Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

Pro begins by stating, "But whether or not allowing death is moral is simply an opinion with no proof one way or another." Well golly! That's an interesting argument coming from someone who's trying to argue that immunizations should be mandatory in order to save lives! I think it's fair to say that Pro pretty much forfeited his entire point - if not the entire debate - with that statement alone, and that my argument against his presented use of utilitarianism in that example failed. Pro continues, "My opponents second point is that there are many variables and that this is a hasty decision because we don't know the long term affects. However, no evidence or examples are given as to what these negative effects or variables may be." That's not true. In the last round, I clearly stated that one negative future result would be people having negative reactions to these immunizations. An allergy is one example, but another example would be these immunizations showing to actually cause cancer or pose other health risks in the future, such as the one cited in this example: The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children.According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold [1]. So as you can see, while immunizations can be extremely beneficial in protecting health, they can also sometimes be responsible for causing a lot of problems. As such, it should be up to the individual's discretion whether or not they want to put something in their body; it should be taken at their own risk. Moreover, Pro writes, "Immunizations have been around for over 40 years and the effects they have had is that they have eliminated disease and saved lives which is completely moral." However, if we are to agree with Pro's previous statement that "allowing death is simply a matter of moral opinion," then this point of his would also be irrelevant, and actually an argument in my favor. Moving on, Pro writes that my argument about just getting an immunization once you realize you've contracted the disease is faulty. He said, "One is this is assuming that they will instantly detect the disease and get treatment. If for whatever reason they do not get treatment soon enough then they can die." My response to that is simple -- Every person is responsible for his or her own health! If they know that there is an immunization out there and they choose not to get it, then they are obviously willing to risk their own life and do not want the immunization in their body. So, this point is a moot one for the Pro. He says, "The second reason is, as my opponent says later on in her own point, people are allergic to certain reasons. Even with immunizations there are very small amounts of people who are allergic to them. So if they get infected they can not receive immunizations and may die." Once again Pro argues against himself here. He tried to claim that once people get infected, they can't get immunizations... but actually did nothing to make let alone defend that argument. Instead, he argued that immunizations could be harmful, which was my point exactly :) Next Pro raises the point, "For babies to receive all of their immunizations this takes almost a year, in that time they can be infected, and because their immune system is weak they have an even greater chance of dying." I fail to see how this is even relevant. If a baby gets infected before they get immunized... so? How is that an argument in favor of the resolution that they should be mandatory? Pro continues, "So going back to John Mill's harm principle people only have the right to govern themselves when it doesn't affect other people." Again, the problem here is that we don't know which option will turn out to be the more harmful, so this principle does not apply. Further, even though the immunization might help the majority, you should take into consideration that the vaccination has a probability chance of backfiring on the individual like Pro and I have been discussing. The largest right a law abiding individual has is the right to life, and a mandatory immunization by the government risks taking that most precious right away by the government's hand. It is under the individual's discretion, and the individual's discretion only, that any substance whatsoever be placed into their body. Removing such a right shakes the foundation that all other rights are based off of; the right to your own life. Finally, Pro concludes that my argument about the government not interfering in the economy is irrelevant, because a mass disease would be detrimental to any economy. Maybe so, but in a capitalistic society, that is the chance that you risk. I'm not arguing that such a disease wouldn't be harmful to any economy, but that it's not the job of the government to interfere. People should be responsible for their own person and their own property (wealth). Further, Pro ignored my point that while some people suffer economically in a crisis, others prosper. For instance, the government being involved in a war right now is certainly benefiting Cheney's company Haliburton (which profits by making weapons) and the politicians who give people jobs in communities in the factories making those weapons. So ya see, while some lose, others prosper. That is the social Darwin way of things and the government should not interfere in this regard, as rights of the people are not being violated (except for forcing them to take drugs i.e. immunization) against their will. Source: [1] http://www.rollingstone.com...