The HPV vaccine should be mandatory.

I want to start by thanking pro for giving me an oppurtunity to participate in this debate. Pro has to prove 2 things to win this argument. He needs to prove forced inoculation is moral. He also has to prove that it is good health policy. This is what pro has said himself that he has to prove to show vaccines should be mandatory. Let's first look to see if he has proven it to be moral. "A person's ability to weigh the pros and cons for themselves doesn't mean they have the right to do so for someone else" 1. This seems absurd that you would argue someone doesn't have the right to weigh the pros and cons for someone else. Yet you have weighed the pros and cons for not only someone else, but everyone else and have decided for them that they should be forced to get vaccinated. 2. Anyone old enough to be engaging in sexual intercourse is also old enough to have access to the knowledge that nearly everyone contracts HPV. So the person engaging in that sort of behavior if they have chosen not to get vaccinated before they do so, accepts the risk. In full knowledge of the risks. By pro's own admittance weighing the pros and cons of getting vaccinated for another person is immoral. Oddly his whole argument is attempting to justify doing the one thing he has already admitted was immoral. " The poor are most vulnerable to HPV " I have showed you how under pro's program the poor would be forced to take the vaccine while the rich and maybe the middle class would have an option not to take the vaccine. I have also shown you how minorities are more likely to be poor then whites. Even if you ignore the fact that "poor" is a code word for minorities it is still immoral to take freedom away from the poor but allow the wealthy to keep theirs. When you don't ignore the fact that "poor" is a code word for minorities, pro by saying " The poor are more vulnerable to HPV" is actually saying " minorities ( blacks and Hispanics ) are more likely to have STDs" . Let me remind you also pro has provided no sources to show that minorities are more likely to have STDs then whites as he asserts. Any public health policy that forces a disproportionate amount of minority individuals to get forcibly inocculated because " the poor" are more likely to have STDs is immoral. We should be trying to end these type of generalizations not go out of our way to create policy that reinforces them. Is this good public health policy? My opponent defines good health policy as " How long we live with the best possible health" I would agree with my opponent that male castration is absurd. To prove something is good health policy you should at the very least be able to prove its a better option then castration. Let's see if my opponent has done so. " it ( castration ) forces permanent physical harm on patients and completely removes their capacity to reproduce" This is simply untrue. I would call it permanent physical alteration not harm. If your calling that permanent physical harm then you would have to call circumcision permanent physical harm. This does not remove your capacity to reproduce either. One option is to freeze your sperm before getting castrated. This could also be an oppurtunity to take the best of what the world has to offer freeze their sperm and maybe push evolution forward just a little faster. Also within the next 10 or so years technology will probably be in a position to allow us to reproduce without sperm or any sex required. Source-. http://www.theguardian.com... " affects a persons quality of life both mentally and physically " This is where me and my opponent agree. It does affect a person's quality of life physically in a big way. It adds a bunch of healthy quality years to your life. As far as mentally is concerned. Castration reduces testosterone levels. High testosterone levels have a direct correlation with your general attitude, how likely you are to commit a crime and your income level. A lower testosterone level is a good thing in these studies. My guess is that if you have a better job a better attitude and aren't in prison then mentally you are probably doing a little bit better. Sources- . http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... . http://www.crimetimes.org... Pro argues that I provide no way to fund my alternative as well. My alternative could be funded the same way his is. I could do what he does by creating a fine for people who can afford not to participate ( predominately whites) while forcing all people who can't afford not to opt out ( predominately minorities ) to participate. I believe I could fund my program without being racist though. Since increased testosterone is linked to crime then the dramatically reduced amount of prison funding neccesary could go towards castrating individuals. Also the reduced visits to the emergency room as a result of the castrations would mean hospitals would need less subsidies and that money could go towards my procedures. So take a look at my program for increasing the health span of the general population. If it meets all the moral obligations he lays out for vaccinations and also does a superior job of adding health span to the general population. Then he has failed to meet the criteria he set for himself in showing that vaccines are good health policy. Miscellaneous rebuttals ( referring to Gardasil and Cervarix ) " this is a pretty extensive monitoring program and it's been going ongoing for 7 and 4 years" This is not nearly long enough to know the long term affects these vaccines has on people's health. For all you know being on these has some very harmful side affects that happen in a small enough segment of the population and far enough down the road that clinical trials would not have picked them up. These side affects could happen at a larger rate then cervical cancer and be worse then cervical cancer and we wouldn't know until it was too late and your program had already affected thousands upon thousands of people. " FDA and CDC closely monitor the safety of all vaccines through the vaccine adverse event reporting system ( VAERS ) " It's nice that you read that much of my links to know it listed those reporting systems. If you would have read further you would have noticed that they also stated that Cervarix hasn't been on the market long enough for them to have a large enough sample size for them to provide any useful information on it. Even the CDC is telling you they lack adequate information on something and you still want to push full steam ahead and force it on everyone. These drug companies have a lot of incentive to get their product written into law and forced on the general population. There is billions of dollars at stake here. The drug Gardasil put out an enormous propaganda campaign to have their vaccine mandated by law. Pro you may have fell for this propaganda campaign , but you know who didn't fall for it ? The CEO of Gardasil didn't. Here is a link showing where the company backed down because even they realized what they were doing was wrong. Source . http://www.reuters.com... Cervical cancer doesn't affect most people until extremely late in life. 3900 people die each year of cervical cancer. To put into perspective how small a number that is then compare it to the 600,000 people who die each year from heart disease in America. Source- . http://www.cdc.gov... You could save more people by cutting national salt intake nationwide by 10 % . Which has got to be cheaper then requiring everyone to get $360 shot. Pro would likely argue that if requiring everyone to get the shot saved 1 life it would be worth it. It's not worth it. Scaring a 10 yr old girl (the reccomended age) by shoving a needle into her arm 3 times within a 6 month period to prevent a disease she is unlikely to get is wrong. NOT WORTH IT!