"Thank you, Mom and Dad, for defending my right to get cervical cancer."

[shereads]

The first preventive vaccine for cancer now exists. It's been proven effective at preventing the spread of the virus that causes cervical cancer, provided it's administered before girls become sexually active. Some states have mandated the new vaccine as part of the course of vaccinations that are required for children in public schools. It would be administered to girls at age 11. Just in case. Not that we're admitting that children that young are having sex; certainly not any children we know! But you never know when someone will spike the prom punch with roofies. And what could it hurt, right? We vaccinate school kids against polio and measles, so why not cancer?

Cue the religious right: "Giving girls this vaccination will encourage them to have SEX at age 11!"

Because, as we all know, when young girls abstain from sex, one of the reasons is that they're afraid of consequences that will occur several decades after the fact. "No, Jimmy. I want to have sex with you, but I could get sick when I'm in my forties."

Today Merck Pharamceutcals announced that it will no longer lobby states to make the vaccine mandatory. It's become too controversial. Preventing CANCER, for chrissake, is too controversial. Decades from now, how many daughters diagnosed with cervical cancer will wish the government had told their parents to stuff it, and made them get the injection?

QUESTION: Has anyone else noticed that the same side of the political spectrum that objects to government interference in the way they raise their children, demands that government help them raise their children by imposing restrictions on our access to adult internet content?

 

[Belegon]

The first preventive vaccine for cancer now exists. It's been proven effective at preventing the spread of the virus that causes cervical cancer, provided it's administered before girls become sexually active. Some states have mandated the new vaccine as part of the course of vaccinations that are required for children in public schools. It would be administered to girls at age 11. Just in case. Not that we're admitting that children that young are having sex; certainly not any children we know! But you never know when someone will spike the prom punch with roofies. And what could it hurt, right? We vaccinate school kids against polio and measles, so why not cancer?

Cue the religious right: "Giving girls this vaccination will encourage them to have SEX at age 11!"

Because, as we all know, when young girls abstain from sex, one of the reasons is that they're afraid of consequences that will occur several decades after the fact. "No, Jimmy. I want to have sex with you, but I could get sick when I'm in my forties."

Today Merck Pharamceutcals announced that it will no longer lobby states to make the vaccine mandatory. It's become too controversial. Preventing CANCER, for chrissake, is too controversial. Decades from now, how many daughters diagnosed with cervical cancer will wish the government had told their parents to stuff it, and made them get the injection?

QUESTION: Has anyone else noticed that the same side of the political spectrum that objects to government interference in the way they raise their children, demands that government help them raise their children by imposing restrictions on our access to adult internet content?

Ignoring the other reasons why people may be nervous about this vaccine...or ANY new medical procedure...

Why be surprised at the "religious right" anymore? They pull this shit all the time.

It's the same people that are "pro-life" and also pro death penalty. Which is kind of like going fishing...only the size limit is on humans. Have to wait until they're bigger to kill 'em.

It's the same people that set out to use the scientific method to support a foregone conclusion and then claim science is proving faith. Until science tries to put some doubt into something they cherish...then science has no place in matters of faith.

It's the same people that live in mansions and go on TV asking for money...and preaching the bible...and completely ignoring Matthew 19:21-24

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Some people conveniently ignoring that one, aren't there?

There is nothing that people of that type can do anymore that can surprise me.

Damning their children to cancer? Why not? They're more than willing to send them to die in patriotic fervor. They are more than willing to teach them to hate anyone that doesn't think like they do. They were more than willing to say that the devil wrote all rock songs, that AIDS was a "gay plague" and that the love of two women or two men is somehow less deserving of legal recognition that that of a woman and a man.

I'm not surprised anymore. Just saddened.

 

[shereads]

I'm not surprised anymore. Just saddened.

Not me! I may be saddened, but I refuse to stop being surprised, as well. I wouldn't be able to function without surprise.

I mean, if you're not surprised to be run over by a truck or struck by a falling anvil, you shouldn't have left the house. Right?

We should just count ourselves lucky that polio and rubella aren't transmitted sexually. Not that rational, responsible parents shouldn't have the right to make informed choices for their children. But seriously, how many of those are there? And what about the rights of children born to irrational, irresponsible parents? Do we doom those kids to cancer out of respect for their parents, when we wouldn't respect those parents' opinions on anything else?

BTW, I agree that trusting any new drug requires a leap of faith; it makes things worse to know that somebody's soliciting campaign donations whenever Merck or anyone else lobbies elected officials to mandate the use of their product. But when the alternative is cervical cancer, who cares? Better a life-saving bribe than the usual kind.

 

[Vermilion]

Not me! I may be saddened, but I refuse to stop being surprised, as well. I wouldn't be able to function without surprise.

I mean, if you're not surprised to be run over by a truck or struck by a falling anvil, you shouldn't have left the house. Right?

We should just count ourselves lucky that polio and rubella aren't transmitted sexually. Not that rational, responsible parents shouldn't have the right to make informed choices for their children. But seriously, how many of those are there? And what about the rights of children born to irrational, irresponsible parents? Do we doom those kids to cancer out of respect for their parents, when we wouldn't respect those parents' opinions on anything else?

BTW, I agree that trusting any new drug requires a leap of faith; it makes things worse to know that somebody's soliciting campaign donations whenever Merck or anyone else lobbies elected officials to mandate the use of their product. But when the alternative is cervical cancer, who cares? Better a life-saving bribe than the usual kind.

There is another alternative. Teach your kids about safe sex and barrier method contraception. Surey that's better than sticking another batch of chemicals in their body.
x
V

 

[SimonBrooke]

Cue the religious right: "Giving girls this vaccination will encourage them to have SEX at age 11!"

Cancer is Jesus' way of calling his little lambs to join his flock...

 

[S-Des]

I'm not sure if you missed it or not, but this thread made the rounds a couple of weeks ago and there were some staunch opponents right here (and it wasn't any of the conservative voices). As for me, I'm completely objecting to putting new vaccines into my 11 year old daughter. It's got nothing to do with my religious beliefs, it has to do with the fact that it is a CRIME for an 11 year-old to have sex. Anyone (even another 11 year-old) having sex with her is a criminal. I'm glad you feel it's cool for kids that age to do, you're more than welcome to tell your daughters to go have a good time (since we have all these excellent drugs to keep them from getting pregnant/diseases/etc...), but I'll raise my daughter the way I see fit.

Thanks for your input (since you are doing the exact thing you're accusing the religious right of doing...trying to force your values down my throat). I'll choose to not take your advice.

 

[minsue]

There is another alternative. Teach your kids about safe sex and barrier method contraception. Surey that's better than sticking another batch of chemicals in their body.
x
V

Speaking of sex ed - A condom will not necessarily keep you from HPV exposure, V. It can lower your risk, but that's all. The virus is not limited to areas covered/protected by condoms.

According to the CDC, by the age of 50 at least 80% of women will have acquired a genital HPV infection at some point in their lives (most of the time it clears up on it's own without leaving warts). Obviously, not all lead to cancer and I can understand the concerns of those who don't want to give their children a vaccine that hasn't been on the market for very long, but if I had a daughter, she'd be getting the shot. What I can't understand are those who would risk their daughters' lives because they think giving them a vaccine is equal to giving them permission to have sex.

 

[minsue]

I'm not sure if you missed it or not, but this thread made the rounds a couple of weeks ago and there were some staunch opponents right here (and it wasn't any of the conservative voices). As for me, I'm completely objecting to putting new vaccines into my 11 year old daughter. It's got nothing to do with my religious beliefs, it has to do with the fact that it is a CRIME for an 11 year-old to have sex. Anyone (even another 11 year-old) having sex with her is a criminal. I'm glad you feel it's cool for kids that age to do, you're more than welcome to tell your daughters to go have a good time (since we have all these excellent drugs to keep them from getting pregnant/diseases/etc...), but I'll raise my daughter the way I see fit.

Thanks for your input (since you are doing the exact thing you're accusing the religious right of doing...trying to force your values down my throat). I'll choose to not take your advice.

The reason for such a young age is that it should be given before she is sexually active. That's all.

 

[S-Des]

The reason for such a young age is that it should be given before she is sexually active. That's all.

I understand that. I've also heard doctors recommend it, so I'm divided about it (mine is still several years away). However, it's still very new. It's made it through trials, but what happens if bad effects show up in 5-10 years? How as a parent could you look your child in the face if she developed some terrible condition because you wanted her to be protected when she became sexually active (and not all kids sleep around...many wait until they're older)? Then again, I understand parents who choose to push it because they feel the same about what could happen if they don't. It's a very tough decision and I would never tell anyone what they should do.

Sorry if I ranted. I am very defensive about people telling me it's inevitable that my little girl is going to sleep around. She might (and I'd still love her with all my heart), but I will do my best to encourage her to wait. When she does have sex, I'll encourage her to do it with someone she loves, not just to have a good time.

BTW, I agree, you shouldn't make health decisions based on fear of what it might tell your kids. What you tell them every day of their lives is much more important.

 

[minsue]

I understand that. I've also heard doctors recommend it, so I'm divided about it (mine is still several years away). However, it's still very new. It's made it through trials, but what happens if bad effects show up in 5-10 years? How as a parent could you look your child in the face if she developed some terrible condition because you wanted her to be protected when she became sexually active (and not all kids sleep around...many wait until they're older)? Then again, I understand parents who choose to push it because they feel the same about what could happen if they don't. It's a very tough decision and I would never tell anyone what they should do.

Sorry if I ranted. I am very defensive about people telling me it's inevitable that my little girl is going to sleep around. She might (and I'd still love her with all my heart), but I will do my best to encourage her to wait. When she does have sex, I'll encourage her to do it with someone she loves, not just to have a good time.

As I said in the post before the one you quoted, I can understand concerns about a new vaccine. So far, I believe the trials are 5 years on or so, but you're right that's not necessarily very long.

I do think, though, that it's a mistake to assume any STD will only be passed on by sleeping around and that you can't get it from someone you love. There is no test for HPV in men and usually there are no symptoms. If her partner doesn't have genital warts, neither of them would have any way of knowing he had it.

 

[SimonBrooke]

I'm not sure if you missed it or not, but this thread made the rounds a couple of weeks ago and there were some staunch opponents right here (and it wasn't any of the conservative voices). As for me, I'm completely objecting to putting new vaccines into my 11 year old daughter. It's got nothing to do with my religious beliefs, it has to do with the fact that it is a CRIME for an 11 year-old to have sex. Anyone (even another 11 year-old) having sex with her is a criminal. I'm glad you feel it's cool for kids that age to do, you're more than welcome to tell your daughters to go have a good time (since we have all these excellent drugs to keep them from getting pregnant/diseases/etc...), but I'll raise my daughter the way I see fit.

Thanks for your input (since you are doing the exact thing you're accusing the religious right of doing...trying to force your values down my throat). I'll choose to not take your advice.

HELLO! IS THERE ANY INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THERE?

You vaccinate your daughter at about 5 (maybe younger) against rubella. You do that so she won't have a brain damaged baby. She won't have a brain damaged baby until she's had sex. Does giving her a rubella vaccination encourage her to have sex? Of course it bloody doesn't, don't be so asinine.

So how is this different?

This isn't about whether or not (or when) she starts having sex. It's about whether or not she gets cancer. You want her to get cancer, right? You want to hold the rope to lower your own daughter's coffin into the ground, like my mother had to? Fine. That's the sort of father you are, how can one argue?

 

[S-Des]

HELLO! IS THERE ANY INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THERE?

You vaccinate your daughter at about 5 (maybe younger) against rubella. You do that so she won't have a brain damaged baby. She won't have a brain damaged baby until she's had sex. Does giving her a rubella vaccination encourage her to have sex? Of course it bloody doesn't, don't be so asinine.

So how is this different?

This isn't about whether or not (or when) she starts having sex. It's about whether or not she gets cancer. You want her to get cancer, right? You want to hold the rope to lower your own daughter's coffin into the ground, like my mother had to? Fine. That's the sort of father you are, how can one argue?

Go fuck yourself dickhead. You want to stick your child with every vaccine that's on the market...be my guest. I was very clear, not all vaccines are good. Some have been altered, some have been removed, some cause illness in some patients. Just because it's currently on the market doesn't make it safe. Not giving your child the vaccine won't make them have cancer you half-wit. Right now there is serious debate if one of the vaccines we have been using here for years is responsible for the rise in autism. If you want to put your faith in drugs, be my guest. If you think I'm a bad father for not doing the same...well, why do I care what you think? That's right I don't.

Nevermind.

 

[Guest]

The vaccine is too new. We waited several years before giving our children the varicella vaccine (chicken pox) because we hoped they would have eliminated most of the side effects or problems by then.

As it is now, it's very expensive. And they aren't certain how many booster shots will be required - it may be as often as every three years. But they don't know.

AND I disagree with the government forcing me to give it to my daughter. That sets a dangerous precedent.

It isn't a contagious disease, like polio, in which we'd want to vaccinate the masses. It's a bit different.

Of course we want to protect her. And we are. And we will.

But let's make certain we know what in the hell we're doing first.

 

[Guest]

The vaccine is too new. We waited several years before giving our children the varicella vaccine (chicken pox) because we hoped they would have eliminated most of the side effects or problems by then.

As it is now, it's very expensive. And they aren't certain how many booster shots will be required - it may be as often as every three years. But they don't know.

AND I disagree with the government forcing me to give it to my daughter. That sets a dangerous precedent.

It isn't a contagious disease, like polio, in which we'd want to vaccinate the masses. It's a bit different.

Of course we want to protect her. And we are. And we will.

But let's make certain we know what in the hell we're doing first.

very well put and thank you for your eloquence.
this is exactly how i feel about it.

 

[Vermilion]

Minsue - I was under the impression that it was getting the HPV *on* the cervix that could possibly lead to cervical cancer later on in life. Using a condom and being responsible with sex should prevent the cerviox coming into contact with the virus, no?

I haven't done any psecial research, this is just my understanding.

Personally I agree with people like Des to some degree, that putting every vaccine going into your child just because it's available is not necessarily the most responsible choice to make. Chickenpox, for example, whilst contagious, does not (afaik) cause any detrimental long-term effects, unlike mumps, rubella etc... so I don't think I'd vaccinate my children against it.

Anyway, doesn't screening exist to pick up the pre-cancerous cells on the cervix? Where is the bigger risk - the brand new vaccine or regular screening?

x
V devil:'s advocate?)

 

[Guest]

very well put and thank you for your eloquence.
this is exactly how i feel about it.

 

[Vermilion]

very well put and thank you for your eloquence.
this is exactly how i feel about it.

Nicely manic smile on that AV btw Vella... somehow it suits your posts
x
V

 

[Guest]

Minsue - I was under the impression that it was getting the HPV *on* the cervix that could possibly lead to cervical cancer later on in life. Using a condom and being responsible with sex should prevent the cerviox coming into contact with the virus, no?

I haven't done any psecial research, this is just my understanding.

Personally I agree with people like Des to some degree, that putting every vaccine going into your child just because it's available is not necessarily the most responsible choice to make. Chickenpox, for example, whilst contagious, does not (afaik) cause any detrimental long-term effects, unlike mumps, rubella etc... so I don't think I'd vaccinate my children against it.

Anyway, doesn't screening exist to pick up the pre-cancerous cells on the cervix? Where is the bigger risk - the brand new vaccine or regular screening?

x
V devil:'s advocate?)

Actually, giving the varicella vaccine not only prevents chicken pox (or gives them a very mild case) but can prevent shingles or other such diseases when they are much older. So that was part of our decision to do that.

The jury is still out on this vaccine, however.

 

[Vermilion]

Actually, giving the varicella vaccine not only prevents chicken pox (or gives them a very mild case) but can prevent shingles or other such diseases when they are much older. So that was part of our decision to do that.

The jury is still out on this vaccine, however.

I thought catching chicken pox as a young 'un made you immune, too...
x
V

 

[i812]

I'm for giving everybody the right to choose how they wish to live their lives. When it comes to sex, I like the way the carnival barker says it, "You pays your money, and you takes your chance."

 

[Guest]

I thought catching chicken pox as a young 'un made you immune, too...
x
V

Not necessarily.

I have to go to work now - I'll find research later -

 

[Ness73]

Re: the autism link. Apparently there may be a link to a preservative that used to be used to make the vaccines last. They have now taken that preservative out of vaccines, so there should be no link to autism. As it was, it was a sketchy link, as we don't know how or what causes autism, even a definitive diagnosis of it is hard to nail down.
And just to make a point - a woman can get HPV from one partner. She does not need to sleep around. She can get it from the man she marries. It is not a slut's disease.

 

[minsue]

And just to make a point - a woman can get HPV from one partner. She does not need to sleep around. She can get it from the man she marries. It is not a slut's disease.

The same is true for any STD.

 

[cantdog]

I'm not sure if you missed it or not, but this thread made the rounds a couple of weeks ago and there were some staunch opponents right here (and it wasn't any of the conservative voices). As for me, I'm completely objecting to putting new vaccines into my 11 year old daughter. It's got nothing to do with my religious beliefs, it has to do with the fact that it is a CRIME for an 11 year-old to have sex. Anyone (even another 11 year-old) having sex with her is a criminal. I'm glad you feel it's cool for kids that age to do, you're more than welcome to tell your daughters to go have a good time (since we have all these excellent drugs to keep them from getting pregnant/diseases/etc...), but I'll raise my daughter the way I see fit.

Thanks for your input (since you are doing the exact thing you're accusing the religious right of doing...trying to force your values down my throat). I'll choose to not take your advice.

Good lord. This is a vaccine, not an orgy.

Did you not get the idea? It only works if administered before sexual activity begins.

Before it begins... um, well, how about 11?

Would you prefer 30? 5?

I repeat, this is a vaccine, not an orgy, not "0069-- license to fuck." Values have little to do with viral infections. The enemy here is human papilloma virus, not Satan. Your entire post reminds me of Roseann Rosannadanna.

 

[sophia jane]

I have a problem with it being required as well, not because it encourages sex or whatever but because it is new. And it isn't perfect. The vaccine is touted as a prevention of cervical cancer and HPV which is a little misleading- there are going to be lots of women who still get an STD and are shocked because they thought they'd been vaccinated against them (when really, it vaccinates against one thing and isn't ever going to be 100 percent effective- anyone familiar with the effectiveness of the varicella vaccine which is now required? It's scarily low). Worse, in my opinion, is that the vaccine isn't going to prevent all cervical cancer, and it's being touted as a prevention of that as well. Quoting from a pro-vaccine website:
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved a HPV vaccine—called Gardasil—for women ages 13 to 26 after clinical trials showed the vaccine is safe and 100 percent effective in preventing HPV strains 16 and 18, which cause 70 percent of cervical cancers. Gardasil, given in three injections over six months, is also 99 percent effective in preventing HPV strains 6 and 11, which cause about 90 percent of genital wart cases. Although Gardasil prevents the bulk of HPV strains, it doesn't protect against all of them, so the FDA recommends it as a complement to Pap tests. Furthermore, the vaccine does not work if a woman is already infected with one of these HPV types. It has to be given before infection."


I'm all for making the vaccine available, free or cheap, to people who want it. I'm all for continued research on it and for greater education about HPV and cervical cancer. What I'm not for is requiring a vaccine to a largely undeducated public.

(and I just want to say that while I don't necessarily always agree with Des, I think y'all are waaaay out of line for attacking him the way you are. He's not saying he wants to his daughter in the closet with a chastity belt. Parents who chose not to give any or some vaccinations aren't necessarily bad parents, and it would be nice if they were given some ability to defend themselves before beng attacked as such. I've always vaccinated but my best friend doesn't and she's one of the best moms I know)