Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Given my opponents reputation as an excellent debater, I know I for one will benefit from this experience. Second, I feel as if I should apologize for not only my late reply, but for the condition in which my neg case is in :) I've been sick with strep for the past week, and composed this with a 102 degree fever. Hopefully I was coherent enough to at least make some sense :D Anyway, I wish you luck, and hope that this debate will be enjoyable for you. Resolved: Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization Observation 1, Definitions: I accept the definitions provided by my opponent Observation 2, Standards: Value: My value for this round will be justice defined by Aristotle as giving each his/her own due. Essentially, what ï¿½€œought to beï¿½€ï¿½. Criterion: My criterion for this round will be the protection of individual rights (natural rights) through a legitimate system of government. To best define a legitimate form of government, we must look to John Stuart Millï¿½€™s philosophic work of ï¿½€œharm principleï¿½€ï¿½, which defines a legitimate system of government as one that still has the ability to exercise soft tyranny, but mutual liberty at the same time. In a philosophical sense, it can be said that morality must supersede tyranny in any legitimate form of government. Otherwise, people are left with a societal system rooted in backwardness, disorder, and regression. In order for the natural rights of an individual to be protected in any just society, a legitimate system of government must exist. By forcing any one individual to get vaccinated, you are denying them of their natural rights granted to them at birth by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and are therefore becoming a tyrannous and empirically unjust government. Contention 1: Compulsory immunization legitimizes individual governments to force whole groups of people to abandon religious practices and beliefs Many religions, such as Islam and more conservative Christian groups, prohibit vaccination because of religious beliefs. A: Compulsory immunization violates article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which grants the right to practice oneï¿½€™s own religion to every individual, and therefore becoming a tyrannous government. ï¿½€ï¿½ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. This being said, it is important to cite Article 2 as well, as everyone is entitled to liberty, and clearly taking away the right to practice religion is not just and proves an inherent lack of liberty. ï¿½€ï¿½Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. At this point it might also be helpful to define a tyrannous government, and seeing as both myself and my opponent build at least some case framework from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I shall use the UN definition of a tyranny, which is any government that exercises absolute power, especially unjustly or cruelly. Seeing as there is no exception provided in the resolution or by the affirmative as to who can be exempt from vaccination, the government issuing the immunization mandate has become a tyranny as no one/group can oppose him/her. Since morality isnï¿½€™t superceding tyranny here, the government is illegitimate, and therefore unjust. B: When compulsory immunization has been exercised in the past, wide upheaval resulted and put civilian lives at risk, rather than preventing risk. I shall provide one such recent example in the following: Opposition by Muslim fundamentalists is a major factor in the failure of polio immunization programs. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Taliban have issued fatwas opposing vaccination as an attempt to avert Allah's will, and as an American plot to sterilize Muslims. The Taliban have kidnapped, beaten, and assassinated vaccination officials, including assassinating the head of Pakistan's vaccination campaign in Bajaur Agency. Vaccination campaigns in Nigeria and Afghanistan have also been hampered by Islamic extremists, especially in the Nigerian province of Kano in 2003, which has resulted in the infection returning to 8 previously polio-free countries in Africa (2). It is evident that by taking away the rights of even just a single sect of religion, chaos and violence is an expected and likely result. It is also evident that efforts in the ï¿½€œright directionï¿½€ï¿½ simply get reversed because of opposition. C: Upheaval and disorder within a society empirically leads to societal detriment Throughout history we can see the results of societal upheaval as pockmarks on the face of civilization. A prime and modern example would be the ever increasing suicide rates in China. After three decades of reform, citizens of the Middle Kingdom are now feeling increasing pressure to be something more than they are (mainly in the economic and professional sense), and many are simply having a hard time adjusting to this overbearing pressure. As a result, every two minutes a suicide is committed in China, every year, over 300,000 Chinese citizens commit suicide. In the case of compulsory immunization, any protest of the aforementioned will inevitably cause societal detriment. Contention 2: Historically, those who have shown adverse effects of vaccines will still be required to get vaccinated For example, of the thousands who get vaccinated for influenza every year, a small fraction of these people get incredibly sick or even die because of the shot. Forcing people to get a shot that they know could make them incredibly sick or even kill them is extremely immoral and exponentially unjust. I provide you with a quotation from Red Cross worker Pamela Jordin detailing the latter: "I used to work in a private nursing home, we would not give flu shots because the one time we did, it made everyone sick and three people died. All other years ( no shots ) only a couple of people would get the flu and no one died from it. We heard the same story from other elder care faculties. I would not want to be old in a state or federal institution. " I look forward to my opponents responses :)