Modified LD - Resolved:Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

NEGATIVE REBUTTAL OBSERVATIONS: In her 1AC, the PRO/AFF did not post the statement of resolution. Far from a backbreaker, however this is a breech of L-D etiquette. In her VP, she used maximization of natural rights. In regard to natural rights there is no unanimity as to which rights are natural, and which are not. This leaves the door open for arguable inference and interpretation to what natural rights actually entail. Since this is unclear, natural rights must be considered speculative and unsubstantiated. The PRO/AFF opens point 1A with the line, "The state of liberty does not entail absolute individual freedom". I ask, by whose measuring stick? By championing the principle of liberty, natural law, natural rights, or whatever else John Stuart Mill chooses to call it, the PRO/AFF is treading a very dangerous path. To endorse such an action is a slippery slope of precedent that would allow any government to name ANY whim "justified in the name of natural rights". Rather than take the opinion of John Stuart Mill as absolute truth, let's look at some other definitions of liberty. lib•er•ty (source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) 1. a. The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. These definitions shed a different light on the word liberty. Point 1B. The resolution does not specify ANY exceptions to a compulsory mandate. My opponent has stated that medical exceptions are the only ones that pass the acid test. By so stating, she has undermined the authority of the resolution that she is supposed to be defending. Point 1C. A google search of "Alice Park Nigeria" enabled me to see the source of this position. Though no references were specifically cited in her positions, I was curious to learn more about the work of this lady. I bring up this point regarding source citations because I was called out for not providing a direct link in one of my contentions. I would like to point out that the PRO/AFF has not provided any direct links to any of the sources she used. In response to her request for the direct link to the average cost of vaccinations I used: http://www.cdc.gov... POINT 2. The PRO/AFF states that "Vaccinations have been proven medically safe for general populations". If she were able, Natalie Morton would disagree. Unfortunately she can't because she died as a result of receiving an immunization. (source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) While there are many others, it would be redundant to cite numerous examples to prove the same point. I suppose some gratitude is order for the PRO/AFF for disproving her own contention surrounding the safety of immunization with a statement she offered by Dr. Michael Pazos. "To be clear, there is no such thing a perfectly safe vaccine". Thank you! What in the world is a "Parks card"? Neither google.com nor dogpile.com could identify it with any clarity. ______________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: I will restate my VP in what is hopefully clearer verbiage. Making immunization compulsory takes away the freedom to choose. The PRO/AFF stated that my "rebuttal will make no difference as she clearly has the upper hand". Rather than throwing in the towel, allow me to counter with the following: I have shown that natural rights are NOT an airtight argument. Further, I have shown additional definitions of liberty that conflict with the definition provided by the PRO/AFF, which is critical to her case. As the CON/NEG, it is not my responsibility to prove the stated resolution, it is the PRO/AFF's. It is my responsibility to discredit the resolution which I have done. Thus far, the PRO/AFF's entire argument hinges on the unsubstantiated opinion of a dead philosopher, and a one sided definition of liberty. Thank you.