View Full Version : And the State Darwin Award goes to:
Papewaio
05-15-2007, 07:00
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21735134-2,00.html
CONSERVATIVE political groups in US states have blocked plans to vaccinate young girls against the sexually-transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer because they believe it would encourage promiscuity.
West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi and New Mexico have rejected attempts to introduce compulsory vaccination programs of the Australian-invented vaccine Gardasil which works against the human papillomavirus (HPV), known to cause 70 per cent of cervical cancer cases.
NewScientist.com reported that some conservative groups believed the the introduction of the vaccine to girls aged 11-12 years would encourage sexual activity by cutting the risks of catching sexually transmitted diseases.
:thumbsdown:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21735134-2,00.html
:thumbsdown:
Been hearing the stuff down hear too. Bunch of bull most of it. Any vaccine that can prevent cancer should be given out like candy to kids. Honestly how can you be ignorant enough to think your child wont have sex, at all. Guess banning chinese imported food is more dangerous then cancer.
Luckily the state of Texas isnt one of those.
I'm not even sure what this story is about. What exactly is this "compulsory vaccination program" that they're talking about. Does the US even have compulsory vaccinations? Not that I'm aware of.
Children are required to get immunizations for certain highly contagious diseases before they're allowed to attend school- but that's pretty much it. It's not like the vaccination is being banned or anything, in fact I expect it will still be widely available and widely used.
What's the deal? Maybe this should go under "the liberal mind" thread. Just because the government isn't forcing people to receive it doesn't mean no one is going to get it. :dizzy2:
Luckily the state of Texas isnt one of those.
Texas is forcing people to get the vaccine?
Papewaio
05-15-2007, 07:38
I think compulsory is the wrong term, what they mean here is paid for by the government... cutting cervical cancers by two-thirds is a cost effective measure.
ShadeHonestus
05-15-2007, 07:42
The concept of protecting the 11-12 year olds from the concept of STD's and all the context that goes with it is actually troubling to some? The education of sexual matters belongs with the family. The course of action that is best for the health of our young women is that which also addresses their exposure to mature content. However this simply has to be reconciled with the administration of the vaccine which I personally believe should be included as part of the medical requirements at different stages of education, say as a requirement for entrance into middle school etc. It need not be given, accepted, and mandated as pretext for institutionalized sex education. That is the issue at hand.
Hah! It astounds me that people can lack rational logic and come to the weirdest conclusions.
Edit: Then again it doesn't.
What's the deal? Maybe this should go under "the liberal mind" thread. Just because the government isn't forcing people to receive it doesn't mean no one is going to get it. :dizzy2:
Any vaccination should be mandatory for children to get. Kids don't know what's best for them at the that age and some parents are just plan stupid for not vaccinating their children. If you have seen my post you surely know that I don't have a "liberal mind" either. It's simply common sense.
I'm not even sure what this story is about. What exactly is this "compulsory vaccination program" that they're talking about. Does the US even have compulsory vaccinations? Not that I'm aware of.
Children are required to get immunizations for certain highly contagious diseases before they're allowed to attend school- but that's pretty much it. It's not like the vaccination is being banned or anything, in fact I expect it will still be widely available and widely used.
What's the deal? Maybe this should go under "the liberal mind" thread. Just because the government isn't forcing people to receive it doesn't mean no one is going to get it. :dizzy2:
Texas is forcing people to get the vaccine?
Making it compulsory will force medicaid to cover it. Without making it a requirement, medicaid will more then likely not cover such a vital vaccine.
As for Texas, their sending a bill through to ensure that the vaccine is covered. Least for the next few years, pending further discussion, least it got through compromised or not.
Spetulhu
05-15-2007, 08:55
Some people just can't think rationally. This is no different from the idiots who don't even tell their kids about violence and weapons in order to "shield" them from the wicked world. What you don't know about CAN hurt you. :furious3:
Any vaccination should be mandatory for children to get.That doesn't make any sense. Do you think children should be vaccinated for rabies and anthrax? They aren't.
Making it compulsory will force medicaid to cover it. Without making it a requirement, medicaid will more then likely not cover such a vital vaccine.I'm not aware of any compulsory vaccination program in West Virginia for any vaccine. I believe there was a big stink about it last time it was tried because it would've imposed daily fines on parents who home-schooled and chose not to vaccinate. I doubt that no vaccinations are covered by Medicaid in West Virginia. I also doubt that its compulsory status or not has any bearing on whether it's covered by Medicaid- but feel free to prove me wrong.
I don't care for or agree with the 'promotes promiscuity' argument, but I think the article and it's accompanying controversy is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
what you don't know about CAN hurt you.
Exactly :yes:
Grey_Fox
05-15-2007, 11:45
This was in the backroom here a few months ago. It's been made available over here for free I believe.
That doesn't make any sense. Do you think children should be vaccinated for rabies and anthrax? They aren't.
I'm not aware of any compulsory vaccination program in West Virginia for any vaccine. I believe there was a big stink about it last time it was tried because it would've imposed daily fines on parents who home-schooled and chose not to vaccinate. I doubt that no vaccinations are covered by Medicaid in West Virginia. I also doubt that its compulsory status or not has any bearing on whether it's covered by Medicaid- but feel free to prove me wrong.
I don't care for or agree with the 'promotes promiscuity' argument, but I think the article and it's accompanying controversy is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Any vaccine that is required must be covered by medicaid and insurance agencies.
As for this whole controversy. It's completely built ontop of a molehill. There's little if any problem with a vaccine for children that prevents a std. The neo-churchies are just out looking for something else to have a moral outcry for, and what better, a vaccine for little girls that prevents a STD.:smash:
Big King Sanctaphrax
05-15-2007, 13:23
So their argument is essentially "cervical cancer is good, as fear of it stops kids having underage sex"?
I suppose it does make sense, in a sort of really twisted amoral way, and if you're a complete fruitbat.
Vladimir
05-15-2007, 15:21
Why...[...]
Seamus Fermanagh
05-15-2007, 15:37
Why...[...]
Racist comment, even if meant (as I suspect it was) in jest.
Underagers having sex is a problem that is, by no means, restricted to poor urban areas -- sad to say.
Childhood vaccinations in the USA are not, technically, compulsory. Parents may refuse the normally required vaccines for Hepatitis, Varivax, Diptheria, Polio, Pertussis, Tetanus, Measles, Mumps and Rubella if they so choose, but their children will be prevented from attendence at government-run schools (K-college) and most private schools if they do so refuse. Such children must be home-schooled.
HoreTore
05-15-2007, 15:51
Underagers having sex is a problem
Why on earth is that a problem...? Assuming they're both(or all three, four...) about the same age, I say have fun.
KukriKhan
05-15-2007, 16:07
Mid-thread reminder: all posters are responsible and accountable for all content of their posts, including material written by others; objectionable content is best reported, not quoted.
Thank you. Please carry on. :bow:
Vladimir
05-15-2007, 16:14
Racist comment, even if meant (as I suspect it was) in jest.
Underagers having sex is a problem that is, by no means, restricted to poor urban areas -- sad to say.
Childhood vaccinations in the USA are not, technically, compulsory. Parents may refuse the normally required vaccines for Hepatitis, Varivax, Diptheria, Polio, Pertussis, Tetanus, Measles, Mumps and Rubella if they so choose, but their children will be prevented from attendence at government-run schools (K-college) and most private schools if they do so refuse. Such children must be home-schooled.
So you all have forgotten not only the thread citing the *gasp* black mayor of New Orleans using that comment AND the one where two kids decided to have sex in front of their friends when the teacher was out.
A racist comment saying that all of you who took offense were white. Please tell me when "chocolate" became a deragatory term.
Serioulsy, what the hell?
Mid-thread reminder: all posters are responsible and accountable for all content of their posts, including material written by others; objectionable content is best reported, not quoted.
Thank you. Please carry on. :bow:
Good point! :oops:
CrossLOPER
05-15-2007, 16:35
Mid-thread reminder: all posters are responsible and accountable for all content of their posts, including material written by others; objectionable content is best reported, not quoted.
Thank you. Please carry on. :bow:
Even the passenger gets in trouble!
I think you mean "messenger" as in "don't shoot the messenger".
CrossLOPER
05-15-2007, 16:42
I think you mean "messenger" as in "don't shoot the messenger".
http://www.lawforkids.org/toons/static.cfm?file=main_file&id=12
ShadeHonestus
05-15-2007, 18:16
What you don't know about CAN hurt you.
The rational mind limits the exposure to sensitive topics to explanation and education by family and not TV, movies, or lowest common denominator schools.
People shouldn't confuse that with sheltering or they show a rather grand ignorance. Likewise for those who don't educate and yet shelter completely.
That doesn't make any sense. Do you think children should be vaccinated for rabies and anthrax? They aren't.
I thought it was fairly obvious, but I guess not. Any vaccination within reason, children should receive.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-15-2007, 21:48
Why on earth is that a problem...? Assuming they're both(or all three, four...) about the same age, I say have fun.
First of all, I am referring to the age-frame mentioned by Vlad. Ages 10-13 are a bit young to be engaging in something with that many powerful and potentially life-altering consequences. I think a bit of restraint is in order.
It becomes a problem with the advent of teenage pregnancies. Such pregnancies help perpetuate poverty and break apart the accepted fabric of the culture.
We no longer live in an agrarian world where we can marry them off at 14 but keep them at home as part of an extended multi-generational family -- at least not in this country.
Kralizec
05-15-2007, 21:52
CONSERVATIVE political groups in US states have blocked plans to vaccinate young girls against the sexually-transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer because they believe it would encourage promiscuity.
...
NewScientist.com reported that some conservative groups believed the the introduction of the vaccine to girls aged 11-12 years would encourage sexual activity by cutting the risks of catching sexually transmitted diseases.
.....
I'm at a loss of words.
Especially nice ones :thumbsdown:
Seamus Fermanagh
05-15-2007, 22:02
Fenring:
I more or less agree with you.
While I agree that keeping our under 16 age group sexually inactive is mostly a good goal, I find it REALLY difficult to see how this proposed vaccination program is going to be the decisive "occasion to sin" that begets sexual activity in our youglings. Our culture is simply too saturated with sex and sexuality for this item to even be a blip on the radar scope. I would think a brief review of the "oeuvre" of Ms. Spears (assuming your tolerance for minimal content is that high) would be enough to demonstrate that a vaccination program is NOT likely to be anyone's "last straw."
Kralizec
05-15-2007, 22:32
While I agree that keeping our under 16 age group sexually inactive is mostly a good goal, I find it REALLY difficult to see how this proposed vaccination program is going to be the decisive "occasion to sin" that begets sexual activity in our youglings. Our culture is simply too saturated with sex and sexuality for this item to even be a blip on the radar scope. I would think a brief review of the "oeuvre" of Ms. Spears (assuming your tolerance for minimal content is that high) would be enough to demonstrate that a vaccination program is NOT likely to be anyone's "last straw."
True.
Teenagers are naive and a lot of them don't abstain, or even use protection, to avoid STD risk, let alone this one in particular. The reasoning of the conservatives referenced in the article imply (or at least, it appears so to me) that it's a good idea to let a few of them contract this form of cancer to set an example, and encourage the rest of them to abstain. I find that abhorant.
HoreTore
05-15-2007, 23:06
First of all, I am referring to the age-frame mentioned by Vlad. Ages 10-13 are a bit young to be engaging in something with that many powerful and potentially life-altering consequences. I think a bit of restraint is in order.
It becomes a problem with the advent of teenage pregnancies. Such pregnancies help perpetuate poverty and break apart the accepted fabric of the culture.
We no longer live in an agrarian world where we can marry them off at 14 but keep them at home as part of an extended multi-generational family -- at least not in this country.
With abortions being legal, the problem goes away. If the kid in question isn't going to tell people that she's pregnant and tries to keep it secret, you can't talk her from having sex anyway. Besides, their not very likely to be sexually mature at that age, so the problem isn't so big. The problem comes later, at around 14-16...
As for STD, you're not very likely to get one from a 12.year old... Or any virgin for that matter.
So, I still say let them have fun.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-16-2007, 00:12
So you all have forgotten not only the thread citing the *gasp* black mayor of New Orleans using that comment AND the one where two kids decided to have sex in front of their friends when the teacher was out.
A racist comment saying that all of you who took offense were white. Please tell me when "chocolate" became a deragatory term.
Serioulsy, what the hell?
I was well aware of the referant. Mayor Nagy represents most of what I mis-like about Lousiana politics.
My concern was that you implicitly labeled the issue as a problem inimical to black urban sub-groups (a potentially racist stance). This is an issue of concern pretty well across the spectrum.
I was not personally offended, nor do I believe you intended anything aside from a humorous jab at Nagy's expense.
While I agree that keeping our under 16 age group sexually inactive is mostly a good goal, I find it REALLY difficult to see how this proposed vaccination program is going to be the decisive "occasion to sin" that begets sexual activity in our youglings.
Of course it won't be. But I also don't think that's the only or even the main reason many of these states rejected the proposals. I think much of it's a manufactured controversy by lazy minds in the "drive-by" media.
As I've said, West Virginia doesn't have any compulsory vaccinations that I'm aware of. I also believe that they've been opposed in the past- before the HPV vaccine was even a consideration. The whole setup of this story stinks to me. :yes:
Seamus Fermanagh
05-16-2007, 04:28
Of course it won't be. But I also don't think that's the only or even the main reason many of these states rejected the proposals. I think much of it's a manufactured controversy by lazy minds in the "drive-by" media.
As I've said, West Virginia doesn't have any compulsory vaccinations that I'm aware of. I also believe that they've been opposed in the past- before the HPV vaccine was even a consideration. The whole setup of this story stinks to me. :yes:
Well, it is usually a safe bet to rely on the mainstream media to slant most stories in whatever way will heighten the conflict most and bring out the greatest number of screaming extremists -- all for the glory of greater subscription numbers and their connected advertising dollars.
Vladimir
05-16-2007, 13:13
I was well aware of the referant. Mayor Nagy represents most of what I mis-like about Lousiana politics.
My concern was that you implicitly labeled the issue as a problem inimical to black urban sub-groups (a potentially racist stance). This is an issue of concern pretty well across the spectrum.
I was not personally offended, nor do I believe you intended anything aside from a humorous jab at Nagy's expense.
And I couldn't edit my posts so I sound like I speak English as a second language. :furious:
The most recent article cited here about children of the age range identified in this post was the incident in the New Orleans classroom. There was something about some chav-like 10 or something year old English girl that got knocked up at a party while she was drunk. She was also smoking when they interviewed her.
So, the question still stands. Is the HPV a problem for 11-12 year olds except for extreme examples? And if not, why the push to inoculate children of that age?
Is the HPV a problem for 11-12 year olds except for extreme examples? And if not, why the push to inoculate children of that age?
Because you want to introduce a vaccine before someone could be exposed to a virus. For an STD, that means picking an age when 99.999% of children will not have had any form of sex.
Grey_Fox
05-16-2007, 15:57
Cervical cancer is due to HPV in 75% of cases which is transferred during sex. Therefore you get the vaccine before you start having sex.
Ideally men should get the vaccine as well in order to totally eradicate HPV.
Vladimir
05-16-2007, 16:53
Because you want to introduce a vaccine before someone could be exposed to a virus. For an STD, that means picking an age when 99.999% of children will not have had any form of sex.
Why not younger? While make the children even aware that they are getting this shot? Does it need booster shots every several years?
Seamus Fermanagh
05-16-2007, 17:23
Why not younger? While make the children even aware that they are getting this shot? Does it need booster shots every several years?
Both darn good questions.
I'll assume that the age chosen was intentional, though I do not know the technical limitations of that vaccine. If the vaccine series would work at any age and did not need "refreshers" then putting it in the infant series would make more sense. Have to read a bit on it when I have time.
Tribesman
05-16-2007, 20:32
If there was a vaccine for HIV/aids would they object to it because it might encourge sex ?
If there was a vaccine for HIV/aids would they object to it because it might encourge sex ?
No, they would object to it because AIDS kills homosexuals, prostitutes, and black people. You know, all those people that God hates. ~D
ajaxfetish
05-16-2007, 21:04
If there was a vaccine for HIV/aids would they object to it because it might encourge sex ?
Yes, they probably would. And it would be just as stupid as the objection to this vaccine is. I think the AIDS lobby is a little more powerful than the cervical cancer one is, though, so I suspect an AIDS vaccine would be more likely to get pushed through anyway (though on the other hand, vitriol towards homosexuals in these circles is even greater than vitriol toward sexually active women, so the opposition might be stronger as well).
Ajax
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.