Public health concerns Justify compulsory immunization

Since my opponent has forfeited his second round comments I will continue with my rebuttals. For this round I would like to submit the following definitions: Compulsory- –adjective 1. required; mandatory; obligatory: compulsory education. 2. using compulsion; compelling; constraining: compulsory measures to control rioting. Majority- –noun, plural -ties. 1. the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority ): the majority of the population. 2. a number of voters or votes, jurors, or others in agreement, constituting more than half of the total number. 3. the amount by which the greater number, as of votes, surpasses the remainder (distinguished from plurality ). 4. the party or faction with the majority vote: The Democratic party is the majority. 5. the state or time of being of full legal age: to attain one's majority. 6. the military rank or office of a major. Both of these are from dictionary.com Pro's Contention 1 Sub Point A: I will not repost it here, but it basically illustrates how effective a vaccine can be. The statement that polio has been eradicated in the United States, Europe, and the Western Pacific is true. It is also true that none of these three groups needed compulsory immunization to achieve this goal. Since this information really does not do anything to show how compulsory immunization is justified it is a moot point. Sub Point B: Here my opponent warns of the dangers of stopping production of a vaccine. It is true that stopping the production and distribution of a vaccine can lead to a severe outbreak of said vaccine it has nothing to do with this debate. People will still go out and get inoculated even if the vaccine is not required. Pro's Contention 2 Sub Point A: Here my opponent states that if a majority of a population is inoculated against any specific disease then that disease can be eradicated from that population. This is the statement that brings down his reasoning. Compulsory immunization by definition is any immunization that is required to be taken. If the inoculation were required then 100% would theoretically be immunized. My opponent states that only a majority is required to be immunized. The definition of majority is any number of a grouping that totals to be over 50%. This statement contradicts your original resolution. Sub Point B: I address this statement specifically in Sub Point B of my Contention 1, and less directly in my Contentions 2 and 3. Also if you are an individual that chooses not to be immunized then overall you are only endangering yourself and others who choose not to be immunized, and they in turn are only at risk because they too did not get inoculated. Not being immunized is only a bad thing if you actually contract said disease. The chances of this are highly unlikely. Pro's Contention 3 I absolutely agree with this contention. Vaccines are cost effective. Unfortunately the cost of a thing is not an issue when having a moral debate. It would be like saying that everybody should eat Ramen noodles and no other noodles because they are cheap. While the facts of that statement are true not everybody is going to eat Ramen noodles simply because they are cheap. Cost does not equate justification in the context of this debate.