public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

ok thank you nails, will just argue the point he made and uphold my case as i do it. lest start with his attack on my value criterion of John Lockes social contract. he only claims that i misinterpret the understanding by claiming that freedom and liberty are two different things. when John Locke talks about liberty he is referring to freedom. according to his second treatise of civil government he quite frequently refers to these concepts as the same thing. SO freedom is liberty and my argument still stands being that the government is restricting freedom and liberty by imposing a compulsory immunization law. - my opponent makes no mention to the fact that the human body is the most essential property is ones own body and that this immunization law infringes upon what we are able to do with our own bodies. so i extend this as offense being that my opponent has made no attack on the fact that if we can not control what is going on in our bodies we dont have a basic essential of individual liberty. next my opponent argues that the government is obligated to act in the best interest of its people. - yes it does i agree with this point BUT as i have shown above, if this infringes on the individual liberty of ones body then the government has no right to act. his sub point a is claiming that the government should step in if the parents arent immunizing children -first, as stated before this is infringing on the individual liberty of ones body and therefore the government has no right to act -second, the government also has no right to act on parents choice being that they may see religious or moral conflict with the immunization of their children. his sub point b about bio terrorism and other issues -this is non-unique in that i can acheive his impact without compulsion. if chicago was bombed the government would just have to announce it and everyone would rush to get the vaccine. -also, the probablity (tho i do admit i dont know the stats) are quite low for any attempt at an anthrax or other bio weapon terror attack due to terrorists limited reasources and funding his sub point c is claiming that the extinction of viruses is over all good -ok so getting rid of polio was a good thing. BUT viruses are ever changing and adapting. As according to MSNBC most diseases are caused by viruses and therefore are a major concern because viruses are known to adapt to environments and their changes. Freeing someone from the necessity of fighting a disease is bad because it will eventually make us dependant on immunizations to help prevent adapting viruses. College of UCLA explains on viral adaptation http://www.college.ucla.edu... Since viruses have such high mutation and reproductive rates, they can adapt to changing environments quite well. The viruses, for example, change their surface proteins so they can attach to the changed cell surface receptors. With constantly evolving viruses, ridding people of the necessity of fighting a virus seems disadvantageous being that we will constantly need to come up with new vaccines to combat the new strand of virus we were able to prevent earlier. This presents us with a miss allocation of resources, which over all cannot positively effect the community. moving on to more of his attacks his argument a -he is completely missing the point of my argument. if the government uses language manipulation to change a persons views on a particular subject in this case immunizations that is unjust because the government is using that as a means to infringe on a persons individual liberty of the body. that is completely unjust and because of that we should negate. his argument b - everything the media gets on immunizations is from the government. if we look to my observations we can see how this is true. because the media interviews doctors nurses or patients of the immunizations but the immunizations and research funding comes from the government. my argument on the media still stands his argument c -he says that pretty much we should affirm because we are achieving 99 to 100% extinction of viruses. and that we arent trying to cure anything. ok like i said the fact we cant cure a virus was a media term used to manipulate peoples thoughts on the issue (making it unjust as explained earlier) next this is non-unique in that i can achieve his impact without the compulsion. the government just needs to announce to the media that a new vaccine will help eliminate virus symptoms and people will be all over it. his argument d -look to my card in my first contention that gives us the real meaning of the word immunize and i feel this needs to be the definition because it means to be free from public duty or the city, NOT protected from them. therefore this change in meaning is founded in that the government is limiting freedom rather with compulsion and not protection. his argument e - again misinterpreting my argument. the government using language manipulation LIKE THE CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD IMMUNIZE to change our views on how we view immunizations then they are infringing upon our individual liberty because we are accepting the loss of control of what is going into our bodies. voters -i am upholding my entire case -my opponent has made several non-unique arguments and i have put down all the rest of his case - i am actually upholding the social contract better because freedom and liberty are the same thing according to locke and the fact that my opponent made no argument about how the body is the most essential part of individual liberty. -i did not see a value in my opponents case and seeing as how he is lacking in that i should win right there being that i am the only one with a way to weigh the arguments of this round. good luck (is it just me nails or does this resolution bite?)