Because it's a slippery slope and sets the wrong precedent. Who is to decide which should be forced, which shouldn't? Why stop at vaccines, why not "force" people stop smoking or drinking "for their own good"? Why not restrict other behavior that is obviously self destructive? I don't consider myself a libertarian but i can see what kind of issues can arise once we start "forcing" people to do things "for their own good".

When it comes to open and shut cases of public health such as vaccinations the obvious and certain public good outweighs the potential for the slippery slope which has a very small chance of actually happening.

That sounds like an excellent idea, why should we not stop people from smoking considering the burden it places on the healthcare system and the families of smokers?

aggressive anti-tobacco advertising is very effective and results are impressive. I would consider that option for vaccination before considering forcing people "for their own good"

This post was edited by 2sexy4u on Apr 30 2015 06:34pm

i'm all for freedom but people's right to live filthy disease ridden lives ends where the likelihood that they might infect someone else begins