Should Parents Have The Right To Immunize Their Own Children?
Debate Rounds (4)
So when a child without a vaccination gets sick and gives this disease to everybody else, you have to wonder what the source of that disease is. The source is likely the other vaccinated students. They are already sick. The unvaccinated child is not effecting, inconveniencing, or endangering any student.
(To make it clear, I'm not denying that there are rare cases where a vaccinated student gets sick of an unvaccinated student, but it's not worth denying people liberties to avoid these rare cases. It's not an epidemic.)
Also, like you said in your argument, a person with the vaccination will already have the template in their blood stream and it is possible for them to contract it, but it won"t be so serious. Yes, while that is true, there is fairly high chance for an epidemic to occur. While that new child with the vaccinations has the measles (for example) he is now endangering everyone else that he comes into contact with. If you were to bring that child to a hospital, where lots and lots of babies are not immunized for that disease, he would be then, endangering the welfare of all those children. Keep in mind that the child without the vaccinations has the same possibilities of what was just mentioned above.
My point is, that unvaccinated children can still infect those with vaccines, then possibly triggering an epidemic. The measles could end up spreading to the children who have not yet had their immunizations yet and end up with a devastating outcome. Case and point, parents should NOT have the choice to immunize their children, it should in fact be mandatory.
(I was using the measles as an example. Sorry is this was all over the place, I must admit, I was confusing myself at some points. Good argument though.)
- also to be clear round three will be for rebuttals and round 4 will be for thank yous. I did mess up on explaining my directions, as this was my first time making a debate. My apologies.
When you say that we can't worry about where a child got the disease, just who they are endangering, this argument falls because the sick student has been endangered. Therefore, we must be very concerned about the source. The source will likely be one of the student's friends or classmates. Most students do get these vaccinations. They don't show the symptoms of a disease to the extent of those who don't have vaccinations. Therefore, they are endangering everybody around them as much as the students without vaccinations. Vaccinations don't decrease likelihood of being diseased. We both know that. Vaccinations only decrease the severity of symptoms.
When you bring up the case of babies in a hospital as being endangered, I can tell you that babies are in no danger that they would not normally face in a hospital. Hospitals have sick people in and out all day with different diseases. Despite this, babies are very unlikely to be diseased in a hospital. What does one more sick person matter? As for the epidemic, I have pointed out that epidemics are just as likely to occur with vaccines as they are to occur without vaccines. Therefore, the severity of those reactions is all that matters for today's debate.
I'm just gonna quickly bring this up. The measles case was an issue where a disease, supposedly uncommon, had stopped receiving a vaccination inappropriately. This is not a case of parents being an issue.
As I have noted, the effects of vaccinations do not change virility of a disease, only its severity. In other words, this doesn't change how many people are effected, just how they are affected. If people want to take that into their own hands, that is their right. To infringe on that reduces the liberty that we have. Therefore, we should strive to maintain our liberty by keeping vaccination rights from being infringed.
No problem with the explanation of rules. It's nice having new people join the debate community.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 11 months 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a great debate to read. Arguments to Pro because Con conceded in the final round.
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.