Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes, yes, and yes. If a husband cheats on his wife, can he not pick up an STD? If he then has sex with his wife, can he not pass it along? This is not rocket science.
Originally Posted By woody Let's do a survey. The children's marriage cheating probability survey. Those at high risk, innoculate the kids!!!
Originally Posted By woody >Yes, yes, and yes. >If a husband cheats on his wife, can he not pick up an STD? >If he then has sex with his wife, can he not pass it along? This is not rocket science. I thought the vaccination wasn't supposed to be about sex, but it is.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's about sex that the person may have later in life. (Shhhh!!! Little girls grow up). You hinted that only "bad girls" would have to worry about an STD. I pointed out that sometimes faithful wives have unfaithful husbands, who pass on STD's (in this case, one that causes cancer). You seem to be against immunizing against cervical cancer? Are you? If so, why?
Originally Posted By woody >>You hinted that only "bad girls" would have to worry about an STD.<< I did no such thing. I said parents should decide. There is little cancer risk for most people. It is well documented that there are populations at higher cancer risk. >>You seem to be against immunizing against cervical cancer? Are you? If so, why?<< If parents are for it, they can decide.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "In other words, the cancer is caused by the sexual practices of the person." While it is undeniable that the strains of HPV that are implicated in cervical cancers are sexually transmitted, I think it's unfair to say that the sexual practices of the person lead to HPV. Approx. 80% of the sexually active population has these viruses and with even one incidence of sexual contact it can spread like wildfire. One does not need to be promiscuous or even have multiple partners to contract the virus. Cervical cancers are rare among young women in general and are more prevalent among middlge aged and older women, particularly among those with lower income levels with less access to regular medical screenings. This virus is rampant in the population and I say if there is an innoculation against the virus then it should definitely be offered. Mandatory? No. Because I think parents have the right to decline innoculations. That said, if I had a girl (I don't, we have two boys) she'd be getting this innoculation as soon as it was offered to her at age 9. Statistically, even if she waited until marriage (unlikely, I know) to have sex her partner won't. And also statistially it's likely that he'll be among the 80% of the sexually active population who carries the virus. The explanation would be simple, if I even thought it required one to her at all. "This innoculation prevents certain types of gynecological cancers." If she's 9 then there is probably already some discussion of sex in the household, at least in the abstract. I don't go over the polio vaccine with my 5 year-old but I give it to him anyway. He also got the MMR without any discussion of either measles, mumps, or rubella. It's really not a huge deal to get a vaccination and there is no way that having this shot is going to cause increased sexual activity in girls. For crying out loud, they're already having sex at alarming rates despite the risks of STD's. Most kids and teens don't associate sex and cancer. They likely associate sex with STD's. Don't present the immunization as a freebie on STD's and present it as a cancer deterrent and you avoid the (in my mind ridiculous) notion that girls will have more sex based on a vaccination to stop a virus.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>You hinted that only "bad girls" would have to worry about an STD.<< <I did no such thing. I said parents should decide.> You said "In other words, the cancer is caused by the sexual practices of the person." I took that as blaming the victim. If that's not what you meant, then good. But that's a non sequitur with "parents should decide." <There is little cancer risk for most people. It is well documented that there are populations at higher cancer risk.> You should be more specific. Smokers at higher risk for lung cancer? Sure. Not sure what you're getting at here. Thousands of deaths a year is not insignificant. >>You seem to be against immunizing against cervical cancer? Are you? If so, why?<< <If parents are for it, they can decide.> That's how it is with all vaccines today. If you don't want your kid vaccinated, you can opt out.
Originally Posted By woody It's not about opting out. It's about forcing a decision upon them unfairly especially since things that are optional by the government are often interpreted as mandatory, which it is unless you want to change the definition. It is mandatory unless you say otherwise. What a ridiculous option. >>You said "In other words, the cancer is caused by the sexual practices of the person." I took that as blaming the victim. If that's not what you meant, then good. But that's a non sequitur with "parents should decide."<< That's wonderful for you to assume what I said because it gets you where you need to go.... mandatory treatment where people thoughtlessly allow vaccinations. The cancer affect few people. That is fact. >>They likely associate sex with STD's.<< Don't forget the sexually transmitted AIDS which literally causes a defect in the immune system that causes rare cancers. AIDS has been completely politicized to the point where prevention is an oxymoron.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's not about opting out. It's about forcing a decision upon them unfairly especially since things that are optional by the government are often interpreted as mandatory, which it is unless you want to change the definition. It is mandatory unless you say otherwise. What a ridiculous option.> Is it a ridiculous option for polio? Measles? Do you think we should change the vaccination paradigm, which is: you get vaccinated for x, y, and z, but if you don't want your kids to get vaccinated, you don't? If that's not the paradigm, what should be? >>You said "In other words, the cancer is caused by the sexual practices of the person." I took that as blaming the victim. If that's not what you meant, then good. But that's a non sequitur with "parents should decide."<< <That's wonderful for you to assume what I said because it gets you where you need to go.... mandatory treatment where people thoughtlessly allow vaccinations.> I'm still trying to get to why you don't think it's a good idea to vaccinate girls for this disease, when (I'm assuming again) you don't have a problem with vaccinating them for measles. Is it the cost? The quasi-mandatory status (which would be the same as it is for, say, measles)? The fact that this disease is sexually spread? Why would you be okay with the paradigm for measles (assuming you are), but not for cervical cancer? <The cancer affect few people. That is fact.> It's not that few. As someone said a while back, a majority of adults currently carry this virus, and thousands die from it every year. More than die from measles, certainly. If we can prevent this, why not?
Originally Posted By woody >>I'm still trying to get to why you don't think it's a good idea to vaccinate girls for this disease, when (I'm assuming again) you don't have a problem with vaccinating them for measles.<< If their parents are fine with it, I'm fine with it. Measles are subject to epidemics. I don't have a problem with it. Polio is also regarded as a highly infectious disease. You like to compare apples and oranges. That's fine. The only similarity is they are vaccinations.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly. They are all diseases that are communicable. 80% of the adult population carries the HPV virus and can pass it along. There's no apple and orange here, unless the sexually trasmitted nature of HPV is what's really bugging you.
Originally Posted By woody They are prevented in other ways too and statistics have shown cervical cancer has gone down. You ignore my response where I say parents should be the ultimate decision maker. You make it sound I'm adamately against it, which isn't true. I'm trying to find the middle ground where the "preventive" medicine is right for everyone and relieve the political/religious implications of the vaccination, which on the face it sounds silly unless you really listen to parents. But who am I to criticize parents when the liberal press decided to do a preemptive attack against Focus On The Family who was very clear in saying their medical professionals don't agree with their constituents, but value their concerns.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb OK I normally avoid WE and haven't read this entire thread, but I must say... if this vaccine had been available back in the mid/late '80s. My best freind would still be alive and my son's best freind would still have his mother. I'm all for abstinense in young people, it's the best way to avoid teen pregnancy and STDs. But as a Christian mother, I think this stance against the vaccine is bull-headed and evil. What lives will this save in the future? Who can tell, but I for one hope it erradicates this form of cancer forever! I'll hop of my soap box now and let someone else have it.
Originally Posted By woody >>But as a Christian mother, I think this stance against the vaccine is bull-headed and evil. << Who's stance are you talking about? It's one Christian mother against another in this case.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < You ignore my response where I say parents should be the ultimate decision maker.> But in the current vaccination paradigm, they already are. You didn't answer my question: do you think this vaccine should be included in the normal vaccination paradigm (the default is to give it, but the parent can opt out) or not? If not, why should this disease be treated differently than measles? The incidence of measles has also gone way down from what it once was (largely due to vaccinations!). If we have a vaccination that will without question save thousands of lives a year (as Autopia Deb eloquently illustrated), why NOT use the same paradigm that we currently use for measles, which still leaves the ultimate decision up to the parents?
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb To clearify I believe a group keeping a life saving vaccine from people to further a political agenda is evil. Like I said, I haven't read the thread so I can't comment on LP opinions, I can only address the subject.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Thanks for contributing, deb. Just curious - did you hear about this story through the media, rather than just finding the thread here? I'm asking because this story didn't get a lot of play in the news.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I heard about the vaccine on the news when I was in AZ. But I didn't hear about the opposition to it until looking at topic headings. Since I knew they had just come out with a Vax for cervical cancer, I decided to check out this topic.
