The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ColeTrain
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 838 times Debate No: 82461
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Pro will contend for the resolution.
Con will contend against the resolution.

Only the immunocompromised and/or patients with contraindications would be exempt from compulsory vaccines in the entire world. Regardless of faith or opinion.

contraindication

": something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable " [1].

immunocompromised

"having the immune system impaired or weakened (as by drugs or illness) " [2].

Compulsory

"required; mandatory; obligatory:
compulsory education.
" [3].

Vaccine "Vaccination: Injection of a killed microbe in order to stimulate the immune system against the microbe, thereby preventing disease. Vaccinations, or immunizations, work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body."[4].

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://www.medicinenet.com...
ColeTrain

Con

I accept the debate and await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Pro will keep this argument brief.

Claim: Vaccines save lives.

Warrant: "Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." [1].

Warrant: "The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 2 million child deaths were prevented by vaccinations in 2003"[2].

Impact: Vaccination saves lives therefore as many people as possible should receive vaccines. It is clear that the resolution would save many lives and the benefit would greatly outweigh the cost.

Links
1. http://www.usatoday.com...
2. http://www.cdc.gov...
ColeTrain

Con

Framework:
I will be advocating we shouldn’t have compulsory vaccinations by reason of religious exemption.

Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted.

In various states, and actually a majority, religious exemption for vaccinations are already permitted. [4]

[5]


A change from the status quo would subsequently require a policy change. As the current policies are already in place, it is evident that the majority of states accept the religious reasoning behind denying vaccinations. It has been accepted in the past, and should thus be accepted and permitted now.

Moreover, there are instances which support the idea of religious exemption. For example, a women in New York won the right to not vaccinate her son, based on religious convictions. [8] This is another example of how religious exemption is already accepted and permitted.

Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs.

It is fact that the vaccinations themselves, and their components could violate religious beliefs. For example, some religions (such as Jews and Muslims) do not condone the consumption of pig. [6] It is also fact that some vaccinations that could be deemed *necessary* contain forms of pig. [7]

Forcing individuals to vaccinate their children with vaccines that are derived from organisms which violate religious convictions of the parents and/or the children themselves is a direct and specific example of an infringement on religious freedom.

Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution.

The First Amendment of the Constitution shows the government cannot prohibit the exercise of a religion. [9] This means that the government cannot make a law interfering or prohibiting the exercise of a religion. [10] In regards to vaccinations, the free exercise clause allows exemption from vaccinations. Former editor-in-chief of USA Today explains, "the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment mandates state accommodation for members of religious groups who object to the vaccinations on religious grounds. The free-exercise argument follows the logic that requiring children to perform an action (in this case to receive a vaccination) that is abhorrent to their religious beliefs and/or practices places a significant and undue burden on their free-exercise rights." [11]

Because the constitution allows a free exercise of religion, and exemption is neutral and not favoring a religious establishment, permitting religious exemptions is the most pragmatic option.

Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe.

Religious reasons for denying vaccinations is quite widespread. One of those reasons is also safety. Beyond moral convictions, these stretch to safety, and how they could harm the body. The Institute of Medicine admits, "Vaccines are not free from side effects, or “adverse effects." [12] Moreover, the retracted link of MMR autism suggested in 1998 isn't the only thing parents should be worried about. Many vaccinations aren't totally safe. [13] For religious reasons, parents do not want to put their children in danger. As there is a possibility, this is another reason to permit religious exemption. Andraz Melansek notes "Many vaccines have significant adverse effects, of which the most serious can result in death." [1] Dangerous vaccinations exist, and if we make vaccinations compulsory, we can't avoid these effects. Holland explains "There are several major safety concerns: (1) inadequate testing of vaccines, individually and cumulatively; (2) insufficient attention to vaccine additives; (3) the failure to screen out vulnerable subjects; (4) insufficient incentives and funding for vaccine safety; and (5) government discouragement of discourse about vaccine safety." [2] There are a lot of factors which go into making vaccinations dangerous, but it's conclusive they do have detrimental effects.


Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption.

Many people opposed to the idea of religious exemption claim that most religions don't hold the view that vaccinations are unacceptable. However, religious exemption goes further than the base "religion" itself. Pro-life activist Eric Schleidler explains, "You can have a more scrupulous moral position than the official teaching of the church." [14] This is very true. As vaccine laws sometimes require an explanation [2], this religious moral position even moreso dictates we accept and permit religious exemption.

Another argument is that it's always too easy to get religious exemptions. However, more and more states are tightening the law in this regard, making it more difficult and more explanatory to receive religious exemption. [14] Instead of abolishing it altogether, tightening the existing policies is more effective at a) protecting liberty and religious freedom, and b) protecting utilitarian health.

Furthermore, there exists arguments that religious exemption is a major health hazard. While vaccinations have considerably helped curb diseases our society once suffered, the exemptions we have don't pose as large a threat as propaganda proclaims. With most individuals vaccinated, would that not prevent those individuals from contracting and being affected by the disease in the first place? If exempt people accept the risk (which they do) then why not let them? Further, there have not been near the hazards or outbreaks of which propaganda loves to exclaim.

Conclusion:

I have provided a host of arguments backing my position, showing the logical and moral reasons as to why religious exemption from vaccinations should be both accepted and permitted, thus fulfilling the resolution and effectively negating it. Compulsory vaccinations would violate these religious fundamental freedoms and allow harmful effects from some vaccines to run rampant.

Sources:

[1] Andraz Melansek, student of Intenational Relations at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, February 1, 2004 “Vaccination, Compulsory?”
[2] Holland, Mary. Reconsidering Compulsory Childhood Vaccination. Rep. New York University School of Law, 1 Sept. 2010
[4] http://www.ncsl.org...

[5] http://www.pewresearch.org...

[6] http://www.themodernreligion.com...

[7] http://www.pewresearch.org...

[8] http://nypost.com...

[9] https://www.law.cornell.edu...

[10] https://www.law.cornell.edu...

[11] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...

[12] http://www.hrsa.gov...

[13] http://www.theguardian.com...

[14] http://www.chicagotribune.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Con makes three arguments against vaccines. First, and foremost religious exceptions. Second, a change in the status quo. Third, vaccines aren't totally safe.

Pro's claims about the effectiveness of vaccines and vaccines saving lives are uncontested thus far. Looking at the first amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [3].

The first amendment swings both ways. No laws to prohibit free exercise, but also no laws respecting an establishment of religion. Pro will argue that religious exceptions to vaccines violates the 1st amendment. Specifically, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [3]. By giving an exception to vaccines on religious grounds congress is making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Furthermore, there are many religious who employ human sacrifice. Obviously human sacrifice rituals are not honored in the USA. This is because of the way human rights work. Person A can swing his or her arms as much as he or she wants until he or she hits person B in the face. At that point person A has violated person B's rights.

The same goes for human sacrifice. If a group following a religion decides to sacrifice an innocent, that group has violated the innocent person's rights. The same goes for vaccines and herd immunity. As seen in the Disneyland measles event. "The growing number of cases illustrates two things: it only takes one person to start an outbreak, and the best protection against an outbreak"s growth is herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when a population has a high level of immunity, thereby ensuring a disease can"t travel very far within the community."[4].

Since people can die from diseases Pro contends that failure to vaccinate is similar to religious human sacrifice rituals. Although humans strive to maximize freedom, in order to protect the innocent, certain freedoms must be restricted.

As for the status quo, the status quo is not self justifying. Lives are at stake.

Vaccines aren't 100% safe is true. Yet, Con has failed to demonstrate that the negative outweigh the positive. Pro contends that the positive outweighs the negative.

Summary, Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications should be enforced worldwide. With various modes of fast travel at human disposal, it seems silly to have inconsistent vaccine laws from country to country. Pathogens don't respect nation's borders. Pathogens are a world problem that can be solved by vaccination and herd immunity.

Thank you for the debate, thank you for being respectful Con.

Links

3. http://constitution.laws.com...
4. http://www.forbes.com...
ColeTrain

Con

I sincerely apologize about this, but a glitch is not allowing me to post my arguments. I've tried a few times and refreshing to get my arguments to post, but they are continually being erased with only the first few hundred characters (600, roughly). I've noticed there are other glitches happening with DDO right now, and hope my opponent will accept to leave this debate as a tie. I had all my arguments typed up, but they keep getting deleted and not allowing me to post. I apologize. :(
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
I don't believe I can fairly judge this debate given the last round circumstance. My advice? Copy/paste the arguments and redo the last round's arguments.
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
ColeTrain
Thanks, whiteflame. Was going to report that once I got on again.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Forever23// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Cole made more convincing points

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain the source points allocation. (2) The voter does not explain arguments points allocation, merely restating the decision itself. Stating that one side made more convincing arguments doesn't clarify the decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by Stupidape 2 years ago
Stupidape
Looks like you won the debate anyways somehow. I thought I had the stronger argument. Lol, I don't know how anyone gets an elo rating over 2,500 let alone your winning streak of over 4,000 elo. Mine's 1,717. How'd you post a graph anyways?
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
ColeTrain
I know, it could be something to do with my internet, though I'm not willing to rule out the possibility of a site glitch. The server is so cluttered and there's been other bugs lately. Do you want to tie it? I could *maybe* have enough time. The reason I had to request a tie is because I don't have sufficient time to rewrite my arguments well. I won't have any time over the weekend, so I had to write my arguments today. I'm willing to forfeit if necessary, I just feel it's a shame to end my winning streak like this... xD Whatever you want, I can't mandate your choice lol.
Posted by Stupidape 2 years ago
Stupidape
weird. Never had that problem. No idea why its doing that. Maybe try the forums?
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
ColeTrain
I'd love to, but it deleted the entire thing. :/
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
ColeTrain
I'd love to, but it deleted the entire thing. :/
Posted by Stupidape 2 years ago
Stupidape
@ColeTrain if you having technological difficulty just post your arguments in the comments. I'm sure the voters will understand.
No votes have been placed for this debate.