Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory

I will not be making an argument against the safety nor the effectiveness of the MMR vaccination because I agree with my opponent that it is safe and there is an obvious benefit to society for everyone who is able to get one to do so. I also agree with my opponents idea of making it easy to receive and afford the vaccination. I encourage every reader of this debate to get the MMR vaccination and keep up to date with all of your vaccinations. It's simple and it keeps you safe from contracting some pretty nasty stuff! !! It seems all I can really do is call into question the idea of making the vaccine mandatory. *Are we really going to asume that the government can truly keep us safe from every hazard we may encounter in our everyday lives? There's an obvious risk involved with the act of simply going outside. I went outside this morning and found two inches of snow that I didn't expect and the humidity made my hair frizz like a mutha, and that makes for a nightmarish Monday. Luckily, I didn't witness any car accidents because we're used to it where I come from, but car accidents represent a huge risk to us all. Would it be daft of me to ask my opponent to show that the diseases that we're arguing about actually represent a greater risk to society than vehicular boo boos do? And not just vehicular deaths, but traffic accidents in total, because not everyone who contracts those diseases will actually die. My opponent is basically asking where our rights end, and our responsibility for public safety begins. May I ask my opponent if we as individuals become a greater risk to public safety simply by becoming moter vehicle operators? Which one of these dilemmas represents a greater risk to society, the diseases or car accidents? Is there really anybody who can keep us safe from all the hazards we may face on a day to day basis? In my heart of hearts, I believe there is something that can help us to minimize the risks involved with everyday life, SCIENCE! !! !! Which brings me to my next point. *Is it not the responsibility of science to CONVINCE us of the benefits? Sadly, there seems to be a growing disconnect with the scientific community and the public at large. Will such an imposing law serve to help bridge that gap, or only extend it? I believe in the future and I believe science is at its forefront, but do we need to make science, the LAW? I'm sure my opponent can appreciate an argument for science, but isn't it a tad lazy of the science community to forego the convincing aspects and just go ahead and make their findings the law of the land? Admittedly, I might be getting rather broad, but still the disconnect between science and society remains and I fail to see how a sweeping law can help bridge the gap. I dream of a time in the near future when science and the community will once again be in harmony and with a little ingenuity and imagination, that can be a reality, and I don't believe infringing on our constitutional rights are inventive or imaginative, so that won't work. Making vaccinations mandatory won't convince the synics. Will a mandatory vaccination convince the antivaxers, or will it only strengthen their resolve? Who are they? Are they all contemplating the feng shui of thier caves while fashioning hats out of tin foil and talking to Jesus on a CB radio, or is it something as simple as, they're afraid of needles. The ladder of the two maybe easily convinced. Perhaps a deliberate public health campaign could be launched to try and persuade the squeamish ones into getting vaccinated, and that could be enough to push us to the goal of herd immunization. If we focus on how easy and quick and simple it is to get vaccinated, we could convince enough people to get the vaccine, and that might be all it takes to get us to the goal, without having to step on our freedom of choice. What about the antivaxers, will a sweeping new mandate convince them to get vaccinated, or will it only legitimize their fears? This brings up a good question, are most the people who don't get vaccinated doing so out of a fear of the federal government, or just because they're lazy and don't particularly like needles. If it is someone who is purposely resisting vaccines out of a fear of the government, I get the feeling that a mandatory vaccination will not persuade them, and may only serve to alienate them even more so from the rest of society. It seems to me that the only effective way for either is to convince them to get vaccinated willfully, not threaten them with legal consequences. Which leads me to my next contention. *How will we enforce this? I'm not quite sure what my opponent may have in mind as far as the legal consequences for not getting vaccinated. What should we do if a child reaches school age but has not received the MMR vaccination, should we bar the child from entering school? There's also the question of the legality of a vaccination mandate, will the public at large let the government pass a law that is an egregious violation of the constitution? Even if we simply dole out a penalty in the form of a tax, this doesn't remove the violators from society, and they're still free to wreak havoc on the public. We could make sure they're not free from a civil case and anyone who contracts one of the diseases in question from someone who willfully didn't get vaccinated is free to bring legal action against the offender, but even this can be problematic because it maybe difficult to prove in court that the sickness originated from the person in question. *Will we need to tighten or even close the borders to make the mandate truly effective? I once read about a case where a man from Israel was in the US visiting with relatives, but one thing the custom agents missed in this case was the measles he was carrying. It seems that the percentage of the population we need to have vaccinated to achieve herd immunization is based only on the number of permanent residents in the country, but it does not take into account the undocumented immigrants in the country or those who are visiting the country. How do we get the many undocumented immigrants to adhere to the mandate, and what legal consequence will they be subjected to if they violate it? Is it possible that some of the families of illegal immigrants maybe torn apart because of this mandate? What would the ramifications be for the tourism industry? Will we need to ensure that every tourist be vaccinated before entering the country? What consequences can we really levy on a foreigner who legally enters the country and causes a measles outbreak because they've not been vaccinated? *What about religious freedom? Some people may not get vaccinated because of religious beliefs. Is it morally sound to infringe on their freedom of religion? In my humble opinion, whether it's because of a religious belief, or because of an unfounded fear, antivaxers have a legitimate reason for not getting vaccinated and no matter how illegitimate You or I might find thier fears, it's still a valid fear to them and I fail to see how it is morally acceptable to force thier fears on them for the sake of others who are at risk for no fault of the antivaxers, or anyone for that matter. Again, I encourage everyone to stay current with all their vaccinations, but do we really need to infringe on the rights of the many for the sake of a few? I'm beside myself with excitement for this debate.