Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

OK MAJOR screw up on my part. I was looking for an Lincoln Douglas debate...That's the problem with online debating...If my opponent agrees I would (since its not fair to limit this to two rounds with only a day remaining) like to nullify this debate and begin again Lincoln Douglas. If not, then feel free to switch over now to the LD format. Uncharacteristic of LD I will give my NEG case first wont respond to my opponents arguments since we are(hopefully) changing styles of debate. These two quotes are John Stuart Mill's. "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." The next quote: "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." I agree with John Stuart Mill on these two quotes, and stand in absolute negation of the resolution: resolved, Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Definitions: Public health concerns: field of medicine and hygiene dealing with the prevention of disease and the promotion of health by government agencies. (From the Columbia Encyclopedia) Justify: (Merriam Webster Online) to prove or show to be just or right Compulsory: mandated, required Immunization: the fact or process of becoming immune, as against a disease. For the sake of this debate I am confining the "Compulsory Immunization" stated in the resolution to the United States Value: Justice defined as fairness: Justice is a prerequisite to any other value. Anything applied unjustly has no value. For example Equality can be achieved by equal oppression. Before it holds value for itself, equality must be just. This can be applied to any other value as well. Value Criterion: Individual Rights: the freedom that everyone has to be free from any oppression, as long as the individual's choices only effect themselves. Contention 1: Compulsory Immunization makes the problem of class discrimination worse: By definition a compulsory action must have a punishment. Otherwise the action is no longer "compulsory" but "recommended" If there was no punishment for breaking laws then following them would no longer become compulsory. My argument is that the affirmative mindset will be furthering the marginalization of lower classed by placing them in a system of continuous punishment. Low-income communities will be directly hurt by compulsory immunization policies due to decreased access to medical care. Brietta R. Clark in 2005 explains. This fear is neither unusual nor irrational in light of one of the most visible, yet ignored, problems for minority communities - hospital closures and relocations. Increasingly, hospitals, private and public, have closed or terminated services in areas populated by minorities, while relocating services to more prosperous neighborhoods. These closures have for the most part occurred in urban areas with the greatest need and least resources. Remaining hospitals willing to care for minorities or the poor are either located far enough away that timely care is effectively foreclosed or they are already overburdened and understaffed. Hospital closings and the crumbling of a medical framework is already an issue faced by the poor. Compulsory Immunization Policies will make this worse. Compulsory immunization programs will increase the strain on the remaining medical facilities making care almost impossible. These immunization programs would force low-income families to either travel to receive care or wait in line for hours to maybe receive a vaccination before supplies are exhausted. Only limited amounts of vaccines can be stored by a medical facility at a time and if the facility is already overcrowded the increased strain will push it over the edge. This would be an outrageous injustice. Contention 2: Compulsory immunization takes away the democracy we live in: As I said above, the term compulsory means forced. It's mandated, required. Meaning if one doesn't comply something will be done to punish the so said "offender". This is wrong and unjust. We have a choice as to what we put into our bodies. "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Meaning in this context not that the man who doesn't want to take a vaccination should make everyone else NOT take it, but that he should have his unalienable rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This means that a person's personal health is not determined or mandated by any form of government. I have never seen the government FORCING us to exercise 60 minutes every day because it's healthy. It's advised, but not mandated. That's because it's our choice how we deal with our own bodies and it affects no one but us. This is the same with immunization. If one gets an immunization, then they are IMMUNE to the disease. Therefore implying ones immunization actually WORKED, the person would have no harm done to them by someone who DIDN"T get a vaccine. "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." If non vaccinated people are not a threat, then how is compulsory immunization justified by a public health concern? It is clearly not just for someone to be mandated to take a shot that is out of their personal want. The Affirmative would be making our democracy a dictatorship and one step away from a massive killing of anyone who doesn't want a vaccination because they are a "threat " to society when really they are less a threat than the mindset of the individuals who think of themselves as the victims. The affirmative is not just and more importantly it does not comply with the Constitutions promise of unalienable rights to an American Citizen. Thank you and sorry for the lack of communication on my part. Go NEG