Posted on 05/27/2006 5:20:46 AM PDT by RKV
I only posted it here in the interests of opposition research. Happy to report that doing so, didn't result in any revenue to that rag.
Classic projection.
Some factual information in this article. But, bashing higher morals is silly and the author misses the mark. I am not for our public schools current teachings on sex education. Perhaps the author should endorce the teaching of high morals or just stick to the scientific facts.
It was not the STATE'S job to keep her safe or educate her as to the dangers of premarital sex.
Where were her parents?
Once again, we slide a BIT further down that slippery slope. There is not an argument in here that was not used for the Pill, and not one "dire prediction" of rampant sex that didn't come true.
I worked in the medical device industry for a number of years, and I can tell you that getting a new device or drug approved by the FDA is a long and risky business. That said, the author says nothing about the company's science, progress or study results. It's all invective and damn little information to base such charges on.
While the author is unclear on the details, I believe she is referring to a child who was a ward of the state.
Agree
The only thing the article reveals is the author's own condescending views of Religion.
That's why antichoicers will never answer the call of prochoicers to join them in reducing abortions by making birth control more widely available: They want it to be less available. Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses--it's in keeping sex tied to reproduction to keep women in their place. If preventing abortion was what they cared about, they'd be giving birth control and emergency contraception away on street corners instead of supporting pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions and hospitals that don't tell rape victims about the existence of EC. David Hager (see Ayelish McGarvey's stunning exposé, and keep in mind that unlike godless me she is a churchgoing evangelical Christian) would never use his position with the FDA to impose his personal views of sexual morality on women in crisis....
Never mind the fact that if these people had tried abstinece and a little personal responsibility, they wouldn't have to exercise their "right" to choose whether their child should live or die. Besides, only the Left should be allowed to force their moral beliefs (or lack thereof) on other people. There's a difference you know. Their good people and we're bad, didn't you read the press release?!
If the vaccine is safe and effective, I think it should be offered with parental consent. Any kid of mine would be vaccinated. I have seen 3 relatives nearly lose their lives to cancer because of HPV infections that they caught decades ago. If we have the means to stamp out a disease, by all means, do so! All that being said, there are plenty of moral, emotional, and practical reasons for minors to remain abstinent.
Agreed. For my part, the accusations made by the author are unsubstantiated. No mention of the science involved. No summary of the clinical trials. No statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of the vaccine. Every one of those items (and more) affect how the FDA review of a new drug will go. BTW it's not unusual for the FDA to come back to a company and say - run more trials, answer these questions, etc.
I think the vaccination is a good idea. Just because you are faithful, doesn't mean your spouse is. Being infected with HPV, means ceasarean section birth. Hopefully they screen for that early on in pregnancy.
HPV vaccination does not prevent HIV, or the old STD's.
The thing is that this vaccine works. But, the only way it can work is to give it before a person engages in sexual activity that can spread HPV.
The onset of puberty would seem to be a good time for that, I think. It doesn't matter if the person getting the vaccine is having sex or not. It's just the right time to get vaccinated.
This is not going to be a mandatory vaccination. Nobody is forcing anyone to have their youngsters vaccinated. Further, even if someone is vaccinated, they needn't have premarital sex.
The Christian bashing in this article sucks, but the fact is that having this vaccination could save many lives. Cervical cancer sucks worse than this article.
Wildmon and the others who are condemning this vaccine are wrong-headed on this one. The vaccine does no harm, but can prevent death from cervical cancer. If I had a pubescent daughter, I would make absolutely sure that she had this vaccine, but would advise her against sexual activity before marriage.
Would she listen to that advice? Maybe. If she didn't, she'd be protected against HPV, though, and I'd be able to rest easier.
"Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses--it's in keeping sex tied to reproduction..."
I am confused?! I thought sex was about reproduction. Color me stupid.
exactly--when the nyc bd of ed made it mandatory that by 7th grad all children were to be fully immunized against hepB none of them could answer why ? just because of our zipcode all must get this ?
why not add bi-annual norplant too ?
---
"Whatever happened to get your laws off my body? Should the entire nation be submitted to any sort of vaccination for the purposes of avoiding STD's just because some succubus from the Nation demands it?"
Well, it does have other associated aspects which, well, are pretty entertaining. At least from what I have experienced;>)
It was not the STATE'S job to keep her safe or educate her as to the dangers of premarital sex.
The article says she was in a "group home." I don't know if that means an orphanage, a treatment facility (for, say, severe mental retardation) or a detention facility. If the state was acting in loco parentis, it is most certainly responsible.
Where were her parents?
I'm guessing dead, unfit, or unable to care for her. I'm not familiar with the case in question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.