My Photo

« Koss-riffic! | Main | Incidents of Manipulative Self-Injurious Behavior Culminating in Acts of Asymmetric Warfare »

June 09, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200d834934c7b53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The HPV Vaccine And The Christian Right:

Comments

As someone who's tangled with Jes on the topic of 'pro-life' versus 'anti-woman' before, I'll step in and say that I agree wholeheartedly with you. Christian conservatives who oppose HPV vaccinations have sacrified what legitimacy they work to cling to. They are sacrificing lives on the altar of ideology, the very sin they so frequently accuse pro-choicers of. There is simply no excuse.

This one really should be a no-brainer. It seems to me that making it mandatory and administering it to young girls (boys soon, I hope), would totally disassociate the vaccine from sexual activity. The only non-ideological hurdle I've heard about is that the vaccine is projected to be rather expensive, as in something like $200 per dose. Would making the vaccination mandatory force insurers to pay for it?

Jackmormon: $360 for a series of 3 injections, I think. I have just closed all my HPV vaccine tabs, but I think that if it's mandatory, states and insurers will more or less have to cover it. (Good for both, in the long run: not just less money for cervical cancer, but also less money for further tests after irregular pap smears.)

states and insurers will more or less have to cover it. (Good for both, in the long run: not just less money for cervical cancer, but also less money for further tests after irregular pap smears.)

Yes, but.

The need to make it mandatory to get this benefit illustrates one of the problems with our fractured health insurance system. From the point of view of an individual insurance company the chance is small that a given 12-year-old that they pay to vaccinate today will save that specific company money years from now. So vaccination is not likely to be financially attractive to individual companies even though it makes economic sense for the health care system as a whole.

“The Christian Right” – why oh why can’t these people stay out of politics? Rather, why can’t politicians manage to ignore them? (Oh yeah, money and votes).

Anyway, don’t look to me to try to defend anything these hypocrites say. I don’t give any of them the time of day and frankly it is embarrassing to have them on my “side”. Yeah, politics makes strange bedfellows, but please, there is a limit.

I am not comfortable with making it mandatory – simply because time after time we have seen unfortunate and sometimes devastating side effects result years later. I realize that a vaccine is not the same as a new drug, but I would still shudder at the thought of saying we are going to inoculate every pre-teen in the country with a brand new vaccine. From the article you linked:

It is genetically engineered and does not contain live viruses that could theoretically cause disease.

He said Merck and the FDA will be monitoring its continued effectiveness as well as possible side effects that might not have been detected during clinical testing.

I’d feel a lot better about 10 years of voluntary use before making it mandatory. I know – in 10 years another 62 million Americans could become infected with the virus. But say some bad side effect does turn up after a few years – we may have impacted an entire generation of Americans with mandatory inoculations. So I would urge just a little more caution.

Coincidentally, I just got back from a presentation by one of the Merck researchers on the project (on the viral assay techniques used). He presented some of the data, and wow. 100% effective against all 4 strains used. That's pretty damn good. Great, even. My lab works with HIV, where such results are the stuff of fantasy.

Jack, he said it was ~150 per dose, with a schedule of 3 doses at 0, 2, and I think 6 months. Pricey, but with that kind of efficacy, it would seem to be money well spent.

I think it's worth differentiating between the motivations of "conservative Christians" (or whatever label one gives them) and self-proclaimed conservative Christian political organizations such as FotF.

FotF cares first and foremost about FotF. To that end, they will distort and misrepresent facts and messages, even if doing so may have deleterious effects on the health of large numbers of individuals.

And as in any other marketing effort, sex sells. Dress an anti-health (or any other) effort in stone-the-harlot clothing, and you'll have people backing it, and more importantly, you, no matter its actual effects or consequences.

If there's a debate about this issue, it ought imho to examine closely the motivations and statements of the people who have provoked it. I think doing so might eliminate what otherwise would seem to be points of disagreement.

So there's a thread on the HPV Vaccine... but nothing on the World Cup? Sheesh, the kitty's priorities are screwed up...

OCSteve,

I wouldn't be so worried about the genetic engineering. All they did was insert a gene for one of the viral coat proteins into yeast and then grow up lots of the yeast, kind of like brewing beer. They then purify the resulting VLPs (Virus Like Particles) and combine them with an adjuvant to make the vaccine formula. It's a fairly well-studied and much-used approach. I believe the HepB vaccine is produced the same way. The advantages of mass vaccination would, I think, outweigh the risks.

Get over it, guys.

Wait...you want me to volunteer to have my...um...equipment filed? Why a file, and not (for instance) a cheese grater?

Yeah, I know: we've had it easy.

Seriously, though: this is very, very good news. Where do I sign up to have my genitalia abraded?

Some might think that adherents of the much-vaunted "culture of life" would be behind this all the way.

Only the people who haven't been paying attention. The quadruple-bind that many women in the US face is the "culture of life" that wants to prevent them being told anything useful about safe sex as adolescents, sets roadblocks in the way of getting contraception as adults, fights bitterly against their getting abortions when they need them as a result of the first two options, denies them financial assistance in bringing up the children that result, and repeats "adoption" as if it were a cure-all when over 100 000 children in the US are available for adoption and no parents have been found who want them. Why would it surprise anyone that these people are also against women being immunized against sexually transmitted diseases? It's only what anyone who looked at what they do would expect.

I wouldn't be so worried about the genetic engineering.

I’m not per se (thanks for the detailed explanation on that too). Something about giving a new vaccine to an entire generation just raises red flags with me.

"Even some (presumably imaginary) girl whose decision whether or not to have sex does turn on the possibility of getting HPV in particular will still have lots of other strains left to worry about. So how could this possibly undermine a message of abstinence?"

The religious rightist might say, "What happens when there are treatments for the other diseases?" I take it that such a person, given the ability to eradicate all such diseases with the wave of a technological wand, would not do so, so I can't see how the above argument would make sense to him. Taking 10% from a heap may or may not leave a heap.

If God wants people to suffer as a consequence of sin, surely he'll find another way?

I think the religous rightist are motivated by part of an old Dennis Miller stand up act that went something like:

Man, can you imagine the day they cure AIDS? If you can't get laid that day you're dead.

JM: If God wants people to suffer as a consequence of sin, surely he'll find another way?

I once asked someone who believed that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuality if this meant cervical cancer was God's punishment for heterosexuality.

Something about giving a new vaccine to an entire generation just raises red flags with me.

Do you feel the same way about the polio vaccine? Or the smallpox vaccine?

Seriously, though: this is very, very good news. Where do I sign up to have my genitalia abraded?

Isn't that the whole purpose of blogging?

I'm actually agreeing with OCSteve. Always nice to find some common ground :)

Great news, really wonderfull. I am hesitant about mandatory vaccination, because I am always slightly distrusfull of medication and vaccinations. I am a DES daughter *and* come from a rather calvinist country, that may play a part. Though I did vaccinate all my kids - after some research.

But volontarily for both boys and girls would be great! I hope we will have it in our schedule soon.

[comment recapitulating stuff hilzoy said Xed]

Wow - strange topic: I find myself agreeing with both OCSteve and Jesurgislac! In the same thread!
But Larv (or anyone else who might know the answer): while any sort of vaccine with a 100% effectiveness rate is, of course, a fantastic development: what about the trepidations Steve voiced? How extensively have the HPV vaccines been tested? Numbers? Distribution? Timeframe? And most importantly: what are the side-effects, if any, and how common?

And just btw: how comes it that Focus on the Family gets to "provide a list" for these (presumably easy-comfirmation) Federal Board nominations? Aren't governmental scientific advisory boards supposed to be staffed by folks with, you know, scientific qualifications? Or, these days, is closeminded sexual obsession considered enough for vetting?

I think OCSteve's worries are well founded indeed (from a general, non-empirical perspective.)

Wait...you want me to volunteer to have my...um...equipment filed? Why a file, and not (for instance) a cheese grater?

Slarti, did you know that the device used for women's Pap smears looks like a mascara brush or a miniature toilet brush? This cylindrical set of bristles are inserted into the cervix and rotated. You may bleed slightly afterwards.

You're getting off easy with the emery paper. Seriously.

That's why we ultimately need to vaccinate boys against HPV too.

It's not the only reason. HPV has been associated with penile, head and neck, some skin, and possibly some lung cancers as well as cervical cancer.

Chalk me up as inherently skeptical as to the long-term safety of ANY recently-developed medicine. I share OCSteve's proceed-with-caution mindset on this, and the general disgust with the Christianist objections to the vaccine.

But on the balance--fantastic news. Sign me up for the emery board--it can't possibly be any worse than waiting for pubic hair to grow back after the vasectomy. :>

Slarti, did you know that the device used for women's Pap smears looks like a mascara brush or a miniature toilet brush? This cylindrical set of bristles are inserted into the cervix and rotated. You may bleed slightly afterwards.

Don't forget the cramping.

I know you guys have your problems too, but sometimes it's really NOT fun being female.

----

I'm really trying to understand the right's side on this, but I'm lost. I mean, God gave us brains to USE, right? To improve our situation?

Slarti, did you know that the device used for women's Pap smears looks like a mascara brush or a miniature toilet brush? This cylindrical set of bristles are inserted into the cervix and rotated. You may bleed slightly afterwards.

I'm hardly interested in furthering a "no, my sex has it worse!" debate. And having been with my wife through countless visits to the Ob/Gyn and the birth of my son, I'd hardly begrudge that the wimmenfolk have a pretty decent claim to the "we suffer more" prize. But, FTR, the apt comparison for emory board ==> penis is not a Pap smear. It's emory board ==> clitoris.


Hilzoy, I agree with most everything you say in this post, (as in most of your posts by the way) but feel that there are some issues here worth exploring.
On the question of vaccinating 12 year old girls against HPV, I feel that the medical aspect of the question clouds the fact that we are talking about a sexually transmitted disease. Sexuality in all its forms is conflictual for human individuals and societies, and is inevitably subject to taboos and restrictions. It is much more than a health issue.
My position on this issue has been moving to the right over a long period of time now, perhaps because I have teenage children, but also because I find the world to be much more complicated than I thought it was at 20. A few years ago my (then) 13 year old son came back from school one day after the French equivalent of Family Planning had done a session of sex education in the classroom. (Why is sex education always about hardware, you know penises and vaginas, where is the poetry ?, God, even some lust would be better than surgical hygenics...) At the end of the session, the well-meaning lecturer handed out condoms to all the children.
Some people--indeed most of my friends --- found that laudable, you know, a really PREVENTIVE attitude. But I asked my son (with whom I have a close enough relationship to be able to mention sexuality, not to talk about it personally, mind you) how many people in his class had had sex or were contemplating it, and he said, no one. So, that's the definition of prevention, isn't it, getting rid of the problem before it is one ? Unfortunately, as preemptive bombing and war have shown, a zero risk attitude about anything entails its own risks. I've spent the last two years getting the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize the diminished responsibility of juveniles in capital crimes, so that they will not be executed. That means that the Court rightly recognized, in my mind, the vulnerability and the immaturity of adolescents : the fact that they are, in many cases, very open to suggestion.
I'm afraid that by handing out condoms in class, and introducing mandatory vaccinations, we will be lulling ourselves with the illusion that we are protecting our children, you know, giving ourselves a good conscience. In spite of great documents (on paper) like the Declaration of Children's Rights, we are not doing such a good job. And, possibly some of those people on the "Christian Right" who are so decried on this blog have these preoccupations too.

You're getting off easy with the emery paper. Seriously.

Yeah, I thought I made that clear. Guess I failed.

Have I ever noticed that I once lived with a woman whose entire job consisted of screening pap smears? I think I've had a pretty decent (if, of necessity, indirect) association with what's involved, thanks.

I know you guys have your problems too, but sometimes it's really NOT fun being female.

I get it. Really, I do. No, I don't get it COMPLETELY; no male ever will until he's rejuvenated, sex-changed, put through puberty, been subjected to painful mestruation, gotten pregnant, delivered a child, and then raised that child to adulthood. And then, perhaps, seriously considered cosmetic breast surgery; I have no idea. So until that happens, best give up any notions that men can be made to Get It; the best we can do is acknowledge that we have it easy. Because, really, we do. Acknowledged. Hey, my nine-year-old was just today going through crying jags, so I think she's already had it much harder than I ever did.

As for preemption, the religious right, etc: I'm religious, I'm definitely conservative, and I think this is great. So are/do lots of other people I know, who manage to be religious right without being Religious Right. Just as one can be liberal without parading around naked in protest of something-or-other. Yes, there are lots of Religious Right out there, and I completely grant that there's many more of them than naked liberal protestors, but that doesn't make it anywhere near accurate to swab us all with the same brush. I'm for sex education in schools, BTW, until such time as parents are doing the job at home, themselves, at an appropriate time. My kids are going to know what they can know (without, you know, actually having sex) well before they need to. My nine-year-old already knows quite a lot, but she hasn't yet assimilated it all.

As for the wisdom of inoculating an entire generation (actually, I'd think you'd want to do two or three, right now): I kind of get that fear. What if there's some bizarre side effect? Caution is good. Not knowing how much clinical caution has already been exercised, I'd want to learn more.

Baa baaa cluck cluck moo moo

there never was any real controversy

big pharma versus vocal fringe minority

no contest

in the meantime, there will be no election 2008 because der Shrubenfueher aint leaavin office. haliburton is busy building what certainly will be touted as public housing in the form of detention camps for those who disapprove of overtly living in a dictatorship.

Big Pharma will continue to push its way into our lives until everyone from grandma to the family parakeet is doped up on their mind numbing, life stealing poisons.

or didn't you know that donald rumsfeld is the reason asperitame is in every fucking food you pick up.

Chemical lobotomies for all. The HPV vaccine is another profit making venture. You don't think they really give a shit about saving your worthless life? Doya?

Debra: I'm afraid that by handing out condoms in class, and introducing mandatory vaccinations, we will be lulling ourselves with the illusion that we are protecting our children, you know, giving ourselves a good conscience.

Well, obviously, there's more to protecting teenagers than handing out condoms and introducing mandatory vaccinations - I don't think anyone here was suggesting that there wasn't. There's more to being a good car driver than just having passed your driving test and always wearing seatbelts: but no one would suggest, I hope, that we shouldn't encourage people who want to drive to pass their driving test and always wear their seatbelt.

But I asked my son (with whom I have a close enough relationship to be able to mention sexuality, not to talk about it personally, mind you) how many people in his class had had sex or were contemplating it, and he said, no one.

Not that I want to disparage your relationship with your son, but I think one thing is all but certain about teenagers: they don't tell the whole truth about what they're thinking about sex to adults, not even (especially) their own parents. It doesn't matter how honest and open a relationship a parent has with their child: come adolescence, no one is going to fully open up to their own parents about sex. (Okay, that's a sweeping, grand generalisation: but while I've met many parents who contradicted me about this with regard to their own children, I've never met anyone who thought this wasn't true about their relationship with their own parents.)

But, even supposing what your son said is true: good. Before those kids start thinking about sex, they should get used to the idea that having intercourse means using a condom. Even if both people are having sex for the first time.

"Hey, my nine-year-old was just today going through crying jags"

Please G*d have mercy on your humble servants r. and Mrs. r.

Big Pharma will continue to push its way into our lives until everyone from grandma to the family parakeet is doped up on their mind numbing, life stealing poisons

are they in league with the tin foil manufacturers?

But, even supposing what your son said is true: good. Before those kids start thinking about sex, they should get used to the idea that having intercourse means using a condom. Even if both people are having sex for the first time.

Amen and amen, Jes.

When people ask me when my parents gave me The Talk, I say: "I don't remember NOT knowing." I think it's not actually a bad strategy: get your kids to associate sex with embarrassing lectures from your parents and embarrassing 1970s era books about the beauty of menstruation and the female body. Aversion therapy. Worked in my family. (It doesn't hurt to have geeky, late-developing kids, either.)

Two funniest kids' replies to "junior, when two people love each other very much..." (both true stories):

"I know, Dad, I saw it on Nova."
"Don't worry, mom, [girlfriend]'s on the pill."

Personally, assuming dubitante that some fractionally higher percentace of twelve-year-olds will have sex early if exhaustively educated about safer sex--that's a trade I'll take, and happily, for getting them to consistently use condoms and birth control when they eventually do.

I don't buy it, but even if I did I think society would be far better off and saner about sexuality on the balance.

Katherine, for a moment there I thought your latter quote was referring to Dad's girlfriend...

I don't buy it either, Catsy. It implies some sort of alternate Pleasantville universe, where chaste teens hold hands and stroll in the park before weenie-roasts with their youth groups. What keeps them from plunging into a dark world of debauchery and uninhibited sex? Nothing but the silent, implied disapproval of their schoolteachers! Telling them how to avoid dying if they do have sex will flip the magic switch -- and lo, these pure and innocent kids will romp around, fornicating like rabbits...

I think I mentioned that I have never asked my now 18 year old son if he had had/was having sex, and that I have no idea whether or not he is a virgin, to use a quaint word which can be applied to both sexes. I never gave him a talk on the birds or the bees either. All sex education in our household was of a casual, indirect nature that interested parties could either seize upon, or ignore.
As far as the information side of sex education is concerned, if I did a little survey, just how many of us out there (between 40 and 50 or maybe even younger) used a condom the first time ? I know that I was unprotected (and foolish), but certainly not ignorant about the subject. Most of my friends were too.
That's why as far as my kids are concerned, I think that part of parenting involves crossing one's fingers, and hoping (or praying, depending on one's beliefs...) for the best.

Debra: That's why as far as my kids are concerned, I think that part of parenting involves crossing one's fingers, and hoping (or praying, depending on one's beliefs...) for the best.

I think that's true of all kids - sooner or later. There has to be a time when you stop walking with them to school, when you cross your fingers, hope for the best, and let them go on their own. Maybe they'll remember everything you told them about stopping at the crossing-lights, looking both ways, not running out from between parked cars, not taking candy from strangers, and everything else you dinned into their ears.

Maybe they won't. Maybe even if they do remember everything you said, something awful will still happen to them.

But you couldn't walk with them wherever they were going for the rest of their lives: you had to cross your fingers and hope that everything you'd taught them about how to get from A to B in reasonable safety had in fact sunk in.

The same applies to their having sex - except you really can't walk them through it the first few times!

No one is ever made safer by having been kept ignorant of the safety rules.

To dog-pile on: Teenagers in my experience (not much beyond just having been one) are far more worried about pregnancy than they are about STDs, let alone HPV, which will cause them no immediate embarrassment with their parents and friends, and will only make them ill, if it does, many years down the road. Condom breaks? First fear isn't "what if he has syphillis?" but "omg, what if I'm pregnant?"

I can't imagine that teenagers who are refraining from sex because of worries about pregnancy will suddenly think that they should start having mad sex because a virus they'd barely heard about now has a vaccine.

nice job of detraction there uh cleek. are you bought and paid for by the whores in big pharma or some other whores?

Ok, Debra, I'll answer.

My parents were far too shy to talk about sex with us kids, and they by and large let the Church with its abstinence message do the talking. The schools weren't too shy. The public-school teacher who was so frank as to get in trouble with some concerned parents didn't even faze me, as a kid who blithely assumed that the sex talk was for those other kids who weren't going to wait until marriage; I asked my embarrassed questions after class, like "why do humans only have hair in strange places?" The private-school teacher, who talked about STDs, harm-reduction, contraceptives, made matters quite clear.

So, when I first had sex, at 18 1/2, with another virgin, the very first thing we did after deciding, yes, we want to do this, was sit down together and read very carefully the condom package's instructions--just to be sure we'd do it right. I'd call that a victory for school-based sex-ed.

I advise not ever joining Moral Majority. You may be giving your children the impression that it's OK to get cancer.

nice job of detraction there uh cleek. are you bought and paid for by the whores in big pharma or some other whores?

Do you have an opinion on the HPV vaccine? Because that's the topic under discussion.

marblex: the posting rules require civility and forbid profanity (see your first comment.) As von noted, they also favor actually discussing the point at hand.

Do you have any actual evidence that HPV causes cancer? That statistic comes from the product's designer. If you actually bothered to read about the science, you wouldn't be arguing this as a faux-political issue. It's not that, it's something else.

The question is should you give a potentially dangerous vaccine to all girls because out of all women who ever have herpes, and that's most of us, and most people at one time or another, less than two percent at some time or another have a cervical displasia, often of very mild severity?

Vaccines contain strong chemicals and adjuvants that can cause a lot of damage in children, and in developing people (and maybe also in adults, as some people blame vaccine experiments for gulf war syndrome). I think you are misrepresenting the question as a sex or non-sex debate, but that it should be a valid science debate.

As far as the information side of sex education is concerned, if I did a little survey, just how many of us out there (between 40 and 50 or maybe even younger) used a condom the first time ? I know that I was unprotected (and foolish), but certainly not ignorant about the subject. Most of my friends were too.

STD wasn't a big thing back than, but I started the pill on time. Most of the girls I knew did that. These days all the teenagers I know say that it is dumb to have sex without a condom - and I think that is wonderfull. Nothing works better than the disapproval of peers...

For all the sex education our schools give, the free availability of the pill for women under 18 and the casual showing of nudeness, the average age our teens have intercourse is not different from the American average. Last time I checked it was even slighly lower. Our abortions and teenage pregnancies however are really much much lower.

We think that being well informed is a good thing, because it allows people to make informed decisions. And that includes teenagers - who are quite likely to have sex anyway.

Hilzoy:

Get over it, guys.
Not just no, but uh-uh. Playing dodge ball in junior high was bad enough...

Mila, frankly, I'd just as soon not get herpes. Even if it didn't lead to cancer.

Hilzoy, I wouldn't expect the FotF arguments to make sense, considering the context. For many years, their one non-fundamentalist argument against mainstream sexual norms has been that promiscuity is leading to death, sterility, and birth defects by way of HPV. If you take that argument away, they won't be able to terrify non-fundies with inflated statistics any more. They hate that idea. Therefore, the vaccine must be stopped, so they can continue to inveigh against the virus.

That's the actual reasoning, everything else is smokescreen.

trilobite: yeah; my take on that, last time I wrote on this, was that the specific role of HPV was not just that it caused cancer, but that condoms do not protect against it (nor do any other methods of birth control, besides abstaining from sex or any other genital contact; and thus HPV was the centerpiece of a "safe sex: it's not safe!" argument.

Mila, it doesn't help your argument that you seem to have confused herpes with HPV, which makes it very unlikely that you have "read about the science" as you're telling others to do.

I think Mila is right when saying that this shouldn't be a 'sex-no sex debate'.

I see that most of the times when gardasil is discussed, it generally leads to a 'it must be good, because the Christians are against it'- reasoning.

And eventhough I am not in favor of this vaccine either, it doesn't mean it is for the same reasons as the (right-winged) Christians.

Like somebody else stated here before, I think it's pretty naieve to believe that the pharmaceutical company who invented this vaccine must care so much for us to make it even mandatory.

And I wouldn't trust the 'scientific arguments' that mega drugmaker Merck gives to convince us this vaccine must be 'good and life-saving' either, I prefer to get my science info from a source that's not attached or influenced by some pharma brand.

I found an(and other) article (http://www.redflagsweekly.com/second_opinion/2002_nov25.html) with scientific arguments and a bit of explanation on the history of how the med establishment has gone all the way in accepting a THEORY(that HPV would be the cause of cervical cancer).

The only one who will benefit from this dangerous and very expensive vaccine, is the maker of it, if you ask me.

And the long-term effects will only be known in the future after a whole generation of women will have allowed themselves to be used as guinea pigs(and it wouldn't be the first time). I can only hope it won't turn out that bad, but I am not willing to get this triple shot!


Slarti, did you know that the device used for women's Pap
smears looks like a mascara brush or a miniature toilet brush? This cylindrical
set of bristles are inserted into the cervix and rotated. You may bleed
slightly afterwards.

You're getting off easy with the emery paper. Seriously

But at the end the men proved that they didn't *have* to undergo the emery paper procedure and received a patient-friendly procedure thanks to their rebellion against the med establishment.

I don't see why women couldn't do the same instead of submitting to the most humiliating procedure to have their vagina's swabbed. The truth is that there are already non-invasive tests invented that are actually more accurate than the tradionally obtained pap smear, like the csa blood test for instance.

But why oh why are women still not been given these women-friendly tests?

And why don't they just ask for it?

Even the men who didn't know that there was a more acceptable procedure to obtain the same thing, refused the original procedure and got something better anyway.

Yazzy: I see that most of the times when gardasil is discussed, it generally leads to a 'it must be good, because the Christians are against it'- reasoning.

I've never seen any such reasoning on any of the blogs/threads on which I have seen the HPV vaccine discussed. On all the blogs/threads on which I have seen the HPV vaccine discussed, it generally leads to "It would be a good idea, because getting cervical cancer is bad" reasoning. (Mockery of Christians who think that the threat of cervical cancer is a neato-keeno way of preventing girls from wanting to have sex usually does occur in the discussion, though.)

I do not believe that the govenment should make it mandatory. WE DON't KNOW THE REAL SIDE EFFECTS. Just like we are not told alot of things. I do not think we should encourage teens to have sex they should obstain . If you have sex too early with too many partners your emotions become screwed up. It is not a good thing. TEACH ABSTINECE.

bobbie: I do not think we should encourage teens to have sex they should obstain .

I don't think we should encourage teens to obstain. Not unless we're also encouraging teens to do their own damn laundry whenever they leave obstains on the sheets.

I am 45 and I have HPV (my cells were not of the 2 deadly strains, thank God). Our 14-yr-old will NOT have the vaccine. Instead, she has been told what she may very well face should she decide to engage in sex. For some reason, we tell kids not to drink (we do not provide them with beer stiens or fake ID's) and we tell them not to use drugs (we don't give them rolling papers or find dealers for them), yet we toss up our hands w/ regard to sex and decide that we can't do anything except give our precious girls a way to have sex supposedly safely! What the heck is wrong with our society?! Sex is NOT good either emotionally or physically for teen girls. Why aren't we trying to use other teens to push an anti-sex message and show how dangerous & non-glamourous sex is for teens? Instead, we give up and give in to a culture that is physically and emotionally dangerous to our teen girls. When our daughter is 18, she may make the choice to have the vaccine. Should she engage in premarital sex before then, she has heard ALL about the risks (and about how guys will use her and talk about her, as they WILL). I am not embarrased to say that we follow God's teachings on sex. We answer to God, not to what is secularly popular at the time. If my husband and I could go back in life and NOT have sex (with others), we surely would. It is up to US to make sure our daughter knows the dangers of sex, but not prepare her for teen sex.
The CDC has NEVER before made a NON-communicative disease grounds for madatory vaccines and it shouldn't start now! It's time parents fight the govt for what should be parental choice. We parents should OPT-IN our girls (if we wish), not OPT-OUT our girls. I am not only a parent of 2, but a high school teacher. I am tired of my school children thinking sex is fine and then being used by young men (and older men!) because we have a society that thinks it's a teen's RIGHT to make a poor choice. Our society is on a slippery slope and our kids are paying the price for our stupidity on issues of teen sex.

MANY of you need to go back and read your posts. You probably claim to be "progressive," but your anti-Christian, anti-religion speech says othewise.
A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. So much for "tolerance," "diversity" and "inclusion." How ironic that what you claim is inexcusable (prejudice, judging, etc) is something you have embraced.

The CDC has NEVER before made a NON-communicative disease grounds for madatory vaccines and it shouldn't start now!

HPV is a communicative disease. That's the reason for the vaccine.

Your reasoning that if your daughter has sex or is raped before her 18th birthday you would rather she was at greater risk of cervical cancer... well, God damn you for careless parents.

MANY of you need to go back and read your posts. You probably claim to be "progressive," but your anti-Christian, anti-religion speech says othewise. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. So much for "tolerance," "diversity" and "inclusion." How ironic that what you claim is inexcusable (prejudice, judging, etc) is something you have embraced.

You must have a different definition of "bigotry," "anti-Christian," and "anti-religion" than the dictionary.

In any event, this thread is more than two years old.


FLNonny, although you seem to be using I would invite you to participate

Getting vaccinated against a potentially fatal form of cancer is not, no matter how hard you might wish upon a star, encouraging your kids to go fornicate themselves bowlegged.

Unless, you know, you make it come out that way. You don't have to, but you're certainly free to, if that's the result you desire. I think I'd choose a different approach, though.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast