Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "They didn't answer nicely. They gotten carried away and didn't answer my point." No, you just don't like the answer.
Originally Posted By woody I never thought I'll post from Daily Kos, but this is interesting. <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/184627/12" target="_blank">http://www.dailykos.com/story/ 2005/10/17/184627/12</a> "The most common usage of red/blue is to attack individual citizens with state-level data. For example, red states have higher rates of teen pregnancy. So much for "family values," eh? The problem is, drawing individual-level inferences from state-level data is what we call the ecological fallacy. It might very well be that the Democrats within each state are the ones getting pregnant. Or not. But the point is, there's no way to know from state-level data." --- It might prove something or nothing. We just need more data.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I think we're reallllly reaching trying to make sex a liberal/conservative issue.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Well, SPP and ecdc answered nicely on that one. I'll just add that here in 2006 the rate of teen pregnancy tends to be higher in red states than in those big bad liberal blue ones.<< <They didn't answer nicely. They gotten carried away and didn't answer my point.> SPP answered that very nicely (!) in #179. <It is a simple fact that kids are having sex. It is another fact when sex is promoted via the liberal media and liberal morals.> Kids are having sex, period. Conservative kids are having sex (was it this thread where someone said that in his experience Catholic and Mormon girls were the wildest he'd known?), probably as much or more than liberal kids. And the media? Sex sells - that's the bottom line with that one. Rupert Mudoch's Fox is as highly sexualized as any network - arguably more. As SPP says, trying to fit sex into some liberal/conservative divide really doesn't work. <You're the one who cited some interesting stats. And now you're saying the Blue States are less "blue" than the Red States. I'm sure you'll also say society doesn't happen in a vacuum and you said basing treatment on geographic location won't work. Is that right? I thought you might say the Red States deserved it more than the Blue States, but you didn't.> No, I didn't. And I said I wasn't aware that the rates for cervical cancer were different geographically, (although the rates for teen pregnancy seem to be). Daily Kos is quite right on the logical fallacy - I just wanted to point out that assuming liberal people or regions are more liberal with regard to sex is itself a fallacy. >>Okay. But I guess the argument is: should this just be something that pediatricians recommend (for a fee, if they bother to do it, IF the kids go in to see them - and there are millions of kids whose families don't have insurance who rarely if ever see a pediatrician), or should this become part of the standard vaccination protocol?<< <There should be a checklist of treatment where parents get informed of the vaccine. However, making it mandatory suggest government interference where there isn't an societal emergency is going too far.> Okay, that's a reasonable position. I disagree; I think enough lives would be saved that it makes more sense to make "yes" the default, with the parents' option to opt out (thus no more mandatory than tetanus, which is no societal emergency either), but reasonable minds can disagree. <As for insurance, let's not ask for univeral health insurance.> No one did. I was just pointing out that most people without insurance don't regularly visit the pediatrician, and thus having the vaccine there only would leave a lot of people on the outside.
Originally Posted By woody >> Kids are having sex, period. Conservative kids are having sex (was it this thread where someone said that in his experience Catholic and Mormon girls were the wildest he'd known?), probably as much or more than liberal kids. << But we often associate the Religious Right with the non-Demominational Protestants and the Baptists. Nice try. I happen to think the Catholics are quite Liberal. As for the Mormons, I have no opinion. Then again, the ancedotal evidence is nothing to base an opinion about.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> Kids are having sex, period. Conservative kids are having sex (was it this thread where someone said that in his experience Catholic and Mormon girls were the wildest he'd known?), probably as much or more than liberal kids. << <But we often associate the Religious Right with the non-Demominational Protestants and the Baptists. Nice try.> Thanks. The Religious Right can also take in right-wing Catholics and even right-wing Jews. I brought up Catholics and Mormons because of the previous poster's comments only. <I happen to think the Catholics are quite Liberal. As for the Mormons, I have no opinion.> Catholics run the gamut (actually, most denominations do, though you'd hardly know it to listen to some people). Mormons have a reputation for being highly conservative, but I've known liberal Mormons. <Then again, the ancedotal evidence is nothing to base an opinion about.> Indeed.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/29/hpv.vaccine.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH /06/29/hpv.vaccine.ap/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Panel recommends routine cervical cancer shots for 11-, 12-year-olds << Happy endings.
Originally Posted By gadzuux BTW - For those that remember the story we bandied about here over a year ago - about the oklahoma judge with a "pump problem" - it's still going on. <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/06/28/national/a113245D44.DTL&type=bondage" target="_blank">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti cle.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/06/28/national/a113245D44.DTL&type=bondage</a> >> Awkward Moments Abound in Pump Trial << I didn't want to start a whole new thread on this, but at least wanted to provide a 'heads-up'.
Originally Posted By woody At the CNN article, the controversy never materialized. Thus, the criticism against Focus On The Family was overblown. However, some of you really haven't read the article. The panel said doctors have "discretion" to give 9 year olds shots. It didn't make it mandatory as a condition of going to schools. Only states have that power (according to the article).
Originally Posted By gadzuux FOFs position was clear. Just because it was flat rejected doesn't mean criticism against their position was "overblown" - if anything, it means that it was justified. >> The panel said doctors have "discretion" to give 9 year olds shots. It didn't make it mandatory as a condition of going to schools. << After 188 posts, you still don't seem to understand the "other side's" argument. It was never 'mandatory' for going to school. Further, the 'discretion' is to differentiate between the nine year olds and the 11-12 year olds for which the vaccination is 'recommended'.
Originally Posted By woody >>After 188 posts, you still don't seem to understand the "other side's" argument.<< Going back to the article in Post 1. Quote "The argument of groups such as Focus on the Family has been that the vaccine shouldn't be mandatory, because young girls could get the message that it's OK to have sex." It isn't mandatory yet.
Originally Posted By woody >>FOFs position was clear. Just because it was flat rejected doesn't mean criticism against their position was "overblown" - if anything, it means that it was justified.<< There was nothing to reject. That line of argument wasn't considered by the panel. OVERBLOWN.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/29/hpv.vaccine.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH /06/29/hpv.vaccine.ap/index.html</a> From the link: Merck officials said that in the past 18 months they met with several conservative and religious groups to educate them about the vaccine and the illnesses it is designed to prevent. Earlier this year, the Family Research Council, a conservative group, did not speak out against giving the HPV shot to young girls. The organization mainly opposes making it one of the vaccines required before youngsters can enroll in school, said the group's policy analyst, Moira Gaul. Another organization, Colorado-based Focus on the Family, was even stronger in voicing fears that states would require schoolchildren to get HPV shots. "By giving its highest level of recommendation, the panel has placed strong pressure on state governments to make HPV vaccinations mandatory," Linda Klepacki, a Focus on the Family analyst for sexual health, said in a statement. "If that happens, state officials, not parents, would become the primary sexual-health decision makers for America's children. That's the way things are done in dictatorships, not democracies." The government advisory panel did not recommend that the vaccine be required by schools, though some organizations -- including Planned Parenthood -- have advocated such a step.
Originally Posted By ecdc "That's the way things are done in dictatorships, not democracies." Now THAT's rich. FOTF telling us what is a Democracy. Hey, they really do have a sense of humor.
Originally Posted By barboy "I thought we were a republic" probably.....But another description might be an "indirect democracy". Just think how very close some of us came to being part of a "confederation" just prior to July 1863(well, if you are a Floridain, Texan or Virginian ect.)
Originally Posted By woody SPP: Referring to Post 192, I don't know what you're talking about. Ooop, maybe you do know!!!!
Originally Posted By woody SPP: That CNN article hasn't changed anything that has transpired. The Panel made its recommendation, yet at the same time, it isn't a mandatory recommendation although it could lead to it since it is its strongest recommendation. There are still lots of work to be done to make it mandatory or not. If you know anything about a bureaucracy, it will take an extremely long time and each state will have to take up the issue individually. Some blue states like California and New York might move quickly, yet other states will take it slowly or ultimately reject it.
