Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

Con starts off saying how my quote has caused me to forfeit my point. While that probably was not the best way to say that, what I mean is that Con says that it is morally acceptable to allow 3/4 of all people to die if they are "awful." What I am saying is that life is a universal right and so it is her opinion that it would be moral and I think most people would agree that life is a universal right therefore allowing 3/4 of all people to die would be immoral. Also Con failed to reply to the fact that 3/4 of the world's population is not awful and therefore utilitarianism is still the best way to view morality. Next my opponent brings up again about the negative effects vaccinations can cause such as cancer and autism. "If measles vaccine or any other vaccine causes autism, it would have to be a very rare occurrence, because millions of children have received vaccines without ill health effects. There are no proven data to suggest that measles vaccine will increase the risk of developing autism or any other behavioral disorder [28]. The known benefits vastly exceed any unknown risks. The CDC continues to recommend two doses of MMR vaccine for all children who do not have a known medical contraindication; the first dose is recommended at 12-15 months of age and the second dose is recommended at either 4-6 years of age or at 11-12 years of age [30,31]. To assure the safety of vaccines, the CDC, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other federal agencies routinely examine any new evidence that would suggest possible problems with the safety of vaccines. Currently, CDC is conducting a study in the metropolitan Atlanta area to further evaluate any possible association between MMR vaccination and autism. Immunization against measles has led to a dramatic decrease in the incidence of measles, which is sometimes fatal. I believe that the manner in which CNN covered this issue was extremely irresponsible and will result in the death of children whose parents are scared out of having their children receive it." http://www.quackwatch.com... (I do realize the title of the website makes it sound like it is not legit, but if you go down to the bottom of the page there are sources for all of their information.) This shows that truly immunizations are not responsible for autism, as for cancer no proof was provided to show whether or not it does. However, here is an article to show how it doesn't: http://www.i-sis.org.uk... Next Con talks about how I say that the effects of immunizations over the past 40 years have been the saving of lives. Con does not directly refute this therefore it still stands. Con does say that because of my quote from the 2nd round this argues against myself. But I have already explained my and even if the morality of allowing someone to die was simply an opinion for those who are judging the round I think we can agree that it is immoral. The next argument basically over whether or not, when people refuse to get immunized, greater harm is done to themself or the rest of society. I have already provided two articles showing how immunizations do not cause cancer or autism. But we still have these people who can be allergic to the vaccinations. Con says "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." However people who are allergic can not get the immunizations that is why we need compulsory immunizations in society. Because when you meet a certain threshold such as 65% of all people being immunized you reach herd immunity. I have mentioned herd immunity before and it is that when a certain percentage of the people become immunized it keeps disease from spreading. However, according to Louisiana State University, when people who go unimmunized group together it eliminates herd immunity and allows the disease to spread. And the people who refuse to go unimmunized do generally clump together because of religous affiliations. So when they do this it eliminates herd immunity which leaves those who can not be immunized, because of allergies, unprotected. Next con states "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." This chance has no real scientific evidence, it is all speculation and guesses. The evidence we do have is that when immunizations are given out it eradicates disease saving thousands even millions of lives. Con says that the most important right and individual has is the right to life. Therefore when you are a member of society it is the governments job to protect that right. That is why the government must require immunizations to save the most amount of people. As far as having the right to your own body, yes this is true until you begin to affect those around you. Once again this goes back to the harm principle which I have already talked about ealier in this round. (3 paragraphs earlier) Finally con again talks about how in a capitalistic society the government should not be meddling in the economy. This is true but con did not respond to what I said about how we can not assume this resolution is in a capitialistic society. It could be in a socialistic state, where it is the government's job to run the economy. Con also says that I did not respond to her argument about while some suffer others prosper. But that is not true I said "But the number of people benefiting is much smaller than the number of people who are hurt by it so the overall economy is hurt." So once again weighing this morally is it more moral to keep soceity as a whole from suffering rather than allowing a select few to benefit from others loss. Because also once again we can't assume the society has capitalism.