Should Abortion Be Legal?: Pros & Cons

The debate over whether or not abortion should be a legal option continues to divide Americans long after the US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe c. Wade declared the procedure a “fundamental right” on January 22, 1973.

Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice, contend that choosing abortion is a woman’s right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or fetus. They say that pregnant women will resort to unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.

Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, contend that personhood begins at conception, and therefore an abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to adopt.

Pro: The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a “fundamental right” guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on January 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives “a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy,” and that “This right of privacy… is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Con: Abortion is murder. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted “to protect unborn children from assault and murder,” states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should “be punished…for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.” The act also states that an unborn child is a “member of the species homo sapiens.” At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws.

Pro: Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies. The choice over when and whether to have children is central to a woman’s independence and ability to determine her future. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon “a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus enjoy equal citizenship stature.” CNN senior legal analyst Jeffery Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was “a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women’s liberation.”

Con: Life begins at conception, so unborn babies are human beings with a right to life. Upon fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. Jerome Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome, stated that “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion… The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”

Pro: Personhood begins after a fetus becomes “viable” (able to survive outside of the womb) or after birth, not at conception. Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person’s age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn.”

Con: Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explains that the “most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex,” is developed by eight weeks gestaton, and adds that “There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester.” According to Kanwaljeet J.S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, “If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.” Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late term abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12 week old fetus, “We see [in an ultrasound image] the child’s mouth open in a silent scream… This is the silent scream of a child threatens imminently with extinction.”

Pro: Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed. According to a 2010 review by Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception.” The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus’ development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed n 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologsts, which stated that there is “no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain” A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said that fetuses probably can’t feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation. Abortions that late into a pregnancy are extremely rare and often restricted by state laws. According to Stuart W. G Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham “…fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur. The “flinching” and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or “feeling” anything.

Con: Abortion is the killing of a human being, which defies the word of God. The Bible does not draw a distinction between fetuses and babies: the Greek word brephos is used in the Bible to refer to both an infant and an unborn child. By the time a baby is conceived, he or she is recognized by God, as demonstrated in Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sacrificed thee…” The Sixth Commandment of the Bible’s Old Testament, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) applies to all human beings, including unborn babies. In the Hindu religion, the holy text Kaushitaki Upanishad states that abortion is an equivalent misdeed to killing one’s own parents. The BBC states that “Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a life.”

Pro: Access to legal, professionally performed abortions reduces maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. According to Daniel R. Mishell, Jr., MD, Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, before abortion was legalized women would frequently try to induce abortions by using coat hangers, knitting needles, or radiator flush, or by going to unsafe “back-alley” abortionists. In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions. By 1976, after Roe v. Wade had legalized abortion nationwide, this number has dropped to two. The World Health Organization estimated in 2004 that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult to access.

Con: The decision in Roe v. Wade was wrong and should be overturned. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that the right to privacy defended in Roe v. Wade is “utterly idiotic” and should not be considered binding precedent: “There is no right to privacy [in the US Constitution]” In his dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that an abortion “is not ‘private’ in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the ‘privacy’ that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from seaches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constition…” Furthermore, the 14th Amendment bars states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court overreached in Roe v. Wade when it excluded unborn children from the class of “persons.”

Pro: Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not cause lasting health issues such as cancer and infertility. A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jaunary 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications. A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman’s risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that “pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.” The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated “Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States.” They also said the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. The National Cancer Institute, The American Cancer Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all refuted the claim that abortion can lead to a higher probability of developing breast cancer. A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at least two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies.

Con: Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2008 peer-reviewed study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health found that “Young adult women who undergo… abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression.” A peer-reviewed 2005 study published in BMC Medicine found that women who underwent an abortion had “significantly higher” anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale up to five years after the pregnancy termination. A 2002 peer-reviewed study published by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term. An April 1998 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study of men whose partners had abortions found that 51.6% of the men reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression.

Pro: Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A September 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women who were denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions “felt more regret and anger” and “less relief and happiness” than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions “felt it was the right decision” a week after the procedure. Studies by the American Psychological Association; the Academy of medical Royal Colleges, and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded.

Con: Selective abortion based on genetic abnormalities (eugenic termination) is overt discrimination. Physical limitations don’t make those with disabilities less human. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provides civil rights protection to people born with disabilities so they can lead fulfilling lives. The National Down Syndrome Society states that “people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants n the educational, vocational, social, and recreational activities of the community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways.” The increase in abortions of babies with Down syndrome (over 80% of women choose to abort Down syndrome babies) reduced the Down syndrome population by 15% between 1989 and 2005.

Pro: Abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term. Some fetuses have such severe disorders that death is guaranteed before or shortly after birth. These include anencephaly, in which the brain is missing, and limb-body wall complex, in which organs develop outside the body cavity. It would be cruel to force women to carry fetuses with fatal congenital defects to term. Even in the case of nonfatal conditions, such as Down syndrome, parents may be unable to care for a severely disabled child. Deborah Anne Driscoll, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, said “many couples… don’t have the resources, don’t have the emotional stamina, don’t have the family support [to raise a child with Down syndrome].”

Con: Women should not be able to use abortion as a form of contraception. It is immoral to kill an unborn child for convenience. The Guttmacher Institute reported that half of all women having abortions every year have had at least one previous abortion, while 8.5% of abortions reported to the CDC in 2010 were undergone by women who had three or more previous abortions. This suggests that many women are using abortion as a contraceptive method. Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt, PhD, wrote that after abortion was legalized, “Conceptions rose by nearly 30%, but births actually fell by 6%, indicating that many women were using abortion as a method of birth control, a crude and drastic sort of insurance policy.”

Pro: Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the ‘turnaways’ ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with the 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence.

Con: If women become pregnant, they should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child. People need to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. Having sexual intercourse, even when contraceptive methods are used, carries with it the risk of a pregnancy. The unborn baby should not be punished for a mistake made by adults. If women are unprepared to care for their children, they should at least put them up for adoption.

Pro: Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage. Many women who choose abortion don’t have the financial resources to support a child. 42% of women having abortions are below te federal poverty level. A September 2005 survey in the peer-reviewed Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health asking women why they had an abortion found that 73% of respondents said they could not afford to have a baby, and 38% said giving birth would interfere with their education and career goals. An October 2010 University of Massachusetts at Amherst study published in the peer-reviewed American Sociological Review found that women at all income levels earn less wen they have children, with low-wage workers being most affected, suffering a 15% earnings penalty.

Con: Abortion promotes a culture in which human life is disposable. The legalization of abortion sends a message that human life has little value. Pope Francis condemned “the throwaway culture” in January 2014, stating that “what is thrown away is not only food and dispensable objects, but often human beings themselves who are discarded as ‘unnecessary’. For example, it is frightful even to think there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day…” House Representative Randy Hultgren (R-IL) wrote in January 2014 that “When we tell one another that abortion is okay, we reinforce the idea that human lives are disposable, that we can throw away anything or anyone that inconveniences us.”

Pro: A baby should not come into the world unwanted. Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preperation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended.

Con: Allowing abortion with the unalienable right to life recognized by the Founding Fathers of the United States. The Declaration of Independence states that “[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Abortion takes away from the unalienable right to life that the Founding Fathers intended for all human beings.

Pro: Abortion reduces welfare costs to taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan federal agency, evaluated a proposed anti-abortion bill that would ban all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and found that the resulting additional births would increase the federal deficit by $225 million over nine years, due to the increased need for Medicaid coverage. Also, since many women seeking late-term abortions are economically disadvantaged, their children are likely to require welfare assistance.

Con: Abortion eliminates the potential societal contributions of a future human being. According to Heisman Trophy-winning football player Tim Tebow, “the reason I’m here” is because his mother ignored the advice of doctors who recommended an abortion. It has also been reported that the mothers of entertainers Celine Dion, Cher, and Justin Bieber were either advised to have abortions or were considering the procedure, but chose to give birth to their babies instead.

Pro: Abortion reduces crime. According to a study co-written by Steven D. Levitt, PhD, and published in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics, “legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions.” Around 18 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop abruptly, and crime rates dropped earlier in states that allowed abortion earlier. Because “women who have abortions are the most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity,” and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortions.

Con: Abortion may lead to future medical problems for the mother. A June 2003 study published by the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology estimated that about 15% of first-trimester miscarriages are attributed to a prior history of induced abortion, and stated that “Induced abortion by vacuum aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first-trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy.”

Vaccinating Children: Pro & Con Arguments

Whether or not it should be required that children receive vaccines and whether or not vaccines are safe has been the subject of a lot of debate from a lot of people. Some people believe children should have to be vaccinated, that it’s irresponsible and dangerous not to vaccinate. Some people believe vaccines cause more harm than good and that they can cause many health problems.

I’m going to talk about the pros and cons of vaccinations. Why people say vaccinations should be required and why people say they shouldn’t. 10 pros and 9 cons. You can read through the pros and cons and decide for yourself which side is the right side.

Pro: Vaccines can save children’s lives. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that “most childhood vaccines are 90%-99% effective in preventing disease.” According to Shot@Life, a United Nations Foundation partner organization, vaccines save 2.5 million children from preventable diseases every year, which equates to roughly 285 children saved every hour. The CDC estimated that 732,000 American children were saved from death and 322 million cases of childhood illness were prevented between 1994 and 2014 due to vaccination. The measles vaccination has decreased childhood deaths from measles by 74%.

Con: Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects. According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction in about one per million children. 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. Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. 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-Barre Syndrome, a disorder in which the person’s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system. The National Vaccine Information Center says that vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities.

Pro: The ingredients in vaccines are safe in the amounts used. Ingredients, such as thimerosal, formaldehyde, and aluminum, can be harmful in large doses but they are not used in harmful quantities in vaccines. Children are exposed to more aluminum in breast milk and infant formula than they are exposed to in vaccines. Paul Offt, MD, notes that children are exposed to more bacteria, viruses, toxins, and other harmful substances in one day of normal activity than are in vaccines. With the exception of inactivated flu vaccines, thimerosal has been removed or reduced to trace amounts in vaccines for children under 6 years old. The FDA requires up to 10 or more years of testing for all vaccines before they are licensed, and then they are monitored by the CDC and FDA to make sure the vaccines and the ingredients in the vaccines are safe.

Con: Vaccines contain harmful ingredients. Some physicians believe thimerosal, an organic mercury compound found in trace amounts of one flu vaccine for children and other vaccines for adults, is linked to autism. Aluminum is used in some vaccines and excess aluminum in human bodies can cause neurological harm. Formaldehyde, also found in some vaccines, is a carcinogen, and, according to VaxTruth.org, exposure can cause side effects such as cardiac impairment, central nervous system depression, “changes in higher cognitive functions”, coma, convulsions, and death. Glutaraldehyde, a compound used to disinfect medical and dental equipment, is used in some DTaP vaccines and exposure can cause asthma and other respiratory issues. Some polio, TD, and DTaP vaccines contain 2-phenoxyethanol, an antibacterial tht is a skin and eye irritant that can cause headache, shock, convulsions, kidney damage, cardiac and kidney failure, and death.

Pro: Major medical organizations state that vaccines are safe. These organizations include: CDC, FDA, Institute of Medicine, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, UNICEF, US Department of Health and Human Services, World Health Organization, Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Pediatric Society, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, and American Academy of Family Physicians. The WHO states, “Vaccines are very safe.” The US Department of Health and Human Services states, “Vaccines are some of the safest medical products available.”

Con: The government should not intervene in personal medical choices. Medical decisions for children should be left to the parents or caregivers. Barbara Low Fisher, Co-founder of National Vaccine Information Center stated, “If the State can tag, track down, and force citizens against their will to be injected with biological products of known and unknown toxicity today, there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.” Ron Paul, MD, former US Representative (R-TX), in an October 19, 2011 article, “Government Vaccines – Bad Policy, Bad Medicine,” stated, “intimately personal medical decisions should not be made by government… Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.”

Pro: Adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare. The most common side effect of vaccines, anaphylaxis, occurs in one per several hundred thousand to one per million vaccinations. According to Sanjay Gupta, Chief Medical Correspondent for CNN and practicing neurosurgeon, “you are 100 times more likely to be struck by lightening than to have a serious allergic reaction to the vaccine that protects you against measles.” Ellen Clayton, MD, JD, Professor of Pediatrics and Law at Vanderbilt Law School and co-author of the 2011 IOM report “Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines,” summarized the results of the report: “The MMR vaccine does not cause autism… The MMR and DTaP do not cause Type 1 diabetes. And the killed flu vaccine does not cause Bell’s palsy, and it does not trigger episodes of asthma.” Combination vaccines, like MMR, have been used without adverse effects since the mid-1940s.

Con: Mandatory vaccines infringe upon constitutionally protected religious freedoms. Several religions oppose vaccines and mandatory vaccinations. The First Amendment of the US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the ruling for Cantwell v. Connecticut (1939; 9-0), the US Supreme Court held that state and local governments’ infringement upon religious freedoms is also unconstitutional. Some Christian Scientists consider vaccinations against their religion because founder Mary Baker Eddy stated that the “calm, Christian state of mind is better preventative of contagion than a drug, or any other possible sanative method… the ‘perfect Love’ that ‘casteth out fear’ is a sure defense.” Amish communities do not view all vaccinations as “necessary” and some believe that vaccinations weaken the immune system. The Church of Illumination states that “the teachings of the Church unequivocally affirm that injections of vaccines and inoculations are a violation of these biblical teachings… Immunizations and vaccinations are a form of blood pollution because they have devastating effects on the regeneration of the soul that each Church member seeks to attain.” The Universal Family Church believes that parents should decide whether their children should be vaccinated and that “God intends the health decisions of individuals should… be honored by all authorities.”

Pro: Vaccines protect the “herd”. Herd immunity (or community immunity) means that when a “critical portion” (the percent of people who need to be vaccinated to provide herd immunity) of population is vaccinated against a contagious disease it is unlikely that an outbreak of the disease will occur so most members of the community will be protected. Children and adults who cannot be vaccinated due to age, poor health, or other reasons rely on herd immunity to prevent contraction of vaccine-preventable diseases. A January 2008 outbreak of measles in San Diego, CA resulted in 48 children who had to be quarantined because they were too young to be vaccinated and could not rely on herd immunity to keep them safe. In 2011, 49 US states did not meet the 92-94% herd immunity threshold for pertussis (whooping cough), resulting in a 2012 outbreak that sickened 42,000 people and was the biggest outbreak since 1955. In 2005, an 18-month old Amish girl contracted polio and spread the disease to four other unvaccinated children, but, because the community met the herd immunity threshold for the disease, there was no polio outbreak.

Con: Vaccines can contain ingredients some people consider immoral or otherwise objectionable. Some DTaP/IPV/Hib combination, Hep A/Hep B combination, HepA, MMR, and chicken pox vaccines are cultivated in cells from two fetuses aborted in the 1960s (listed as MRC-5 and WI-38 on package inserts). The Catholic Church, in a June 9, 2005 report about using vaccines made using cells from aborted fetuses, indicated that “there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines” to avoid  the “evil” of actively or passively participating in anything that involves voluntary abortion. Some vaccines for DTaP, Hep A, RV, Hib, HPV, IPV, flu, MMR, and chicken pox are made using animal products like chicken eggs, bovine casein, insect cells, Cocker Spaniel cells, pig gelatin, and cells from African Green monkeys, making those vaccines conflict with some vegetarian and vegan philosophies. Others consider it problematic that some vaccines are produced using human albumin, a blood plasma protein.

Pro: Vaccines save children and their parents time and money. Vaccines cost less in time and money to obtain than infectious diseases cost in time off work to care for a sick child, potential long-term disability care, and medical costs. For example, children under five with the flu are contagious for about eight days, and, according to a 2012 CDC study, cost their parents an average of 11 to 73 hours of wages (about $222 to $1,456) and $300 to $4,000 in medical expenses. Children with rotavirus are contagious for up to 30 days. A January 2008 outbreak of measles in San Diego, CA resulted in 11 unvaccinated children catching measles and a resulting net public-sector cost of $10,376 per case (or, $123,512 total) due to emergency vaccination and outbreak response. Furthermore, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act many vaccinations are available to children and adults without copay.

Con: Vaccines are unnatural, and natural immunity is more effective than vaccination. Even pro-vaccine organizations state that natural vaccination causes better immunity. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia notes that “It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines occurs only after several doses.” Mayo Clinic states that natural infection “often provides more complete immunity than a series of vaccinations.” Kurt Perkins, DC, a chiropractor and wellness expert, stated, “A vaccine violates all laws of natural immune defenses by taking a potential pathogen along with all the toxic ingredients directly into your blood system. This process would never occur in building natural immunity. The last sentence is kind of an oxy-moron. Immunity is a natural thing. Vaccines are an artificial thing.”

Pro: Vaccines protect future generations. Vaccinated mothers protect their unborn children from viruses that could potentially cause birth defects, and vaccinated communities can help eradicate diseases for future generations. Before the rubella vaccine was licensed in 1969, a global rubella outbreak caused the deaths of 11,000 babies and birth defects in 20,000 babies between 1963 and 1965 in the United States. Women who were vaccinated as children against rubella have greatly decreased the chance of passing the virus to their unborn or newborn children, eliminating birth defects such as heart problems, hearing and vision loss, congenital cataracts, liver and spleen damage, mental disabilities, associated with the disease.

Con: The pharmaceutical companies, FDA and CDC should not be trusted to make and regulate safe vaccines. The primary goal of pharmaceutical companies is to sell drugs and make a profit. William Posey, Congressman (R-FL), stated in an April 8, 2014 interview, “The incestuous relationship between the public health community and the vaccine makers and government officals should not be allowed to continue. I mean, you know, too many top CDC personnel go to work for the vaccine makers when they leave. That’s a revolving door that creates a serious conflict of interests and perverts incentives that compromise integrity.” Julie Gerberding, President of Merck Vaccines, was the CDC director from 2002-2009. A vaccine for Lyme disease, LYMErix, was licensed by the FDA and marketed for almost four years before being pulled from the market after several class action lawsuits were filed due to a potential causal relationship to autoimmune arthritis. Rotashield, a vaccine for RV, was pulled from from the market by the manufacturer nine months after it was introduced after it was discovered that the vaccine might have contributed to higher instances of bowel obstruction.

Pro: Vaccines eradicated smallpox and have nearly eradicated other diseases such as polio. Children are no longer vaccinated against smallpox because the disease no longer exists due to vaccination. The last case of smallpox in the US was in 1948; the last cause in the world was in 1977 in Somalia. In the twentieth century, there were 16,316 deaths from polio and 20,004 deaths from smallpox yearly in the United States; in 2012 there were no reported cases of polio or smallpox. According to UNICEF, there were 500 cases of polio worldwide in 2014 (appearing only in three countries: Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan), down from 350,000 cases in 1988, thanks to vaccination programs. Diphtheria killed 21,053 people yearly, rubella killed 47,745 people yearly, and Hib killed 20,000 people yearly in the twentieth century United States. By 2012 each of these diseases were decreased by 99% because of vaccination.

Con: Diseases that vaccines target have essentially disappeared. There is no reason to vaccinate against diseases that no long occur in the US. The CDC reported no cases or deaths from diphtheria between 2003 and 2011 in the US. Fewer than 51 cases and 10 deaths per year from tetanus were reported between 1994 and 2011. Polio has been declared eradicated in the US since 1979. There have been fewer than 21 deaths yearly from rubella since 1971 and fewer than 25 deaths yearly from mumps since 1968.

Pro: Vaccine-preventable diseases have no disappeared so vaccination is still necessary. The CDC notes that many vaccine-preventable diseases are still in the US or “only a plane ride away”. Although the paralytic form of polio has largely disappeared thanks to vaccination, the virus still exists in countries like Pakistan where there were 93 cases in 2013 and 71 in 2014 as of May 15. The polio virus can be incubated by a person without symptoms for years; that person can then accidentally infect an unvaccinated child or adult in whom the virus can mutate into its paralytic form and spread among unvaccinated people. Unvaccinated Amish missionaries who traveled to the Philippines brought measles back to Ohio in May 2014, resulting in 155 infected people as of June 5, 2014. There were 9,149 confirmed and 31,508 suspected cases of measles in the Philippines between January 1 and May 20, 2013. In 2004, there were 37 cases of measles in the US; in 2014, by May 30, there were 16 measles outbreaks in the US resulting in at least 334 cases in 18 states. UNICEF reported that, globally, 453,000 children die from rotavirus, 476,000 die from pneumococcus, 199,000 die from Hib, 195,000 die from pertussis, 118,000 die from the measles, and 60,000 die from tetanus each year, all vaccine preventable diseases.

Con: Most diseases that vaccines target are relatively harmless in many cases, thus making vaccines unnecessary. The chickenpox is often just a rash with blisters and can be treated with acetaminophen, cool compress, and calamine lotion. The measles is normally a rash accompanied by a fever and runny nose and can be treated with rest and fluids. Rubella is often just a virus with a rash and low fever and can be treated with acetaminophen. Rotavirus can normally be treated with hydration and probiotics.

Pro: Vaccines provide economic benefits for society. The CDC estimates that children vaccinated between 1994 and 2014 have yielded net savings of $1.38 trillion in “societal costs,” including money saved by preventing lost productivity due to disability and early death. The US saves about $27 per $1 invested in DTaP vaccination, and $13 per $1 spend on MMR vaccination. UNICEF estimates that $6.2 billion could be saved in treatment costs if vaccines were more prominent in the world’s poorest countries. According to the Internation Vaccines Access Center at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, $62.9 billion could be saved by providing Hib, pneumococcal, and rotavirus vaccinations to the 73 poorest countries: $1.4 billion in treatment costs, $300 million in lost caretaker wages, $6.2 billion in lifetime productivity loss due to disability, and $55 billion in lifetime productivity loss because of death.