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

[Andrew Green]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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".

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?

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.

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:

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]

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]

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]

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

7sm

Equally tangental irrelevant contradictions.

 

[Ray]

Equally tangental irrelevant contradictions.

I now have a new quote for my signature line.

 

[Phoenix44]

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]

You sure your reading the same thread I am?

 

[Tgace]

From someone arguing for mandated injections???

WTF?

 

[kenpo tiger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.