Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giving girls the wrong message (HPV Vaccine)
mercatornet.com ^ | 4/13/07 | Graham Leo

Posted on 04/14/2007 11:25:18 AM PDT by wagglebee

An Australian principal objects to being press-ganged into a scheme to vaccinate schoolgirls against the HPV virus.

ImageIn the early 1990s an Australian medical research team headed by Dr Ian Frazer at the University of Queensland made an amazing breakthrough in the fight against cancer. Dr Frazer's team created a vaccine for one of the most aggressive cancers amongst women. We are now all familiar with it as Gardasil, the name given it by Merck, the drug company behind the project.

Final trials of Gardasil show it to be 100 per cent effective against the most common strains of human papilloma virus (HPV) which cause an estimated 70 per cent of cervical cancers. This, I repeat, is exciting medical research, the first successful vaccine against any form of cancer.

My enthusiasm is tempered by misgivings, however, when I consider the nature of the disease and how the remedy will be dispensed. I don't want to sound like a grumpy old man, but the facts of this medical discovery have to be seen against the social background of the need for the vaccine.

The genital HPV in question can only be transmitted through sexual contact. Therefore, the vaccine is only relevant for people who have sexual contact outside of marriage, or for those who marry partners who have had such contact and who might bring the virus into the marriage relationship. Aside from the possibility of being assaulted by an HPV carrier, no one else who leads a sexually moral life needs to be at risk of this particular cause of cervical cancer.

Incidentally, although the vaccine protects against cervical cancer, it does not protect women from many of the other common STDs, such as chlamydia, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B or HIV/AIDS.

Starting this year, however, the Australian Commonwealth government is funding an HPV vaccination programme for all girls and women aged 12 to 26. The rationale is that the vaccine is most effective when given before a woman becomes sexually active, and the cost is expected to be around $436 million over the next three years.

To a school principal struggling to provide the best possible education for his students, half a billion dollars is a lot of money. But money is not my concern. What troubles me is that the vaccination programme for girls is to be delivered through schools, and we have been informed that Emmanuel College will be among the first to participate. We have been press-ganged into this technical strategy for addressing a moral problem.

An unnecessary gamble

It is not even clear how necessary mass vaccination is. Sigrid Fry-Revere, Director of Bioethics Studies at the Cato Institute, recently wrote in the New York Times expressing doubts about the vaccination programme in the state of New York, where all girls from 11 years old are to be vaccinated. She said:

"Gardasil is not all it's cracked up to be. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that among women aged 14 to 24, the rate of all 37 types of sexually transmitted HPV combined is 33.8 percent -- much lower than the 50 percent figure quoted on Merck's web site. More important, the rates for HPV 16 and 18 - the two types responsible for 70 percent of all cervical cancers - are astronomically lower: only 1.5 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively...

It's worth noting that the American Cancer Society sees its fight against cervical cancer as a success story even without Gardasil. When the disease is detected early through Pap testing, the survival rate is more than 90 percent." (NY Times, March 25, 2007)

Fry-Revere also questions the wisdom of government committing an entire generation of young women to exposure to a drug which is still very new, and whose long term side effects we cannot possibly know. But even if it turns out to be as safe and effective as the drug companies say, how safe will it be for our children's moral character?

Here in Queensland, Australia -- and there is strong support at our national government level -- state school canteens are required by law to restrict the sale of pies and chocolate because they "might" (not "will") make some children fat. Every school in the nation must, by law, display a poster listing the Commonwealth Government's list of Values in Australian Schools. We must display a poster advising that we subscribe to something called the national "Safe Schools Framework". To fail in these things is to risk losing Commonwealth funding support for our schools.

'No' costs less - in every way

Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency here? Our society seems to be unwilling to teach young people to say "no". When it comes to something as insubstantial as a meat pie, we legislate to prevent young people engaging in "risky" behaviour. When it comes to life-threatening, socially and emotionally damaging sexual behaviour, we develop "safe sex" programmes which encourage immoral behaviour, and then spend billions of dollars protecting them from the harmful results of that behaviour.

The HPV virus is a public health problem. But, given the moral issues involved, instead of arranging mass vaccinations though schools, a better solution would surely be to make the vaccine available at no cost through a local medical practitioner for those who wish to take advantage of it.

There has been no thought to the invidious position in which this mass programme places a school principal. He or she must tell a 12 year old girl that she ought to have a vaccine which cannot be guaranteed to have no side effects, in order to protect her from the liberal sexual contacts that we expect her to have. As a school principal, I would rather tell my students about the values of living a chaste life until marriage, and that during the next few years I expect them to engage in academic work, sport and music.

As an educator and as a parent, I believe firmly in the principle of teaching young people from an early age to say "no" to things that may harm them. Only then will our young people refuse to get into cars with drunk or irresponsible drivers, or participate in other peer-encouraged risky behaviour. We repeatedly see tragic news stories of bereaved parents blaming the police, the Prime Minister, the roads, the government, the schools and so on because their child died in a tragic speed chase by a police car, or in a drug overdose. How often do we hear a parent admit that they fell down on the job of forming the character of their child?

I am well aware that no-one is perfect, and "There but for the grace of God, go I". But surely there is a place for schools which teach young people that responsibility can be spelt "response-ability". The Hollywood set might regard drug intervention as a reasonable safety-valve for their immoral and personally faithless and superficial lifestyle. In my school we expect more of our students.

Each of us is capable of making a response to each and every life situation. How we respond is usually our own choice. The safest choices have high price tags at the time of making the choice -- we risk friends, popularity, "a good time". The wrong choices have extraordinarily high price tags at the end of the line: illness, relationship failures, crippling financial costs, quadriplegia and even death.

In my school, it is my intention not to give up requiring children to make choices. And then to wear the cost of having made the choice. It used to be called being a good parent. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of our parents support this approach.



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: antiabstinence; culturewar; forcedvaccination; hpvvaccine; moralabsolutes; sexpositiveagenda; teensex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
There has been no thought to the invidious position in which this mass programme places a school principal. He or she must tell a 12 year old girl that she ought to have a vaccine which cannot be guaranteed to have no side effects, in order to protect her from the liberal sexual contacts that we expect her to have. As a school principal, I would rather tell my students about the values of living a chaste life until marriage, and that during the next few years I expect them to engage in academic work, sport and music.

Very well said.

1 posted on 04/14/2007 11:25:22 AM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 230FMJ; 49th; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; Antoninus; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


2 posted on 04/14/2007 11:25:46 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“Aside from the possibility of being assaulted by an HPV carrier, no one else who leads a sexually moral life needs to be at risk of this particular cause of cervical cancer. “

The problem with that statement is the female could be leading a sexual moral life and, unbeknownst to her, the male could be sleeping around on the side and bringing home diseases to her.


3 posted on 04/14/2007 11:28:29 AM PDT by flashbunny (<--- Free Anti-Rino graphics! See Rudy the Rino get exposed as a liberal with his own words!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Both of those women are very pretty - are they representative of Australian women? Given that country’s stance against Islamofascists, and now the prospect of attractive young women, I might have to move there, live my life, and find my wife.


4 posted on 04/14/2007 11:38:08 AM PDT by the anti-liberal (OUR schools are damaging OUR children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Therefore, the vaccine is only relevant for people who have sexual contact outside of marriage, or for those who marry partners who have had such contact and who might bring the virus into the marriage relationship.


"Of course I'm a virgin, Honey. Would I lie about a thing like that?"

5 posted on 04/14/2007 11:38:48 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal

IIRC, there are also a lot more women than men in Australia.


6 posted on 04/14/2007 11:40:25 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

The real problem, is that the vaccine only works against 4 out
of about 16 different HPV viruses....if someone thinks they
are protected against all HPV viruses they would be
incorrect. Therefore risk is still there. I would guess the
risk of spreading the other non-covered virus would increase
as long as people copulate with HPV carriers, soon the
non-covered viruses would predominate in the community.

I think you know what should be done with those who know
they are HPV/HIV/HepC/HepB positive and infect others.
And you know what we should do with rapists in that class.


7 posted on 04/14/2007 11:49:34 AM PDT by Getready (Truth and wisdom are more elusive, and valuable, than gold and diamonds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Very well said.

I agree.

And I add that the modern world is pill-happy.

Too often we do not learn the harm to health incurred by having rushed into some new pill or injection until many become sick or die.

8 posted on 04/14/2007 12:15:25 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

So you make sure you get the vaccine before you sleep with any man, including your husband.


9 posted on 04/14/2007 12:28:23 PM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Getready

The real problem, is that the vaccine only works against 4 out of about 16 different HPV viruses,

That's correct, but those 4 are the ones that cause the problems. Many HPV viruses don't cause significant disease or predispose to cancer, so why worry about them?

10 posted on 04/14/2007 1:28:15 PM PDT by retMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Getready; flashbunny; retMD
I think you know what should be done with those who know they are HPV...positive...

Problem - there is no way of knowing; no HPV-specific STD 'test', unlike HIV or HEP, exists.

In it's dormant state (which is most of the time), a carrier, male or female, shows no symptoms whatsoever.

The only good news is that, except for those times when it promotes cervical cancer cell growth, it seems to simply run its' course and disappear over a year, two, or three.

IMO, I think the vaccine is a good preventative - kinda like the SALK shots we all got as kids.

11 posted on 04/14/2007 1:52:55 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration."- unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

The government has no business mandating a vaccine for a disease that can’t be passed by sitting next to someone in school.


12 posted on 04/14/2007 1:54:10 PM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
...no business mandating a vaccine for a disease that can’t be passed by sitting next to someone in school.

How about exposure to blood products (saliva, direct sneeze, helping a friend bandage a cut or scrape, etc etc) which can happen in a non-sexual context?

I'm not clear on whether I condone the mandate approach. I do know that parents today don't take a pro-active health approach given the new risks which are out there now.

I can't remember whether the SALK polio vaccine was government mandated, but my parents felt that it offered protection against one more of the worlds' risk, at that time (50's) so we got it.

13 posted on 04/14/2007 2:06:24 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration."- unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

The more vaccines the government mandates, the more children are affected by vaccine injuries. Those children are just as valuable, and their injuries offset the few who would be helped by this.

This is NOT government’s place.


14 posted on 04/14/2007 2:25:13 PM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

Also, transmission of measles gives you measles.

Why on earth should ALL girls have to receive a vaccine for something that is not directly transmitted?

A child MAY contract HPV IF she HAPPENS to come in contact with a blood product of an affected child and then MAY contract one of the 4 cancer causing HPVs and then MAY get cancer.

I would like to know what the chances of such an event happening are.


15 posted on 04/14/2007 2:30:37 PM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
...the more children are affected by vaccine injuries....

Statistically low. And isn't that offset by the 'injuries' created by the diseases that the vaccines prevent?

Again, my mandate-nuetrality is the result of the parental apathy/responsibility abdication I see around me today.

YMMV...

16 posted on 04/14/2007 2:34:04 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration."- unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
I would like to know what the chances of such an event happening are.

Want one publicised example?Several students of a wrestling team back East were infected with Herpes as a result of sporting contact with an infected player.

Can happen without direct sexual contact...

17 posted on 04/14/2007 2:38:24 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration."- unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

Statistically low means NOTHING when it is your child damaged.

My nephew was brain damaged by a “safe” DPT shot.

He is now 23 and functions at the level of a 3 year old. I would rather have my child die from a disease than to inflict on them what my poor nephew has gone through. His whole life was taken away. He has no personality. Can’t communicate. Can’t talk. Hasn’t said “I love you” since he was two.

Go ahead and dismiss those children. I find it vile.


18 posted on 04/14/2007 2:38:30 PM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

I repeat. There has to be a chain of events in the case of this vaccine. I don’t believe that vaccinating all the girls in the country can be justified.

A mandated flu shot would save more lives.


19 posted on 04/14/2007 2:40:07 PM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
I'm very sorry to hear that your nephew suffered such severe side-effects from a vaccination. However, that sort of reaction to a DPT inoculation only happens in .0007% of cases, or roughly 1 in 140,000 shots.

It's certainly terrible when it does happen, but that sort of rare reaction isn't a good argument for the cessation of universal DPT inoculation

20 posted on 04/14/2007 2:50:28 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
Statistically low means NOTHING when it is your child damaged.

Agreed. "99% safe" means nothing if your part of the last 1%

And...my heartfelt sympathys' with respect to your nephews' situation. I've worked with developmentally disabled children...

Your experience supports your viewpoint. My own opinion is just that.

Still, if I had a daughter, I would counsul her to get the medication as hindsight can be cruel as well, no?

21 posted on 04/14/2007 2:52:56 PM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration."- unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
He or she must tell a 12 year old girl that she ought to have a vaccine which cannot be guaranteed to have no side effects, in order to protect her from the liberal sexual contacts that we expect her to have. As a school principal, I would rather tell my students about the values of living a chaste life until marriage, and that during the next few years I expect them to engage in academic work, sport and music.

How wonderfully idealistic. Let's just assume that all of those pretty ideals will maintain their integrity when they make contact with reality and call it policy./s

22 posted on 04/14/2007 2:54:32 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber

I didn’t say it was. MUCH more care needs to be taken with vaccines, though. Ill children are routinely vaccinated. Most parents don’t even bother to read the vaccine inserts, IF they are provided by the doctor.

Apparently, my family is vaccine sensitive in some way. My son had a severe reaction as well. His leg swelled up hugely, he couldn’t walk, and he screamed for hours on end. I won’t take any more chances.


23 posted on 04/14/2007 3:31:06 PM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

ping


24 posted on 04/14/2007 4:28:17 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"IIRC, there are also a lot more women than men in Australia."

Hmmm, you don't say?

This calls for some serious thought...

25 posted on 04/14/2007 6:24:06 PM PDT by the anti-liberal (OUR schools are damaging OUR children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
I would rather have my child die from a disease than to inflict on them what my poor nephew has gone through.

Go have a dead child, and then get back to us on that.

You are speaking, I presume, from the enviable position of not having one.

26 posted on 04/14/2007 6:35:40 PM PDT by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta

No. I have four happy healthy children. Take your self-righteousness somewhere else.

I have endured twenty years of watching my family be destroyed. My nephew never got a chance.


27 posted on 04/14/2007 6:40:21 PM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Very well said indeed.

I think I have something of an advantage in looking at this because of my political background. We have a saying that is very popular....follow the money. Pull the string on that, and you’ll see why this is even an issue in the first place.

If I recall correctly, the cost of this immunization is in the $200-$300 range. Multiply that by the number of children potentially immunized and you have a pretty good idea of why we’re even having this discussion.


28 posted on 04/15/2007 6:23:29 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

“A mandated flu shot would save more lives.”

Yes, but a flu shot costs about $10. This one costs much more. So which do you think is going to be promoted by our “friends” in the pharmaceutical industry and their all too willing enablers in the legislatures?


29 posted on 04/15/2007 6:28:06 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
"A mandated flu shot would save more lives."

Statistically, maybe. But I will never personally submit to a mandated flu shot nor will I allow my children to. Our family knew a man who died as the result of a flu shot and it was a long, nasty process that involved gradually spreading paralasys.

Granted, he is the exception, but there is always a risk. I don't get flu shots (never have, never will) and I don't get the flu either. Even if I did, I would rather have the flu and be done with it than to take a chance with a bad vaccine or reaction to a vaccine.

30 posted on 04/15/2007 6:51:42 AM PDT by Pablo64 (Ask me about my alpacas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

I agree entirely. I was just pointing out that IF the actual motive was saving lives, this wasn’t the way to do that.


31 posted on 04/15/2007 7:48:11 AM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pablo64

Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate mandated vaccines.


32 posted on 04/15/2007 7:49:24 AM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

I got it. You were just making a point. Sorry if my post sounded accusatory.


33 posted on 04/15/2007 4:03:01 PM PDT by Pablo64 (Ask me about my alpacas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The genital HPV in question can only be transmitted through sexual contact. Therefore, the vaccine is only relevant for people who have sexual contact outside of marriage, or for those who marry partners who have had such contact and who might bring the virus into the marriage relationship.

I have been following this topic for some time now, and I still can’t understand the reasoning behind the objections. Do people really want their daughters to die of cancer when there is a way to drastically cut the odds of them contracting this form?
Yes, your sweet innocent little girl was raised right. She was a virgin bride.
But...
...for those who marry partners who have had such contact and who might bring the virus into the marriage relationship.
How would she know? How would you know?
Cancer is not a fun way to die - but for people who don’t really care about anything but their own public mutterings, whom care nothing about their daughters ... I guess it doesn’t matter.

34 posted on 04/15/2007 4:16:26 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

So, you’re comfortable with a program that mandates a drug, that has only had minimal testing, be administered to teenage girls because the drug manufacturer has spent millions of dollars campaigning for it?


35 posted on 04/15/2007 4:24:14 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Is anything 100% safe?
Would you enjoy watching your daughter dying of cervical cancer, knowing it may have been prevented?


36 posted on 04/15/2007 4:27:03 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

” that can’t be passed by sitting next to someone in school.”

That really shows the line that we have crossed. Schools (and other govt) used to do things that affected the common health/well being of people


37 posted on 04/15/2007 4:28:20 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Never bring a knife to a gun fight, or a Democrat to do serious work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

I am aware of what has happened from past “wonder” drugs that have been rushed to market. Do the drugs Thalidomide, Vioxx and Phen-fen mean anything to you?


38 posted on 04/15/2007 4:30:30 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Yes, I am aware of them.
I am also aware of the effects of cancer. My wife died of esophageal cancer in 2001.


39 posted on 04/15/2007 4:40:56 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pablo64

No problem. :)


40 posted on 04/15/2007 4:43:15 PM PDT by Politicalmom ("Thompson seems to recognize that he wins the guy-I'd-want-to-get-a-beer-with- contest hands down.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

I am very sorry to hear about your wife.

However, that doesn’t mean that we should rush this drug to market. I am also concerned that girls will begin to think that this vaccine “protects” them from all forms of STDs, while the truth is that it only helps with a handful.


41 posted on 04/15/2007 4:45:07 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
why is it the scientific community always seems to come up with MUTLILATIONS for girls and women, and not boys and men?
42 posted on 04/15/2007 4:47:06 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I am also concerned that girls will begin to think that this vaccine “protects” them from all forms of STDs

How so? From what I have seen, it is only being touted as a preventative for a few types of cervical cancer.
But for those who don’t really care about women’s lives and health …

43 posted on 04/15/2007 4:48:35 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cherry

A shot is a “mutilation”?
Could it be that a vaccine has been found that will protect females, but has not been found that will protect males? They are different, right?


44 posted on 04/15/2007 4:53:13 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

Yes, and immature teenagers will view this as a green light to have unprotected sex. Have you seen the TV commercials for this, an uninformed person is left with the impression that this will eradicate cervical cancer.

I am not opposed to any parent CHOOSING to have their daughter vaccinated, I am opposed to parents being forced vaccinate their daughter against a sexually transmitted disease.


45 posted on 04/15/2007 4:53:31 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Yes, and immature teenagers will view this as a green light to have unprotected sex. Have you seen the TV commercials for this, an uninformed person is left with the impression that this will eradicate cervical cancer.

Really? Are they really that dumb?
From my experience as a teenager way back when, and my experience with our daughter, most aren’t that ignorant.
When I was a teen - back in the early 60’s, we were shown a lot of VD movies. I don’t recall anyone being scared out of sex.
But - if it make you feel good, don’t let your daughter have the shot. Just think real hard when she is diagnosed with cervical cancer. I hope you can live with yourself.

46 posted on 04/15/2007 5:06:14 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

Pay attention to the commercial, it really is that outrageous.

I have no daughters, and as I said, I am not opposed to any parents choosing to do this.


47 posted on 04/15/2007 5:07:42 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If you had a daughter, would you change your mind?


48 posted on 04/15/2007 5:09:19 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

Not about it being mandatory.


49 posted on 04/15/2007 5:10:55 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

You have my deepest condolences.


50 posted on 04/15/2007 5:12:35 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson