In countries where there is compulsory vaccination of children, the argument presented by governments is that the mass vaccination of children from birth will help to eradicate and prevent various diseases from existing in the country. There is certainly strong evidence from the United States to suggest that compulsory immunization is justified, and is perhaps better demonstrated by looking at several examples of how diseases have been significantly reduced as a result of compulsory immunization. Firstly, prior to a vaccine for polio, between 13,000 and 20,000 cases were reported in the USA annually. In 1988, the World Health Organisation decided to try and eradicate polio worldwide, and as of today the disease has been removed from the USA, Western Pacific and Europe. Only four countries (Afghanistan, Nigeria, India and Pakistan) are endemic, and there are just 2000 cases reported worldwide annually as of 2009.

This is a utilitarian argument as espoused by John Stuart Mill. He argued that to be moral, what needs to be done is what has the best net outcome. However, this theory is criticised as it sees any means justified by the end. So the theory would allow for a great moral wrong, ie killing, if it produced a better outcome. So here, we can see that compulsory immunisation would eliminate disease, but the means to that end is a great moral wrong; forcing people to immunise themselves and their children. This moral wrong can never be justified by good outcomes. Especially when the outcome is not a moral one. We are not lying to protect someoneeleses feelings - that is a moral wrong to prevent a moral wrong. With immunisation the outcome is merely longer human lives, but what is the point in longer immoral human lives?

But by stopping vaccination before the disease is widely eradicated leaves countries susceptible to future unexpected outbreaks. Another common disease – measles, affected nearly everyone in the United States prior to the vaccination being introduced. Between 1953 and 1963, there were 450 deaths each year from the disease. Currently in the US, three of every 1000 people who contract measles will die, whilst in the developing world, one in 100 will die. It is estimated that 90% of people who are exposed to the virus will get infected if not vaccinated against it. In 1999 according to the WHO, there were 900,000 measles related deaths worldwide. Measles can spread rapidly amongst unvaccinated populations, and if vaccinations were stopped, the WHO estimate there could be 2.7 million measles related deaths worldwide annually.

Your argument is valid in the fact that vaccinations do prevent diseases from returning. However, anybody that wants to have prevention from said disease will have access to the vaccination Therefore, anybody that is affected by the disease will have simply made the choice not do. I'm not arguing for the elimination of vaccines, but that man's autonomy not be violated for this cause.

Owing to vaccination campaigns, smallpox is no longer a disease that threatens man and polio, diphtheria and measles are rare in developed countries. However these diseases with the exception of smallpox still exist in other parts of the world. The aim of most developed countries including the USA is to create a “herd immunity” where those who are not vaccinated against these diseases are still protected, due to protection by “the herd.”

To force developing countries to take developed countries policies is nothing more than colonialisation, something which most would think is over. Just because the Western world has taken steps to artificially proling life, why should we force this onto thrid world countries if they are unwilling?

This is nothing more than an ideological warfare. This argument presumes that people want to live for as long as possible with that being the sole goal in life. But developing countries do not hold this attitude and therefore we should not try and impose immunisation upon them.

Without vaccinations against the dangerous diseases like polio, smallpox and the measles, the diseases will return in a new and more powerful form that we will not have a vaccination for because of how it has evolved in order to penetrate our immune systems. because we have unnaturally altered our systems to be more protective against the form of disease, it will eventually find its way to evolve, which is why we need to ensure that everyone is vaccinated against it so it does not have anyone to mutate in and spread to others.

The return of the disease wil come back stronger than before due to the vaccinations. Any so called disease wil find a way to penetrate the immunities injected to our bodies. Meaning the disease will have mutated into something stronger. So what will happen when scientists cannot find a immunization for any so called disease?

This is a rather broad and unqualified argument. What do we do when we imprison someone for committing a wrong? We put them in a prison, strip them of their rights to partake in society and offer them little help when they leave the institution. This is nothing more than stripping someone of their autonomy. Burgulars are put into prison, they harm no one, they merely steal property. So if they can have their autonomy stripped, why can we not strip people of their autonomy in order to save their own and others' lives?

Any action that strips a person of autonomy is a morally wrong action.

This is a non topical point. This is beyond the resolution in my opinion because, in this hypothetical situation, the con is stating that the government would institute vaccinations that would cause a public health concern. This is illogical and is not a valid point. However, if my opponent would like me to rebut his argument I would say that autism is a preferable alternative for many people to potential death.

Vaccines may cause a child who is genetically predisposed to have autism. If the trend of increased Thimerosal in vaccinations correlates so well with the trend of increased autistic diagnoses, there is a link. Thimerosal in vaccinations (which means 'contains mercury') causes autism. Too many times has a child been completely healthy, and then a vaccine containing Thimerosal is injected into the child. The child becomes ill, stops responding visually and verbally, and is then diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

I would strongly appreciate it if you would back your claims with empirical data. However, to my knowledge, these vaccinations are only preventing natural immunizations from forming to the disease they are preventing. Diseases which so often cause death. Therefore your argument is dead.

If compulsory immunisations increase there will be no development of natural immunity. Babies and children build up their immune systems through the exposure to certain things such as dirt, with compulsory immunisations the immune system can not develop properly. This would lead to further complications where the immune system is concerned.

This resolution violates the following articles in the declaration of human rights, article 3 which states, everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. the resolution takes away our personal liberty to choose over our bodies and sometimes gives autism which takes away our right to life. Article 4 which states, no one shall be held in slavery or servitude. if we are forced to vaccinate ourselves by our governments, they have put us in a form of involuntary servitude. Article 11 which states that no one shall be charged with an offense without a public trial. Innocent until proven guilty. On november 16, 2007, in maryland, 1,600 children were herded into a courtroom like cattle and under armed guard and attack dogs, were force vaccinated because their parents did not believe it in their best interest to be vaccinated. Article 12 which states, No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence. Force vaccinating everyone will go against everyone in the family and also their privacy. Article 18 which states, everyone has freedom of thought, conscience and religion. because this will be compulsory, their is no exceptions. this will violate freedom of religion of those who cannot get vaccinated because of religion. Ex. jahova whitnesses.