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

[mrhnau]

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]

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.

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]

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

Laterz.

 

[Phoenix44]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

“The situation is ripe for spread simply because there are so many unvaccinated people clustered together,” said Henry Hull with the Minnesota Department of Health. “Our principal job right now is to vaccinate as many people as possible.”

 

[7starmantis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.