In a democratic society, there is no place for compulsory vaccination. We should have liberty to decide what is better for us without any pressure. We aren't cattle, we are human beings!
I copied this here in an effort to avoid a political sidetrack in the Coronavirus thread,
It's entirely possible for a democratic government to institute compulsory vaccination.
In the U.S. the Constitution grants individuals rights that cannot be violated by a democratically elected majority. If the legislative branch (democratically elected) passes a law that violates these rights, and if it is enforced by the executive branch (democratically elected), the courts strike it down on the basis that it is unconstitutional.
People have their own views on what is prohibited by the Constitution. This of course fuels debate. However, the courts ultimately decide this question. A subjective belief that a particular law violates a constitutional right doesn't control the outcome.
As of right now, there is no general constitutional prohibition on compulsory vaccination:
In the face of future public health emergencies like the Coronavirus, a precedential Supreme Court decision about the government’s power to protect citizens by quarantine and forced vaccinations could receive new interest.
constitutioncenter.org
That's not to say every single mandatory vaccination law that might be enacted would be upheld. The Jacobson case was based on the facts of the case.
A lot of public debate concerning one's liberty to decide appears to be policy based, not actual legal rights. In other words, a lot of the arguments are basically "I don't want the government to tell me what to do even if it's within the power of the government to do so." Making this policy argument to the legislative branch is perfectly legitimate, but there's obviously no guarantee it will be found persuasive.
I've noticed legislators will sometimes refer to a bill as being unconstitutional, or more generally as infringing on individual rights. These appear to be colloquial uses of terms. I doubt that the person making the assertion thinks that the law would actually be struck down in court. The argument seems to be that the constitution not only creates "hard" legal limits, but also provides general principles that should guide policy decisions.