vaccinations should be mandatory

Pro says: I believe vaccines should be mandatory as since they have been used, they have helped to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). Without vaccines a huge percentage of the population would be handicapped or die unnecessarily. My reply: Yes, vaccines did help to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). But in such rare cases like this where disease spread like wild fire, people them self would go and take a vaccine. There is no need to make it mandatory. I never told vaccines should be removed, they don't have to be mandatory. Pro says: Your first point about not guaranteeing 100% efficiency from a disease is irrelevant. If I was faced with a large number of diseases, then I would still take a vaccine even if it only granted 50% efficiency. This is like saying: I can't get to work on time in a car, so I'll walk. As for your argument about vaccines containing mercury, I don't think you've done enough research here. Vaccines contain Thimerosal, a mercury containing compound. The purpose of which prevents the growth of the dangerous microbes. Thimerosal has been used safely since 1930, and has never shown any signs of harm throughout the 8 decades of it being used. My reply: I was just pointing out that they don't guarantee 100% safety from the disease, yea sure if you want it you can take it, i am saying it should not be forced on everyone. Speaking of mercury, yes i know there is a purpose for adding mercury, they don't add it simply. I was pointing out the dangers of mercury, and the fact that such things should not be injected in an individual without his/her permission. You did not show any proof of thimerosal being safe, thimerosal is 50% mercury by wieght http://articles.mercola.com... http://www.wanttoknow.info... http://drsircus.com... Pro says: Now, your argument about vaccines causing severe allergic reactions and having side effects that may lead to death is also irrelevant. Think about it this way: Even if it did cause an allergic reaction in for example 5 in 100 people, then removing the vaccines would mean killing ten times as much people as vaccinating them would. Furthermore, in the article you used, they say that they have no idea whether or not these reactions are related to the vaccines or not. So not only is it silly to remove vaccines for a 5 in 100 death rate, but there is no evidence to support the claim. My reply: I never said vaccines should be removed, i told that it should be the peoples choice. Yes, it says there is no 100 % proof that it is linked to the vaccines, but it is possible. Pro says: Probably my greatest problem with those who refuse to take vaccines is that you are not only putting yourself at risk by exposing yourself to countless diseases, but you also put the world at risk by letting yourself be a carrier and letting the disease roam free and evolve. This is not just a personal matter, it is not just about you because you are putting the surrounding population at risk. Examples of this would be those who think that vaccines causes autism, which it obviously doesn't. Or the Taliban who still think that vaccinations is a plan by the west to eradicate them, which it isn't. And thanks to the Taliban, we have failed to eradicate the disease Polio. Your last argument seemed a bit strange, vaccines have protected our civilization from dangerous diseases and have even eradicated two, and almost eradicated several others. My reply: No, the one who does not take the vaccine is not putting others to risk, If those other people want to be protected they can take the vaccines, or they can risk getting infected by avoiding the vaccine. It should the individuals choice.