This topic is interesting for me because although I am terrified of getting shots, I understand the importance of their capabilities. In my opinion, it is amazing that doctors have come up with a way to prevent so many harmful diseases and it seems foolish to not want to protect a child from sickness. This is why I am curious to learn the opposing sides thoughts and beliefs that drive them away from wanting to take advantage of these medical capabilities. I want to understand how they justify being anti-vaccination whether it be for religious reasons, or if they don't believe that they are beneficial to one's health. I have heard of people not wanting to get certain shots because of potential side effects. But I can't imagine not taking the opportunity to protect myself from a disease just because of potential harmful side effects. I will be qualified to write about this controversy once I read and understand each sides argument on this particular subject. 

Article one works to outline both sides of the debate over making the HPV vaccine a requirement in schools, in order to help education officials, regulate the controversy within schooling systems. Major evidence for opponents of the vaccine is the fact that the disease it treats, is classified as rare. Major evidence for proponents is the vaccines success in preventing 4 HPV strands. This article mainly deals with issues specific to schooling aged students. Most of these students are under control of their parents and ultimately do not have the final decision on getting the vaccination or not. It includes issues mainly stemming from conservative parents. The article comes from a scholarly journal called the Journal of School Health which is a reputable source. Two of the authors that contributed to the writing have PhD's and are extremely educated professors who are able to contribute to the credibility of this source.

The second article asks if vaccines should be required and lays out both sides of the argument. Proponents argue that vaccines are safe and effective by using evidence surrounding the prevention of diseases like polio. Opponents argue that the immune system shouldn't be interrupted by foreign substances like a vaccine and they propose unproven evidence that immunizations cause issues like autism or diabetes. This article touches on every proponent of the debate and brings attention to all of the relating values. Some of these include infringement on religious freedoms, government intervention issues, and economic effects. The authors of the nonpartisan website make this article credible by stating the facts and history surrounding this controversy. The article is nonbiased on the debate and simply provides the information for one to base their argument off of. It equally states each sides arguments without including biased attitudes. 

The last source tells why there should not be a debate on this topic. It points out that there is no evidence linking vaccinations to autism. Also, scientists have been able to drastically reduce the amount of antigens in modern vaccines, which lowers their harmful side effects. And it provides statistical data proving the effectiveness of vaccines. This article emphasizes the validity of science in this debate. It says that science is the only valid argument on deciding whether or not vaccines should be required. Opponents of this sources argument would include only people who would overlook the scientific facts that prove vaccinations are safe and effective. This source is a well respected news website and the author is a certified pediatrician, making this a credible form of information. The author is extremely biased on the pro vaccination side of this debate. He is clear on his stance and he disregards any opposing views by stating that scientific evidence trumps any other argument.

What makes this research question arguable is the fact that it creates two opposing sides. People can either argue for or against making vaccines a requirement. Each side has numerous arguments to explain their point of view. Most of the arguments supporting the pro-vaccination side include medically based evidence. The arguments that are anti-vaccination tend to have more variety, including moral, political, and religious reasoning. The pro-vaccination perspective helps to solidify my stance on the health benefits of vaccinations. The medical evidence confirms my thoughts that there are no bad side effects major enough to outweigh the benefits of getting vaccinated. Although the anti-vaccination perspective does not sway my beliefs, it does help to inform me on the other sides points of view. I am now able to understand why anybody would argue against getting vaccinated.

