Question: Should Certain Vaccinations Be Mandated for Pediatric Populations?

The efficacy of vaccines is a matter of scientific evidence. Therefore, if vaccines are beneficial, it is reasonable for everyone to receive them to safeguard against contagious illnesses.

New born babies are given vaccines at a young age becuase that is when they are not vulnerable. Now think about back in the day when babies could easily get sick and most them died at age 5 or below. But now in medical advance can keep infants and new horns alive. Serious reactions are very rare, happening in 1-2 people out of a million shots give. Thousands of people take part in clinical trials to test a vaccine before it is licensed by the FAD (Food and Drug Administration). People who have vaccines protect others they love and including babies becuase they are too weak to protect from foreign invaders in their bodies. Now think about chicken pox; almost 11,000 Americans had to go to the hosiptal and over 100 died, each year for chicken pox. Now becuase vaccines chicken pox are rare to see and helped saver lives. Now in 2008, a San Diego boy got measles on a family trip to Switzerland. When he got back home he spread it to family members, classmates, and even children at the doctors office. The only people who got sick where the ones who didn't get shots including a baby. So do you really want people have this fear of spreading disease to innocent people? www.cdc.gov/vaccines www.whyichoose.org/vaccinesafety.html www.vaccines.gov

Wow. I had hoped you would actually use an argument rather than post an article that cites books many of which are horribly rated, haven't been rated, or are written by authors who have been shown to be wrong here time and time again. It's actually disappointing you used such debunked and proven to be wrong sources. The ingredients in vaccines have not been show to be related to autism what so ever. Studies have shown this over and over again. All of those quotes from those books that you posted basically do not assert anything they just posit and wonder about if maybe vaccines could cause autism. They have no proof behind them and nothing to back them up. "Myth: The measles vaccine causes autism. Fact: "There's absolutely no scientific evidence to support this claim. There is, however, a slew of research that shows the complete opposite: that vaccines do not cause autism," says Richard Rupp, M.D., director of the office of vaccine clinical trials at the Sealy Center for Vaccine Development at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. This myth persists because of a fraudulent study in which the lead researcher, a British doctor who has since lost his medical license, lied about finding a connection between the measles vaccine and autism. It doesn't help that the more noticeable signs of autism tend to appear around the 12-month mark, after a child gets a series of vaccines. "Often, signs of the disorder were present when the baby was younger. It's just that autism becomes easier to detect when a child starts missing milestones," says Dr. Rupp. Studies show that both vaccinated and unvaccinated children are equally at risk for autism." "Myth: Vaccines contain mercury, and that's bad. Fact: Vaccines used to contain thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative, but is a different compound than mercury. More important, it hasn't been used in childhood vaccines since 2001, when the FDA opted to remove it even though studies show it's safe. Thimerosal's purpose was to keep bacteria from growing in multidose vaccine solutions. Vaccines that were once preserved with thimerosal are now put into single-dose vials or syringes that aren't susceptible to bacterial contamination." https://www.google.com... "Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism. One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used to prevent contamination of multidose vials of vaccines. Research shows that thimerosal does not cause ASD. In fact, a 2004 scientific review by the IOM concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal""containing vaccines and autism." Since 2003, there have been nine CDC-funded or conducted studies[PDF - 357 KB] that have found no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ASD, as well as no link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and ASD in children. Between 1999 and 2001, thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for some flu vaccines. This was done as part of a broader national effort to reduce all types of mercury exposure in children before studies were conducted that determined that thimerosal was not harmful. It was done as a precaution. Currently, the only childhood vaccines that contain thimerosal are flu vaccines packaged in multidose vials. Thimerosal-free alternatives are also available for flu vaccine. For more information, see the Timeline for Thimerosal in Vaccines. Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to ASD as well. However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD." https://www.cdc.gov... These are facts. You have provided exactly what I said, overwhelming evidence contrary to vaccines being harmful or causing autism. ,

In America"s school districts, P.E. class should not be required. It is embarrassing. It is awkward. Parents are questioning if it should be. It is embarrassing. If you can't do 10 push-ups or 20 sit-ups, everybody shoves their score, of like 50 or 40, in your face. If you try to hard you could get injured. If you fall while doing some sport you get laughed at. It is awkward. If you are in your squads and have to warm up, you might have to touch your toes. In order to touch your toes you have to bend over. It feels like you are sticking your butt in someone's face. Or vice versa. Parents are questioning if it should be required. According to an investigation by MSNBC, the average time spent exercising is 16 out of 45 minutes. That's not very much physical time. Since we aren't doing very much parents think that it should be cut. All in all, gym class should not be mandatory. Students get embarrassed. Students feel awkward. Parents think it should be cut. We need more time for better things like study hall or longer classes.

>>It is also such an important right that it is not to be given to the parents. Just wondering, but since when was the government more qualified to make a decision for children than the children's own parents? You would think that the parents would know the child better and be able to determine what is best for them, not the government, right? >>For nowadays you no longer need just a high school diploma…it is essential that you have a college degree and just to get into a decent college you need to be on the cutting edge in your class. And therefore the government should force little children into spending 8 hours a day learning about things they will often not have any interest in or need. For instance, grammar is a subject that is not often liked. Why should children spend 8 hours a day learning about conjunctions when they would most likely never use that knowledge when they exit high school? Also, what if the child does not want to get a college degree? You do not have to have a college degree to get a job. If you think that you do, then you should ask people who work, and see if they have a college degree? Chances are, some of the people you ask will say no. >>So if the parent's would rather have their child do something else such as working for there living than that would be horrible considering the fact that education is a catalyst for development. Again, because the parent might not want their child to go to school and might want to teach them something other than algebra, the government should take this right out of the parent's hands and force children to go to school? >>That is why it is so key to offer education to third-world countries—if it weren't, than why would we be constantly wasting our time? This is an irrelevant argument because this debate is about the USA, which is not a third world country. >>Thus, it isn't fair for a child who might yearn for the power of knowledge yet denied it because of their parent. Knowledge is not defined by how well you know your ABCs. There are many things that you learn outside of school. True, there are some things that you would most likely not learn without going to school, but going to school does not guarantee knowledge. >>It's the child's right to have the same stepping-stone that most of their peers will have. If a parent objects to the way the school system is run than they have a choice of home-schooling their child but if they are too lazy to do even that…then they don't care about their child and obviously incapable of making such a decision on whether or not their child should even have an education. In today's world, there are many different ways to attain knowledge. You do not always have to have someone teach you for you to learn. An education does not have to be attained in a classroom. It can be attained on the computer, through books, etc. There are many different media for information to be transfered. >>A parent has a right to make adaptations to their child's education—share their beliefs, take an active part, choose the school, and the choice…but to deny it altogether is a risk for the future. It is like food—the child has a right to eat but the parent chooses what mainly goes in it. The child has a right to education but the parent may choose what mainly goes in it. I am in no way saying that parents should force their children to not have an education in a classroom. I am saying that parents should have the right to not take their children to school, not that they should have the duty to pull them out and not teach them. Also, a lot of the time when the parents volunteer, they do what the school wants them to do, not what the parent wants to do. I am done refuting all of your arguments, and now I will move on to my own argument. Like I said earlier in my first post, education should not be something forced upon children. If the child would like to go to school, it should be up the indivudual child. Not the government. The crux of my argument is that it should not be the government's job to make sure that children go to school. It should be up to the individual child and his/her parents. You don't force people to learn. Anyone who has taught children knows that you don't just throw information at children and hope that they can figure out what you are saying. That is ineffective and frustrating for the child when they do not understand, and it is frustrating for the teacher when they find out that they are not teaching the child effectivley. Likewise, the government should not force children to go to an environment where they may not be comfortable. It is not the government's job to do so. It is either the child's or the parent's job. Thank you

Con 1 Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects. According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children. [49] The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. [49] Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. [49] The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a "small possibility" exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barr" Syndrome, a disorder in which the person"s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. [49]. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) says that vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities. [82] [83]http://vaccines.procon.org...

I do not quite think my opponent understands my debate topic: vaccines do not cause autism. If this is my debate topic then the opposing simply has to prove that vaccines do cause autism. I did not ask whether high fevers in pregnant women cause autism but rather vaccines. definitions: cause: The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result. According to this exact definition by thefreedictionary, the opponent is required to prove that VACCINES are responsible for a result(autism) For the purpose of the argument below, assume that the opponent's argument is valid according to my debate topic: Common side effects of vaccines include: injection site reactions (pain, swelling and redness) mild fever. shivering. fatigue. headache. muscle and joint pain. Therefore, we can conclude that a more severe and rare side effect is a high fever. A pregnant woman would be required or strongly recommended to get these vaccines to protect her unborn child: Rubella, Hepatitis B, flu, and whooping cough. According to the opponent's source, high fevers were not listed as any of the side effects for any of these vaccines, but rather simply a fever. Because the fever was listed as a mild side effect, one can assume that it is a mild fever. The opponent's source does not claim that any fever in a pregnant woman is linked to autism, but rather a high fever. Source [1] states: Any medication can cause a severe allergic reaction. Such reactions from a vaccine are very rare, estimated at fewer than 1 in a million doses, and would happen within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination. Assume that a high fever is a severe allergic reaction. High fevers are said to be 103 F-104 F. If a pregnant woman goes against the odds and get's a high fever resulting from the vaccine and the baby gets autism, given the slim chance, the fever resulting from the vaccine CAUSED the autism, not the VACCINE itself. Since the source did not state that all cases of a high fever in a pregnant woman were due to the vaccine itself, it is safe assume that some of these cases are linked to influenza. According to the opponent's argument that the high fever resulting from the vaccine causes autism, would it also be safe to assume that high fever from the influenza virus is linked to autism as well? How about the fever as a result of a bacterial infection such as strep throat? Would that be linked to autism too? Conclusion: An accidental relationship is a correlation that exists without any causal relationship between variables. In this case, autism and vaccines are the two variables and there is an accidental relationship between these two. Does autism not occur in children at a very young age? About the same age that they receive vaccines? If so, it's entirely possible that these two variables have no real relationship and are simply coincidental that autism resulted after a vaccine. Below are credible, scientific studies that show that there is absolutely no relationship between vaccines and autism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... http://cid.oxfordjournals.org... 1.http://www.cdc.gov... 2.http://www.cdc.gov...

I Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Only the immunocompromised would be exempt from compulsory vaccines. "compulsory (k!5;m-p$5;lR42;sor-ē) 1. Compelling action against one's will. 2. Required."[1] "vaccine [vak-sēn"] a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases." [2] "immunocompromised [imR43;u-no-kom"pro-mīzd] having the immune response attenuated by administration of immunosuppressive drugs, by irradiation, by malnutrition, or by certain disease processes such as the viral infection that produces the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)." medical-dictionary [3] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I hereby state that the opinions stated below and the arguments presented do not necessarily dictate my personal opinions.As commonly proposed, democracy is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The basis of democracy depends on the effectiveness of the state to grant its citizens with the right to vote and the citizens to respect that right. Democracy exists on the notion that all the eligible citizens vote for a future that they would like to see. However, in many democracies, today, a decrease in this number of eligible citizens at the voting booths has been witnessed. This is why I call for voting to be compulsory in all effective democracies. I will first present a mechanism that will address the issues at hand. Then, I will refute the arguments presented by Con as I go through my first two arguments and get to any points of rebuttal left at the end. Mechanism: All registered voters will be asked to compulsorily cast a vote during the elections. However, for those who do not have a chosen candidate or do not wish to vote on the particular election, there will be an option to not vote which would say something on the lines of “I wish to abstain from voting”. Those citizens who are registered, but do not place a vote, will be withdrawn from the list of registered voters, until they register again. On the second time of registration, they will be fined a decently hefty amount. So, we are looking into a system where a onetime registered person will be expected to vote each election year. There will be an additional law added which will ask all employers to give a day off for each one of their employees such that workload does not become an issue of low turnout.Argument 1: A better distinction between the citizens. People who are registered voters have an interest in voting for the country. By mandating them to vote each year, we are keeping our responsible eligible voters active. The turnout rate has gone very low with unequal turnout also a big issue. However, what the status quo does not tell us is the real reason behind this low turnout. Once this distinction is made, the state will be more aware of their political institutions. This will then help them see if attention should be paid to improve the campaigning systems and the procedure of political election. If many people vote to abstain, then the state will have to make sure that the political leaders express themselves better and also will have to see that a diversity of principles are presented by the leading parties. Con argued that the registered voters not voting is mainly due to reason that they are “not particularly excited by any candidates, or because they are disenchanted by their favored political Party”. The best way to confirm this will be by asking these voters to show up at the polling stations and pick the option that says they would like to abstain. This practice will help us distinguish between the people who see the political parties of the particular year to be not legit from those who just do not want to make the effort to vote. There are many other reasons for which one may not like to vote. One, being diversion from the workload and other being laziness. To make sure that these reasons do not rule the low turnout, the proposed mechanism should be adopted. The lazy people will be ousted from the registered voters list and would have to pay a penalty if they want to vote the next time. However, some of these smart lazy people will be able to see that they could save a fine and the time spent on the process of registering by going to the polling station. And if they are just going there, why not have at least some information about the parties. This will increase the effectiveness of a democracy, which will be addressed in Argument 3. Argument 2: Unfairness abolished It is important to notice that politicians place a lot of focus on making sure that their supporters go to the polling stations and place their votes, without regards to those who would probably not vote. However, if the proposed mechanism is adopted and voting is made compulsory for all registered voters, politicians will now have to make sure that most of the registered voters vote for them. They will also have to focus on the hard labor workers who could sometimes not make it to the polling stations and those people who did believe that the parties were not any good this election period. Con argued that “the duties and rights of citizens are importantly different from those of their representatives, because the latter have powers and responsibilities that the former do not...Citizens do not owe their government electoral support or legitimacy.” This claim supports a system where democracy can never work effectively. Not only democracy, any institution cannot work without a mutual share of duties of the powerful and the ruled. The citizens do have a responsibility to vote, which in our system, could also be a vote of abstention. How can citizens expect to take advantage of a democratic institution without fulfilling their own job of placing a vote? Except those who have researched and did not get fascinated by a candidate, all the other citizens have a duty to keep tuned with the political parties and then make a decision. Secondly, Con emphasized that compulsory voting takes away the right of people to have a choice, which Con suggested was “the point of democracy”. I would like to also emphasize that in the proposed mechanism this choice of the people will be respected. They will be given a choice to vote or not and for whom to vote. The proposed mechanism will both support the rights of the people and ask them to perform their duties.Argument 3: Democratic Ideals promotedThis argument will be presented in the next round.Remaining rebuttals to Con’s case:Con was worried about the fines that will follow after people will not vote. Con was right to say that this would negatively affect the poor and may increase the number of criminals who owe fine debt. However, the mechanism clearly states that a fine will only have to be paid if one wishes to register again. This will work as an incentive for registered voters to not skip a voting period. And if for some reason they do, they will not have to worry about a fine until the next elections and will only have to worry if they wish to vote next time.None of the Con’s arguments so far have shown a downfall to the proposed mechanism for the motion at hand. The mechanism works really well to make a distinction between the citizens and find out the weaknesses of the political institutions of a state and also abolishes unfairness on many grounds. This is why I urge a strong Proposition vote.

"The bottom line is that the feds have given up without a fight and settled" No, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is whether that means anything or not. And I don't think you made any substantial connection at all. "the Autism rates are up about 10000% in just two generations- the rates are about 1000 times higher in vaccinated vs unvaccinates" Yes, but they fell ever since the mercury compound was removed. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... So this doesn't help your point that we should stop vaccinating our children. The vaccines may have been dangerous before, but they're fine now. "SIDS is UNKNOWN in unvaccinated infants, and is ALWAYS within 2 weeks of vaccinations being administered" SIDS is unknown everywhere. A British study showed that vaccinations may have helped to PREVENT SIDS though. And the chance of your kid dying from SIDS is lower than the chance of your kid dying from diseases that vaccines defend against. "there are 1000s of cases of children coming down with illness or being permanently retarded from massive vaccinations at a young age" Actually, there is no direct correlation. And even if it were so, my argument still stands. Vaccines are safe today. "my child was personally affected - she got ITP" I'm sorry, but I don't see the correlation and how you can assume that. "If youre such a medical expert (you are a LIAR just by your tag line and age) why dont you explain to me what ITP is and the causes and cures" In order for me to be a liar, I would first have to tell a lie, wouldn't I? I never said I was a medical expert Solarman. I'm just a pharmacy student with a pretty good grasp of Biochemistry. But I think this is what you meant http://en.wikipedia.org... Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura. No connection with vaccines at all. "If you cant , it proves youre just a government hack liar" No, if I can't, it just means I can't read your mind. "More government settlements to come More coverups to come More govenment lies to come DONT VACCINATE YOUR INFANTS ! you have been warned SOLARMAN" You're not a superhero. And I know who you are, you don't have to sign your name to look cool. Not that this matters, but the government doesn't make any money off vaccines. They lose money off vaccines. Why would they want to defend it? The compensation money doesn't come from deep pockets, they come from our taxes. They won't care about covering this up. There are plenty of other things the government covers up, with good purpose. Vaccine related illnesses aren't one of them. Besides, you still have yet to show that vaccines are still dangerous today. The data shows that the mercuric compound was removed, and the autism rates are dropping. I await your final response.

Your argument is invalid. First, you are using a source which does not state that the high fevers were linked to the vaccine itself. Second, the supposed link to autism due to the high fevers were not due to the vaccine itself, but the side effwcts of the vaccine. Consider this analogy: The increase in icecream sales leads to an increase of drownings. See anything wrong with this? Your statement is quite similar; it is not the icecream sales leading to the drownings, but rather a hidden factor, higher temperatures. This is an example of a hidden cause relationship. Now, we cannot assume that the vaccine itself is linked to the high fevers that is linked to autism. There are many factors that can cause a pregnant woman to get a high fever. Keeping this in mind, we do not know the direct cause of autism yet, and until we do, your argument is invalid.


Question: Should Certain Vaccines Be Mandated for Children?

Vaccines are linked to autism.
(Disclaimer: Despite my stance, I'm typically pro-vaccination. However, for the sake of argument, I've taken the opposing side to explore the strongest counterarguments against vaccines, which I believe can strengthen my actual position.) Although the scientific consensus and numerous peer-reviewed studies refute the connection between vaccines and autism, the pro-vaccination movement often oversimplifies this issue. There is indeed evidence that vaccines can cause autism or increase the risk of developing it. Reason #1: Studies linking vaccines to autism. Peer-reviewed research has established a connection between vaccines and autism, showcasing the credibility of these findings. For instance, studies have observed that mothers of children with autism have a higher percentage of dental amalgam restorations, which may contribute to increased mercury exposure during pregnancy and lactation, potentially leading to higher mercury levels in children with autism. Reason #2: Flaws in pro-vaccination studies. Pro-vaccination studies have been criticized for their methodology and potential biases, raising questions about their validity. These issues are discussed in detail in various sources.

The term 'medicine' means a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. This might seem like an abstract problem until you need to get medicine for your dying child. Perhaps your child is seriously ill because of a preventable illness; the medicine he/she needs is 2-3 hours away by foot; when you get there, there's no guarantee that the clinic will be open or have anything in stock. And even if you could get to the clinic and everything was available, how are you going to pay for it? Thousands of people in the rural areas of Nicaragua face this problem on a daily basis. One proposal suggests that community health workers (promoters) could receive a portion of the medicine fee for each prescription. In practice, this leads to extremely negative trends, as promoters are tempted to over-prescribe medications to get more money, and only the wealthiest members of the community could afford them. On top of all this, the poorest of the poor no longer have access to medicine. Obviously the best option here is to supply the medicines for free. Prescription drugs Prescription drugs are a major component of the overall cost of caring for the elderly. By some reports, persons sixty-five and older spend an average of over three percent of their income on prescription drugs. That percentage is even higher when over-the-counter medications are included. Reports show that more than 53.26% of senior citizens are below the poverty line.This means that over half of the senior citizens are not financially well-off. Cancer,heart and respiratory diseases and diabetes are the most common and killer diseases among senior citizens.Treating these diseases cost a lot of money ad again ,the best option here is to give away those medicines for free. Hence, I believe that medicines should be made free.

The resolution for those who can't quite understand the spelling of my "fellow" Brit; is should the subjects of Mathematics and English be compulsory for GCSE. GCSEs or GCSE equivilents as qualifications are mandatory for all students in the UK. Certain subjects are mandatory such as English and Mathematics. Con has the burden of proof to demonstrate why we should discontinue the practice of making these subjects mandatory.

I accept. Resolved: Should doctors be allowed to be allowed to give you vaccines? I'd like to note, of course, that my adversary misspelled "allowed" when crafting this resolution. "Aloud" is not a verb, and clearly we can draw "allowed" from this resolution and his opening remarks contextually. With that said, let's define "allowed": "to permit (something) : to regard or treat (something) as acceptable" [1]. Note that to allow is to permit, NOT to mandate. Simply because a doctor is allowed to administer a vaccine to a patient does not allow him or her to mandate it nor to require it. That is up to the patient. By prohibiting doctors from giving you or recommending vaccines, not only are you denying people the right to self-defense, but you are restricting freedom of choice. People should be able to do as they wish provided that they don't hurt others, so therefore patients should be allowed to accept or request from a doctor a vaccine. Not to mention, vaccines provide a substantive benefit to our lives in preempting harmful, vicious diseases. Con's opening remarks, however, are highly deceptive. First, allowing doctors to give vaccines does not require that patients, kids included, undergo it. Second, it isn't even a regular procedure, but even if it were, you're allowed to deny it. Third, especially in the case of kids, parents are making these decisions, and prohibiting doctors from giving vaccines is undermining parental authority, not to mention casting a blind eye to advancements in medicine. I'll pass back to Con at this moment, as he hasn't offered much substantive argumentation in Round 1, so I don't feel the need to go into more detail at this point. [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...

debate format: AC, NC, AR, NR, 2AR. INTRO: "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Because I agree with John Stuart Mills in believing that a government must secure the secure the safety of a majority of its citizens before an individuals, I affirm the following resolution. RESOLVED: PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS JUSTIFY COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATION RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS: Definition of COMPULSORY: Compelled; mandated by legal process or by statute. www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/glossary.htm Through this definition we still allow for society to keep it's free will and allow for exemption. Simply what will happen is the government will mandate the vaccination program to ensure that those who wish to be vaccinated receive the vaccination while those opposed and provide reasonable grounds to be exempt, can be. VALUE: My value for today's round will be that of societal welfare. Simply defined as the well being of a society in matters of health, safety, order, and economics . In May, 2008, Ambassador Dore Gold stated, "The Western world has developed an evolved understanding between citizens and the state. This, in turn, has allowed an evolution to take place in our understanding of the state's duty to protect citizens, with this now regarded as an integral part of the Western way of life. However, many countries have failed to develop a duty to protect. This means that when natural or man made disasters occur many citizens die unnecessarily." Because diseases can have serious symptoms that can result in the incapacitation or even death of a citizen, and can be easily spread, the government has a duty to vaccinize it's citizens for society's welfare. CRITERION: My criterion for today's round will be that of utilitarianism. Defined as doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Andrez Melansek, in 2004, states "Compulsory vaccination has eradicated or greatly reduced the impact of some of the world's most devastating diseases, such as small pox, polio, measles, etc. The numbers of people with the diseases decreased dramatically after the vaccine was introduced. With better vaccines, and more comprehensive and effective vaccination programmes, even more suffering and deaths could be prevented. Even if they do not trust their particular governments, people should believe the overwhelming weight of medical opinion and the backing of the World Health Organisation in favour of vaccination." Because these vaccines are doing so much good by either reducing the number of people with the disease or getting rid of it completely, we are achieving utilitarianism by protecting society and achieving societal welfare. C1: COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATION UPHOLDS SOCIETAL WELFARE The World Health Organization in 2009 states "Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and even eradicating infectious diseases. An immunization campaign carried out by the World Health Organization (WHO) from 1967 to 1977 resulted in the eradication of smallpox. When the programme began, the disease still threatened 60% of the world's population and killed every fourth victim. Eradication of poliomyelitis is now within reach. Since the launch by WHO and its partners of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in 1988, infections have fallen by 99%, and some five million people have escaped paralysis. Between 2000 and 2007, measles deaths dropped worldwide by over 74%, and some regions have set a target of eliminating the disease. Maternal and neonatal tetanus has been eliminated in 12 of the 58 high-risk countries." Because these vaccinations protect and maintain the well-being of the health of society, compulsory immunization would uphold societal welfare. C2: COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATION IS THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER David Satcher, M.D., in 1999 states, "Vaccines are among the 20th century's most successful and cost-effective public health tools for preventing disease, disability, and death. Not only do they prevent a vaccinated individual from developing a potentially serious disease, vaccines routinely recommended for children also help protect the entire community by reducing the spread of infectious agents. Childhood immunization has been one of the earliest priorities of this Administration. Under the Childhood Immunization Initiative, a wide range of efforts, such as outreach campaigns, disease monitoring and vaccine research, have been enhanced. Overall, immunization coverage among children in the United States is higher today than ever before. These high immunization coverage levels translate into record, or near record, low levels of vaccine-preventable diseases. For most of the vaccine-preventable diseases, there has been a 95 percent or more reduction in cases. This has occurred because States, Territories, and local governments have instituted effective immunization programs. Today there are far fewer visible reminders of the suffering, injuries, and premature deaths caused by diseases that can now be prevented with vaccines. So that we do not forget the past, allow me to share some examples:" Vaccines are protecting those who receive them, which helps to achieve utilitarianism C3: UTILITARIANISM ACHIEVES SOCIETAL WELFARE In 1905 there was a supreme court case on the issue of whether or not compulsory immunization was justified. Edward P. Richards gives a summary. "Mr. Jacobson believed that the scientific basis for vaccination was unsound and that he would suffer if he was vaccinated. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found the statute consistent with the Massachusetts state constitution, and Jacobson appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether involuntary vaccination violated Jacobson's "'inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as seems to him best . . . " The Court bifurcated this question, first considering the right of the state to invade Jacobson's person by forcing him to submit to vaccination: This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned."' (at 26) With this language, the Court stated the basic bargain of civilization: an individual must give up some personal freedom in exchange for the benefits of being in a civilized society." The supreme court believes that achieving utilitarianism to maintain societal welfare is one of the governments top priorities, even if it means that some rights must be sacrificed.

Amnesity international is a global group that fights to protect people against violated justice, freedom, and human dignity. They also claim we have the rights to our body without fear of coercion. It is for this reason and the following points I stand in the firm affirmation of the resolution that states "Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. My value for this debate will be that of autonomy and the value criterion I shall use will be that of hedonism. Autonomy: Immanuel Kant defines it as the right to govern oneself without unwanted outside interference Hedonism: the oxford english dictionary defines it as the ethical theory that pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of human life Adolescents: Merriam Webster defines it as a young person who is becoming an adult Rights: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines it as rights to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done Ought: The philosopher Hume defines it as "should we" instead of "can we" Contention 1: Past violations. USnews.com published a story on 1/22/2015. It states, "Only months before turning 18, a Connecticut girl has been told by her state's supreme court that she must undergo chemotherapy against her wishes. This court case was decided on January 8th. The girl was identified on court papers only as Cassandra C." I want to emphasis on the words against her wishes. This goes against her autonomy and this does not give Cassandra pleasure. This is why we need my value and criterion. Contention 2: Teens should control the medicine they take. Kidshealth.com is a website I recently visited. It is a website with a group of expert doctors and physicians. They try to help people of all ages with their problems and here is what they have to say. "Time flies. Before you know it, your 13 year old is driving with you 16 year old off to college. With adulthood just around the corner there is no time like the present to begin encouraging teens to take on the leadership roles in all aspects of everyday life." Contention 3: Who this affects. Teens. The University of Washington School of Medicine has a few things to say. I will keep it brief. Basically if a child disagrees with a parent they should take things seriously. The child is the main focus here. In conclusion I leave you with this. "A man is born alone and dies alone; he experiences the good and bad karma of his consequences alone; and he alone goes to hell or the supreme adobe." -Chenyaka

Education is a human right. It is also such an important right that it is not to be given to the parents. The reasons are that not all parents have their child's best interest in mind. For nowadays you no longer need just a high school diploma…it is essential that you have a college degree and just to get into a decent college you need to be on the cutting edge in your class. So if the parent's would rather have their child do something else such as working for there living than that would be horrible considering the fact that education is a catalyst for development. That is why it is so key to offer education to third-world countries—if it weren't, than why would we be constantly wasting our time? Thus, it isn't fair for a child who might yearn for the power of knowledge yet denied it because of their parent. It's the child's right to have the same stepping-stone that most of their peers will have. If a parent objects to the way the school system is run than they have a choice of home-schooling their child but if they are too lazy to do even that…then they don't care about their child and obviously incapable of making such a decision on whether or not their child should even have an education. A parent has a right to make adaptations to their child's education—share their beliefs, take an active part, choose the school, and the choice…but to deny it altogether is a risk for the future. It is like food—the child has a right to eat but the parent chooses what mainly goes in it. The child has a right to education but the parent may choose what mainly goes in it. This concludes my first argument, and I thank those who have taken the time to read this. I'm also sorry for the delay in this post.

Sorry but that is hardly a valid argument. Religion is a part of discipline? By that statement are you saying children need to be disciplined? Instead of treating them as people, you are suggesting they are treated like dogs, forced into submission with fear and promises of an afterlife. These are children we're talking about. If a parent fails to raise their child, they should turn to religion and fear? I do not agree. People deserve choice and open-mindedness, something religion often takes away.

I appreciate my opponent's response, and hope that this will be a fruitful debate. My opponent was quite ill, so I shall forgive his tardiness...this time... :) -------------------------------------------------------------- On the Standards Debate (Justice vs. Natural Rights/Preservation of Natural Rights vs. Achieving Herd Immunity) 1. My opponent has yet to give a hard and fast definition of our natural rights, with the sole exception that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is the document that lays them out. Therefore, the round will be dictated by the list that I provided in the AC: life, liberty, property, and safety of person. 2. Since I am arguing that what is "due" to people is their natural rights, we are both essentially striving for the same end goal in our standards. Hence, whoever can preserve those natural rights the best will win this round. 3. My criterion is precluding my opponent's standards, as well as any benefits he might be trying achieve in his case. Herd immunity, per the warrants in my case, saves the greatest amount of lives. Since being alive clearly precludes one's ability exercise any other auxiliary right, if I can prove that achieving herd immunity does not violate any essential, natural rights, I will this round. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Negative Case Responses Contention 1 Tag Line: 1. Cross-apply my contention 1, subpoint B to this tag and all its underlying subpoints. When an auxiliary right comes into conflict with another's natural rights, the natural rights will always be preferred. If one's religious doctrine gives one permission to kill anyone who does not believe said doctrine is true, my opponent is claiming that killing in the name of religious doctrine is 100% justified. 2. Cross-apply my entire contention 2 here, but especially subpoint A. This conclusively proves that those who religiously or philosophically object to vaccinations are in little to no mortal danger by being vaccinated. Hence, this proves that an auxiliary right and natural right are in clear conflict. 3. Extend my contention 1, subpoint C impacts here. My opponent is actually costing more natural rights than he is protecting them, in that a lack of herd immunity not only affects the infected individual, but easy affects other communities, cities, and nations. The only way to prevent these deaths (again, dead people can't exercise their individual rights) is to compulsorily immunize. Contention 1, Subpoint A: 1. By my opponent's rationale, we should also abolish traffic laws, as they are a product of a tyrannous state because they are mandatory. Laws in and of themselves are compulsory, even if they were instilled via popular consent (which not all of them are in just governments). My opponent assumes that a single directive constitutes a tyrannical government, when that is clearly not the case. In a democracy such as the U.S., that would make all executive orders signed by the president, or all acts of Congress not directly influenced by the population, acts of tyranny. 2. Cross-apply my contention 1, subpoint A here. The concept of liberty may not be violated if we are expected to live in a free and equitable society. Much like the US Constitution (if I may draw a parallel between a universal and non-universal document), the UN Declaration of Human Rights does outline basic religious and ideological freedom. However, these are not static rights. One may practice one's own religion until it comes into conflict with another's right to life or safety of person, for instance. Unless, of course, my opponent would like to also defend practices such as ritual human sacrifice. Another perfect example is the freedom of speech. I may say whatever I want, but I may not, to use a tired example, yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, as I would be actively violating other's right to life and safety. Contention 1, Subpoint B: 1. This subpoint assumes that religion has the right to freely exercise all of its doctrine in the first place, which is not true. 2. My opponent's card only deals with religious fundamentalists who do not represent the major body of religious persons in the world. Unless my opponent can prove that compulsory vaccination will end the world, the impacts won't outweigh unchecked pandemics. I doubt we are going to nuclear war with a terrorist organization about vaccines. 3. What he is suggesting is that, because a few fundamentalists may object to vaccination, we should disregard a policy that has the ability (as I've clearly shown in my case) to save millions upon millions of lives. By his rationale, we should also discontinue health and well-being projects around the globe, or anything that a fundamentalist would object to, for that matter. Contention 1, Subpoint C: 1. My opponent makes absolutely no link between Chinese suicide rates and compulsory immunization programs. He just states that societal upheaval leads to increased suicide, but can't prove that societal upheaval would ever occur to the extent of driving people to suicide. 2. TURN: with SARS, Malaria, Yellow Fever, Swine Flu, etc. affecting the largest population in the world, alleviating the rapid spread of infectious diseases amongst the Chinese population would do far more to stabilize the society than would a lack of vaccination. Look to the SARS panic of the past decade for all the evidence you need. Contention 2 Tag Line: 1. My opponent's card doesn't actually prove his subpoint at all. The card states that an undetermined number of elderly fell sick from a dose of flu vaccine. Nowhere does he warrant his actual claim, which is that people who are likely to die from vaccination are oftentimes not medically exempted. 2. My opponent's card is incredibly isolated. Since "compulsory immunization" does not imply flu at all, his warrants cannot outweigh those that I provide in the affirmative case. I have conclusive data and expert medical opinion which states that while, yes, there are some rare and serious risks, the benefits still far outweigh those harms. The affirmative readily acknowledges that vaccinations are not perfect. To reuse an earlier analogy, neither are traffic lights. Every once and a while, one might malfunction, allowing for a head on collision at an intersection. That collision will result in property damage, injury, and possibly the loss of innocent life. However, does that mean that we eliminate all traffic safety devices? Of course, the answer is "no." We don't eliminate those other public health preservation measures because every system has inherent risks. However, if the benefits outweigh the risks enough (which they do—check out my contention 2, subpoint B), then the measure is deemed justified.

Yes, sure they are trying to protect us- but really once you get to middle school you should be allowed to choose for yourself. Yes, mothers want us to be healthy but having some junk food for lunch at school isn't all that bad. It's not like its ALL the kids will ONLY be eating junk food all day. And with that I conclude, Students should be allowed to eat junk food at school to boost moral, make them more responsible, and learn to be independent.

Like I said before, public schools already offer various different programs. It is unnecessary for parents to send their kids to private school. If parents want their child to have a better education, they can pay for it from the different programs available. In argument 1, you said, "State schools are funded by the government. So children can easily get applied there, even children who do not want to be there." Well, putting them in a private school would prove to have even more negative effects. The child might easily be intimidated by other children, because private schools set a higher standard than public schools. Public schools do have specialized programs that are designed for children who are misbehaving. Teachers in private schools are more likely to ignore the troubles that other kids have, compared to their counterparts. Private schools also have no law that stops an untrained individual from being a teacher. You aren't guaranteed to have a qualified teacher in a classroom.


Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Pediatric Immunization?

Are vaccines safe for children?
Vaccines are indeed safe for children, as they serve to protect the body against various diseases. The way they work is by introducing a mild or similar form of the disease to the body, thereby stimulating the immune system to develop resistance against it. This ensures that when the actual disease is encountered, the body is already equipped to fight it off.

With the expansion and globalization of modern society, learning to communicate with others is crucial, especially in a diverse country like the United States. I feel that the current method of language learning courses in high schools is not enough and students should be immersed into more methods of language learning, especially early in childhood development so that by the end of high school, students would either be fluent, or at least at an intermediate level of fluency in a second language (or third if they already speak a foreign language at home). If necessary, parents should also encourage their child to learn more languages at home as well. From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English. If you disagree with my suggestion, please explain why exactly you do. Your argument must be logical and if necessary, please provide evidence to support your claims.

Education is a human right. It is also such an important right that it is not to be given to the parents. The reasons are that not all parents have their child's best interest in mind. For nowadays you no longer need just a high school diploma…it is essential that you have a college degree and just to get into a decent college you need to be on the cutting edge in your class. So if the parent's would rather have their child do something else such as working for there living than that would be horrible considering the fact that education is a catalyst for development. That is why it is so key to offer education to third-world countries—if it weren't, than why would we be constantly wasting our time? Thus, it isn't fair for a child who might yearn for the power of knowledge yet denied it because of their parent. It's the child's right to have the same stepping-stone that most of their peers will have. If a parent objects to the way the school system is run than they have a choice of home-schooling their child but if they are too lazy to do even that…then they don't care about their child and obviously incapable of making such a decision on whether or not their child should even have an education. A parent has a right to make adaptations to their child's education—share their beliefs, take an active part, choose the school, and the choice…but to deny it altogether is a risk for the future. It is like food—the child has a right to eat but the parent chooses what mainly goes in it. The child has a right to education but the parent may choose what mainly goes in it. This concludes my first argument, and I thank those who have taken the time to read this. I'm also sorry for the delay in this post.

The link you asked for: http://www.slate.com... You keep stating that religion is not true, and there is no solid proof that religion is true. I disagree. How do you explain things like the bible? Did someone just write that in their free time. Your point saying that religion isn't real is invalid, due to you have nothing that says religion and god isn't real. I'm also finding it a little sketchy that you're basing my arguments off of my political views. Yes, I am about as conservative as it gets, and I dislike the idea of abortion, but parents under United States law have the right to commit that act. So therefore just because I am con on abortion, doesn't mean I can't use it as an example. On your next point, "General Physician." I'm assuming that either a. you are atheist or b. you had some traumatic experience with religion. You say time and time again that these other things are more important than religion. In some cases I agree with you. I wasn't saying that a General Physician and Education were more or less important than religion. This all boils down to my point about a parents right to choose. A parent can choose to send their kid to school, or take them to a general physician. That boils down to their choice. They have the choice up until their child turns 18 or is emancipated from them, to make these decisions for their children. A parent ought to have the right to make the decision with religion. Not allowing them to is wrong, when we allow them to make other huge decisions for their children. You stated that children needed to think critically and analytically on a spiritual level. According to this: http://www.bbc.com... , Children are not able to function and make decisions such as these until they're 16. Therefore your statement saying that young children need to be able to think for themselves on a spiritual level is wrong. Another statement that you brought up that is incorrect as well, is the statement that those 34% of extremists cause violence. I disagree. Close to 1% of those extremists cause violence. Therefore, a statement such as yours is a lot wrong and I think you failed to look up the actual information. You can not prove that religion is a hypothetical thing. Thanks.

No parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate their children because they lead to autism

"The bottom line is that the feds have given up without a fight and settled" No, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is whether that means anything or not. And I don't think you made any substantial connection at all. "the Autism rates are up about 10000% in just two generations- the rates are about 1000 times higher in vaccinated vs unvaccinates" Yes, but they fell ever since the mercury compound was removed. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... So this doesn't help your point that we should stop vaccinating our children. The vaccines may have been dangerous before, but they're fine now. "SIDS is UNKNOWN in unvaccinated infants, and is ALWAYS within 2 weeks of vaccinations being administered" SIDS is unknown everywhere. A British study showed that vaccinations may have helped to PREVENT SIDS though. And the chance of your kid dying from SIDS is lower than the chance of your kid dying from diseases that vaccines defend against. "there are 1000s of cases of children coming down with illness or being permanently retarded from massive vaccinations at a young age" Actually, there is no direct correlation. And even if it were so, my argument still stands. Vaccines are safe today. "my child was personally affected - she got ITP" I'm sorry, but I don't see the correlation and how you can assume that. "If youre such a medical expert (you are a LIAR just by your tag line and age) why dont you explain to me what ITP is and the causes and cures" In order for me to be a liar, I would first have to tell a lie, wouldn't I? I never said I was a medical expert Solarman. I'm just a pharmacy student with a pretty good grasp of Biochemistry. But I think this is what you meant http://en.wikipedia.org... Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura. No connection with vaccines at all. "If you cant , it proves youre just a government hack liar" No, if I can't, it just means I can't read your mind. "More government settlements to come More coverups to come More govenment lies to come DONT VACCINATE YOUR INFANTS ! you have been warned SOLARMAN" You're not a superhero. And I know who you are, you don't have to sign your name to look cool. Not that this matters, but the government doesn't make any money off vaccines. They lose money off vaccines. Why would they want to defend it? The compensation money doesn't come from deep pockets, they come from our taxes. They won't care about covering this up. There are plenty of other things the government covers up, with good purpose. Vaccine related illnesses aren't one of them. Besides, you still have yet to show that vaccines are still dangerous today. The data shows that the mercuric compound was removed, and the autism rates are dropping. I await your final response.

More than half of pregnancies are unintended. (http://www.guttmacher.org...) These classes do provide some valuable information. I stated this in my first round when advocating everyone learn basic child health care and first aid. These classes should be voluntary instead of mandatory. In the U.S. some states require parenting classes for a divorce to proceed. Such a law requiring parenting classes would be unenforceable on ethical grounds. If the punishment should fit the crime what would the punishment be for failing to attend a class when the biology of the matter will still produce a child. Do we as a society take the baby away until such a class is completed? Surely not the punishment would be to harsh for the non-attendance. The requirement is enforceable in situations of divorce because the legal proceedings can be postponed until compliance is met. Our rights as citizens are being eroded away by big government. The right to rear my children as I see fit ((in the scope of not performing an illegal action)) are protected by the 14th amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I would see such a requirement in and of itself as a violation of supreme court ruling protecting the parental rights. Again how could it be enforced while preserving these rights. (http://www.kids-right.org...) "Parents have comparable interests under our state constitutional protections of liberty and privacy rights. "The right to the custody and control of one's child is a fiercely guarded right in our society and in our law. It is a right that should be infringed upon only under the most compelling circumstances." Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995) I see no compelling circumstance to require the classes. Additional education is not compelling. In no more that Driver Education classes are not required prior to applying for a drivers license. Certainly a lot of good information is in such courses and potentially could prevent many accidents. I argue driving kills more people than people having babies. The right to vote is applied to all adults naturalized or born in the U.S. If we review the many court cases and amendments to protect this right, we see the court so the potential abuse of government if voters were subjected to voting tests. The same slippery slope is analogous to government requiring such parenting classes. Where would the funds for mandatory classes come from. funds would be needed for materials and class worker. Consider the national birth rate just for the U.S. (http://www.babycenter.com...) 88 births for 1000 women in Utah. Combine this with 35 births a day. A classroom would have a steady supply of students and need full time support. I could not find any facts to support how much this would cost but given the history of government ran programs I can surmise it would not be cheap. To pass this cost onto the parents would be an exuberant charge for a biological fact of life. What about parents already unable to pay for basic care, Britain just released a news article that a 12 year old gave birth (http://www.independent.co.uk...). Do the tax payers pay for these incidents? The case for requiring parenting classes is unenforceable, unsustainable financially, encroaches on parental rights and is a slippery slope for government control. To those that choose to pay the cost the additional education is worth the price. But this should be voluntary for the masses.

Thank you for joining me. A. First, allow me to detail that which I agree with in your first statement. 1. Parents are responsible for their children. 2. Parents are responsible for teaching their children anything they don't learn in school. 3. Religious teaching is the responsibility of the parents. B. Now, I will detail two other points. 1. I am not arguing that a government should tell any parent how to teach their children. I am in favor of parents having the ability to homeschool their children. Although, I do recognize that a poor teacher is a poor teacher regardless of their relation to the student. 2. Also, I do not care if a religion has a process to confirm any of its maturing congregation. That is beside the point I am attempting to make. C. My point still stands. 1. Parents should teach their children critical thinking. It is the obligation of a good parent to ensure their children know basic decision-making skills. They should do this regarding all decisions, but especially questions which do not have absolute answers. 2. It is morally wrong to tell a child an absolute statement which in reality is a mere belief. 3. I think that it disintegrates the child's ability to make coherent decisions because the child learns to accept things without thinking them through.

Amnesity international is a global group that fights to protect people against violated justice, freedom, and human dignity. They also claim we have the rights to our body without fear of coercion. It is for this reason and the following points I stand in the firm affirmation of the resolution that states "Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. My value for this debate will be that of autonomy and the value criterion I shall use will be that of hedonism. Autonomy: Immanuel Kant defines it as the right to govern oneself without unwanted outside interference Hedonism: the oxford english dictionary defines it as the ethical theory that pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of human life Adolescents: Merriam Webster defines it as a young person who is becoming an adult Rights: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines it as rights to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done Ought: The philosopher Hume defines it as "should we" instead of "can we" Contention 1: Past violations. USnews.com published a story on 1/22/2015. It states, "Only months before turning 18, a Connecticut girl has been told by her state's supreme court that she must undergo chemotherapy against her wishes. This court case was decided on January 8th. The girl was identified on court papers only as Cassandra C." I want to emphasis on the words against her wishes. This goes against her autonomy and this does not give Cassandra pleasure. This is why we need my value and criterion. Contention 2: Teens should control the medicine they take. Kidshealth.com is a website I recently visited. It is a website with a group of expert doctors and physicians. They try to help people of all ages with their problems and here is what they have to say. "Time flies. Before you know it, your 13 year old is driving with you 16 year old off to college. With adulthood just around the corner there is no time like the present to begin encouraging teens to take on the leadership roles in all aspects of everyday life." Contention 3: Who this affects. Teens. The University of Washington School of Medicine has a few things to say. I will keep it brief. Basically if a child disagrees with a parent they should take things seriously. The child is the main focus here. In conclusion I leave you with this. "A man is born alone and dies alone; he experiences the good and bad karma of his consequences alone; and he alone goes to hell or the supreme adobe." -Chenyaka

Thank you for that round. My opponent claims "Parents CANNOT simply decide to refuse a medical treatment that is determined to be necessary and essential for their daughter by a physician (such as a medical abortion) (or in the case of this news article from this week, lymphoma) The judge will base this on the patient's wishes (decision) and the patient's best interest (health - regardless of parents choice)" My opponent would like you to believe that abortion is "essential" to the health of the patient. I do understand that children who are pregnant could face sever medical complications during their term, but abortion is just as dangerous. Abortions could leave to future ectopic pregnancies (a mother has a 12% chance of dieing in an ectopic pregnancy), women who abort are 50% more vulnerable to breast cancer, Abruptio Placenta which is when the sac holding the baby (the placenta) tears away from the uterine lining. This can result in extreme and severe life-threatening bleeding. Women who have experienced abortion have a 600% increase in their risk for Abruptio Placenta in future pregnancies, emotional distress including: * acute feeling of grief * depression * anger * fear of disclosure * preoccupation with babies or getting pregnant again * nightmares * sexual dysfunction * termination of relationships * emotional coldness * increased alcohol and drug abuse * eating disorders * anxiety * flashbacks of the abortion procedure * anniversary syndrome * repeat abortions * suicide Many of these women go on to report that they regret their choice and would do anything to go back and undo the decision that resulted in so much pain. ramahinternational.org/abortion_risks.htm So, a lot of harm is done by receiving an abortion. And judges (complete strangers) shouldn't be able to dictate to parents what is in the best interests of THEIR children. My opponent claims "you need to consider one thing, this is real-life, not a cliche made up world. you cannot say "parents know whats best" or "parents make decision for kids because kids cant make decisions" Well, I think that parents are certainly more educated in the field of abortion when compared to their teenage daughters. And even if that daughter consults with a doctor, that doctor cannot deny that teenage girl an abortion under law. If parents are permitted to, parents can. Opponent: "Physicians assess the capacity of their patients in every patient encounter" However, this is not mandated by any law. Which means their is no penalty for doctors who do not access the mental capability of their patients. And if it is not mandated by law, then doctors don't have to comply with that unwritten "moral code". Opponent: "as well, the following publication by the ACLU indicates that a minor patient can go against the wishes of the parents in regards to abortion" The ACLU? Please, you must be kidding me. The American Civil Liberties Union is of course going to favor the "Civil Liberties" of the mother. Opponent: "I will simply disagree with the PRO'S argument that parents can be better judges than physicians in regards to when a medical abortion is necessary to terminate an ill pregnancy that can physically harm the child. (physicians KNOW about the necessity of medical abortion more than parents)" The question of "necessity" is established above. However, parents know more about the morals and such they enforce in their home. And if they don't want their daughter to receive an abortion, she shouldn't.

For consistency, I've responded to his argument in the comments in the same place. On Standards: 1. Considering my opponent's response #4, you can ignore everything else he said about his value and/or criterion outweighing or subsuming mine, since he concedes that we are both essentially trying to achieve the same things, but just labeling them with different but philosophically synonymous terms. 2. What exactly a natural right is will become the crux of this debate, I believe. If the point of government in the first place is to protect its society as well as its individuals, there must be a balance between government intervention and individual freedom. The metric for this balance is explained in my first contention. Lest my opponent can prove that it is justified to take one's life involuntarily in order to respect the religious whims of another, you will prefer my interpretation of natural rights and vote affirmative. Bottom line: not every right outlined in a given governmental document, even the UN Declaration of Human Rights (DHR), is to be respected equally. My mechanism provides the most justice (as outlined on both sides of the debate), as it saves the most lives without totally eliminating other rights. My opponent can claim a perfect respect for religious or philosophical freedom, but kills millions in the process. Hence, natural rights should be only those that are most important to ensure a just existence. As outlined in Article 3 of the DHR, those are life, liberty, and security of person. Religious and ideological freedom, while important, are not irreducible at all times. Aff Case: His First Response to Aff 1: 1. Speaking of hyperbolic, let's throw the suicide capsule in that pile. My opponent has yet to even link his unrelated China card to vaccinations at all. Look to my contention 2 for proof of widespread safety and the benefits of vaccinations. 2. This is a straw man. One who objects to vaccines for any reason other than medical violates the principle of liberty, just like any person driving a car violates that principle if they choose to run a red light and put others in danger. 3. My opponent presents the alternative of "staying home sick". .. is that supposed to present enough solvency to answer the harms in my case? His Second Response to Aff 1: 1. My opponent gives a single example, ignores what I've said repeatedly about the danger of vaccines being extremely rare, and then states that doctors and nurses will be dying from vaccines at such an intense rate that none shall be left to treat all of us when we fall ill. Turn? Not so much. 2. Extend the impacts coming out of this entire contention, as my opponent has yet to say anything that will outweigh or counter my Parks card or the analysis in my sub C. Because pandemics spread rapidly and across countries, irrational vaccine fear costs millions of lives. 3. My opponent also effectively drops my sub B, which details why any exemption besides medical is unjust and a violation of other's natural rights. When he concedes this, he highlights his inability to achieve the standards set out for this debate. His Response to Aff 2, Sub A & B: 1. My opponent misses the boat with his argument about general populations and how I do, in fact, end up killing people at the end of the day. I will remind you of my traffic control device analogy. Every single measure of protection that a government can instill can cause the death of human beings. That does not automatically unjustify them. The negative is holding me to a totally unfair burden at this point. Since I prove clearly that I save far more people than the negative can, I am still winning the standards. Even if I can't protect every single life in the world with compulsory immunization, I still protect life way more than the negative does. If we are only affirming or negating based on who saves EVERY human life, then we've both lost this debate already. Neg Case: Neg 1 Tag: His Response to My 1: The right to practice one's religion, as I stated previously, is curtailed when it violates someone's right to life or safety of person. One cannot practice ritual human sacrifice, even if it is entailed in their religious doctrine, because it takes away the natural right to life. His Response to Auxiliary Rights: As I stated in a text message to my opponent, "auxiliary rights" is a descriptive term that I made up to encapsulate those rights which can be curtailed when they come into conflict with the outweighing rights I describe throughout. The term does not represent an offensive argument. Extend the cross-application, however, as that went unaddressed. His Response to My 3: This is a slippery slope argument disguised. My opponent assumes that all freedom of choice will go away with this particular choice eliminated. Not only is slippery slope a logical fallacy, but it is unwarranted entirely. Compulsory immunization programs exist in multiple countries already, including the U. S. for schoolchildren, and no such harms have been witnessed. Sub A: His Response to My 1: My analogy, being an example of autonomy compromised for the safety and health of the general public, is in direct correlation to our debate. Notice that my opponent calls compulsory immunizations arbitrary, but never defends that claim. On the contrary, they are just as arbitrary, according to my case, as traffic laws (which is to say that they are not arbitrary). If we maximize autonomy as my opponent suggests, than all laws which seek to protect the right to life or security of person should be abolished, as all of them compromise autonomy in some way. His Response to My 2: First of all, I can't make new arguments the first time that I respond to your case. Hence, it isn't even slightly new. Second of all, static and non-static rights are, again, descriptive terms for concepts I've already forwarded in my case. As to the actual argument made by my opponent, there must be a brightline if just governments are to exist. Practicing one's religion is not entirely compromised by requiring vaccines. Said government is never saying: "abandon your entire religion. " That government is saying that religious practices which hurt others cannot be practiced. Sub B: His Response to My 1/2: I did give reasons. Religions cannot practice doctrine which harms others. The metric is provided clearly in my case (with reference to all that stuff I said about the principle of liberty). The decision is made by this metric, which my opponent has yet to prove is unjust. Also, liberty has nothing to do with discriminatory practices against ethnicities. His Response to My 3: My opponent again assumes that all rights deserve equal and immutable protection, which they do not. If he feels this way, then he must object to all public health projects, as fundamentalist religious groups tend to object at different times and in different ways to every single one of them. Sub C: His Response to My 1: There's still no link to compulsory vaccinations provided. I get that societal upheaval can increase suicide rates, but there's no evidence to suggest that compulsory vaccinations will cause this upheaval. His Response to My 2: Again, no warrant here. My turn is more evidenced via the vast amounts of panic and media coverage that were given to the SARS outbreak in Asia, which would lead to societal stress and to the harms he outlines in his case. The idea of dying from a mystery disease tends to do that to people. On the other hand, that slippery slope argument is buried in here again, at which point you can cross-apply what I already said about them.