> One mandate requires an individual to take risk against their will?

The vaccinations being required provably decrease death rates, which sounds a lot like the opposite of taking a risk.

It's also worth noting that this is not a true mandate. Like how DUI laws only apply to people who choose to drive, vaccines are simply the cost of entry to the public school system.

> do you see a difference between government mandating vaccinations and government mandated sterilization or abortion of certain individuals with certain genes/DNA?

If you can bypass the law by a simple step like not sending your children to public school, and the abortion/sterilization significantly decreases both the risk of death to the person receiving the operation and the general public, then I suspect I would not be opposed to such a measure. I'm having trouble imagining what that scenario looks like, though.