Is State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations Justified?
Debate Rounds (5)
This is a 5-round debate.
Here are what each of the rounds are for::
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Refuting Arguments
Round 4: Summary
Round 5: Final Focus
Try to integrate your sources into your writing, don't just leave them at the end.
That is all! And in advance, thank you for accepting this debate! :)
My first contention is that people have the right to make autonomous decisions. My second contention is that there are many religions that are against vaccines. My third contention is that vaccines cause adverse effects. After explaining why my three contentions are true, I will prove to you that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is not justified.
Contention one: people have the right to make autonomous decisions. “Parents have a fundamental right to guide the upbringing of their children protected under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” according to sciencebasedmedicine.org. Many court cases have been based off that right. An example of a court case like that would be the Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985) case in which it was decided that parental rights could not be denied without fundamental principles of liberty. This includes medical rights, such as the right to refuse or discontinue treatments, even those that may be life-sustaining. The real question is whether or whether not refusing to vaccinate a child puts him or her in danger. Douglas S. Diekema (M.D., M.P.H.) from the University of Washington School of Medicine answered this question, saying, “while most mandatory vaccines are effective and safe, a small possible adverse reaction exists.” According to Diekema, “A parent might reasonably conclude that refusing the measles vaccine is in the best interest of a child living in a community with a high immunization rate.” This is a logical decision made on the behalf of the parent. Hence, state interference in the parent child bond is not justifiable.
To add on to this, On February 04, 2015, press secretary, Mr. Earnest, was asked, whether the President believes it should be mandated by law that parents get their children vaccinated? He answered, “ … This comes down to a simple question about whether or not parents across the country are going to act responsibly and do the thing that science tells us will better protect their kids and kids all across the country.”
Contention two: A number of religions are against vaccines. For example, The Church of Christ, Scientist, believes that diseases aren’t real and can be healed with a prayer from one of their “practitioners.” Another example of a religion against vaccines would be The Dutch Reformed Church. The First Amendment, however, states that laws cannot interfere with beliefs and opinions. It is also prohibited to make a law which impedes the free exercise of religion. Therefore, state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is unconstitutional, and in turn, not justified. State mandated administration of childhood vaccines infringe upon constitutionally protected religious freedoms. The First Amendment of the US Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the ruling for Cantwell vs. Connecticut (1939 ; 9-0), the US Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments’ infringement upon religious freedom is also unconstitutional.
Contention 3: Many people have had adverse reactions to vaccines. According to Douglas Diekema, a physician, The real question is whether or not refusing to vaccinate a child puts them in danger. Diekema answered this question, saying, “while most mandatory vaccines are effective and safe, a small possible adverse reaction exists.” Not all of these reactions are minor. 1 in 100 people who get the Adenovirus vaccine get a serious side effect, according to CDC. These side effects include pneumonia and inflammation of stomach and intestines. According to lungs.org, “When you have pneumonia, oxygen may have trouble reaching your blood. If there is too little oxygen in your blood, your body cells can't work properly. Because of this and the infection spreading through the body, pneumonia can cause death.”
Have you ever heard of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS, as it is known? Researchers have linked it to the Hepatitis B vaccine according to Mercola. "For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B.", according to Dr. Jane Orient. The government has also said that the Hepatitis B vaccine may cause Lupus erythematosus which is potentially fatal.
Even if the effects of vaccines don't cause death, they could sometimes cause severe problems such as deafness, or permanent brain damage from the MMR vaccine according to CDC. These problems could haunt the child, and maybe even his or her parents, for the rest of their lives. This information shows that vaccines have the ability to do more bad than good.
After realizing how vaccines can cause much damage to people, how vaccines defy the First Amendment, and how vaccines violate parental rights, I have proved that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is not justified.
Contention One: An absence of vaccinations can cause life threatening diseases. Standard immunizations prevent diseases such as hepatitis B. The World Health Organization explains that this life-threatening disease can be transmitted through contact with blood; so not only is the child being exposed to chronic ailments, but if it gets a cut or scrape, and draws blood on a surface which is later touched by someone else; this could endanger other people. This is only one of the various diseases that could be contracted due to an absence of childhood vaccination, according to the CDC. This proves that by not vaccinating one"s children, the parents are risking their children"s lives.
Contention Two: Parents do not have the rights to put their children"s life at risk. The CDC defines child abuse as, "any act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver... that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child." They also include medical neglect as an act of child abuse. By refusing to immunize one"s child, that person is making a decision that could result in serious harm to that child, therefore, classifying it as child abuse; (which is illegal in all states.) This proves that refusing to immunize one"s child is illegal.
For these reasons, state mandated administration of childhood vaccination is justified.
Clearly my opponent doesn't understand the resolution. The resolution is whether state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified, not whether vaccines are good or bad. This renders his first contention completely useless. Because it is unrelated to the topic, I will not refute it in my response.
Contention 1: If you are saying refusing vaccinations or other treatments is child abuse, how come the opinion from the Doe v.s. Irwin case said that it was not child abuse to refuse treatment. The opinion stated was that "the rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14." "There have been many recent cases regarding chemotherapy.Even when a child is in imminent danger of dying, parents have the latitude to reject potentially life-saving treatments if they're experimental, or if the parents can show an alternative treatment would work just as well", says Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. An example of this would be Maxin case. They fought in court for their child not to have to undergo chemotherapy. They won their case and Noah Maxin got alternative treatments. Like I previously said, if they won their case for taking their son of potentially life-saving chemotherapy, how come my opponent states that it is not the right of the parent to refuse vaccines?
Contention 2: Again, the resolution is about rights, so one of the most important rights is religous rights. As I said in Contention 2, the right to exercise religion is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Obviously, my opponent doesn't understand the resolution. Adding this together with my contentions about rights, you realize that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is not justified.
Music7 forfeited this round.
krayracker forfeited this round.
Music7 forfeited this round.
krayracker forfeited this round.
Music7 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.