If you want to do otherwise you will always have the freedom to do so. But according to the latest science, there is no publicly acceptable argument for going unvaccinated or for advocating against vaccinations.
I have a friend whose son is mentally handicapped, apparently [1] because, as an infant, his vaccination was both (a) done incorrectly and (b) massively overdosed.
I say this not to advocate against vaccination, but to remind that no medical procedure is without risk. Accidents happen, and there are also individual circumstances that would make some treatments unadvisable.
A statement as categorical and sweeping as yours is taking things too far.
[1] Nobody will ever be able to prove it, but the evidence is convincing to me.
UPDATE: forgot to mention about the (very small) inherent danger in using attenuated virus vaccines, such as the OPV (Sabin, not Salk) polio virus. It seems that in this case, it mutates and reverts to the virulent, paralyzing form in 1 / 750,000 cases [2]. This is tiny, but you can't categorically call it safe.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vac...
Any time you stick a needle into someone, you risk giving them a brain embolism. Life is risk. However vaccines are CLEARLY in the make you much safer part of risk, like seatbelts and washing your hands.
Even if your near-baseless statement of risk is accurate, it is clear that a non-vaccinated world is much riskier for children than a vaccinated one.
In one case, yes, but the danger of malpractice is certainly well known.
In my other case (iatrogenic polio), it's a very well documented effect. Virtually all polio in the USA since the 'late 60s (give or take) has been the result of this.
But in both cases, the risk is vanishingly small.
My point was that a statement like "stop whining: it's perfectly safe" is not correct. In the end, such hyperbole only gives the tinfoil hat crowd a toehold.
And again, using the polio example, an understanding of the tiny risk of iatrogenic polio can help those at particular risk due to immune problems to avoid what is a non-trivial danger for them.
And you're right, the risk of an ill effect is non-zero. That doesn't mean it's not safe, though. If our definition of safe means absolutely zero risk, then almost nothing is safe. Relative to most medical procedures, vaccines are incredibly safe.
I'm going to continue telling everyone I know that they should vaccinate their children because that position is supported by the best available science, and because the alternative is definitely not safe.
The US Constitution doesn't provide any mechanism for a public policy of vaccination (the existence of NIH, CDC, etc notwithstanding). While such a policy might be desirable, overstepping the extent of federal power granted by the Constitution would, in your Kant explanation, lead to a collapse of all Constitutional control [1]. That would be bad, so we can't allow the single transgression.
I'm in favor of getting vaccinated. I even ensure that I'm up-to-date on everything whenever I leave the country. However, our society is founded on individualist ideals. We are not communitarians or collectivists, and the fact that my action might not be optimal for the community as a whole does not constitute a rationale for controlling my behavior. This is why we tolerate free speech even from evil people; it's why we're willing to let some criminals go free in order to prevent punishing the innocent, etc.
[1] Not that this hasn't happened already.