadequate testing of vaccines, individually and cumulatively; (2) insufficient attention to vaccine additives; (3) the failure to screen out vulnerable subjects; (4) insufficient incentives and funding for vaccine safety; and (5) government discouragement of discourse about vaccine safety." [2] There are a lot of factors which go into making vaccinations dangerous, but it's conclusive they do have detrimental effects. Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption.Many people opposed to the idea of religious exemption claim that most religions don't hold the view that vaccinations are unacceptable. However, religious exemption goes further than the base "religion" itself. Pro-life activist Eric Schleidler explains, "You can have a more scrupulous moral position than the official teaching of the church." [14] This is very true. As vaccine laws sometimes require an explanation [2], this religious moral position even moreso dictates we accept and permit religious exemption.Another argument is that it's always too easy to get religious exemptions. However, more and more states are tightening the law in this regard, making it more difficult and more explanatory to receive religious exemption. [14] Instead of abolishing it altogether, tightening the existing policies is more effective at a) protecting liberty and religious freedom, and b) protecting utilitarian health.Furthermore, there exists arguments that religious exemption is a major health hazard. While vaccinations have considerably helped curb diseases our society once suffered, the exemptions we have don't pose as large a threat as propaganda proclaims. With most individuals vaccinated, would that not prevent those individuals from contracting and being affected by the disease in the first place? If exempt people accept the risk (which they do) then why not let them? Further, there have not been near the hazards or outbreaks of which propaganda loves to exclaim.Conclusion:I have provided a host of arguments backing my position, showing the logical and moral reasons as to why religious exemption from vaccinations should be both accepted and permitted, thus fulfilling the resolution and effectively negating it. Compulsory vaccinations would violate these religious fundamental freedoms and allow harmful effects from some vaccines to run rampant.Sources: [1] Andraz Melansek, student of Intenational Relations at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, February 1, 2004 “Vaccination, Compulsory?”[2] Holland, Mary. Reconsidering Compulsory Childhood Vaccination. Rep. New York University School of Law, 1 Sept. 2010[4] http://www.ncsl.org... [5] http://www.pewresearch.org... [6] http://www.themodernreligion.com... [7] http://www.pewresearch.org... [8] http://nypost.com... [9] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [10] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [11] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org... [12] http://www.hrsa.gov... [13] http://www.theguardian.com... [14] http://www.chicagotribune.com...