Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines.

As he as not specified a structure for the debate, I'll do my best to do so in a fair and common manner. Round 1: Con's CaseRound 2: Pro's Case, Con's RebuttalsRound 3: Pro's Rebuttals, Con's Defense & RebuttalsRound 4: Pro's Defense & Rebuttals Con's Closing StatementsRound 5: Pro's Closing Statements, Con (ends debate)With that in mind, I'd like to move to some housekeeping, particularly in regards to the resolution. The resolution is quite wordy and slightly incoherent. I'll try to reword the definition in a manner that both preserves the context and intent of the instigator but that also is more coherent and effective. Hopefully my opponent will agree to the stipulations, as the implications of the two resolutions are quite frankly the same. Resolved: Religious exemption of necessary vaccinations should be permitted. As Con, my opponent, the instigator is negating this notion, arguing that there shouldn't be exemptions for vaccinations based on religious beliefs. As Pro, I will be arguing the converse; that religious exemption should be accepted and permitted. The burden of proof, or BoP, will rest primarily upon Pro to affirm the resolution and exemplify why a change to the status quo (e. g. disallowing religious exemptions) is better than allowing it. My primary duty will be to negate these arguments. However, for the sake of balancing the BoP, I will also provide a case of my own, open to scrutiny by my opponent, to give a more equal balance to the BoP in the debate. Definitions:Vaccinate: "medical : to give (a person or an animal) a vaccine to prevent infection by a disease" [1]Religious exemption: "The religious exemption is granted based on the U. S. Constitution First Amendment right to freely hold and exercise religious beliefs. " [2]Necessary: "absolutely needed"With those items out of the way, I will present my case. Observations:I would like to note that my opponent has used the word necessary to define the vaccinations of which he/she believes should be utilized regardless of religion. It is imperative to realize that my opponent has not stipulated how this word should be interpreted. As it is highly subjective, it is quite difficult to perceive exactly what my opponent intended. However, for the purpose of this debate (and that my opponent mentioned parents), we will simplify this word to mean the following: any vaccination *required* to attend a public school. This focuses the resolution towards children and more definitively interprets necessary. 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 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. 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 affirming it. Sources:[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.nvic.org...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[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...