[Panzerfaust]

So how huge is the difference? If we can prevent a communicable disease with a vaccine that provides an acceptable risk/benefit ratio, should we not do it? Oh, sorry, I forgot that no Freeper's little angelic kids have unprotected sex. Nor will they ever marry someone who had unprotected sex.

If HPV can cause cervical cancer, I'd mandate a vaccine against it long before the already-required vaccines for nuisance diseases like chicken pox or the measles, which are rarely fatal.

The original post I responded to was so ludicrous in its paranoia, I thought my sarcasm would be evident. Next time I'll add the /sarc tag.l

[Gabz]

If we can prevent a communicable disease with a vaccine that provides an acceptable risk/benefit ratio, should we not do it?

I absolutely agree it should be done. However, in the case of this particular vaccine they are seeking to mandate it for females who are far below the age of those on whom it has already been tested and without knowlege of any possible long term side effects. Thus there is no known risk/benefit ratio for the age range of the mandates.

The majority of the opposition I have seen here to the mandates is because of the age, not against the vaccine itself. The testing of these drugs were not done on pre-pubescent girls, yet that is the age these mandates are calling for.

My opposition to the mandates for these vaccines are based entirely on scientific reasons, and not morality. Talk to me about this vaccine when my 9 year old is 15 and there have been more studies done on the side effects.