The proponents of this motion say that vaccines are safe and one of the greatest and most significant health developments of the 20th century. On the other hand, the opponents argues that children’s immune systems can handle with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a fragile body may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death.
With that being said, should any vaccines be required for children?
This is a controversial notion that you raise. Another issue that the opponents might raise is that of consent. Yes, vaccines are safe and are a significant medical breakthrough, but does one deny a parent the choice of consent when one requires them to vaccinate their child? This can be closely related to the recent breakthroughs in the CRISPR-Cas 9 technology used for gene editing. If the researchers and scientists are able to make a breakthrough to discover a way to eradicate a disease and thus prevent it from being passed down to future generations, would parents then be required to have their children's embryos edited? What of those that don't believe in the ethical notions of gene editing? A parent should surely be able to consent, shouldn't they? But then again, a lot of countries require certain vaccines, almost entirely stripping a parent from consent of whether they are in agreement with the "insertion of foreign chemicals in their child's fragile body", as an opponent may put it.