Is it okay for people to not vaccinate their children?
Debate Rounds (5)
This debate will be arguing on whether or not it is acceptable for parents to not vaccinate their children.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Introduction
Round 3/4: Rebuttal
Round 5: Closing statements
I will be arguing that it is unacceptable for parents to not vaccinate their children. In fact, I will go as far as saying that it should be illegal in the United States of America for them to not vaccinate.
To begin with:
1. Vaccination has helped eradicate diseases that would otherwise ravage the population if gone unchecked. For example, vaccines killed off diseases such as Polio and Smallpox. If not for vaccines, these diseases would still be in circulation today.
2. There is no hard evidence that vaccines actually cause problems, such as autism, in healthy children. In fact, all the evidence that exist says that vaccines do not cause autism. 
3. Vaccines are accessible in the US. Regardless of your income, there is a way to get a vaccine for your children, through programs such as the federally funded "Vaccines for Children" program. 
4. The effect of not vaccinating is terrifying. Just this year there was an outbreak of measles at Disneyland. Although this disease had previously been eradicated in 2000, it was revived as a result of people not being vaccinated. By vaccinating, we can prevent the spread of diseases such as these, which are easily preventable.
Overall, it just does not make sense to refuse to vaccinate your children, especially when all of the evidence we have refutes any link to any health issues. It should be every parent's duty to make sure that their children are vaccinated for both their children's sake, as well as for other children's safety. It is not fair to put your own selfish and misguided beliefs over the health and safety of children. As such, enacting laws that require children to be vaccinated would be very beneficial to our society, and the safety of children in America.
So as you can see my rebuttal is quite short because I agree. Here are my arguments in which I only need a couple.
Note that religion is not one because most major religions of the world are not opposed to vaccines.
1. So first off I will say that it is acceptable not to vaccinate your child because of the side effects in some vaccines. "MORE than 250 adverse flu jab reactions have now been reported in under-fives." http://www.news.com.au...
Real news story and the connection to vaccines is concrete. However, most vaccines do not have this connection as they are harmless. There needs to be more safety testing done on vaccines to make sure this doesn't happen again.
2. Free will is my second argument. Now I know what you're thinking "herd mentality!" and I agree on that point. Let me take you on the journey as to how I came up to this point. When you do a debate you generally research to back your point. Well this is what I came across http://healthimpactnews.com.... Wow, what in the world? It was even weirder when compared to this http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca.... I am genuinely confused at this point. I researched both sides and on one side I have a doctor (and a number of fearful moms, I kept these sites out as they had no proof to back up their arguments) and on the other I have the government. How could a handful of doctors (and hundred of very delusional moms) be all wrong? There must be more to this, so I looked further. And then it hit me. The other side was the government. "The Alliance Between the Vaccine Industry and the Government
In the first quarter of 2010 alone, the US federal government representatives received $19 million per day from lobbyists, and over $1 billion in total lobbyist spending, a large chunk of the money coming from the health care sector." http://articles.mercola.com....
I really hope this isn't true and I am still quite confused at this point so weigh the question "Would the government put their money gains ahead of our health?" Then I realized alcohol, cigarettes and now marijuana are legal or soon to be legal, these substances are known to kill and the government lets it go because they can tax these things and get money off of it. At this point I'm thinking "Oh shoot, this is bad. At one hand I can assume the government is very nice and vaccines are safe and okay and then on the other I could believe that they just want my money and that vaccines either do nothing or are harmful." So I settled that I will only get vaccines to major diseases and not the annual flu vaccination. Now let us get back to the debate, how does this tie in to vaccinating your children?
This ties in to vaccinating children all right, since children rely on their parents decisions vaccination is ultimately up to the parent and honestly if I were a parent, I wouldn't know what to do. So I brought it back to free will, if you want to vaccinate go ahead and if you do not then you should not be penalized for it. Why? The air around this dilemma is just too foggy to make out a clear answer and when I make a decision I want a clear concrete answer especially when children are involved.
I'll end with this "Prejudice Against the Unvaccinated?
One of your basic freedoms as a human being is your right to decide what you put into your own body."
While I agree vaccinations are important, I am not sure as to where I stand on whether I should vaccinate myself. Now on the topic of children, until children are old enough to decide for themselves then the rule of the basic freedoms carries from parent to child thus making an argument for this debate.
I'll make my response quick and concise.
1. 250 out of the VAST numbers of children who get vaccinated is a very small percentage of the population. I think that this percentage is small enough that it makes no sense for an extremely small percentage to outweigh a greater goal - the health of WAY more than 250 children. Plus "flu jab reactions" aren't necessarily detrimental to a child's health.
2. I understand and respect your skepticism here. However, it seems very unlikely to me that the government is "in bed" with vaccine companies so to speak. Plus, this "evidence" seems too shaky to give reason to allow people to not vaccinate their children at a risk to the health of a much larger group of children.
3. I just do not think that "free will" is really in play here. This is a serious matter that needs to be enforced harshly, as the effects of not doing so are worse than the effects of doing so. I personally see this as a Machiavellian "lesser of two evils" type of situation. What I mean by that is that it is better for the good of our society to take away a small portion of our free will when it comes to this issue in order to preserve the health of the much larger majority of our population.
As for each of your arguments I will restate that the area around these arguments is just too shaky to pinpoint which side is best. To replant my feet on solid ground (so to speak) I am stepping away from the whole vaccines have harmful chemicals, make diseases worse and can cause complications. Instead I will focus on your second and third argument.
For your second point I believe that there is a very good chance the government is in on this to make profit. I have a reason for this skepticism and that reason is that there is a very big trend of the government turning their backs on the population's health to stride towards profit. A good example of this is the tobacco, alcohol and soon to be marijuana industry. The government has tried to shut these down before (alcohol prohibition) but have since given up. This is partly our fault (too many people want these harmful substances) and the other part is the tax the government siphons out of our pockets when people buy these substances. The oil industry is no different, one of the biggest reasons gas pumps don't shut down and put up electric stations is that the government is making a very big profit. Only now that the world is warming is the government trying to do something about this (very good step). I believe the health sector is no different. In a perfect world there would not be no skepticism when it came to one's government but this trend is too big to ignore. Until it is safe to know for sure, parents should have the option to not vaccinate their children. It is coincidental that all of my other debates I've had on this site are tying into this one and on those debates I also take the stance on what is right. I believe what is right here is that the parents be given a choice.
The choice: The choice is where the free will comes in, because of this skepticism, because of the murky waters surrounding these arguments there just is no way to know for sure. These are parent's children and I would see why they may not want to inject their child with something they are skeptical on. Maybe they don't know how it works or what goes into it, maybe they want to play it safe or protect their child. Whatever the reason I believe this choice, this free will, is a must.
If at one point an overwhelming case of evidence for pro vaccination came out I would get every shot, even now I get most of my shots because I am paranoid when it comes to diseases. But this isn't about me, this is about the children. One of your most basic rights is to choose what goes into your body and since parents speak for their children then this right is their decision. If this is taken away that is an infringement on a right. ""The right to determine what shall, or shall not, be done with one"s own body, and to be free from non-consensual medical treatment, is a right deeply rooted in our common law. This right underlies the doctrine of informed consent. With very limited exceptions, every person"s body is considered inviolate, and, accordingly, every competent adult has the right to be free from unwanted medical treatment" " Ontario Court of Appeal decision 1991, Fleming v. Reid, Charter Challenge.(1)" http://vaccinechoicecanada.com....
Would you take away a right or a freedom? Especially for a reason that is so hazy, we are injecting unknown substances into our bodies because we are told from the government it is good for us because we believe they take an interest in our health. No, this choice MUST remain. It is a right, it is a freedom. The question is, would you allow the government to inject you with a substance because they told you it was good for you? This is your opinion. Now answer, Is it right for the government to forcefully inject children with a substance because they believe it is good for them? Notice how it is "they believe" because the child doesn't get a say. Big profits linked to health care industry, child deaths from vaccination "our membership consisted only of parents whose children had been injured or died from reactions to the DPT vaccine. "http://www.nvic.org....
Look at this site's title
"National Vaccine Information Center
Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice." Your Choice. It is your choice, it is these parent's choice.
This evidence doesn't prove that vaccinations are bad because of the hazy ground. This evidence proves that this right to decide what to put into our and our children's bodies is a must. The vaccine industry is already fighting exemptions. Your main point is picking the lesser of the two evils, but how do we know which one is lesser? We just don't know. We are kept in the dark on this issue and that is why this right is there to begin with.
I will end with this.
evidence to make a call about whether certain vaccines do or do not cause a wide range of
serious health conditions, such as encephalitis, encephalopathy, stroke, asthma, autism, SIDS,
multiple sclerosis, arthritis, lupus, and blood disorders, is problematical when these vaccines are
mandated by law to be used by every child and recommended for many adults." http://www.nvic.org...
I have the right to believe in what I like, that is a freedom and so is the one to decide what to put in your body. If vaccines are so 'good' why is the government getting rid of exemptions, why is this being forced on people? I am not arguing that vaccination are harmful, I am arguing for a right and a freedom. Believe what you wish but this right trumps each and every point for forcing this on children.This choice is fundamental for a reason and it should not be taken away.
cibaract forfeited this round.
cibaract forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themeaman909 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last 2 most important rounds. Pro made good arguments, and both used good sources.
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.