Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Seond I will being debating the way I debate at tournaments in Texas. As a brief roadmap I will attack my opponents case, I would usually follow by rebuiding my own, howevr that is not possible since my opponent didn't attack my case. My opponents value is Maximization of the Principle of Safety of Person however to be honest to be on the affirmitive is to take away safety. The definition of safety is the condition or state of being safe; freedom from danger or hazard; exemption from hurt, injury, or loss. Exemption is defined as complete freedom or aviodance of. So his vaule defined is Maximization of the principle of complete freedom or aviodance of hurt, injury or loss of a person. However his value automatically falls. It is saying that there will be 100% freedom from injury of loss. I bet my opponent didn't know that 1 in 3 people that get immunized have adverse side effects. So if compulsory immunizations were put in place then 2 billion of the 6 billion people on earth will suffer side effects. Some as serious as death and parylization. If these were put in place me and you the voter even my opponent could die. So to say have compulsory vaccinations is to maximize a persons saftey is a completely fase statement. On to his criterion of achieving herd immunity. This idea of herd immunity doesn't support compulsory immunization. Herd immunity is the idea that if most people are vaccinated then the rest of society will recieve benefits. This can't comply with compulsion because compulsion is to FORCE every individual to to recieve vaccinations. So if everyone is vaccinated then herd immunity couldn't take place, so his criterion fails. With out these his case can't stand because the v/c is the foundation, however I will still show how the rest of his case crumbles with his value and criterion. His contention one falls in it self becuase I have already shown why his value and criterion fail which is the base of his contention. His Subpoint A: How is safety the guiding principle if you are putting two BILLION in danger? This makes no sense. Those he comes in contact with aren't immediately in danger unless the disease is 'super disease and can transfer by touch. Also most people will still volunteerly get these vaccines without compulsory immunization, then herd immunization will take place protecting everyone else, so his criterion better works for my side. Sub point B: There will not be unneccasary loss of life, if a person feels that a disease is dangerous enough they will VOLUNTEERLY get vaccinated. Also your quote makes no sense, did you know that Polio is only endemic in Afganistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and India. There were only 2000 cases world wide in 2009. This drastict reduction occured because of voluntary immunization, so you are helping me state my point again, thank you. Contention 2: I'm not denying that vaccines are good, they are great. However as individuals we should have free choose to get vaccinated or not like Burke said "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. " To make immunizations compulsory is to take away justice and individual rights from the people of the world, which is like not having it at all. Once the government starts controlling some parts of life, it will turn them to control all aspects of life. Another thing is that your statistics are a futile effort to support your case, since this is only one disease of hundreds. On to contention 3: Well this contention has nothing to do with COMPULSORY immunization. He is just stating that immunizations are medically sound, which is true; however, to FORCE everyone in the world to get ALL vaccinations is obserd. Back to his doctors statement, well it does outweigh the side effects, but only 2/3 to 1/3 so two BILLION people still suffer. Obviously human life isn't too important to his case, much less a presons safety. His quote should be in my case because again there is no way herd immunization can fall in to place in his case, so that quote fails. Ahh the end. ell since he didn't define compulsory and I did he considers my definition true, so compulsory is required, mandatory, obligatory. Under the definition he considers true there can not be any exceptions, NO EXCEPTIONS. Even medically unable people he will FORCE them to get these vaccines, so herd immunity is obviously out. Well with this case you can see why I've obviously won, I mean I have torn this case up and down, back and forth. However I will still finish and go over my case briefly. So his value and criterion fail, badly. His contentions don't show why compulsory immunizations are neccasary he just says why we need immunizations, which I never denied. In my case I want immunizations, but I want true free chioce to actually decide what I want in my body, then the government can't be blamed for side effects, because I did it to myself.