Critique of Argument Assignment For my argument analysis, I decided to critique the argument that people, mainly children, should not be vaccinated. Here are a couple of excerpts that argue against vaccinations from ProCon.org:
• 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.
• The government should not intervene in personal medical choices. Medical decisions
…show more content…
It is true that the more you expose your immune system to foreign invaders, the better it will defend against them. The argument is true until the body is infected by a virus or disease such as the flu, an STD, chicken pox, etc. The truth is, vaccines have eradicated smallpox completely, and almost wiped out many more such as polio, measles and mumps. The argument is trying to make a case that putting your body in defense mode will help it fight off all infections and diseases, which just isn’t the case at …show more content…
The last argument looks at the outliers that have side effects, now these outliers should be taken seriously, as it is unfortunate that people die from this, but then again it is a one in a million chance. One in a million… This organization is trying to use these one in a million cases as evidence to not vaccinate people. In all seriousness, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that vaccines are 90-99% effective in preventing disease and it saves over 2.5 million children alone from preventable diseases every year. That stat right there explains itself. Another counter-argument is that side effects are extremely rare, with the most common being a simple allergic reaction in a couple hundred of a million