Wishing for a vaccination against stupidity.

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
Why would you try to prevent your daughters from being vaccinated against a virus that could cause cancer? Someone please explain this to me because I must be missing something.

Oh, you silly girl, you ARE missing something.

Didn't you know that in the clinical tests done so far, that the girls who received the real vaccine developed side effects that included inability to keep their knees together, a gaping gash that learned whistles when the wind blows, and an insatiable libido? The girls who received the placebo were able to remain demure and virginal.

I agree that it should not be a government mandate or law, but it should be freely (and affordably) available. I'll take no pleasure in saying "I told you so" to the parents who think it will make their daughters slutty.

 

[Ethyl]

Oh, you silly girl, you ARE missing something.

Didn't you know that in the clinical tests done so far, that the girls who received the real vaccine developed side effects that included inability to keep their knees together, a gaping gash that learned whistles when the wind blows, and an insatiable libido? The girls who received the placebo were able to remain demure and virginal.

I agree that it should not be a government mandate or law, but it should be freely (and affordably) available. I'll take no pleasure in saying "I told you so" to the parents who think it will make their daughters slutty.

Maybe it would be more popular if teenage girls made vows to their fathers to keep their virginity intact until marriage...then the father could offer it as a gift before marriage.

 

[kamikazee_club]

The Humanpapilloma virus is not a scare. Over 50% of men carry the virus but it doesn't affect them. It's passed on to women and they're the ones who suffer from genital warts or cervical cancer. When an estimated 50-80% of women carry the virus, i'd say that's cause for concern. No one thinks twice about getting their kids vaccinated for polio and measles. This is a way to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths every year.

I know the virus isn't a scare that's not what I meant, or said (as also Measles, Mumps and Rubella aren't) the scare was about the perceived risk of side effects of the vaccine not the danger posed by illnesses themselves.

I know a little about the virus and I wasn't advocating the girl wasn't vaccinated which you'll see if you re-read what I said which is that I believe the state should not have the right to vaccinate her against her or her parents express wishes, I stand by that. If they have that right, what's next?

The role of the state should be to educate and provide facilities which she or anyone else should then be free to avail themselves. The reason I mentioned MMR was that many people do think twice about that vaccination and in some countries infection rates are rising.

 

[Lex]

Oh, you silly girl, you ARE missing something.

Didn't you know that in the clinical tests done so far, that the girls who received the real vaccine developed side effects that included inability to keep their knees together, a gaping gash that learned whistles when the wind blows, and an insatiable libido? The girls who received the placebo were able to remain demure and virginal.

I agree that it should not be a government mandate or law, but it should be freely (and affordably) available. I'll take no pleasure in saying "I told you so" to the parents who think it will make their daughters slutty.

Maybe it would be more popular if teenage girls made vows to their fathers to keep their virginity intact until marriage...then the father could offer it as a gift before marriage.

And let it be noted that if the majority of our country would educate themselves on something other than heresay from friends and pastors, we would not sound like Cavemen (and women).

My daughter will be getting the vaccine.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I am against any vaccine being mandatory. Because of a series of fires floods and clerical errors, I have had to have several of my vacciniations two and even three times. (In the cases of ones which must be boosted, they had to be redone long before booster shots were due.) Lord knows what that does to one's chemistry in the long run. If they weren't mandatory, but merely suggested, I'd have been fully vaccinated, right on schedule. The problem is, our gov't treats us like we're all stupid. I say, let the universe care for the stupid, or let them fail to thrive on their own. Let's not coddle anyone.

As for me, I am planning to have the HPV vaccine. A girlfriend of mine had a terrible scare with warts and so-called pre-cancerous cells. I don't want to have any of those types of fears lingering around. So, yeah. I think it's time to redo tetanus, too. (The record on that is gone, but that's not a mandatory shot.)

 

[fortiesfun]

The one thing I totally object to is religious groups imposing their twisted sense of morality on the rest of the public through affecting public policy. What kind of nasty God would be happier if we place girls at risk for cancer because we want to maintain the illusion that girls wait for marriage to have sex.

There is no reason whatsoever that anyone who thinks this is abhorent has to respect a religious group with an agenda like that. It's important that everyone do whatever they can to point out the downright nastiniess and even deadliness of this kind of thinking.

Don't even stop to worry about collateral damage to mainstream denominations if your criticism is indiscriminate. They can take care of themselves, and furthermore, they need to be woken up and asked to take some responsibility.

Amen.

 

[kamikazee_club]

I totally agree with the seriousness of the HPV concern and the need for vaccinating girls at an age before they are susceptible. This is no different than vaccinating for measels or mumps, where we do not ask permission of the child nor do we wait until they are old enough to make the decision themselves.

In the west (and this this thread has a very US/western centric view) I can see some mileage in your statement though I still disagree that the vaccination should be a matter for state or even federal legislation.

I believe that vaccinations should be a choice. I'm unconvinced one can draw a meaningful parallel between seeking the informed consent of [say] a 14 year old and that of an infant for quite obvious reasons.

I don't agree with you that there is no difference between vaccination against an illness which may be acquired as a result of [nominally] adult sexual activity and, in the case of Measles as a single example, one which is so contagious it can be acquired at any age without intimate contact and is the cause of perhaps 30-40 million infections and around 500,000 deaths annually - primarily in the third world. Many who survive are left with crippling disabilities. I'm not trying to diminish anything but in terms of global health considerations and mortality there's little comparison.

The one thing I totally object to is religious groups imposing their twisted sense of morality on the rest of the public through affecting public policy. The idea that an HPV vaccination should be withheld because it encourages or endorses sex is so twisted and bizarre that if it weren't absolutely cruel and deadly, it would be funny.

I agree and think I'm seeing selective word blindness in this thread (though not your post JA) where expressing reservations about a mandatory vaccine is somehow seen as caveperson(ish), a form of moral bigotry or even simply being against the vaccine per se. For myself it's not my view that one should not be vaccinated against this or any other illness, I think the vaccine is a great thing. I saw an estimate that Cervical Cancer deaths could rise to a million a year by 2050.

I will say that as HPV (or for that matter HIV etc) become increasingly endemic in our societies and thus it becomes almost certain as with the usual 'childhood' illneses that without vaccination only a minority would escape infection I'm open to changing that view but I'm not quite there yet. Perhaps, if such vaccinations were mandatory or administered at such high % rates as to render the diseases they prevent a rarity such questions would be moot, but they're not so here we are.

While I don't subscribe to the view that reduction of risk is a de facto cause of 'risky' behaviour I do think it's a little naive to entirely separate participation in a behaviour from its possible risks. In a broader sense if one is protected from the possible results of a course of action which would otherwise be cause for circumspection because of those risks is the likelihood of persuing it unchanged? Does anyone believe that many who don't smoke or quit for health reasons would do so [or do so again] if they were immunized against it's consequences? I don't think so.

I know most comments made in this thread in that vein have so far been largely tongue in cheek but nevertheless I'll now step back and wait while the narrow minded among us take the above paragraph as pandering to the religious right.

 

[DC_DEEP]

While I don't subscribe to the view that reduction of risk is a de facto cause of 'risky' behaviour I do think it's a little naive to entirely separate participation in a behaviour from its possible risks. In a broader sense if one is protected from the possible results of a course of action which would otherwise be cause for circumspection because of those risks is the likelihood of persuing it unchanged? Does anyone believe that many who don't smoke or quit for health reasons would do so [or do so again] if they were immunized against it's consequences? I don't think so.

I know most comments made in this thread in that vein have so far been largely tongue in cheek but nevertheless I'll now step back and wait while the narrow minded among us take the above paragraph as pandering to the religious right.

I don't know if you think I qualify for narrow-minded or not, but no, I don't see the above paragraph as pandering to the religious right. But the core issue regarding vaccination against something like HPV versus risky behavior in teens is a bit of a red herring. The logic would perhaps seem to be there ("I got the shot, I don't have to worry about the consequences" or "The school will give me condoms, that must mean irresponsible sex is OK") but what really gets called into question is a parent's effectiveness in teaching their children appropriate behaviors and risks.

A child will decide for himself whether or not to be responsible, whether he was well-parented or poorly parented. The main difference is that the well-parented child will be better prepared to make those decisions.

It is a little like reasoning that if you have a spare tire in your trunk, you will get a flat. If you don't have a spare tire in your trunk, you will not get a flat.

Education and preparedness just doesn't seem a bad idea to me.

 

[Gillette]

I don't like the idea of the shots being mandated particularly in light of the states refusal to pay for it. It should put it's money where it's mouth is, if the shot is at their insistence it should also be on their dime.

The religious reasons for not letting their daughters have the shot strikes me as woefully shortsighted on their parts. Do they completely fail to realise their precious pureheart could just as easily become infected by their future husbands? HPV isn't just for single folk.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I don't like the idea of the shots being mandated particularly in light of the states refusal to pay for it. It should put it's money where it's mouth is, if the shot is at their insistence it should also be on their dime.

I wonder, if the state DOES make something like this an unfunded mandate, what do they do for someone who says "I just cannot afford it"??? Throw 'em in jail? Refuse to allow the girl to go to public school? It is just shortsighted and silly.

The religious reasons for not letting their daughters have the shot strikes me as woefully shortsighted on their parts. Do they completely fail to realise their precious pureheart could just as easily become infected by their future husbands? HPV isn't just for single folk.

Now, now, dear, don't you know that if you stick your head in the sand, all your problems REALLY DO disappear?

 

[kamikazee_club]

I don't know if you think I qualify for narrow-minded or not, but no, I don't see the above paragraph as pandering to the religious right. But the core issue regarding vaccination against something like HPV versus risky behavior in teens is a bit of a red herring. The logic would perhaps seem to be there ("I got the shot, I don't have to worry about the consequences" or "The school will give me condoms, that must mean irresponsible sex is OK") but what really gets called into question is a parent's effectiveness in teaching their children appropriate behaviors and risks.

No DC_D I don't and it was in part your TIC comments I alluded to, glad you picked it up. I didn't say there was a direct correlation between the vaccination and behaviour or that there was logic behind it if there were. I am saying and I do believe that some people will take protection from risk as tacit approval for behaviour that they may otherwise deem 'risky'.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning fully; if a school were to give out condoms and say why would that not rather imply that irresponsible sex (i.e. sans condom) would be not be OK rather than an attitude of you can't have condoms and don't have sex, which to me is negligent and irresponsible on the school's part. You may not agree and of course that's your prerogative.

A child will decide for himself whether or not to be responsible, whether he was well-parented or poorly parented. The main difference is that the well-parented child will be better prepared to make those decisions.

Yes of course I agree but look around, abundant evidence of high quality parenting appears to be increasingly thin on the ground. Should children of 'poor parents' be subject to a different level of assumed responsible behaviour assement capability and how would that be determined?

I've already said more than once I'm not opposed to the vaccine (or any other), merely that I think the State should not have the authority (legal or moral) to enforce it against peoples wishes. Nothing more.

It is a little like reasoning that if you have a spare tire in your trunk, you will get a flat. If you don't have a spare tire in your trunk, you will not get a flat.

I disagree, let's say a spare is means of reducing the risk that one will be stranded by the roadside, it doesn't automatically follow that a driver will now risk driving on poorer, isolated roads because they have a spare but ask yourself would the average driver take that same risk as willingly without the spare.

Education and preparedness just doesn't seem a bad idea to me.

Nor to me.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning fully; if a school were to give out condoms and say why would that not rather imply that irresponsible sex (i.e. sans condom) would be not be OK rather than an attitude of you can't have condoms and don't have sex, which to me is negligent and irresponsible on the school's part. You may not agree and of course that's your prerogative.

I think we are agreeing here, kc. I was simply saying that the resources (such as a school nurse) who want to provide information and condoms to teens are trying to encourage safer behaviors, while those opposed to those resources for teens accuse them of encouraging risky behaviors. I don't think the schools force students to accept condoms, I think they would be more likely to provide to those who ask for them. The parents who oppose it would have you believe otherwise.

Yes of course I agree but look around, abundant evidence of high quality parenting appears to be increasingly thin on the ground. Should children of 'poor parents' be subject to a different level of assumed responsible behaviour assement capability and how would that be determined?

So that we understand the terminology, when I say "poor parenting" I am not saying "poor parents" in an economic sense, I am talking about the quality of the parenting. I cannot be responsible for anyone who chooses to be a bad parent, nor do I think the children of bad parents should necessarily have to suffer needlessly. What is my responsibility to children of neglectful parents?

I've already said more than once I'm not opposed to the vaccine (or any other), merely that I think the State should not have the authority (legal or moral) to enforce it against peoples wishes. Nothing more.

We have agreed on this point more than once.

I disagree, let's say a spare is means of reducing the risk that one will be stranded by the roadside, it doesn't automatically follow that a driver will now risk driving on poorer, isolated roads because they have a spare but ask yourself would the average driver take that same risk as willingly without the spare.

I used that analogy simply to point out the faulty logic of the parents who say "giving my daughter this vaccine will encourage promiscuous behavior." If I had a daughter, when I took her to get her vaccinations, I would not go into great detail about the individual vaccines. I would simply say, "this is a MMR vaccine, it will help keep you from getting sick." "This is the HPV vaccine, it will help keep you from getting sick." I definitely would not say "This is the HPV vaccine, so that if you go around fucking every guy in sight, you won't get cervical cancer." So the theory that knowing about the protection will possibly lead to risky behavior is shaky, at best. The child need not know that it has anything to do with sex, so how could that lead to more risky sexual behavior? Again, it is all about responsible parenting.

 

[kamikazee_club]

I think we are agreeing here, kc. I was simply saying that the resources (such as a school nurse) who want to provide information and condoms to teens are trying to encourage safer behaviors, while those opposed to those resources for teens accuse them of encouraging risky behaviors. I don't think the schools force students to accept condoms, I think they would be more likely to provide to those who ask for them. The parents who oppose it would have you believe otherwise.

I think so too, I'm feeling intellectually impaired today!! I think those who feel either way on these subjects both have, to some degree legitimate concerns. People, or rather their behaviours are seldom easy to predict but it seems to me that erring on side of caution and thus education would be safer, literally.

So that we understand the terminology, when I say "poor parenting" I am not saying "poor parents" in an economic sense, I am talking about the quality of the parenting.

I know you were, as was I. Sadly a great many do assume a connection between economics and morality.

We have agreed on this point more than once.I used that analogy simply to point out the faulty logic of the parents who say "giving my daughter this vaccine will encourage promiscuous behavior." If I had a daughter, when I took her to get her vaccinations, I would not go into great detail about the individual vaccines. I would simply say, "this is a MMR vaccine, it will help keep you from getting sick." "This is the HPV vaccine, it will help keep you from getting sick."

I also think that parenting is key, however I don't believe it's all. I know several people who come from families that could only be described as efficient, they have siblings who are 'well adjusted' yet they behave in ways that often defy logic or common sense. My point being that people will do risky shit however good their upbringing and of course vaccinations are, for them largely irrelevant.

I definitely would not say "This is the HPV vaccine, so that if you go around fucking every guy in sight, you won't get cervical cancer." So the theory that knowing about the protection will possibly lead to risky behavior is shaky, at best. The child need not know that it has anything to do with sex, so how could that lead to more risky sexual behavior? Again, it is all about responsible parenting.

I don't think anyone here would say that but I think it's reasonable to assume that when many women start being sexually active such questions may come to the fore and they may ask "Was I vaccinated?" If the response is yes she may think "Good so I can fuck like a rabbit now at least I will be protected." Of course, most won't but I'd wager a few will. That this applies to any risky behaviour was all I was trying to say.

The likelihood of such a response depends, I agree rather more on the efficacy of parenting than any inherent inability to act responsibly people may have. It's the latter which it would seem is the default position of those who would oppose vaccinations/condoms etc based on those very assumptions. Personally, I think that says more about them.

As I said I think half my brain cells are asleep today, and the other one is dozing off.

 

[Ethyl]

I know a little about the virus and I wasn't advocating the girl wasn't vaccinated which you'll see if you re-read what I said which is that I believe the state should not have the right to vaccinate her against her or her parents express wishes, I stand by that. If they have that right, what's next?

The role of the state should be to educate and provide facilities which she or anyone else should then be free to avail themselves. The reason I mentioned MMR was that many people do think twice about that vaccination and in some countries infection rates are rising.

I understand what you meant but I wonder if these parents would protest if this vaccine was developed for protection for something other than a virus that is sexually transmitted. I think that's a legitimate question. I'm not suggesting parents shouldn't be the ones to decide what inoculations their child receives. I really don't think many people know a lot about HPV and if there's not enough public concern generated about this virus, then parents won't see the need for it. That's my point. I would love to know if these same parents who are protesting the mandate would give it to their daughters if it weren't mandatory.

 

[Ethyl]

I don't think anyone here would say that but I think it's reasonable to assume that when many women start being sexually active such questions may come to the fore and they may ask "Was I vaccinated?" If the response is yes she may think "Good so I can fuck like a rabbit now at least I will be protected." Of course, most won't but I'd wager a few will. That this applies to any risky behaviour was all I was trying to say.

Ever wonder what the response would be if the vaccine had been created for men first? I do. I'll probably be cyber-bashed over the head for this, but I don't think there would be such a furor over this if men were the ones to be vaccinated. As a general rule society, especially in religious circles, is not as worried about a man's sexual activity.

*waits patiently for said bashing*

 

[kamikazee_club]

I understand what you meant but I wonder if these parents would protest if this vaccine was developed for protection for something other than a virus that is sexually transmitted. I think that's a legitimate question. I'm not suggesting parents shouldn't be the ones to decide what inoculations their child receives. I really don't think many people know a lot about HPV and if there's not enough public concern generated about this virus, then parents won't see the need for it. That's my point. I would love to know if these same parents who are protesting the mandate would give it to their daughters if it weren't mandatory.

Legitimate questions indeed and ones to which I don't have an answer because it would depend on whether they were objecting on moral or legal grounds and I've not read beyond that article. Yet, somehow my instinct suggests they would in in the former case but not the latter. But I wasn't trying to second guess their motivation I just seem to have been sucked into that. I was just saying that I believe the decision to vaccinate or not should lie with the parent (or individual) not the state.

Of course some will (and did) say we each have a responsibilty to our fellow citizens to stay healthy, well perhaps we do, as we have a responsibility to drive safely, while sober, not abuse drink and/or drugs and do many other things that cause social ills and premature deaths to innocent third parties the question is when does pressure to meet that responsibilty cross a line of personal liberty?

There may be a valid overriding case for certain mandatory vaccinations in extreme circumstances but I don't believe this is one.

 

[kamikazee_club]

Ever wonder what the response would be if the vaccine had been created for men first? I do. I'll probably be cyber-bashed over the head for this, but I don't think there would be such a furor over this if men were the ones to be vaccinated. As a general rule society, especially in religious circles, is not as worried about a man's sexual activity.

*waits patiently for said bashing*

Hehe no bashing it's just this thread was about a woman so I was trying to keep on topic.

On the one hand I disagree, if the genders were reversed and there was any form of government imposed intervention in male sexual activities there could be an outcry that would be heard from space. On the other (double standard) hand men could welcome it because it could give them license to behave as they wished without consequence.

That said, it would be equally wrong and my comments applied to either gender, even if I didn't expressly say so.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
I also think that parenting is key, however I don't believe it's all. I know several people who come from families that could only be described as efficient, they have siblings who are 'well adjusted' yet they behave in ways that often defy logic or common sense. My point being that people will do risky shit however good their upbringing and of course vaccinations are, for them largely irrelevant.

Exactly, but that underscores my assertion that being a good parent does not necessarily guarantee a good child... nor does bad parenting guarantee a bad child. I'm saying that it is going to be the nature of any given child to do what they know is right, or not. Either way, having given the child knowledge and resources is about all a good parent can do.

I don't think anyone here would say that but I think it's reasonable to assume that when many women start being sexually active such questions may come to the fore and they may ask "Was I vaccinated?" If the response is yes she may think "Good so I can fuck like a rabbit now at least I will be protected." Of course, most won't but I'd wager a few will. That this applies to any risky behaviour was all I was trying to say.

And again, you are right that they may think that protection gives them more freedom, but also again, I think a lot of it boils down to predisposition and the foundation of good parenting that would help them to make the RIGHT decisions.

So, of these four, who is most likely to avoid STDs?

1. A teen with knowledge and a condom
2. A teen with knowledge, but no condom
3. A teen without knowledge, but with a condom
4. A teen without knowledge or a condom

I'm going to vote for number one. I'll guess that all three of the others will be more likely to contract at least one STD at some point in time. I have never had an STD, but then again, I was in that first category...

 

[Lex]

...
So, of these four, who is most likely to avoid STDs?

1. A teen with knowledge and a condom
2. A teen with knowledge, but no condom
3. A teen without knowledge, but with a condom
4. A teen without knowledge or a condom

I'm going to vote for number one. I'll guess that all three of the others will be more likely to contract at least one STD at some point in time. I have never had an STD, but then again, I was in that first category...

Me neither. Funny how education works. Far more powerful than ignorance.

But why let that feul the decision making, right?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Me neither. Funny how education works. Far more powerful than ignorance.

But why let that feul the decision making, right?

But ignorance is easier, right? And if you remain ignorant, then you can blame the ills of the world on everyone but yourself.