“It appears nearly everyone discussing the issue seems to have abdicated the concept of abstinence until marriage - the best and most simple answer.”
But this interferes with the left's agenda and hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I think it should be up to the parents to get this for their child. The government needs to stay out of this!
I think it's way too early to mandate this vaccination for every girl. But I don't understand why a parent would be against it if their female children were in good health. If a virginal woman married a non-virginal man, she could get HPV from him during marital relations. If, heaven forbid, a virginal or married woman were raped, at least she would be protected from HPV.
There are plenty of good reasons to advise absinence outside of marriage, but the real world can pose complicated situations. What is the down side of having more protection against cancer?
And who says a nine-year-old needs a blow-by-blow description of how you get exposed to the virus? Can't parents just say it's a vaccine like the one against measles, except this one protects women against cancer?
Agreed, also no one mentions that this "push campaign", which is really a colusion between Government/Political Correctness (liberal fads), and greedy corps whom would rather take special benefits through governmental interference in the market, and liberal politics.
Its really sad when in really I agree with the person whom said that the safest, and most viable answer to HPV/Cancer is Abstinance, sadly because of ~liberals worldview~ THEY WILL ignore this fact, and many will be hurt..
This vaccine should only be offered voluntarily to women eighteen or older. Just my opinion.
I would like to see scientific data that shows that HPV prevails throughout the female population, including those claiming celebacy and monogamy.
If it can proven that the virus is everywhere and always causes cervical cancers, etc. then the numbers should show it clearly.
Otherwise, Governor Perry and the rest of the pro-vaccine crowd are pushing something unproven with a potential of future risks.
But far be it that scientific reason should reign over desires for power, social engineering, money motive and/or religious dogmatism
In Australia the drug was considered an Optional drug - you want it you pay for it. But, as some complained about the $600 price tag and pushed for it to be Subsidised or made free, it's now on the Free List. Meaning, other people pay for the drug for those who want it. No "Mandatory" stuff here for this drug.
Rubella for girls is mandatory and "free". Though, I think (not sure) it is optional - you don't have to have your daughter have it, but then she doesn't get to go to public school either.
Drugs like this need to be tested over a person's Life time before being able to conclude there is no harm done. Whose to say, you might not get HPV infections, but your liver's ability to function could be compromised. What happens in 15 years time when we have a nation of women coming down with liver failure - or infertility? (Can daughters then sue their parents for making them infertile?)
Nothing might happen. Then again, lots might. Which is why I said the only way to know is with a Life-Term-Length test. Anything else is guess work.
Bump!