Originally Posted By mele From Urban Dictionary.com: Theocon A short term for theocratic neoconservatives--a combination of hardcore Republican and Fundamentalist Christian From Dictionary.com: neoconservatism An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s†(Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
Originally Posted By mele I'm not sure I answered what a neocon is...but I couldn't really explain it since I don't use the term.
Originally Posted By woody I can't believe the trashing of "theo-cons" around here. I will only focus on the article. I haven't checked other sources for their side of the story. It starts out by saying "A WONDER DRUG for women has just become available. But if a small group of politically prominent social conservatives have their way, many of them won't have access to it. ", but when you read the text at the bottom, it says "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." First of all, not making it mandatory does not prevent anyone from getting the vaccine. If a parent or doctor recommends it and the patient agrees, then they will get the vaccine. Second, the characterization that young girls will think it is "OK to have sex" sounds like there is something more going on here than merely a cancer treatment. Have the doctors unwittingly made stupid statements that got misunderstood? This article is clearly making a lot of noise and it appears to be a bludgeon against conservatives who have a contrary opinion of this "mandatory" medical treatment. What's left out is who is likely to be affected by cervical cancer? <a href="http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp" target="_blank">http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp</a> "The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, about 9,710 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. Some researchers estimate that noninvasive cervical cancer (carcinoma in situ) is about 4 times more common than invasive cervical cancer." "About 3,700 women will die from cervical cancer in the United States during 2006. Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women. Between 1955 and 1992, the number of cervical cancer deaths in the United States dropped by 74%. The main reason for this change is the increased use of the Pap test. This screening procedure can find changes in the cervix before cancer develops. It can also find early cancer in its most curable stage. The death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% a year." Ooops, down down down.... Where's the emergency?!!!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Have the doctors unwittingly made stupid statements that got misunderstood?" No, groups like Focus on the Family have taken this topic and run with it. Cancer run in your family woody?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Thanks, Mele, for this: "An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s." But how does a "Neo"conservative differ from just a plain ol' conservative? I still fail to appreciate the difference. Methinks there are people or groups out there who just like to invent new terms.
Originally Posted By woody "Cancer run in your family woody?" No, so is mandatory treatment necessary? You make my argument because not every family has a "cancer" problem!!!
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon <<Cancer run in your family woody?>> That was definately a below the belt shot.
Originally Posted By woody <a href="http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp" target="_blank">http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp</a> "Cervical cancer occurs most often in Hispanic women; the rate is over twice that in non-Hispanic white women. African-American women develop this cancer about 50% more often than non-Hispanic white women. "
Originally Posted By woody "That was definately a below the belt shot." I agree. SPP seems to like to get personal.
Originally Posted By mele The drug also helps prevent genital warts as well as kill HPV, which is spread through sexual contact. That might be why people are commenting on the sexual aspect of it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >"That was definately a below the belt shot." I agree. SPP seems to like to get personal.< Hardly. If you don't have cancer in your family, which is fortunate for you, then I would suggest you can't relate to those who would insist it become mandatory. THAT was the point I was making. Not everyone got measles, the mumps or polio, but those vaccines have been mandatory. If it can ward off a potentially fatal illness, what's the problem?
Originally Posted By woody Some diseases you cite like measles are highly contagious. You can't get cervical cancer in the same way. It would appear to be prevalent with some types of people. To ask for a mandatory treatment for the general public is a poor use of resources.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon Sorry passholder. it seemed an insult. If it wasnt, im sorry.
Originally Posted By mele Focus on the Family isn't complaining about the use of resources. They are complaining that it will encourage kids to have sex. That's a ridiculous reason to discourage the mandatory use of a vaccine.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What about polio, woody? It's just about been eradicated through vaccines. Wouldn't it be nice to say the same about cervical cancer? It's cool, Dirk.
Originally Posted By woody I realized that this is getting ridiculous. The response by those in Focus On The Family is actually more measured. They are getting feedback from parents who are concerned abou the problem. That's why Focus On The Family is doing their job by saying the treatment should not be mandatory. ------------- <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747.html</a> "Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teenagers 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, in a telephone interview. "There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe," said Finger, emphasizing that HE DOES NOT ENDORSE THAT POSITION and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation. Conservative medical groups have been fielding calls from concerned parents and organizations, officials said. "I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. But Rudd said most people change their minds once they learn more, adding that he would probably want his children immunized. Rudd, however, draws the line at making the vaccine mandatory. "Parents should have the choice. There are those who would say, 'We can provide a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine, and that is to teach abstinence,' " Rudd said. In a statement, the conservative Family Research Council said it will "monitor the development of these vaccines, the FDA drug approval process, the development of recommendations for their use and the marketing of these vaccines." "While we welcome medical advances such as an HPV vaccine, it remains clear that practicing abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage is the single best way of preventing the full range of sexually transmitted diseases," the group said. The council is planning to meet on Wednesday to discuss the issue. On the same day, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin, which advises conservative groups on sexuality and health issues, is convening a one-day meeting to develop a position statement. -------- Take a breath. They are taking a look at the issue.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So what's next? If we find an AIDs vaccine, don't allow its use because that will also encourage promiscuity? Sory, but Focus on The Family is completely out of focus on this one.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon I dont care what people say about Dobson. He belives what he is doing is good for families and I agree with him on many issues.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>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 sounds ridiculous, but the White House and ACIP are listening -- and this small, shrill band could get their way. How anyone could fight against a vaccination that will save thousands of lives every year is beyond us.<< As usual, sfgate is distorting the message in its zeal to criticize conservatives. Let's see what some other news and health sources are saying. New York Newsday: >>Linda Klepacki, a sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, said the group supports Gardasil but does not want it to be mandatory. An advisory committee of the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta recommends which vaccines should be used but individual states decide which are required. "Our overall statement is that we're very pleased with the vaccine," Klepacki said.<< <a href="http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzvacc174744640may17" target="_blank">http://www.newsday.com/busines s/ny-bzvacc174744640may17</a>,0,6128042.story?coll=ny-business-print Orange County Register: >>It’s unclear if the market will embrace Gardasil. Some people have expressed the view that a drug that prevents the spread of HPV might encourage young people to have sex. Focus on the Family, a conservative group, supports availability of the vaccine, but opposes any move by federal or state health officials to make it a required immunization. The group promotes abstinence as the best way of warding off infection by HPV and other sexually transmitted diseases.<< <a href="http://epaper.ocregister.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=T3JhbmdlLzIwMDYvMDYvMDkjQXIwMTEwMA==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-ocr" target="_blank">http://epaper.ocregister.com/R epository/ml.asp?Ref=T3JhbmdlLzIwMDYvMDYvMDkjQXIwMTEwMA==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-ocr</a> University of Connecticut Health Center News: >>Despite earlier concerns about the vaccine's potential impact on young people's sexual behavior, conservatives applauded the development. "It's a huge medical breakthrough," said Linda Klepacki, an analyst who covers sexual health for Focus on the Family.<< <a href="http://www.uchc.edu/ocomm/features/stories/stories06/feature_cervicalcancer.html" target="_blank">http://www.uchc.edu/ocomm/feat ures/stories/stories06/feature_cervicalcancer.html</a> San Diego Union-Tribune: >>Merck & Co. Inc.'s vaccine to prevent the world's most prevalent sexually transmitted infection sailed through a panel of U.S. health experts, despite early fears of opposition from the Christian Right that it might lead to promiscuity and a false sense of security. The drugmaker's efforts to educate Christian groups while touting the vaccine's top selling point – prevention of cervical cancer – helped win them over. But Merck may ultimately find itself at loggerheads with those same groups as it seeks to make the vaccine mandatory for school admission, a step considered key for widespread acceptance and one that many of the groups oppose... “We don't think it should be made mandatory for school attendance,†said Peter Sprigg, vice president of policy at the Family Research Council, who attended the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel meeting Thursday. That view is shared by evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family. “We support the widespread availability of the vaccine, but we do oppose the mandatory vaccination for entry to public school,†said Linda Klepacki, an analyst for sexual health for the group.<< <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20060522-0500-health-merck-vaccine.html" target="_blank">http://www.signonsandiego.com/ news/health/20060522-0500-health-merck-vaccine.html</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh, and the term "theo-con" is simply a new way to demonize people of faith who have the temerity to voice political opinions.
