Decide: Virginity or Death

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.

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.

Who the hell does Juan Carlos Felix think he is to usurp the rights of parents who are so utterly ignorant about the world they WANT their kids to get cancer!

That’s the government’s job. To protect people. If their parents won’t protect them, the government HAS to step in. You can call it socialism, you can call it crap, you can go “na na nana na,” but protecting citizens is the real duty of any government.

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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

For those that are crying about insisting upon vaccinating ALL women as a loss of freedom are just plain wrong. Protection for all women would be a better way of putting it.

Most jurisdictions that I am aware of require certain immunizations before that child may attend the public school. Most States, if not all, require children to be in a child or booster seat when riding in a car. When medical attention is denied by parents, including blood transfusions, the State may and does step in to assume custody of the child. When physical abuse is suspected the State again steps in to remove the child from the scene.

The common theme here is the protection of the child is paramount. In every case, the parent is expected to voluntarily submit their child to these protections. If the parent declines, regardless of personal or religious beliefs, the State will remove custody from the parents to effect that protection. Why? Simply because the welfare of the child takes precedence over any assumed right of the parent.

Is this socialism or communism? Nope. I would have to say it is the community’s concern for the greater good. Is the opposite, the parents absolute right to parent as they see fit, ever justified? Nope again, because in cases like this here, it is akin to child abuse.

meetsy, it is easy to see when a subject gets you going. Well put. My wife and daughter have uterus’s though.
Ima, I agree and you made your point quite well in my opinion.

Smith, if the government is only to protect us from outside dangers, then why am I not permitted to help myself to my neighbors lawn mower? By denying me the opportunity to “take” (steal), society is protected. By criminalizing the use of heroin or ecstasy, society is protecting us from dangers inside society. By limiting the powers of a parent, we ensure that children are safer. Maybe you lost a small piece of freedom, but you gave up that piece to join a society where everyone (theoretical) is equally protected.

They should put the vaccine in our water.
Along with Cialis/Viagra. Just in case.

Since it’s caused by a virus, perhaps they should rename Cervical Cancer to something else. Then it wouldn’t be such a big deal, and only the really horny would feel compelled to get the vaccine.

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.