That's also a rediculous argument. We aren't talking about forcing girls to have sex, we are talking about giving them a vaccine.
The idea that being protected from a subset of HPV infections, which are only a subset of all sexually transmitted diseases, and which doesn't include protection from HIV or pregnancy, would somehow tip the scales and convince a girl who wasn't going to have sex to have sex, is ignorant.
Anybody who was going to actually think through having sex based on getting a disease is going to realise that this vaccine doesn't lower the odds nearly enough to risk it.
The Vaccine protects girls who were going to have sex anyway, from a disease that can be fatal, that a majority of women end up catching, and that nobody thinks about when they have sex.
If they had an actual vaccine that could protect girls safely from all sexually transmitted disease, including HIV, would you deny it to girls on account of the fact that it would make sex less dangerous for them? Do you think that sex should be a dangerous proposition?
Or would you let them get the vaccine if they were getting married? Because married girls can get sexually transmitted diseases as well, even if they were virgins when they got married. THeir husbands might cheat on them -- and certainly we don't want to punish women for their husband's indiscretions.
If you are pissed off by now at what I seem to be insinuating, that is the point -- your comment suggests that you oppose Gardisil because it would allow girls to have sex and not get a terminal cancer. Is that really what you meant? What other point could you be making with your comment?
It was a pretty telling revelation that Gov. Sarah Palin was also approached by Merck about gardasil and she said hell no.