Originally Posted By DlandDug >>No one should leave their religious principles at the government gates." Strictly your opinion. The First Amendment disagrees with you.<< The Constitution does not state that religion has no place in American society. There is a great effort being made to interpret the law in this way. People of faith and people of no faith have equal rights under the law. >>Religion is based on faith. Science and medicine on facts. I'll [take] facts every single time.<< Nearly every scientific "fact" started out as a theory, which was accepted by faith until proven. Some theories that are widely accepted are still not proven by facts. And some scientific facts have been disproven by later theory.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Religions are trying to have a place at the table, but you say they have no role. << How do you feel about revoking the tax exampt status for churches, woody? After all, they're receiving tax dollars, and they're steering debate about secular matters such as content of entertainment and provisions of health care. Seems to me that if they want to meddle in the affairs of the public, they can pay taxes like everybody else.
Originally Posted By woody Churches are not the only organizations enjoying tax exempt status. >>Seems to me that if they want to meddle in the affairs of the public, they can pay taxes like everybody else.<< Planned Parenthood???
Originally Posted By jonvn "Generally, neo-cons are conservatives who favor an aggressive foreign policy, as opposed to conservatives who tend more to isolationism. " Neocons are not conservative, in that they want big government to solve problems their way, just like liberals do. Your definition fits in with what I said, in that traditional conservatives want small government and they don't want it involved in any sort of activity unless absolutely necessary. This is not the case with neocons. So the isolationism thing you mention actually does fit in with what I said. Just responding to something posted about what I said.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And I still don't see what's wrong with making this vaccine one of several that we give to girls at, say, 9 years old.> My daughter is nine, and I don't remember her being required to have a single vaccines when she turned it, let alone several.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Neocons are not conservative, in that they want big government to solve problems their way, just like liberals do.> That's not correct.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Neocons are not conservative, in that they want big government to solve problems their way, just like liberals do.> That's not correct, for reasons I've already stated.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And I still don't see what's wrong with making this vaccine one of several that we give to girls at, say, 9 years old.>> <My daughter is nine, and I don't remember her being required to have a single vaccines when she turned it, let alone several.> I only chose "nine" because that was an age given in a link yea long ago. Assuming the vaccine remains effective and poses no risk to younger children, why not give it at whatever age they DO receive their polio, measles, etc. shots?
Originally Posted By mele Even if girls had a special appointment simply to get this one vaccine, the kids wouldn't really ask much about what it's for. Any parent could just say it's to help against cervical cancer. The vast majority of kids would accept it and move on. My daughter will have to start getting ultrasounds when she is 10 because of all of the cancer history on both sides of her family. She would be a bit bummed that she had to get poked by a needle for this vaccine than ask any questions about what it is for. Most kids would just get the shot and they wouldn't think about it again.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Even if girls had a special appointment simply to get this one vaccine, the kids wouldn't really ask much about what it's for." This goes back to my post 119, which is still unanswered.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yeah, SPP, of course it's unanswered. It's the same thing mele and I are saying in a slightly different way; just make it a routine vaccination and any link to future sex just won't be on any young girl's radar screen. Meanwhile, they'll be protected against cervical cancer.
Originally Posted By woody >>This goes back to my post 119, which is still unanswered.<< I decided to not answer the question because Focus On The Family never made that claim. I'll answer the question on the vaccination instead. If keeping kids ignorant is the way to go, then how do you address the concerns of their parents? Gee whiz, it's the parents who are asking the questions. It's funny how you are saying keeping kids ignorant works, yet on the issue of sex, liberals are arguing that restricting sexual education is actually not working because kids will still do it and they will end up doing it unsafely. On the issue of vaccination, keeping kid ignorant may create false comfort and possibly distrust of the medical establishment. They should be kept informed of how their medical treatment contributes to their health with the social implications. I'm sure the vaccination will develop a legend of its own, even without encouragement of the "theo-cons."
Originally Posted By woody BTW, I do think sex education in school is necessary and better than a pure abstinence education. BUT, the value of the education is less significant due to the fact that kids are having sex at younger ages, and the fact that educators/administrators presume kids will have it anyways so they have destroyed their sense of responsibility and guidance.
Originally Posted By gadzuux It's not "keeping kids ignorant". FOTF is making a stretch in the first place by finding sexual implications to this vaccine. The intention is not to make it easier or safer for underage minors to have sex, it's to innoculate them from cervical cancer over a lifetime. Whether they start having sex at 12 or 20 or older doesn't matter. It's not a 'morality' issue at all - or at least it shouldn't be. It's the moralists who are inserting the 'underage sex' issue where it doesn't belong. It's a lame justification for their action, and I suspect even they know it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly right. It has nothing to do with "keeping kids ignorant" - kids at that age ARE ignorant. When I was in grade school and got my polio shot, I didn't know how polio was spread, I just knew it was one of those diseases you didn't want to get, but if they gave you this shot you didn't have to worry about it. Same with measles, whooping cough, and the rest. Hell, plenty of ADULTS don't know that most cervical cancer stems from HPV, so if the kid doesn't know that when they get the shot, that's not a problem. It's FOTF that is making the claim that if kids were to know they're getting a shot to prevent them from getting something sexually transmitted, that will somehow encourage them to have sex. But if you give them to it in grade school along with polio or whatever, they'll never make that connection, making FOTF's (stated) reason for discomfort moot. <If keeping kids ignorant is the way to go, then how do you address the concerns of their parents?> I think most parents would be fine letting their kids get a shot that would prevent them from getting cancer. I really do. But if any parents have a problem with it, they can opt out of the shot, just as they can now with measles or whathaveyou for religious reasons, allergies, etc.
Originally Posted By woody Of course it is about KEEPING KIDS IGNORANT because you're asking Focus On The Family to find a way to alleviate parental concerns about the sexual implications of the vaccination. And don't even brush over that because the cervical cancer is caused by the sexually transmitted virus. In other words, the cancer is caused by the sexual practices of the person. >>I think most parents would be fine letting their kids get a shot that would prevent them from getting cancer. I really do. But if any parents have a problem with it, they can opt out of the shot, just as they can now with measles or whathaveyou for religious reasons, allergies, etc.<< Making the vaccination non-mandatory takes a lot of the heat out of the debate especially since most of the population is unlikely to get the cancer despite their sexual practices.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Of course it is about KEEPING KIDS IGNORANT > Nope. A kid that age IS ignorant, just as their ignorant about how one acquires polio. They may learn later in health class. Meanwhile, they've been immunized. <because you're asking Focus On The Family to find a way to alleviate parental concerns about the sexual implications of the vaccination. And don't even brush over that because the cervical cancer is caused by the sexually transmitted virus.> What? I'm not asking FOTF to do anything. Except maybe stop making ridiculous links in kids' minds that aren't there. <In other words, the cancer is caused by the sexual practices of the person.> Or, perhaps, if her eventual husband fools around, acquires it, and passes it to her while she was faithful. But if she's been immunized as a child she won't get cancer. That's a good thing. >>I think most parents would be fine letting their kids get a shot that would prevent them from getting cancer. I really do. But if any parents have a problem with it, they can opt out of the shot, just as they can now with measles or whathaveyou for religious reasons, allergies, etc.<< <Making the vaccination non-mandatory takes a lot of the heat out of the debate especially since most of the population is unlikely to get the cancer despite their sexual practices.> Most of the population, yes. But what is it, 20,000 deaths a year now or something like that? That's not insignificant. And all immunizations, AFAIK, are non-mandatory. This one would be too.
Originally Posted By woody >>Or, perhaps, if her eventual husband fools around, acquires it, and passes it to her while she was faithful. But if she's been immunized as a child she won't get cancer. That's a good thing.<< Too many what if's there.
