The people who oppose this are simply insane. They’ve completely lost all perspective on reality. Don’t agree? I hope you never have to explain to your daughter that her cancer was just a casualty of the conservative’s war against promiscuous sex. I’m sure she will thank you for it.
A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teen-agers could encourage sexual activity.
What in Tautasis’ name is wrong with sexual f*ckin’ activity?? Those opposing people must be holding their priority list upside down. Or something.
This is really telling. The radical religious Right is against stem cell research, in part, because it’s speculative. We don’t know for certain if it will lead to any cures. But here is a treatment that is 100% effective and they are STILL against it.
I used to think, and I’ve said it here plenty of times, that both parties are anti-science. I.e., they both use science when it fits their agenda and ignore science that doesn’t fit their agenda. In other words, their agendas come first.
However, I now think the Right IS the party that’s anti-science. We’ve finally got an ACTUAL CURE FOR CANCER and the Right is trying to stop it!
Hopefully this will wake up the vast majority in this country who are much more in the middle of the road and they’ll get to see where the current Republican party is leading them.
“I hope you never have to explain to your daughter that her cancer was just a casualty of the conservative’s war against promiscuous sex. I’m sure she will thank you for it.”
I could not have said it better. Thank you David for posting this blog.
Not too many years ago, I remember a huge fight and propaganda war about putting fluoride in drinking water. The shrill voices of doom warned us that it was a communist plot to poison us. We have since seen a huge decrease in the amount of tooth decay as a result of using fluoride.
Just a few months ago, the same people now opposing this vaccine, also claimed that Terri Schaivo was only in a coma. The autopsy proved them wrong there too.
The argument that this will promote sexual activity is preposterous. Teens, especially, believe they are invincible and no harm will come their way. The statistics might give them cause, but if you are one of the 10,000 that do get cervical cancer, then it will matter.
Yeah, because every teenager out there seriously weighs the consequences of sex before jumping in the backseat. Friggin’ idiots. Of course, they’re just as stupid as the “Abstinence doesn’t work” crowd. Umm, yes it does, that’s why it’s called “Abstinence.” The problem is getting kids to be abstinent!
What? You’ve developed a vaccine for malaria? That’s no good, it will encourage kids to play with mosquitoes!
A vaccine that prevents cancer, and they’re worried about a few more kids “gettin’ busy.” Here’s an idea: PARENT YOUR KIDS AND HELP THEM MAKE GOOD DECISIONS! Holy crap, it just might work.
If my children had not already flown the coop, I would pay to have them immunized. However, what I, as a conservative, object to is this:
“‘I would like to see it that if you don’t have your HPV vaccine, you can’t start high school,’ said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition’s medical advisory panel. ”
It’s this type of socialized crap that pisses me off. Who the hell does Juan Carlos Felix think he is to usurp the rights of parents and deny children access to education; all because they don’t see the world through his eyes?
John, are you sure you’re writing in the US of old A? These past few months it seems as if you’re in Afghanistan or Iran….
First off, I’m a liberal and proud of it. I believe that the welfare of the people is a fundamental responsibility of our government – in fact it’s in the Preamble of our Constitution, and for good reason.
Having said that, I must respectfully disagree with Ima Fish’s points. Your argument is remarkably similar to the arguments made by the pro-fetal-life organizations as well as the arguments made in support of intervening on Terry Schiavo’s behalf. I don’t agree with it in those contexts, nor do I agree with the reasoning in this context.
I support self-determination and an individual’s rights to accept or refuse medical treatment. The government should make sure this treatment is readily available, but *forcing* people to take the treatment is a different story altogether.
I do agree that to think that promoting this treatment would encourage sexual activity is ludicrous, and to ban this vaccine for those reasons is irresponsible. I could probably count on my hand the number of people of any age in this country that decide not to have sex because they don’t want to get cervical cancer.
Oh give me a break. Read the entire article…they never say exactly who might be opposed other than saying “Conservative Groups”. Really? Which ones? This is a pre-emptive strike by the ACIP (or others) because they fear what could happen. Such irresponsible reporting on their part. Name some names instead of making wild accusations. I’m a conservative and I think that this vaccine is a great idea….does that blow any liberal minds out there?
First off, I’m conservative, and proud of it.
However, I agree with Tug’s comments 100%.
The difference between a sexually transmitted disease and any other communicable disease is that STDs occur between willing participants. If I refuse to get my children immunized for measles and there is an outbreak in the area, my children may get measles whether they were willing participants or not.
As far as this particular vaccination goes, I like Smith would gladly pay to get my children immunized against HPV. This is an issue for parents, not government.
Being a good parent means taking the necessary precautions to ensure your children’s health. It also means teaching your children to respect others and themselves. If that means abstaining from premarital sex, then teach them that abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases such as HPV.
“Promoting the general welfare” doesn’t mean usurping my rights as a parent to accept or decline medical treatment for my children. It doesn’t mean that the government can overrule my children’s rights to an education because they (the powers that be) feel they know how to raise my children better than I. It means that they make the research available and provide me with the options and knowledge I need to make my decision and perform my responsibilities as a parent. Which, as Ryan said, is to “Parent your kids and help them make good decisions.”
The Hepatitis B vaccine is being forced on school kids the same way. Strange how people who usually object to corporations making money off children have no problem if it suits their agenda.
Shouldn’t this really be a teenager and their parents need to make the decision themselves? I really don’t think it is the responsibility for others to push this on my kids. Additionally these are the same people who advocate abortions without parental consent. We need to understand parents are responsible for the care of their children and need to be allow to make these decisions. I think many conservatives are tired of liberals telling them how to raise their children!
Do you really think it is best to wish any disease on anyone for exercising free-will? That is a careless if not uncaring remark.
Do you know the difference between stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research? Feel free to say no, since you obviously don’t.
A simple cost/benefit says they are probably right. Lowering the cost of sexual activity likely leads to negative side effects like cervical cancer. If the cure for HIV was discovered would it have an increasing, decreasing or zero effect on teenage (or any age) sexual activity. Is the cure worth it? Probably
The reason this is a no-brainer is because there is no downside. The idea that it will encourage teenagers to have sex is purposterous and if required, I suppose someone could do a study to debunk sich ridiculousness.
And the reason some things are legislated is because some people don’t know how to care for their children, period. Any drug-addicted, abusive, nasty, neglectful, whacko out there can have a child. Someone has to protect them because the people in their life cannot. You have people who do not believe in medical treatment at all. Well if their child gets sick and dies because they refused to take that child to the doctor, they should be prosecuted with manslaughter. That’s personal choice too. It’s just a whacked-out one. You want to kill yourself by refusing medical treatment that’s your business, you kill you child, and it’s everyone’s.
[By the way, if you don’t immunize your child against this and they get it, think the child could sue you? I’m guessing some smart lawyer could figure out a way to do that.]
Make a logical argument to me about why you don’t want your child getting a vaccine that has any legitamacy and I might change my mind, but if all you can scrape together is a “sky is falling” children-having-more-sex argument, that’s a little to small to matter compared to the protection of a child.
To respond to an earlier post, the saying isn’t “abstinence doesn’t work”, it’s “abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work”.
It wouldn’t surprise me if some activists shortened it to “abstinence doesn’t work” because it makes a better sound bite, but if so, they haven’t thought it through very well.
Actually Ima, the real duty of (federal) government is not to protect each and every individual within its country’s borders. Its real duty is to protect its citizens from threats that are beyond the capability of an individual or community. (That is why government was invented.)
When government revokes my right to choose, for myself or my family, it has stolen a piece of my freedom. It has also, in part, relieved me of accountability for my actions or those of my family.
And that, ~, is the downside of forcing immunization on anyone. By the way, I don’t believe a single poster stated that he or she would refuse to have their children vaccinated, so I don’t understand the purpose of your challenge.
I was thinking….you know, it’s rarely GIRLS who initiate sex. It’s always the boys pushing and wheedling and charming and, well, outright begging. Maybe if they’d develop a vaccine to keep those male hormones from raging, or something that would render the offending organ useless…that would be more acceptable to these anti-vaccine/might cause wanton sex people. Certainly would be MORE EFFECTIVE.
Uncle Dave,
Your headline is misleading. Governor Perry’s action requires the administration of the vaccine (according to chron.com) for entry into public schools. The use of the vaccine by the public has already been “OK’ed” by the FDA. Requiring the use of this vaccine that targets a pathogen that typically and usually is transmitted by sexual contact is quite different than requiring vaccines that prevent disease (e.g. whooping cough) that can be spread in social situations without direct physical contact or by casual physical contact.
Please get your facts right in your posting.