Cervical Cancer Shot May Be Standard In 6th Grade

The Indy Channel ^ | September 12, 2006 | AP

[Abathar]

A bipartisan group of Michigan lawmakers wants all sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against cervical cancer.

A Republican state senator who is the lead sponsor said it's the first legislation of its kind in the U.S.

The vaccine was approved by federal regulators this summer and hailed as a breakthrough in cancer prevention. The shots prevent infections from strains of a sexually transmitted virus -- human papilloma virus, or HPV -- that can cause cervical cancer and genital warts.

At the time, conservatives expressed concern that schools would require the vaccine for enrollment. They argue that such mandates infringe on parents' rights and send a message that underage sex is OK.

If approved, the measure would go into effect for the next school year.

The vaccine was approved for females between ages 9 and 26. In studies, it was credited with preventing disease from the two types of HPV that are responsible for approximately 70 percent of all cervical cancers, according to Detroit television station WDIV.

The legislator who proposed the requirement noted that, as with all other school-required vaccines, parents may opt out of this requirement for medical, religious or philosophical reasons.

[little jeremiah]

Okay. If you see someone through carelessness or not noticing, or whatever, about to run off a cliff, which is showing love:

1. Say and do nothing.

2. Tell the person they're heading in the right direction.

3. Tell the person they're fine just the way they are.

4. Yell "Stop! You're heading off the cliff!" Or, if you're close enough, even grab their arm to save their life.

I am merely trying to tell the truth, in opposition to the so-called moral relativism of "if it feels good, do it".

And, you have not a clue what I do in my personal life to show love to others for their benefit.

And, btw, you still have not answered one (not even one) of my very clear and specific questions.

[little jeremiah]

"When we label and marginalize groups of people such as single mothers and their kids as merely the manifestation of bad behavior, we set in place the condition of possibility that they will live their lives limited in the expectation that they can only be what they are called."

The above verbiage is feel-good psychobabble claptrap. And, spat, I find it very hard to believe that you really think this. By the word "label" - does this mean that a single mother who raises a fatherless illegitimate child should not be called a single mother who is raising an illegitimate child? What should she be called, then?

And, pray tell, exactly WHAT do you mean by "marginalize"? Is someone making illegitimate children and single mothers walk on the edge of the sidewalk? Go to the end of the line? Not have any dessert?

Is your line that they should be told "There, there, everything's fine, you're perfect just as you are and anyone who says that children do better living with both biological parents who are married is a mean hateful bigot"?

[metmom]

Do you never worry about the people that you may hurt by your finger pointing?

Do you ever worry about the people you're hurting by condoning their lifestyle, thus encouraging them to continue in their self-destructive behavior?

[drlevy88]

If this is STV, maybe it would make more sense to immunize the boys.

[drlevy88]

So push the shots to people fixing to get married.

[spatso]

"Okay. If you see someone through carelessness or not noticing, or whatever, about to run off a cliff, which is showing love:

1. Say and do nothing.

2. Tell the person they're heading in the right direction.

3. Tell the person they're fine just the way they are.

4. Yell "Stop! You're heading off the cliff!" Or, if you're close enough, even grab their arm to save their life."

I don't get the impression you are trying to help anyone. I get the impression you are more interested in throwing stones at people as they go over edge. For every person who has gone over the cliff, there are many more at the bottom desperately in need of redemption.

[spatso]

"Do you ever worry about the people you're hurting by condoning their lifestyle, thus encouraging them to continue in their self-destructive behavior?"

No, I have no desire to condone a destructive life style. Those of us who have been broken and known despair and have come to see the light cannot stand in moral judgment over those who have not yet seen the light. If all we have to offer is our angered righteousness how will they know that they are welcome to join us.

[spatso]

"And, pray tell, exactly WHAT do you mean by "marginalize"? Is someone making illegitimate children and single mothers walk on the edge of the sidewalk? Go to the end of the line? Not have any dessert?"


No, my point is much simpler. As mentioned a few posts back Aquinas taught we should follow the model of Christ. If you show a person good they will come to know and live good. On the other hand, a person that is never shown good will come to know and live evil.

So, even if a person is not able to respect themselves and, even if, they make really horrible choices we are still called to love them. There is no love without respect. A starting point may be to use a kinder, gentler, more respectful language in expressing your concerns.

[spatso]

"Do you ever worry about the people you're hurting by condoning their lifestyle, thus encouraging them to continue in their self-destructive behavior?"

When Jesus meets the lady at the well, he is already aware of her many lovers. Yet he treats her with respect, he offers her hope, he reveals himself to her. So, he chooses a woman, a Sumerian, a lady of highly dubious moral character to carry the message of his coming. The disciples are scandalized, perhaps even angry that Jesus would have talked to such a person.

Treating a person or a group of people with respect and courtesy does not mean you are condoning a particular behavior. If a person is dying of thirst would you not offer them a drink?

[spatso]

"So push the shots to people fixing to get married."

Your right. The issue is about good strategies for modern health care. It just drives me crazy that we always seem to create these false dialogs around an anti science wrapped in the name of moral religiosity.

Should the vaccine be given to 12 year old girls? This question alone raises really challenging points as a public health matter. How does it always seem to drift off to become a discussion on the sexual morality of gays, lesbians and trans-gendered chipmunks?

[little jeremiah]

You're seeing through dark glasses. You don't see my motives and you can't see them because of your preconceptions. I read through a lot of your comments to see what your general attitudes are. You just can't see me.

[spatso]

"I read through a lot of your comments to see what your general attitudes are."

I appreciate your interest in my thoughts. I am confident that your reading revealed that my views are significantly different than what you had previously said about me (see your comments below). It would make you feel better if you offered me a simple apology.

"It's not at all the same as "screw anything that moves as soon as you're physically capable of it, it's all God's gift, guilt-free sex is what God wants for you" etc etc. Which is basically what you are saying."

[tiredofignorance]

Yes, actually, if you're currently in a relationship that has been monogamous, there is no guarantee the last person you were monogamous with- for whatever period of time- did not have HPV and/or did not pass it on to you.

[Antoninus]

Yes, actually, if you're currently in a relationship that has been monogamous, there is no guarantee the last person you were monogamous with- for whatever period of time- did not have HPV and/or did not pass it on to you.

Is it me, or do you not know the definition of the word "monogamy"?

[linda_22003]

I think the poster likely means that you can be in a monogamous relationship, but you don't necessarily know what the person did before you met. And we do know about your insistence on "picking a virgin", but men don't have hymens, so it's harder to check. ;)

[Antoninus]

And we do know about your insistence on "picking a virgin", but men don't have hymens, so it's harder to check. ;)

Insistence? No, in this day and age, it's just simple common sense--especially considering all this talk about HPV and other STDs. Do you think it should be the ideal for men and women to have several sex partners before they get married? I don't--and I don't think that qualifies as "monogamy." I think the ideal is for both to abstain from intercourse until their wedding day.

[linda_22003]

And that's why it's called an "ideal". :-) But the poster was referring to monogamy within a relationship. I've been monogamous with my husband for well over twenty years (my 20th anniversary is today, in fact), but neither of us were virgins when we married.

[Antoninus]

And that's why it's called an "ideal".

Do you share that ideal? If you had children, would you teach them that ideal?

Happy anniversary, btw. Mine is in two days...

[linda_22003]

That's a good question. I definitely would not want them to have intercourse at a young age, but I honestly don't know that I would counsel virginity under any and all circumstances until marriage. I did not marry until I was 31, and that would not have worked too well for me.

Congrats on your anniversary as well; it's a nice time of year for a wedding. How many years for you?

[Antoninus]

That's a good question. I definitely would not want them to have intercourse at a young age, but I honestly don't know that I would counsel virginity under any and all circumstances until marriage.

Then would you tell your teenaged daughter that it was not bad to "mess around" before marriage? Under what circumstances would pre-marital sex for one of your children be ok? As the father of two young girls, my answer would be 'none'.

Congrats on your anniversary as well; it's a nice time of year for a wedding. How many years for you?

A mere six years for us...