The, Pro, And The Pro Choice

I have seen things on television and heard people talk about how mandatory vaccines are a violation of our personal liberties. On the flip side of that, if our children are properly immunized, we don’t have a constant threat of disease outbreak. Some of the controversy seems to be surrounding subjects such as how often to immunize, how young to begin, and how large of a dosage to give. I can understand many of the pros and cons and I find both sides intriguing.

Pro-choice describes political and ethical views that a woman should have the control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate her pregnancy. Pro-choice activists argue that an embryo has no rights as it is only a potential and not an actual person and its rights should not override those of the mother’s until after it is born. The right to choose to have an abortion is personal and essential to women’s lives and without this right, women cannot exercise their rights and liberties guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Without the right to choose an abortion the 14th amendment’s guarantee of liberty has little meaning for women. Another point made could include that a man can withdraw from a relationship when he finds out that his spouse is pregnant, it is only fair that women be given the same choice.

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics in society. Many people believe it is immoral while others believe it is a personal decision. An abortion is the “removal of of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy” (dictionary.com). On January 22, 1973, the U.S Supreme Court declared abortion legal due to the landmark Roe v. Wade court case (OBOS Abortion Contributors). The Supreme Court declared that women have a right to have abortions under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Pro-choice believers support the right to privacy and the idea women should have the choice to do what she pleases with her own body. For example; a woman is raped by a man and becomes pregnant with his child. She decides she doesn’t want to keep the baby; she has an abortion because mental affect her if she has to look at the baby of

While supporting the voluntary immunization for children and defending the right to have information regarding the risk involved with vaccines, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) oppose the elimination of or possible barriers of entry to obtain Non-Medical Exemptions. In an effort to reduce vaccine related injuries and/or death and support those who do not want to receive vaccines due to personal, spiritual, or religious beliefs, the NVIC supports the right to Non-Medical Exemptions. The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze the safety, efficacy, and economic burden of vaccines, as well as the right to choice in regards to Non-Medical Exemptions.

Recently an anti-vaccination movement has sparked a worldwide discussion about both the safety of vaccines and the responsibility of people to vaccinate. Recent outbreaks of preventable diseases have caused both fear and anger from people on both sides of the issue. These same outbreaks have also served to cause significant political tension between those against vaccines, who do not want their right to choose compromised, and many proponents of vaccines, who are calling for mandatory vaccinations.

Opel and Diekema (2012) say that the incidence of a disease or to develop a serious condition from the disease is not usually high enough to warrant a mandate for vaccination even though there is a general understanding that the risks of a disease outweighs the risks of the vaccine. I think that because there is a potential for harm to other children that no matter how high the incidence it should not be up to personal choice due to the harm principle. Opel and Diekema (2012) are still on the offence about mandating vaccines because they believe that it disrespects parental autonomy and their ability to make a decision for their child. However, the vaccine is there to protect

There is no doubt that vaccination has been one of the greatest successes of public health programs in the 20th century. Vaccinations have eradicated naturally occurring smallpox, and have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases that previously ravaged the population, such as polio and measles. Despite the successes, there has been a history of “anti-vaccinationists” in the U.S., who among other challenges, argued compulsory vaccination was an infringement upon personal liberty and their right to choice (1, 2). In fact, it took a Supreme Court decision to ultimately assert whether a state mandating vaccination infringed upon the U.S. Constitution.

Ever since the invention of the first smallpox vaccine more than two centuries ago, there has been plenty of controversy over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination and immunization. It has recently been argued whether laws should be introduced that render some or all vaccines obligatory for all children (Singer). Parents, health care specialists, nurses, teachers and children all have an important stake in this issue. Parents argue that it is they who should have the ultimate decision-making right on whether or not to vaccinate their children. Nurses and health care officials oppose that view on the grounds that by making vaccination rates in children incomplete, we expose all children to contracting the vaccine-preventable diseases. If this is a risk some parents are willing to take, but others face unwillingly, there is obviously a propitious platform for debate. It is in fact irresponsible and a violation of good citizen when parents oppose vaccinating their children. It is important to unify certain rules related to vaccination and not make it the prerogative of a particular public or private school to decide whether or not to accept an unvaccinated child. It would only be right to end all debate by passing a binding country-wide law to make certain vaccines (against

Today, thanks to state laws that required all children to be immunized before attending school, there aren’t many unvaccinated adults. However, there are individuals who still believe that vaccinations are not effective and may cause adverse effects. Although public health history has demonstrated the immense benefit of vaccines, compulsory vaccination is still not free of controversy. Thus, some states allow medical, religious, and even philosophical exemptions from immunizations (“Disease Eradication”,

In the past few years there has renewed interest in the whether all states should mandate mandatory childhood vaccinations for all children, except for those who qualify for a medical exemption. It brings forth the major issue of autonomy; of the parents right to choose versus the government right to protect its citizens. In recent years there have been reports about the rise in the number of new cases of vaccine preventable diseases e.g. Measles, Mumps, Pertussis, Pneumococcus. The major factor regarding parents refusing to have their children vaccinated is the belief or notation that vaccines cause autism and are harmful to children (Daum, 2014) (GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators, 2014)

In April, California’s State Legislature moved forward a bill that would make it mandatory for children enrolled in public schools to be vaccinated, regardless of religious or personal beliefs. If the parents still do not want to vaccinate their children than they must homeschool them. In return, this sparked a huge debate on whether or not the bill should be passed. Just like almost anything there are pros and cons for parents vaccinating their child(ren). Some of the pros being: vaccines can save children’s lives; they protect the communities that children live in;

In America, the popular belief is that people have complete control over their lives and make their own decisions. But yet, when laws are put into place requiring parents to give their children vaccinations, parents nationwide ignore the fact that they can no longer choose what they think is best for their children. Laws requiring vaccines causes parents to immunize their children with no choice in the matter. Instead of government laws mandating vaccinations for every child, parents should have the choice whether they want to immunize their children. Vaccinations should not be mandatory, as forced vaccines go against religious or personal beliefs, are potentially harmful to young children, and have biased rules and regulations.

Parents all across the United States have an issue with vaccinations for their children. Parents as of today do not have the option whether or not to immunize their children. These vaccinations are potentially harmful for children, but they also help and prevent life threatening illnesses. Parents should be allowed to choose to vaccinate their children because at times, the vaccine might harm the child, and because the parents simply just have right.

Imagine two children; one who has been completely vaccinated, and the other has never been vaccinated. Both children fall ill from the same virus, but the child who had been vaccinated fully recovers, while the child who was not passes away due to complications. That child’s life could have been saved if the child received the proper vaccinations. Ever since the invention of the Smallpox vaccine more than two centuries ago, there has been an abundance of controversy over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccinations and immunizations. It has recently been argued whether laws should be introduced that render some or all vaccines mandatory for all children. Parents, health care specialists, nurses, teachers, and children