# Religious conservatives oppose cervical cancer vaccine...say it might cause sex.



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 31, 2005)

This is just...insane.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/31/MNG2LFGJFT1.DTL&feed=rss.news

"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003.


It is a VIRUS.  Your daughter could catch it from the man of her dreams on her wedding night, unbeknownst to anyone and after years of abstinence and virginity.  She then could die of cervical cancer after having several children, leaving the motherless and the family saddled with medical bills.  This is pro-family planning?

This vaccine could save thousands of lives...but people are worried that the shot might induce girls to go do the "evil nasty" with their boyfriends.

Remember when zippers were considered an invitation to immoral behavor by some in the late 19th century?  

A little taste of what to expect when they come up with an AIDS vaccine, I suppose...or ANY vaccine for ANY sexually transmitted disease.


Regards,



Steve


----------



## BrandiJo (Oct 31, 2005)

i say it woudl be great, id be first to sign my kids up for it when and if i have kids.  But i know alot of more conservitive people who will be against it


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2005)

Yes, it is insane.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 1, 2005)

It amazes me how clueless people are when it comes to sexuality.  

Look at sexual myths, past and present:

Condoms and vaccines and (I'm not making this up) dancing lead to sex.  Pornography leads to rape.  Masturbation causes insanity and blindness.  Homosexuality=pedophilia and bestiality.  

People ascribe to sex powers to which it doesn't have because they don't understand it.  They're so fearful of it they likely never will understand it.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Navarre (Nov 1, 2005)

The entire idea is insipid, though not unexpected.  This country is more repressed and concerned about sexuality than it is drugs or violence.  It is attributable perhaps to our country's founding by Quakers..and the current administration.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Condoms and vaccines and (I'm not making this up) dancing lead to sex. Pornography leads to rape. Masturbation causes insanity and blindness. Homosexuality=pedophilia and bestiality.


 
I want to respond further but it's taking too long on my Braille keyboard.


----------



## Ray (Nov 1, 2005)

Does the article really say that "religious" conservatives oppose the vaccine?  Or does it say that "many" {and not necessarily "religious"} conservatives oppose making the vaccination manditory?

How many is "many" and how "religious" are they?  How conservative are they; and are they fiscally or socially conservative?  Was a scientific poll conducted with a plus/minus margin of error?  How many of the general populace know about this vaccine?


----------



## Loki (Nov 1, 2005)

I'd like to know how decisions are made about which vaccinations are mandatory and which are not. Anyone?


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> I'd like to know how decisions are made about which vaccinations are mandatory and which are not. Anyone?


This is usually accomplished by huge pharma lobbying the CDC and certain lawmakers with perks and lots o' cash.  Some of us think it involves proof gained by studies that say it's beneficial with minimal side effects, but ... well, ever lie on a job application?

Steve, I'm dumbfounded.  I've said before that with the dual standard of advertising vs. religious control that the message is that every consumer is supposed to like, want, fantasize about, worship sex, sex objects and people advertising deems as sexy, but we're just plain not supposed to have it.  It could be enraging, eh?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Nov 1, 2005)

In my experience with and observation on the procreative drive, most teen and post-teen activity leads directly to sex.  It is basic instinct to preserve further the species.  Anything we can do to keep people dying from it is acceptable and necessary.


----------



## JPR (Nov 1, 2005)

[FONT=&quot]I think the issues here are a bit more detailed than simply opposing a vaccine.  From http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0038209.cfm ,
 [/FONT]
   [FONT=&quot]Wallis says the vaccine does hold wonderful promise for those who need it.[/FONT]
   [FONT=&quot]I do think that we need to be selectively offering this to patients who are at high risk for HPV infections, but I'm not sure that we are at a point where we can justify universal applications.
[/FONT]
   [FONT=&quot]
It seems to be the mandatory vaccination that has people worried.  If I were the king of the world (a little Three Dog Night for those of you old enough to remember) I would make the vaccination available to school age children and allow the parents to opt in or out according to their beliefs / values / hang-ups / what ever.  [/FONT]
   [FONT=&quot]
After all, parents should be responsible for their children.  [/FONT]


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2005)

I'd like to say I find this unbelievable...sadly, I no longer do.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 1, 2005)

Wow, you know, according to their logic, the conservatives who are opposing these vaccinations should just be favoring the virus itself as a fear factor about sex.  Obviously according to them, anything that prevents teens from having sex is a good thing, even if it's a cancerous virus that kills people.

And this really has nothing to do with parental autonomy...they're not opposing mandatory vaccinations in general (all of which woul seemingly oppose parental autonomy), but only those that threaten their precious no-sex-before-marriage ********.  That's the only cause for their concern, if you can call it that.  

I'm disgusted by this behavior, though like so many others, not surprised.  I hope these Focus on the Family lobbyists get infected by this virus themselves, see how much they wish the vaccine was available then.  Oh but wait, they're not teen girls, their lives are apparently valuable.  Pricks.  

:ticked: :soapbox: :flammad:


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Just a little side note here...



			
				Navarre said:
			
		

> This country is more repressed and concerned about sexuality than it is drugs or violence. It is attributable perhaps to our country's founding by Quakers [...]


 
Our country was not founded by the Religious Society of Friends (popularly referred to by others as 'Quakers' and who refer to themselves as 'Friends'). However, the colony of Pennsylvania was via William Penn. For more information on the Friends, please see Wikipedia's article on them. 

I think you may be thinking of the Puritans here, but even they were geographically restricted to certain colonies.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This is just...insane.


 
Undoubtedly.

This sort of stuff reminds me of the health class I had during my freshman year of high school in central Florida. One day, we were watching some video on sex education and a discussion was brought up concerning the use of condoms (of all things!). The teacher promptly stopped the video and informed the class that since the government's official policy was that of abstinence, we couldn't discuss such subject matter (i.e., using condoms for safe sex) in class.

Its always nice to see education take a backseat to political ideology.

Laterz.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 1, 2005)

The thing is, with a vaccine, it is preventative.  It has to be administered BEFORE infection, otherwise it is too late.  So how do these clowns decide who is at greater risk and therefor needs the vaccine, and who is not?  If it doesn't have significant side-effects, i think people should have it, plain and simple.


----------



## Navarre (Nov 1, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Our country was not founded by the Religious Society of Friends...


 
You may be correct. Admittedly, I am not much of an expert on history.  Still, wasn't the US founded primarily by those who had left England due to radically different, and very conservative, religious views?

Next thing you'll tell me the Quaker's didn't make all that tasty oatmeal.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> You may be correct. Admittedly, I am not much of an expert on history. Still, wasn't the US founded primarily by those who had left England due to radically different, and very conservative, religious views?


 
Again, I believe you are referring to the Puritans here. They were about as 'conservative' as it comes in terms of theology and moral philosophy.

The Friends have very 'liberal' approaches to both theology and morality by most Christian standards. From their very beginning in this country, they radically opposed slavery and war of any kind and fought for women's rights. They also take a more 'mystical' approach to revering God (as opposed to exoteric worship and ritual).

Laterz.


----------



## Navarre (Nov 1, 2005)

I'm sure you're right, heretic. Thanks for the info.

Sorry to digress from the thread topic.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> I'm sure you're right, heretic. Thanks for the info.
> 
> Sorry to digress from the thread topic.


 
:asian:


----------



## JPR (Nov 1, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Wow, you know, according to their logic, the conservatives who are opposing these vaccinations should just be favoring the virus itself as a fear factor about sex. Obviously according to them, anything that prevents teens from having sex is a good thing, even if it's a cancerous virus that kills people.



  That really isn't the logic.  The concern is that as action is separated from consequence the action becomes all the more prevalent.  There is a moral concern that children are becoming too sexual inundated by society and sexually active too soon.  This increased sexuality is believed to be to the child, the family, and societys long-term detriment (and yes I understand that this is an debatable belief).  Therefore, something like this pops up and the clamor begins.

   What is troubling to me is why there cannot be a discussion.  If someone raises the specter that any action (condoms, sex ed, morning after pills, etc.) might have the consequence of influencing more teens to become sexually active, then they are labeled as a clown, despot, Neanderthal, bigot, etc.  On the other hand, if someone advocates the opposite position they are usually labeled immoral, heathen, danger to the family, sex  drugs  and rock and roll hold over.  Neither set of labels is true or helpful in solving the problems that confront us.  More energy is spent in vilifying the enemy than in addressing the problems.

   Again, in this instance the solution seems so simple to me.  Make it available to everyone and let them choose.  In the case of minors, allow the parents to choose for them, it is what parents are supposed to do.  That way the conservative clowns dont repress anyone, nor plan the demise of teen girls and the liberal clowns dont erode the moral fiber of the universe nor destroy the traditional family.

   Send in the clowns, dont bother theyre here.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2005)

JPR said:
			
		

> What is troubling to me is why there cannot be a discussion. If someone raises the specter that any action (condoms, sex ed, morning after pills, etc.) might have the consequence of influencing more teens to become sexually active, then they are labeled as a clown, despot, Neanderthal, bigot, etc. On the other hand, if someone advocates the opposite position they are usually labeled immoral, heathen, danger to the family, sex  drugs  and rock and roll hold over. Neither set of labels is true or helpful in solving the problems that confront us. More energy is spent in vilifying the enemy than in addressing the problems.


 
With the following comments from the "open minded" crowd, I must agree.



> Yes, it is insane.





> It amazes me how clueless people are when it comes to sexuality.





> People ascribe to sex powers to which it doesn't have because they don't understand it. They're so fearful of it they likely never will understand it.





> The entire idea is insipid, though not unexpected. This country is more repressed and concerned about sexuality than it is drugs or violence





> Steve, I'm dumbfounded...It could be enraging, eh?





> I'm disgusted by this behavior, though like so many others, not surprised. I hope these Focus on the Family lobbyists get infected by this virus themselves, see how much they wish the vaccine was available then. Oh but wait, they're not teen girls, their lives are apparently valuable. Pricks.


 
Just some choice bits, but characteristic of the feel of the thread, and variety of other "lets beat up conservatives because we don't like them" threads of various flavors. Not interested in a conversation it seems...  just conservative bashing and venting on the evils of the church and people with old fashioned morals.

MrH


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 1, 2005)

JPR said:
			
		

> Again, in this instance the solution seems so simple to me. Make it available to everyone and let them choose. In the case of minors, allow the parents to choose for them, it is what parents are supposed to do. That way the conservative clowns don&#8217;t repress anyone, nor plan the demise of teen girls and the liberal clowns don&#8217;t erode the moral fiber of the universe nor destroy the &#8220;traditional&#8221; family.



This makes perfect sense to me... but as long as "Religious Conservatives" are  forcing our children to be at risk of getting viruses... well, that will never be allowed to happen.  And as long as the liberals "want to force our kids to have sex by making it safe"... again... aint gonna happen.  These two groups are far to concerend with tearing at each others throats like pitbulls in an arena to shut up and see the sane solution.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Personally, I think vaccination seems pretty 'sane' to me. 

Laterz.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 1, 2005)

> This is usually accomplished by huge pharma lobbying the CDC and certain lawmakers with perks and lots o' cash. Some of us think it involves proof gained by studies that say it's beneficial with minimal side effects, but ... well, ever lie on a job application?


 
I'm no fan of big pharma, but I think your statement is EXTREMELY unfair to the American Academy of Pediatrics, and local Departments of Health, who work and lobby hard every day to protect children, and who make recommendations and decisions about vaccine-preventable illness.

Every see pertussis or Hemophilus meningitis?  I have.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 1, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I think vaccination seems pretty 'sane' to me.
> 
> Laterz.



*shrug* I've never been a big fan of *manditory* anything.  

Heretic, as somone that sits both sides on many topics, maybe you can answer this for me:

What happened to the argument of "My Body, My choice" the Libs are always preaching...???

:erg:

Uh huh.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 1, 2005)

Not that I think one thing has anything to do with the other, but "my body my choice" never applied to children.  You generally can't "choose" to put your child at grave risk, and you can't choose to put someone else's child at risk, either.  Adults can refuse vaccinations, and they frequently do.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2005)

JPR said:
			
		

> Again, in this instance the solution seems so simple to me. Make it available to everyone and let them choose. In the case of minors, allow the parents to choose for them, it is what parents are supposed to do. That way the conservative clowns dont repress anyone, nor plan the demise of teen girls and the liberal clowns dont erode the moral fiber of the universe nor destroy the traditional family.


 
ok, this has already been commented on, but I'll give my .02

first, I would hope its something parents should do, but that will never pass. if in some states minors can get abortions w/out consent or informing, you will never make this fly.

second, what do you mean by "let them choose". Are the innoculations free? someone is paying for them I'm sure. Our dear liberal friends will complain if people need to pay for it (can't bias against the poor), so I'm sure it will be government (our taxes) paying for it. I sure despise having my taxes support abortions. Should I sponsor this activity? There is an easy way to avoid getting this virus. People don't want to face up to it, but most of the circumstances in which someone would get it is through is an optional activity. Its the same logic for me that makes me dislike having medicare (our taxes) pay hundreds of millions of dollars for people who have lung cancer, emphezema (sp) and the like due to a ton of years of smoking (you can debate the horrible tobacco industry/government in another thread if you want). Its never pleasant to see people dying from cancer or anything of that nature. Its quite horrible. I've been around it alot. It makes for difficult circumstances/situations, and I don't like that. However, we do have responsibility for the actions we -choose- to do. Liberals don't tend to like the concept of personal responsibility. The only circumstance I agree the government should step in is cases of abuse of the system. Some things can not be helped, and are not a result of our choices. If government must help, let it help in these kind of circumstances.

I've also read about "big pharma" a few times. Sorry, but "big pharma" is one reason we have a vaccine. ITs a way for them to make money. Face it, making money is not evil. Its what a coorperation does. You can't go in your garage and make this vaccine. It takes alot of money to research and make these things. They don't fall out of the sky. Without "big pharma" (I even hate the phrase), you have "big disease". Want that? Considering the efficiency of government, I sure don't want "government pharma".

MrH


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I'm no fan of big pharma, but I think your statement is EXTREMELY unfair to the American Academy of Pediatrics, and local Departments of Health, who work and lobby hard every day to protect children, and who make recommendations and decisions about vaccine-preventable illness.
> 
> Every see pertussis or Hemophilus meningitis?  I have.


Indeed I have. My son has had both

In addition:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14880&highlight=vaccination
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25730&highlight=vaccination

and

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/fc486.htm


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Not that I think one thing has anything to do with the other, but "my body my choice" never applied to children. You generally can't "choose" to put your child at grave risk, and you can't choose to put someone else's child at risk, either. Adults can refuse vaccinations, and they frequently do.


I can also refuse vaccinations for my children and it is the right of every parent to refuse vaccination.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2005)

Though you may end up refusing public schooling at the same time.

Meabwhile:
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_303230952.html



> The old world Amish communities in central Minnesota find themselves facing a long-forgotten threat. There's a potential killer on the loose here. Five Amish children have been diagnosed with polio this month- and state health officials are sounding the alarm.
> 
> &#8220;The situation is ripe for spread simply because there are so many unvaccinated people clustered together,&#8221; said Henry Hull with the Minnesota Department of Health. &#8220;Our principal job right now is to vaccinate as many people as possible.&#8221;


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 1, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Not that I think one thing has anything to do with the other, but "my body my choice" never applied to children. You generally can't "choose" to put your child at grave risk, and you can't choose to put someone else's child at risk, either. Adults can refuse vaccinations, and they frequently do.



I guess that all depends on what you consider to be "children". 
Also, refusing an inoculation does not mean "choosing to be at risk". 

7sm


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Though you may end up refusing public schooling at the same time.
> 
> Meabwhile:
> http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_303230952.html


All three of my children are in public school - my older two have medical exemptions and my third child is fully vaccinated in accordance with the law.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - vaccination has saved countless lives - and harmed others.  I favor safe vaccination.  For my detailed commentary on this you can read some by searching for "Vaccines" or "Vaccination" and my username on this site.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Though you may end up refusing public schooling at the same time.
> 
> Meabwhile:
> http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_303230952.html


 
can school be refused?

I did not know about Amish refusing vaccinations. How about Christian Science? I know they refuse alot of medical things. Any other groups refusing "normal" vaccinations? Any groups for non-religious reasons?

One comment on the polio issue though, I don't believe polio is spread by sexuality.

on a side side note, bringing up polio is interesting to me, since I study viruses  thanks!

MrH


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 1, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Heretic, as somone that sits both sides on many topics, maybe you can answer this for me:
> 
> What happened to the argument of "My Body, My choice" the Libs are always preaching...???


 
Well, I can't speak for 'the Libs', but my take is that it should be left up to individual choice --- provided it does not endanger or violate the rights of others.

Make of that what you will.

Laterz.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Also, refusing an inoculation does not mean "choosing to be at risk".


Indeed.  My daughter, who is almost completely unvaccinated, has immunity to measles, mumps, rubella, dyptheria, pertussis, polio and tetanus (tetanus and dyptheria alone by vaccination).  She has had chickenpox so also has primary immunity to that.

She has only ever had chickenpox - never any other of the illnesses, though was exposed to measles, mumps, pertussis, meningitis and rotavirus (which my youngest had).  I only ever had chickenpox.

She has natural immunity - why should she be vaccinated against disease she already has immunity to?  Now, if she did not have immunity to polio, rubella or measles or tetanus, I would certainly vaccinate her for those, which would involve separate shots rather than the multi-jab.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I favor safe vaccination.


 
Is there such a thing as a safe vaccination? Even with a very low background risk of reaction, it still exist. Most vaccines these days, the rate of reaction is quite, quite low. things are quite safe! however, they are not perfect. This is one reason I'd be against -forcing- vaccinations for something like this STD that has been the topic here. Given the circumstances, I have -no- risk of obtaining the virus, where I would have -minimal- risk if I had the vaccine. Would it not be logical for me to accept the no risk option?

Adding on, would I take an HIV-1 vaccination? would I take ghonerea (sp) vaccination? There are a legion of viruses and other diseases out there. Take a vaccination for each?

On another side note, I know viruses are prone to rapid mutation. Does a vaccination against polio of this virus cover all strains? how about future strains?

MrH


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Is there such a thing as a safe vaccination? Even with a very low background risk of reaction, it still exist. Most vaccines these days, the rate of reaction is quite, quite low. things are quite safe! however, they are not perfect. This is one reason I'd be against -forcing- vaccinations for something like this STD that has been the topic here. Given the circumstances, I have -no- risk of obtaining the virus, where I would have -minimal- risk if I had the vaccine. Would it not be logical for me to accept the no risk option?


There is no 100% safe vaccination - however, the technology is there to test for allergy, intolerance, for immunity and to make this testing very affordable such that overvaccination or allergic reactions are reduced to a minimum.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 1, 2005)

Some interesting input on both sides here, but I think there has been some drifting from the original issue:  the position of some groups that this vaccination will encourage sexual behavior among teens.  

This is the thing that I just cannot see any sense in.  The thought that a group of people is somehow against a vaccination because they think it encourages sex.  We live in a society in which you cannot turn on the TV, radio, computer, or see a movie, or walk down the street of a city with a population larger than say 20,000, without being bombarded with images that are full of sexuality and are designed specifically to arouse.  I am not passing judgement on this, merely pointing out that focus on a vaccination seems to me to be a bit misplaced and myopic.  To think that a vaccination will contribute to our societal "problems" is rediculous.

Let's also look at the message that this position sends: sex is dirty, shameful, will give you lots of awful diseases, and will probably get you killed.  Yet we are supposed to do it with our spouse, the one person we love above any other!  Sending this message to young people is not helpful.  Why can't we try a little honesty with our kids?  Trust that they might actually have a brain that can understand reason.  Be honest with our kids about the positive aspects of sexuality, be honest about the risks involved, and also be honest about the choices that can be made to minimize the risks.  Give our kids the complete picture, instead of trying to control their behavior thru what is essentially scare tactics.  Maybe then kids can grow up with a healthy and complete understanding of sexuality, which, I believe, will actually reduce problems that they will get themselves in to.

Throughout history, people have engaged in sexual activity outside what our society likes to promote, at least publically, as the ideal (i.e. in the context of marriage).  This activity has not always been frowned upon either.  Society's acceptance of all kinds of sexual behavior has changed repeatedly throughtout history, but the only thing that hasn't changed is the fact that people still engage in this behavior, and will continue to do so forever, for better or for worse (again, I am not passing judgement, just pointing this out).  Let's not pretend that a vaccine is going to have any affect on this whatsover.

People may have their own personal reasons for choosing not to get the vaccine, but it is simply misguided to create policy that excludes or limits people's access to it based on a notion that it encourages "inappropriate" sexual behavior.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 1, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Let's also look at the message that this position sends: sex is dirty, shameful, will give you lots of awful diseases, and will probably get you killed. Yet we are supposed to do it with our spouse, the one person we love above any other! Sending this message to young people is not helpful. Why can't we try a little honesty with our kids? Trust that they might actually have a brain that can understand reason. Be honest with our kids about the positive aspects of sexuality, be honest about the risks involved, and also be honest about the choices that can be made to minimize the risks. Give our kids the complete picture, instead of trying to control their behavior thru what is essentially scare tactics. Maybe then kids can grow up with a healthy and complete understanding of sexuality, which, I believe, will actually reduce problems that they will get themselves in to.


 
I don't think the message they are -trying- to send is that "sex is dirty, shameful, ect". I think the message they are -trying- to send is that sex in the right context is a good thing, but in the proper context. To me, that is a good message to send our kids.

We send this type of message to our kids in other ways. As a society, we decide the proper age for someone to apply for a drivers licence. We don't expect 12 year olds to be mature enough to handle driving (or in some cases the length to reach the peddles!). We give our kids allowences (at least if we have the cash and desire), but we don't give them all of our cash at once, because they won't have the maturity at 8 years old to be able to handle it correctly. We restrict mind-altering drugs by law because we understand that regardless of age, they can have bad effects.

I don't think the message we should send our kids is "here is the safe way to have sex, and lets help you not get diseases when you do". As a society, we used to (at least formally) not condone sex outside of marriage. As society has changed, the fundamental reasons for not having sex before marriage has not changed. The consequences on our society for this has been evident: STD's, children out of marriage, rape (yes, I know is not direct correlation, at least for the victim), abortions, divorces and alot of broken hearts/relationships/homes. These things have always existed, but I think I'm safe in saying they have become alot more prevelant.

So, with regard to "honesty with our children", ok, I'm for honesty and not "scaring" kids, but you need to be "honest" about all aspects of things. If you chose to be "honest", don't be selective about what you are honest about. To me, thats equivilent to lying, and just as bad as what you claim the "other side" is doing.

MrH


----------



## Tgace (Nov 1, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Not that I think one thing has anything to do with the other, but "my body my choice" never applied to children.



Fine. Then juveniles shouldnt be allowed to have abortions without parental approval.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 1, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I don't think the message they are -trying- to send is that "sex is dirty, shameful, ect". I think the message they are -trying- to send is that sex in the right context is a good thing, but in the proper context. To me, that is a good message to send our kids.
> 
> So, with regard to "honesty with our children", ok, I'm for honesty and not "scaring" kids, but you need to be "honest" about all aspects of things. If you chose to be "honest", don't be selective about what you are honest about. To me, thats equivilent to lying, and just as bad as what you claim the "other side" is doing.
> 
> MrH


 
The "dirty shameful" message may not be the intended message, but I think in many ways, it becomes the message that is sent and received.  There is a tendency to focus on the negative aspects of sex when educating young people, and after a while, for a young person who has mostly only heard this side of the story, that is how they begin to understand it.  Once this sets in, a tremendous amount of unnecessary guilt and shame can develop in young people who are naturally curious about sex.  No matter what adults try to do to dissuade them, young people will become curious about, and eventually experiment with sex.  Not all will go as far as others, but it will happen, and I don't think there should be a cloud of guilt surrounding it.

When I suggest full honesty, I do mean that.  The negative side of the coin should be fully understod, but so should the positive.  And the truth about things like for example, condom success rate should be explained.  In many "sex education" classes, students are told that condoms have a failure rate of something like 65%.  What they are not told is that when condoms are used _properly_, their success rate is close to 100%.  This is the kind of information that is part of the full picture and should be fully disclosed, but I believe it is often hidden or denied.

At some point in their lives, children will begin to make their own decisions about sex, whether their parents want them to or not.  When that happens, they should fully understand all possibilities, so they can make intelligent decisions.  

Getting back to the original thread topic: once again, I don't think we can pretend that a vaccine can be blamed for whatever problems exist with teenager's sexuality.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 1, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> We send this type of message to our kids in other ways. As a society, we decide the proper age for someone to apply for a drivers licence. We don't expect 12 year olds to be mature enough to handle driving (or in some cases the length to reach the peddles!). We give our kids allowences (at least if we have the cash and desire), but we don't give them all of our cash at once, because they won't have the maturity at 8 years old to be able to handle it correctly. We restrict mind-altering drugs by law because we understand that regardless of age, they can have bad effects.
> 
> I don't think the message we should send our kids is "here is the safe way to have sex, and lets help you not get diseases when you do". As a society, we used to (at least formally) not condone sex outside of marriage. As society has changed, the fundamental reasons for not having sex before marriage has not changed. The consequences on our society for this has been evident: STD's, children out of marriage, rape (yes, I know is not direct correlation, at least for the victim), abortions, divorces and alot of broken hearts/relationships/homes. These things have always existed, but I think I'm safe in saying they have become alot more prevelant.
> 
> MrH


 
With regard to the first paragraph above, I agree, you have some good points, which is that young people need guidance, and they are not allowed to do certain things until they reach a point in their lives thru age or training or other rites of passage when it becomes acceptable to be given these privileges.

With regard to your second paragraph above, again You have some valid points, but these social ills that you list cannot be linked directly or exclusively to sex outside marriage.  Yes, we as a society hold sex within marriage to be the ideal, and that is a reasonable thing to teach our children.  However, the above list of social ills have many causes.  In some instances I am sure sex outside marriage has probably made a contribution, but I think it is over-simplifying the picture to claim that these ills all come directly from sex outside marriage.  The truth is that there are many factors involved that lead to these problems.  Personally, I think irresponsible runaway capitalism, greed, and our throw-away society have much to do with it.  Is sex outside marriage a cause or symptom of these other factors?  I don't know, maybe a good topic for another thread, but definitely all part of the bigger picture, and all contributors to societal ills.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 1, 2005)

1.  The idea that one might feel safer engaging in premarital sex because they are protected through immunization from one sexually transmitted virus is preposterous.  There are plenty more where that came from to give one cause to consider.

2.  The idea of making this mandatory doesn't sit well with me.  However, I would consider anybody who chooses not to as exposing themselves to risk.  How can a newlywed woman know that her groom won't transmit this to her?

3.  We, as parents, may stress abstinence until we're blue in the face.  That doesn't necessarily guarantee the success of our effort now, does it?  

4.  Do we really believe when providing our children with a high degree of protection against a cancer which kills more than 3700 American women every year, that if we "send a  subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage," this subtle message could possibly unravel 18 years of parental guidance and teachings?   Parents, please give yourselves a little more credit.

5.  I think that if parents spend more time teaching and loving their children, and place less of this responsibility on the shoulders of society in general, the results will be favourable.  Take away the TV, it'll be much more effective in eliminating subtle messages condoning premarital sex.


----------



## BrandiJo (Nov 1, 2005)

My parents have given me a list a mile long of all the things i should and shouldnt do, i however have chose not to listen to half of them, now say in 10 years i have a child, i know how i handled my parents advice and rules nad what not...im sure gonna want my child protected against anything possible, while sure ill teach her not to have sex before marrage, but should she chose to ignore my wishes or have her own view on it i would atleat want to know shes protected against atleast one desease out there. I dont however think it should be mandatory, nor do i think anything should be mandatory, it should be a choice of the parents.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 1, 2005)

One thing I've always wondered... jeudeo- Christian beliefs say ONE God, and no sex.

If there was the one God, AND a few Goddesses would that rule have been different?



(No offence to the offendable  )


----------



## Brother John (Nov 2, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> "Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003.



OK....
I'm "religious". (not a term I'd use for myself, but the common connotation generally fits.
I'm conservative. (generally)
...but this stuff is CRAP!!! I can't believe that this man who is a TRAINED medical doctor would not want young women immunized against a prevalent form of cancer just becuase it might send a subtle undercurrent of a message that premarital sex is OK??

LET me tell ya somethin Mr. James Dobson et al...
If your little girl is going to become sexually active because she read something into the immunization shot that she got when she was 9 or ten... if a medication that your doctor gave her can over-ride all the religious up bringing, moral training and lectures that you gave....
THEN SHE WAS GOING TO HAVE SEX ANYWAY.....Period!!

So...let me get this straight. Focus on the Family feels that the threat of a cancer causing venerial disease is a find sexual deterant???
That's Sick.

Dobson's group has done some fine work in putting out family counseling works and advice, most of which is good! Their child rearing material is fine too. THEY NEED TO STAY OUT OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE!!!!! 
 It's Not their thing!!!!  Their social agenda *sickens* me and makes me embarased that it's people like that that cast the image of what a "right wing Christian" is in the public's eye.

I'd go on with my rant...but I just remembered that my parents got me tetantus shots and boosters as I was growing up....
I need to go step on a rusty nail or something, because obviously...it's expected of me.
Oh yeah...I'm also going to ride my bike....crash...and make sure I fall head-first onto the pavement; it's expected of me!!! They did buy me that helmet after all.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Nov 2, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> One thing I've always wondered... jeudeo- Christian beliefs say ONE God, and no sex.
> 
> If there was the one God, AND a few Goddesses would that rule have been different?
> 
> ...


None taken... 
But I'll pick up your question and run with it for a jog...

Judeo-Christian beliefs/practices don't say "no sex"...just that it should be exercised (as MUCH as you like) within the bounds of a marriage. I know I'm getting technical here...but LUST of thought and action is FINE for a Christian...as long as it's with ones spouse.

Also: If you really want to get down to brass tax.... the whole anthropomophication of the Deity is silly. When mankind first began to comprehend God (according to our traditions....that'd be like Abraham...etc.) we did so through OUR paradigms...and at that time...that was a male centered society....so they viewed God as a man, and in JudeoChristian scripture Deity even refers to himself in the masculine...but if you think about it "He" must have only done so for our benefit...so we could comprehend.
Technically God would have to be Asexual... having no sex, or ((get your mind around this one)) having 'all sex'.
One of the foundational tenents of the JudeoChristian concept of God is that God is, in everyway, infinite. Therefore you cannot ascribe something to God that has boundaries or distinctions.... Like gender. (here...chew on this)

*Genesis 1:27* - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; *male and female* created he them."  (in essence it's saying that the image of God is male AND female)
Also: In the creation story, just one verse previous to this one God said:
 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

In this verse, in the traditional Hebrew, the exact word used for "God" is "Elohim"... _Elohim_ is the masculine plural of a feminine noun, used as a singular. SO..
 God is one
 God is Male/Female...
and man (meant here...the race, male and female inclusive) are his express image or likeness.
 It's one of the reasons God is often shown, in medieval art, as an hermaphrodite.


 I know you were making a funny, but it's something I find VERY interesting.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 2, 2005)

> I can also refuse vaccinations for my children and it is the right of every parent to refuse vaccination.


 
That is correct.  A parent can refuse vaccinations for their children.  However, the parent also must accept the fact that the child may be excluded from public schools for failing to have the required vaccinations.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 2, 2005)

BTW, the idea of a vaccination against cervical cancer encouraging kids to have sex is ludicrous.  Most kids have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what relationship there is between their immunizations and anything in their life.  I have two teenagers, both honor students, and they have no idea that there is any relationship between their immunizations and sex or any other activity.  All they know is that they have to get shots to go to school or college, and that it helps prevent a disease.  

What about the Hepatitis B vaccine?  Is the religious right protesting that because it encourages sex?  In this country, the HepB immunization is given in early childhood, but for the most part is intended to protect against a disease that is relevant in teenagers and adults, specifically because of sexual activity.  But I've never heard a teen say, "Hmmm, now that I got the vaccine, I can go out and have some sex!"

And after a disease is essentially eradicated, these kids don't even know what the disease ever was.  I had measles, but how many *KIDS* have ever seen measles?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 2, 2005)

Good Posts Brother John - I'm glad to hear that conservative members our our community think this is pretty bogus also.  I'm a little late to discussion, but one thing I would like to add is that some of these FocusontheFamily-like groups are FAR more extreme then anyone ever realized.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 2, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> 1. The idea that one might feel safer engaging in premarital sex because they are protected through immunization from one sexually transmitted virus is preposterous. There are plenty more where that came from to give one cause to consider.


 I agree here completely. In fact I doubt this "disease" is even close to the top of what people think about when considering premarital sex. 



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> 2. The idea of making this mandatory doesn't sit well with me. However, I would consider anybody who chooses not to as exposing themselves to risk. How can a newlywed woman know that her groom won't transmit this to her?


 Well, you have to look at what "exposing yourself to this risk" means. Refusing the vacination is just not what puts you at risk here. I mean, the risk factor is only introduced through sex. You can't really even say someone who is sexually active who refuses the vacination puts themselves at risk, there are simply more parts to the equation. As far as the newlywed example, this is prime example for testing, communication, and trust in a marriage or relationship. Its not some invisible predator that preys on young virgins. We must not put all our trust in one vacination. There are plenty of other ways to avoid this disease or protect yourself, and there are plenty of ways, outside of refusing this vacination, to put yourself at risk. 



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> 3. We, as parents, may stress abstinence until we're blue in the face. That doesn't necessarily guarantee the success of our effort now, does it?


 Quite right, but sexual intercourse doesn't necessarily guarantee the acquisition of cervical cancer either. 



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> 4.  Do we really believe when providing our children with a high degree of protection against a cancer which kills more than 3700 American women every year, that if we "send a  subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage," this subtle message could possibly unravel 18 years of parental guidance and teachings?   Parents, please give yourselves a little more credit.



I agree with you here, however I dont think this is the true point. The problem I have is that people are building up this vaccine and tearing down those who oppose it's manditory usage as supporting cervical cancer. Its simply not a true arguement. Opposing this manditory vacination is in no way a support of HPV or cervical cancer. I think the vacinne is great, but its not the only way to protect yourself from cervical cancer or HPV. Building it up as such is disingenuous at best. 




			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> 5. I think that if parents spend more time teaching and loving their children, and place less of this responsibility on the shoulders of society in general, the results will be favourable. Take away the TV, it'll be much more effective in eliminating subtle messages condoning premarital sex.


 I completely agree, however placing responsibilty on the shoulders of society....like relying on a vaccine to protect against STD's?

7sm


----------



## Ray (Nov 2, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> In fact I doubt this "disease" is even close to the top of what people think about when considering premarital sex.


I can tell you that very little logical consideration of anything took place when I first...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 2, 2005)

Cervical cancer kills over 4000 women per year in the US, and there are about 13,000 new cases every year.  So is the argument, "So what? They shouldn't be immunized.  They just never should have had sex"?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 2, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Cervical cancer kills over 4000 women per year in the US, and there are about 13,000 new cases every year. So is the argument, "So what? They shouldn't be immunized. They just never should have had sex"?


 Not at all. Although it does seem that number keeps growing with every post :wink:
No one is saying people shouldn't get immunized, but that it shouldn't be manditory. Also, your not serious suggesting that the only way to remove the risk of cervical cancer is to not have sex or get this immunization, are you?

7sm


----------



## Tgace (Nov 2, 2005)

What nobody wants to touch the "my body my choice doesnt apply to kids"/parental consent for abortion conflict? 

How can you play both sides of the aisle on that one?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What nobody wants to touch the "my body my choice doesnt apply to kids"/parental consent for abortion conflict?
> 
> How can you play both sides of the aisle on that one?



Easy.

Ya just look left and right and see wich one is on YOUR side, and only support that.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 3, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What nobody wants to touch the "my body my choice doesnt apply to kids"/parental consent for abortion conflict?
> 
> How can you play both sides of the aisle on that one?


Not much difference between that and calling folks who defend the constitution unamerican traitors for exercising the 1st amendment.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 3, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Not much difference between that and calling folks who defend the constitution unamerican traitors for exercising the 1st amendment.


:idunno: I'm not sure I understand your point here.

7sm


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 3, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> *shrug* I've never been a big fan of *manditory* anything.
> 
> Heretic, as somone that sits both sides on many topics, maybe you can answer this for me:
> 
> ...


 
Well, we're not talking about getting a tatoo or deciding to have sex, we're talking about contagious viruses.  "My body, my choice" is part of the liberal idea of only being personally restricted when your actions cause harm to others, and well, the decision to not vacinate yourself and thereby risk carrying a virus does exactly that.  

Unless there's some non-contagious aspect of the virus in question that I've overlooked, but I doubt that.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 3, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> "My body, my choice" is part of the liberal idea of only being personally restricted when your actions cause harm to others, and well, the decision to not vacinate yourself and thereby risk carrying a virus does exactly that.


Not necessarily.

So if we're going to limit freedom of the sanctity of one's body and all of us take responsibility for everyone else's well-being and health, then let's ban tobacco and alcohol.  Let's ban driving because every time you drive, you risk losing control of your car or being hit by someone else and thus causing harm to others.  Where does it end?

How about making it available to those who want it?  I think the vaccine should be available for voluntary injectees only.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 3, 2005)

This isn't a "My body my choice" reason...

This is a "We don't want them to have sex so let's not give it to them" reason.

Kinda the opposite of "my body my choice"

That said, contagious deseases are a little different as it is not just my body, but everyone that is at risk if I get it.

If that risk is low I would have no problem with a "I don't want it" argument.  But I would have a problem with a "Let's not give it to them cause making sex less risky will only encourage it" one.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 3, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> This isn't a "My body my choice" reason...
> 
> This is a "We don't want them to have sex so let's not give it to them" reason.
> 
> Kinda the opposite of "my body my choice"


 We can spin it anyway we want, but your only looking at it through your own personal filter. 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> That said, contagious deseases are a little different as it is not just my body, but everyone that is at risk if I get it.
> 
> If that risk is low I would have no problem with a "I don't want it" argument. But I would have a problem with a "Let's not give it to them cause making sex less risky will only encourage it" one.


Wait a second....the term "contagious" is being thrown around here quite loosely. For "everyone" to be at risk we must assume you are having sex with everyone. Contagious is not really a true word here, I wouldn't consider the type of contact needed to contract this "disease" to be indirect....would you? So, in that light, you must not have a problem with the "I dont want it" arguement? Since the arguement would go, "I dont want it because I am not having sex with multiple partners and am in a committed monogamous relationship". Would that make it ok to refuse?

7sm


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> We can spin it anyway we want, but your only looking at it through your own personal filter.



As are you.

Mine says "It will make young people less scared of sex" is a very bad reason not to do anything, especially something that can save lives




> Wait a second....the term "contagious" is being thrown around here quite loosely. For "everyone" to be at risk we must assume you are having sex with everyone. Contagious is not really a true word here, I wouldn't consider the type of contact needed to contract this "disease" to be indirect....would you? So, in that light, you must not have a problem with the "I dont want it" arguement? Since the arguement would go, "I dont want it because I am not having sex with multiple partners and am in a committed monogamous relationship". Would that make it ok to refuse?
> 
> 7sm



As I said, if the risk is low, and you don't want to take it don't.

If a desease is a large enough threat that you not taking a vaccine endangers other people (how about small pox vaccinination?) then I think it would be rather immoral for you not to take it.

I don't think it could be forced on you though, highly reccomended yes.  Available to all?  yes.

By the sounds of this article it has nothing to do with "my body my choice" it is to extreme's trying to force there view on others.  

What is stupid is saying that vaccinating encourages sex and should therefore not be done.  The seat belt analogy is nice, should we remove seatbelts because it "encourages" reckless driving?

Now, I also believe that there are 2 issues here:

1) Should someone be forced to take an injection?  My answer - Depends on the risk level.  Preventing them from entering high school without it is not a good option.  

2) Not making sex safe because it needs to be feared for abstinence teachings to be consistant.  Also stupid, abstinance is one option to stay safe, and it is one feulled by religion.  Not everyone has those religous views and other options should be taught.  This is as silly as demanding evolution not be taught because it contradicts someones creationism theory they are trying to teach there kids.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 3, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> As are you.
> 
> Mine says "It will make young people less scared of sex" is a very bad reason not to do anything, especially something that can save lives


 First off, I'm not spinning anything. Lets look again at the thread and my posts.....I haven't applied my personal agenda toanything, nor have I assumed upon a personal bias. The issue is not that the vacinne shouldnt exist. Again though you show your bias by trying to say those who oppose its universal usage are trying to make young people "scared of sex". 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> As I said, if the risk is low, and you don't want to take it don't.
> 
> If a desease is a large enough threat that you not taking a vaccine endangers other people (how about small pox vaccinination?) then I think it would be rather immoral for you not to take it.
> 
> I don't think it could be forced on you though, highly reccomended yes. Available to all? yes.


 Low risk? You mean if your not sexually promiscuous? How exactly would you calculate the threat according to this type of statistic? We are not talking about a contagious communicable disease such as smallpox or something airborn that can be transfered with minimal to no contact, we are talking about a sexually transmitted disease. A persons refusal of the vaccine has no bearing on your life whatsoever unless you have unprotected sex with them. I know your not suggesting some type of policing of those types of acts are you?



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> By the sounds of this article it has nothing to do with "my body my choice" it is to extreme's trying to force there view on others.
> 
> What is stupid is saying that vaccinating encourages sex and should therefore not be done. The seat belt analogy is nice, should we remove seatbelts because it "encourages" reckless driving?


 I agree 100%, however we can't force vaccines on people simply because we do not like their reasoning for refusal.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> 1) Should someone be forced to take an injection? My answer - Depends on the risk level. Preventing them from entering high school without it is not a good option.


 We shouldn't get in the habit of forcing people to take injections because of our own belifs or opinions. Forcing injections is a sticky subject, however if you take your injection, your not at risk by me not taking mine :wink:



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> 2) Not making sex safe because it needs to be feared for abstinence teachings to be consistant. Also stupid, abstinance is one option to stay safe, and it is one feulled by religion. Not everyone has those religous views and other options should be taught. This is as silly as demanding evolution not be taught because it contradicts someones creationism theory they are trying to teach there kids.


 Again, your letting your bias show a bit here. No one has said sex shouldn't be safe or that it should be feared. Your adding in your own words for stigma reasons. Abstinance is one way to stay safe, not the only way by far, but this vacinne is not the only way to stay safe either, thats the issue your refusing to see.

Why does this thread keep going back to creationism vs evolution? This has nothin to do with that. If people can't put down their hatred of "creatinists" long enough to look at this issue reasonably....well thats just sad.

7sm


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Low risk? You mean if your not sexually promiscuous? How exactly would you calculate the threat according to this type of statistic? We are not talking about a contagious communicable disease such as smallpox or something airborn that can be transfered with minimal to no contact, we are talking about a sexually transmitted disease. A persons refusal of the vaccine has no bearing on your life whatsoever unless you have unprotected sex with them. I know your not suggesting some type of policing of those types of acts are you?


 
I thought your post was great 7sm, with this one sticking point. I do concede that there is a certain degree of risk if you don't take the anti-virus and are not sexually active outside of monogomy. Rapes do happen. Not pleasant, but the reality is that STD's can be spread this way too. To me, it would be a tragedy for someone who is raped to not only suffer from the rape but also from catching -any- STD, including this one. Cancer on top of everything else would be just horrid... Both sexes are affected by this, though of course the majority would be women.

Viruses do tend to mutate quickly. I'm curious if there has been precedent for non-sexual/intravenous transmission of a virus that had previously been catalogued as an STD mutating to a different form of transmission?

These are the only justification that I can come up with for recommending everyone get the anti-virus... Would I get it myself? I doubt it. Thats an interesting question for the group here. Are you planning on rushing out and getting it?

MrH


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 3, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I thought your post was great 7sm, with this one sticking point. I do concede that there is a certain degree of risk if you don't take the anti-virus and are not sexually active outside of monogomy. Rapes do happen. Not pleasant, but the reality is that STD's can be spread this way too. To me, it would be a tragedy for someone who is raped to not only suffer from the rape but also from catching -any- STD, including this one. Cancer on top of everything else would be just horrid... Both sexes are affected by this, though of course the majority would be women.


 Great post and a very good point. Its not one that can be ignored and I dont know that there is a true answer to it. Although in general we see a very small percentage of STD's being transmitted this way. The risk of violent crime will allways be there, for that matter you could get attacked by someone who injects you with the HPV virus itself. You can't seriously rule that out either, but its not something you should plan on either. To answer your point...I dont know. Maybe if someone feels at risk for being raped that will be enough to persuade them to get the vacination. I allwasy sat its better safe then sorry, but I dont think mandetory is the way to go.

7sm


----------



## Marginal (Nov 3, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> :idunno: I'm not sure I understand your point here.
> 
> 7sm


Equally tangental irrelevant contradictions.


----------



## Ray (Nov 3, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Equally tangental irrelevant contradictions.


I now have a new quote for my signature line.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 3, 2005)

Funny.  I thought it was the CONSERVATIVES who wanted to get government off our backs.  Now they want to get on our backs, inside our hospital rooms, our bedrooms, even our uteruses.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 3, 2005)

You sure your reading the same thread I am?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 3, 2005)

From someone arguing for mandated injections???

WTF?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Nov 4, 2005)

There are enough people in this country who home school their children and hold them apart for the most part from society in general, including not allowing them to be vaccinated for many of the reasons given in this thread and for religious reasons (e.g. Christian Scientists) so that a *mandatory* vaccination wouldn't cover all the bases, so to speak.  I don't think that indulging in 'conservative bashing', as someone said upthread, is the point.  The point is that we all have the right to choose how we live our lives within the societal boundaries set forth in this country.  Is this an invasion of privacy?  Is this dictating how one should live one's life?  I agree that it depends upon how all this gets through one's 'personal filter'.

Will it lead to irresponsible sex?  There's going to be irresponsible sex regardless of vaccines, condom use (or not), violent attacks on women and anything else you care to throw into the mix.  It's human nature.

The sad fact that many women do die of cervical cancer due to a virus is only compounded by the fact that many women are at risk to contract cervical cancer due to things outside their control. Some women were given anti-miscarriage medication during the 1940s and 50s which has been proven to cause cervical and other cancers in those children, male and female.  Not a virus. Not something you can take a pill for or be vaccinated against.  Knowing quite a few women who are DES babies, I can safely say that very few of them viewed this predisposition to contracting cervical cancer as an invitation to irresponsible sex because they were going to get it anyway.

My take?  Make it voluntary.  Have unbiased educational material (concerning the pros and cons fo receiving the vaccine) available to those who are unsure if they want/need it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 4, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> the decision to not vacinate yourself and thereby risk carrying a virus does exactly that.



So the liberals are trying to make flu shots manditory as well?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> My take? Make it voluntary. Have unbiased educational material (concerning the pros and cons fo receiving the vaccine) available to those who are unsure if they want/need it.


 Good post and I agree, but I think the notion of completely unbiased educational material in general is a pipe dream. Let alone unbiased on this type of issue and made available to all of those who are unsure about the vacination. I'm not saying this isn't what hsould be worked towards, but I dont honestly believe that can ever come to pass. 

7sm


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 4, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Good post and I agree, but I think the notion of completely unbiased educational material in general is a pipe dream. Let alone unbiased on this type of issue and made available to all of those who are unsure about the vacination. I'm not saying this isn't what hsould be worked towards, but I dont honestly believe that can ever come to pass.
> 
> 7sm


I agree. Our only hope is to continue to educate ourselves as much as possible and as widely as possible.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> There are enough people in this country who home school their children and hold them apart for the most part from society in general, including not allowing them to be vaccinated



Yeah, we home school and we see this a lot (and find that people assume we'll fit into the same mold). There will always be people who won't want to be vaccinated for whatever reason.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Nov 4, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yeah, we home school and we see this a lot (and find that people assume we'll fit into the same mold). There will always be people who won't want to be vaccinated for whatever reason.


 
I'm not saying that all people who home school are isolationist.  I have a student who was home schooled, and an only child.  He had no idea of how to interact with children his own age and wasn't introduced to any outside activities until he was five.  He's a bright child, but the other kids think he's strange because of the way he expresses himself (he thinks he's an adult.)  However, he is vaccinated because his parents rethought the process and he is in first grade in school.  So, if I was misinterpreted as painting everyone with the same brush, it was not my intention.  Obviously there are exceptions to everything.  

Point is, all that can be done is to make available the pros and cons and allow each person to decide what is best for him or her.  I know it's a bit Pollyanna-ish to state that unbiased educational material should be available, but have you ever read the literature which accompanies certain of your prescription drugs?  Reads like stereo instructions.  Certainly no bias can be interpreted there.  They tell you EVERYTHING that could POSSIBLY go wrong.  That was what I had in mind.  It's strictly clinical.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 5, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Point is, all that can be done is to make available the pros and cons and allow each person to decide what is best for him or her. I know it's a bit Pollyanna-ish to state that unbiased educational material should be available, but have you ever read the literature which accompanies certain of your prescription drugs? Reads like stereo instructions. Certainly no bias can be interpreted there. They tell you EVERYTHING that could POSSIBLY go wrong. That was what I had in mind. It's strictly clinical.



I agree, however having worked in the medical field and specifically in labs, I wouldn't believe that, "They tell you EVERYTHING that could POSSIBLY go wrong". But I agree, its as close as can be expected and is what we should work towards.

7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2005)

The very idea that personal moral issues should influence medical research and the development of disease fighting methods is asinine in the extreme.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Nov 6, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree, however having worked in the medical field and specifically in labs, I wouldn't believe that, "They tell you EVERYTHING that could POSSIBLY go wrong". But I agree, its as close as can be expected and is what we should work towards.
> 
> 7sm


 
Well, from a layperson's perspective, there's too much information.  My doc told me that even if one person reports something as a side effect, it is documented in the literature that accompanies the medication.  Yeesh.

Glad you agree with me concerning the important stuff.


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 7, 2005)

It seems like they're forgetting that you don't actually have to have sex to get HPV.  It's highly contageous and has been passed on just by "fooling around."  There are many kids with religious backgrounds that do "everything but..." which can still leave them open to diseases like HPV.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 7, 2005)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> It seems like they're forgetting that you don't actually have to have sex to get HPV. It's highly contageous and has been passed on just by "fooling around." There are many kids with religious backgrounds that do "everything but..." which can still leave them open to diseases like HPV.


 That's even besides the point.  It is not the job of medical researches to determine who "deserves" a given disease for a given behavior.  The idea that we should not develop a vaccine for a given illness, because the behavior that results in it we find morally wrong, is criminal.

What's next, we're going to stop doing research for adult onset diabetes and heart disease because many people get those diseases as a result of "gluttony" and laziness?  If find the whole concept asinine in the extreme.

What's more, this wouldn't even be an issue if men had consequences for HPV exposure, rather than just being carriers.  People always want consequences for "loose behavior" among women.  Pathetic.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 8, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So the liberals are trying to make flu shots manditory as well?


 
No, my mistake.  I confused the argument against mandatory vaccination as one against the vaccine itself.  

However, back to the original point, the entire mandatoriness argument is a smokescreen because that's not the reason the conservative groups are arguing this in the first place.  They don't like it because the vaccine prevents an STD; I don't recall mention of any disagreement with the slew of other vaccinations I had to have documented before entering middle and high school.  The entire reason they take issue with this vaccine is because it "might encourage sex", and for that they'd see a higher risk of infection occur.

My apologies if I caused the liberal mandatory injection tangent.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 8, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> However, back to the original point, the entire mandatoriness argument is a smokescreen because that's not the reason the conservative groups are arguing this in the first place. They don't like it because the vaccine prevents an STD; I don't recall mention of any disagreement with the slew of other vaccinations I had to have documented before entering middle and high school. The entire reason they take issue with this vaccine is because it "might encourage sex", and for that they'd see a higher risk of infection occur.


Actually it is listed as the reason the conservative groups are arguing.


			
				Rob Stein said:
			
		

> Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public  health tool but oppose making it mandatory.



So it seems the mandatoriness argument does seem to be the base. Its takes a big assuption based on personal bias to say something like...





			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> They don't like it because the vaccine prevents an STD;


 Thats really not what the discussion or article is about. Its specifically the arguement of making the vaccine mandatory. Not allowing a child to start high school without this shot is criminal in my eyes. To refuse a child high school education on the basis of their sexuality is simply the other side of the moral argument. If morals and religious beliefs should be left out of this then the mandatoriness of this vaccine should be droped. 

You simply dont have exposure to the other arguemtns of the "slew" of other vacinations. There are plenty of people who oppose other vacinations, however to compare a disease that spreads by airborne pathogens to one that spreads soley by sexual contact is assinine. 

I'll state again, to refuse this vacination does not increase your risk for cervical cancer, that is done by other means. There are many ways to prevent HPV beyond this vacination and many ways to aquire HPV aside from not getting this vacination. To setup this one shot as the only way to prevent HPV and thus cervical cancer is heavily disenginuous. Everyone is trying to mold their argument to say that those who oppose mandatory vacinations for HPV are supporting cervical cancer....simply not true. Opposing mandatory vacinations for HPV means nothing about supporting cervical cancer. Read the article again, even these conservative groups are saying this. Lets just look at WHO's risk factors for HPV or any STD....


			
				WHO said:
			
		

> Having intercourse at an early age, with many partners, or with partners who have had many partners all contribute to cervical cancer risk. HIV infection weakens the immune system and also increases cervical cancer risk. Women who smoke are nearly twice as likely than non-smokers to get cervical cancer.





			
				WHO said:
			
		

> risk factors for STDs, including unprotected sex and multiple sexual partners


 So we can see the risk factors. If we avoid these risk factors we significantly decrease our risk for STD's including HPV. So this vacination isn't the blanket factor to decrease risk of cervical cancer among teenage women that its played up to be. To be used as an important public health tool, great! To be mandated that we must take it....count me out. Oh, ironically this is exactly what the article states the conservative groups are also saying. 

7sm


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 8, 2005)

Lets look at this arguement from a different angle.

I recently read an article regarding lung cancer. they claimed to find a protein that was absent in most lung cancer victims. sorry, don't have the reference handy. The science in this case is irrelevent. let us suppose they find a cure for lung cancer. 100% recovery for everyone. Do you think there would be an increase in smoking? If so, why do you think that would be the case? If so, had they forgotten emphezema (sp)? Had they forgotten diminished lung capacity? nicotine addiction? Bad breath? (hehe)

OK, lets try angle for you non-smokers. suppose they develop some method for you to eat all the food you want and you won't gain weight! Now, do you think people will start eating more food? more junk food? If so, do you think the people forgot about other side effects? clogged arteries, heart attacks, not eating healty foods/balanced diet?

Is the cure for cancer a good thing? sure. Is not gaining excessive weight a good thing? sure. Will it be used as a tool/excuse for some people? I bet it would be. I tend towards optimism, but I also try to be realistic. If you diminish the penalty (cancer, fat), though other penalties still exist (heart attacks, lack of health), some people will tend to be more likely to perform the activity. Same arguements for mandatory seatbelt laws and speed limits. Does a cure for lung cancer "cause" more smoking? Does a cure for fat "cause" more junk food eating? doubtful, but it might help sway someones decision on wether or not to go to McD's or smoke occassionally.

Now, with the previous arguements, someone can have lung cancer w/out smoking, and they can be fat w/out excessive trips to McD. The resultant situation is not so cut and dry. With HPV, the situation is much more cut and dry, its only caused by one or two things. However, people don't like using the same arguements above because its about "sex", and we don't want some religious person telling us to not have premarital sex! This cure will not "cause" sex, but it might incline some people to consider things a bit different. We will go through the same arguements when AIDS cures are found. Same w/ every major STD. Same arguements will be rehashed.

So, end result... is it good the cure was found? sure. Will it increase sexual activity? perhaps. It sure won't -decrease- it. Should it be mandatory? No. will it? Depends on what kind of lunkheads we get in congress.

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2005)

Here's a link for the lung cancer story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051108/sc_nm/cancer_dc_3

On a related note (current STD incidence rates):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_he_me/std_cases


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Lets look at this arguement from a different angle.
> 
> I recently read an article regarding lung cancer. they claimed to find a protein that was absent in most lung cancer victims. sorry, don't have the reference handy. The science in this case is irrelevent. let us suppose they find a cure for lung cancer. 100% recovery for everyone. Do you think there would be an increase in smoking? If so, why do you think that would be the case? If so, had they forgotten emphezema (sp)? Had they forgotten diminished lung capacity? nicotine addiction? Bad breath? (hehe)
> 
> ...


 That's all irrelavent.  If science suddenly made smoking and eating Big Mac's by the dozen benign, why not do it.  Negative side effects are the only reason for not doing so now.  There is not any inherent evil, other than negative effects, involved in those activities.

Furthermore, the main reason for not engaging in unprotected sex is pregnancy and STD's.  Without either of those two concerns....WHO CARES (other than those that god "told" to care).  If God is mad at those who engaged in that behavior, he's more than capable of dealing with them later.  It's quite frankly none of our concern.


----------

