Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

I will first build the negative case, then move on to attack the affirmative. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master" –George Washington. It is because I agree with the late President Washington that I strongly negate today's resolution resolved, that public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations. Allow me to further define the following terms: Justify-to show to have had a legally sufficient reason or cause Compulsory-mandatory action that is punishable if not participated in Immunization-the injection of vaccines into the human bloodstream The negative will uphold the value of maximizing Justice, pr giving each his due. While we will never achieve true justice, or any value for that matter, it is the value that we strive for. The value will be supported by the criterion of upholding human rights. These rights are defined by several philosophers. The most commonly agreed upon rights are those to life, liberty, health, and property. Contention 1: Compulsory Immunization makes worse the Problem of Class discrimination By definition a compulsory action must have a punishment. Otherwise the action is no longer "compulsory" but "recommended" If there was no punishment for breaking laws then following them would no longer become compulsory. My argument is that the affirmative mindset will be furthering the marginalization of lower classes by placing them in a system of perpetual punishment. Low-income communities will be directly hurt by compulsory immunization policies due to decreased access to medical care. Brietta R. Clark in 2005 explains. This fear is neither atypical nor irrational in light of one of the most visible, yet ignored, problems for minority communities - hospital closures and relocations. Increasingly, hospitals, private and public, have closed or terminated services in areas populated by minorities, while relocating services to more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These closures have primarily occurred in urban areas with the greatest need and least resources. Remaining hospitals willing to care for minorities or the poor are either located far enough away that timely care is effectively foreclosed or they are already overburdened and understaffed. Hospital closings and the disintegration of a medical framework is already an issue faced by the poor. Compulsory Immunization Policies will make this worse. Judge do you really believe that everyone across the globe could afford mandatory vaccinations? This idea is just absurd. MILLIONS of people die every day as a result of poverty. Now we want them to buy our mandatory vaccines? Not only is this quite absurd, it borders on genocide. Contention 2 Immunizations pose health risks, and therefore should not be mandatory Because vaccinations have been tested to show some severe health risks, it would be immoral, and therefore unjust to force people to accept the vaccinations, and should therefore not be compulsory. The United States federal government started the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in 1998 to track negative responses to vaccines, and thousands of negative reactions are reported each year. In 2008 alone, there were 30,009cases of severe side effects, including neurological brain damage. I have no idea why my opponent would force that kind of punishment on people. Contention 3: Vaccinations crush religious and cultural ideals, and therefore should not be compulsory. Some more conservative sects of Christianity believe that since vaccines are created with harsh chemicals, it would be defiling to your body to put them into your bloodstream. They believe that this is in direct opposition to God's will that we keep our bodies free of impurities. There is also a passage in the Bible that warns against mixing the blood of humans with the blood of animals, and since many vaccines are gestated in animals, this seems to contradict that particular teaching. Not to mention the Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu religions. Those religions especially have major problems with vaccinations. These were the same problems that led to the Sepoy Rebellion in India in 1857. Allow me to read some of the main ingredients of the Measles Mumps and Rubella vaccine. Ingredients include but are not limited to: Chick embryo culture, Human diploid lung cells, beef heart infusion, fetal bovine serum, and human albumin. MSG is also a main ingredient, of which an estimated 3% of the world's population is allergic to. I fail to see any part of the resolution that allows for the upholding of human rights, or the promotion of justice itself. Because of this insurmountable fact, I urge you to cast a negative ballot. I will now move on to attack the affirmative case. I reject my opponent's definition of "Justify" and substitute my own. As mine is taken from Black's Law Dictionary, I believe mine to be more credible. I agree with the rest of his definitions, especially his definition of "Compulsory." In fact, my attack on his first observation is based on his own definition. In my opponent's first observation, he states that mandatory immunizations are justified if there is "an application that is not arbitrary and oppressive, and medical exemptions for "unfit" citizens." First of all, any mandatory violation of rights is oppressive. Secondly, his observation is incompetent with his definition of compulsory. He says that compulsory means obligatory, required and mandated by law. Yet he allows for exceptions? The resolution allows for NO exceptions under his own definition. (AS well as under my definition) His second observation offers a weak example. His yelling fire in the theater example is nothing like compulsory immunizations. Yelling fire in a theater is illegal because it infringes upon others' rights, not simply because it is for the greater good. Likewise, compulsory immunizations ought not be enforced because they infringe upon people's rights. My opponent's value in invalid since there is not a single government specified in the resolution. Are we talking about the US's government being legitimized? Are we talking about Iran's government being legitimized? If so, we are asking for nuclear attacks. (Which are generally frowned upon in the moral realm) Therefore, please look to my value. As it stands, my opponent has no case since he does not achieve his value. However, I will still attack his contentions with as many characters as I have left. === His Contention 1 === A. He only says that getting immunized is safer than not getting immunized. If that is the case, then he government should have no reason to force people to get the vaccines if they are relatively safe and effective. There is no need to violate people's rights. B. I will address Herd Immunity in greater detail in the next round. Other than that, my opponent is advocating for the violation of people's rights in order to help the few people who cannot be immunized. This: a-violates more rights than it gives, and in greater numbers b-contradicts his definition of compulsory. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS under the resolution. C. What is this equal right to life that you are speaking about? Compulsory immunizations provide an equal opportunity to death! === His 2nd contention === A. LD is a moral debate, not an economic debate. We are not debating money. B. He makes no new points, but only restates his case. C. Compulsory immunizations do not help the government meet its obligation, since immunizations cause death and lack of health, autonomy, liberty, among a slough of other rights. How is taking those rights away meeting the obligation to citizens? I apologize for my bluntness on some rebuttals, but I have only a few characters left. I will go into greater detail if needed in the ensuing rounds. I defer to the affirmative.