Why are mandatory medical procedures, such as mandatory vaccinations, immoral? Here’s one reason:
The scientific method is based on inductive reasoning, which is different than deductive reasoning in that the conclusion is not certain, but rather a generalization and probability based on the collected evidence. The conclusion of deductive reasoning can be certain, even if the conclusion is wrong (because it was fed incorrect premises), however, the conclusion of inductive reasoning will be on a scale of probability, and not certain. When a scientist says something, they are stating a probable conclusion based on the evidence and processes used, and not making a definitive statement. Therefore, to say that there aren’t any risks to a medical procedure does not align with the very nature of inductive reasoning, as inductive reasoning would say that while it may be probable that there aren’t any risks, it is not definitive.
To mandate a medical procedure based on a probable induction would therefore be immoral, because it violates their right to assess the risk to reward ratio, a person’s right to their own body, and their right to make choices that are best for their person and property. If they have underage children, these rights extends over them as well.
The mandatory vaccination argument is identical in form to the compelled speech arguments, and their end goal is also identical—the destruction of individual rights and liberties. In the mandatory vaccination argument, they are trying to protect immunodeficient individuals from dangerous viruses that people may unwittingly spread, and in the compelled speech argument, they are trying to protect intellectually and emotionally immunodeficient individuals from the dangerous ideas that people may unwittingly spread. However, what is actually happening in both cases is that they are robbing both groups from their ability to build up their own immune systems through the natural exposure to ideas / viruses, which would help them develop into healthy, functional, and mature adults.
Additionally, through their agenda driven programs of compulsion, they are actually causing the very immunodeficient individuals that they must then protect from harm. They created the problem, they must then protect the immunodeficient individuals they created by encroaching upon the rights of the healthy individuals that remain, which will in turn create more intellectually, emotionally, and physically immunodeficient individuals. In this way, they seek to gain total control over the hearts, minds, and bodies of the masses.
Compulsion in all of its forms is unnatural, as it seeks to place upon the individual that which goes against their own self-interests, usually under the guise of sacrificing for the “greater good”—this is immoral. In order to develop the proper defenses, we must be exposed to ideas and circumstances that are uncomfortable, and possibly even dangerous, so that we can take the risks necessary to fully develop into intellectually, emotionally, and physically competent and whole individuals.
We don’t need more safe spaces insulated from the real world, we need to provide a natural environment that enables people to gradually ingest and process risky ideas and experiences on their own. This will allow them to build up their immune systems to better deal with such things, which will in turn help them to grow into healthy, integrated, and responsible human beings. They need a correct balance of the freedom to set healthy psychological boundaries, which brings autonomy and safety, and the freedom to explore risky ideas and opportunities, which brings autonomy and liberty.
