a. We would like to thank the judge and our opponents for their presence at this debate today. We hope the debate will go well
b. In 2004 a healthy baby girl named Laura was born. At three months old she was taken to the doctor for a checkup, the doctor said she was perfectly healthy and the Laura was given her first two vaccinations. Later that night she had harsh reactions such as heavy urination, continual screaming, and the swelling and inflammation of the legs. The mother constantly called the doctor complaining about Laura’s reaction, but the doctor insisted it was normal. Little Laura didn’t last the night. The doctor went back and forth defending the vaccination and saying that she blamed the people who told her that the vaccination was safe. The mother was later informed by the doctor that another patient, an infant boy, had died after having the same vaccination as her beloved Laura. The doctor claimed that the baby died of SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, but two infant deaths after the same vaccination doesn’t seem coincidental. (Vhttp://www.rense.com/general57/ddee.htm)
a. We the con team, would like to negate the resolution that compulsory childhood vaccinations are justified
b. We will be defining the word vaccine as a preparation used as a means to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually containing a killed or weakened Bactria or virus.
c. Our first argument is the state does not have the right to force mandatory vaccines on unwilling citizens. Our second argument is that vaccines are morally wrong because some of them contain aborted fetus tissue. Our third argument is vaccines can horrible side effects.
a. Our first argument is the state does not have the right to force mandatory vaccines on unwilling citizens. The Deceleration states, ‘to secure these Rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever...